With all Due Respect ...

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Prolate, you can single me out if you like I can take it.  As I mentioned I don't see a need to own anything exotic or unusual. But a Glock (or a Sig or similar) is what the bad guys have.  They're very common. Again, we can deal in fantasy or in reality.  The reality is these guns aren't going anywhere. They just aren't.  If we could wave a wand and they never existed, I'd wave the wand myself. But the genie is out of the bottle.  Given that, I'm doing what I have to to protect myself and my family.

    Someone said let's give the teachers pepper spray, I said stun guns. Anything is better than what they have now (yardsticks and maybe a laser pointer?).

    If you want to discuss limiting access to fully automatic weapons or military stuff, I have no problem with that discussion. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Muz. . . where do you live that you feel you and your family are under threat?  I guess I've never felt like I needed a Glock do defend myself.  If Ms. Lanza bought her Glock and Sig Sauer and Bushmaster to defend herself, it seems like her strategy backfired, wouldn't you say?

    You are right that you'll never completely eliminate the possibility of criminals getting potent weapons, but a lot of countries have limited the prevalence of those weapons, which seems to reduce pretty significantly the number of gun fatalities.  Where arms are more available, gun fatalities go up, not down.  This idea that more guns make people safer simply isn't borne out by the evidence.  

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    The principal died rushing the gunman. A true hero. I wish this kid could have stayed alive and we took it back to the medieval times. Had him drawn and quartered so he could experienced a fraction of the pain he has caused so many.

    Such a sad day.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    prolate jump on the Benny thread so I can administer your annual beating.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from harleyroadking1. Show harleyroadking1's posts

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    let's put the blame where it belongs-the shooters' mother. she bought the guns legally as is her right. The fault lies with her not securing those guns in a home with mentally disturbed person living there. Gun locks or a gun safe might have prevented this tragedy. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman3. Show Patsman3's posts

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    Let's get one thing straight, evil didnt kill 26 people yesterday, a 20 year old kid did.  If it was evil, then we don't need a discussion on gun control, we don't need a discussion about mental illiness in this country, we don't need to talk about violence in this country.  Just send a Priest to town and perform an exorcism.   Only when people actually want to get serious and discuss the deep rooted problems in this country will we start to put an end to this.  Simply labeling it "evil" just pushes that discussion farther down the road.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman3. Show Patsman3's posts

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to harleyroadking1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    let's put the blame where it belongs-the shooters' mother. she bought the guns legally as is her right. The fault lies with her not securing those guns in a home with mentally disturbed person living there. Gun locks or a gun safe might have prevented this tragedy. 

    [/QUOTE]


    And maybe she died trying to stop him from taking the guns? or you just like jumping to conclusions?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'll take this a step further.  I am more than happy to have a conversation about some of these video games.  Apparently the kid was a gamer, and if he had a history of mental illness, I wonder if these games contributed to his warped mind. 

    [/QUOTE]


    I'm more interested in how we can change the status quo which allows entitled athletes to sexually assault a woman and not only get off scott free, but even allows certain disturbed individuals to characterize it as simply a college prank.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to Patsman3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to harleyroadking1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    let's put the blame where it belongs-the shooters' mother. she bought the guns legally as is her right. The fault lies with her not securing those guns in a home with mentally disturbed person living there. Gun locks or a gun safe might have prevented this tragedy. 

    [/QUOTE]


    And maybe she died trying to stop him from taking the guns? or you just like jumping to conclusions?

    [/QUOTE]


    Good point Patsman3, that's very possible.  While harley also has a good point about locking the guns up so that the mental problem child couldn't get to them I feel that even if they were locked up the kid would have still found a way to do his mass destruction, whether it was to find guns somewhere else or use a different method. I certainly wouldn't blame the mother completly.  However, I do want to know what she was doing with a semi automatic gun.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Casportsfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Quagmire3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Cap your obviously more informed on football than gun rights, so stick to football! Guns dont kill people any more than cars kill people (when driven by a drunk) or forks make people fat. Evil people kill people. P.S. I dont expect my answer to be very popular in the liberals lair of "The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts" but its one gun owners opinion. P.P.S no assault weapons were used in Connecticut, 2 handguns a 9mm and a glock 40.

    [/QUOTE]

    And why does any person need a glock anyway???  To go hunting Deer??  Yes guns don't kill people.  People WITH guns kill people.  Explain how this guy was going to kill 27 people with a FN knife or a pipe.  It's not a liberal thing.  It's kind of a common sense thing.  Love to hear your answer to that question.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Do you REALLY think if somebody wants to kill a whole bunch of people they couldn't do it without guns? You've GOT to have more common sense than that.

    [/QUOTE]

    You really think a gun doesn't make it easier to kill things?  If you need proof, try deer hunting with a knife sometime . . . 

    Guns--and particularly high-capacity firearms--make these kinds of massacres much, much easier.  A lot of countries with saner gun control laws ban high-capicity weapons for a reason.  Those are killing machines.  When I lived in the US, I could go online and purchase a 33 round magazine for a 9 mm Glock for 30 bucks, no questions asked.  But because I live in Canada, that's impossible for me now.  

    Maybe you're a peace-loving guy who doesn't know much about weapons, but if you did know anything about firearms and other weapons, there's no way you'd claim that killing lots of people is just as easy with a knife as it is with a high-capacity pistol or rifle. 

    And yes, bombs are effective too, but bombs still require more time, knowledge, skill, and forethought to construct.  It's pretty easy to buy a gun and ammo and go out and kill.  No special skills or planning are requred. 

       

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Actually, the easier way to bag a deer would be to set an explosive b00by trap. And the meat would already be sectioned for you.

     

    I can assure you my knowledge of firearms is likely vastly superior to yours. Get back to me when you can answer the question of how many .33 caliber bullets a 12 gague pump is actually capable of putting into the room compared to an SKS with a 30 round mag.

     

    It doesn't take much skill at all to throw together a half dozen molotov cocktails.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    More than 3000 people died in this Countries largest mass murder on 9/11/01...

    Taken down by evil and box cutters.

    You can ban guns if you wish...but you will never ban evil.

    People who use the death of children to push their anti-gun agendas are truely pieces of S,,T

     

    Nothing more...nothing less

    [/QUOTE]

    And more than 30,000 die every year thanks to gun violence.  

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Some 11,000 die yearly from drunk driving. Should we re-institute prohibition? Because when we had that before, nobody could get a drink, right?

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Casportsfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Quagmire3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Cap your obviously more informed on football than gun rights, so stick to football! Guns dont kill people any more than cars kill people (when driven by a drunk) or forks make people fat. Evil people kill people. P.S. I dont expect my answer to be very popular in the liberals lair of "The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts" but its one gun owners opinion. P.P.S no assault weapons were used in Connecticut, 2 handguns a 9mm and a glock 40.

    [/QUOTE]

    And why does any person need a glock anyway???  To go hunting Deer??  Yes guns don't kill people.  People WITH guns kill people.  Explain how this guy was going to kill 27 people with a FN knife or a pipe.  It's not a liberal thing.  It's kind of a common sense thing.  Love to hear your answer to that question.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Do you REALLY think if somebody wants to kill a whole bunch of people they couldn't do it without guns? You've GOT to have more common sense than that.

    [/QUOTE]

    You really think a gun doesn't make it easier to kill things?  If you need proof, try deer hunting with a knife sometime . . . 

    Guns--and particularly high-capacity firearms--make these kinds of massacres much, much easier.  A lot of countries with saner gun control laws ban high-capicity weapons for a reason.  Those are killing machines.  When I lived in the US, I could go online and purchase a 33 round magazine for a 9 mm Glock for 30 bucks, no questions asked.  But because I live in Canada, that's impossible for me now.  

    Maybe you're a peace-loving guy who doesn't know much about weapons, but if you did know anything about firearms and other weapons, there's no way you'd claim that killing lots of people is just as easy with a knife as it is with a high-capacity pistol or rifle. 

    And yes, bombs are effective too, but bombs still require more time, knowledge, skill, and forethought to construct.  It's pretty easy to buy a gun and ammo and go out and kill.  No special skills or planning are requred. 

       

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It's a silly/specious argument anyway.

    Bombs and most bomb materials are regulated and monitored. People who order quantitites of these things are tracked by the FBI.

    I's color by numbers, but people don't want to pick up the crayons. The U.S. has a major murder problem, on par with 3rd world countries, and the sole difference between the U.S. and other 1st world countries without those issues is that here I can get a semi-automiatc weapon now, no questions asked. 

    Bombs being the topic ... the anti-gun control position is akin to saying ... Nuclear materials don't kill people ... people do, and evil is timeless too ... so why regulate it at all? Regulate evil.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to stegall85's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    It would seem faulty logic to assume that there are more crazy people in the US than other countries yet the US has more gun violence. Logically that means the issue is the crazy people in other countries are still there but have less access to items designed to kill.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Your logic is flawed. The demographics of the USA are clearly different than any of the countries you would offer as examples.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]



    Actually, the easier way to bag a deer would be to set an explosive b00by trap. And the meat would already be sectioned for you.

    I can assure you my knowledge of firearms is likely vastly superior to yours. Get back to me when you can answer the question of how many .33 caliber bullets a 12 gague pump is actually capable of putting into the room compared to an SKS with a 30 round mag.

    It doesn't take much skill at all to throw together a half dozen molotov cocktails.

    [/QUOTE]


    To start, 12 gauge pumps don't shoot bullets . . . .

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I guess I don't understand why Americans think that the only answer to gun crime is more guns.  Based on the experience of most other Westernized nations, gun control actually does work.  It's like everyone in America has their heads in the sand.   

    Not to single out Muzwell, but he articulated the American attitude so clearly here:

    You can rail against it all you want, but the only way to protect against the sort of stuff that happened yesterday is to arm more sane people and eliminate the bassackward policy of making schools (and movie theaters and shopping malls and office buildings) gun free zones. Who does that protect?  It just prevents the people who might actually be able to do something from being able to do anything, other than run and pray.  

      The experience of the rest of the Western world, however, points to the complete opposite.  If you make the most lethal firearms hard to get, there is less gun violence.  It is true that gun control can't completely erase deadly violence.  But from experience elsewhere, effective gun control certainly can reduce the amount of it.  When a crazy 20 year old can easily get his hands on three or four high-capacity, portable, quick-shooting firearms, there's a problem.  These guns may not need to be completely banned, but they shouldn't be as easily available as they are in the US.  I mean why in the world did Adam Lanza's mother have two high-capacity pistols and a Bushmaster rifle in her house in Newtown?  Even if she was worried about violent home invaders (a nutty fear in Newtown), one of those guns would have been enough.  It's just crazy that she had that much fire power on hand.  And the hard truth, if she was worried about defending herself from violent invaders, it didn't work, did it? Her son was the violent invader and he used her own guns against her.             [/QUOTE]


    As has been pointed out to you before, 2 less deaths per 100K is not a reasonable person's idea of "working" when weighed against the right for states to be autonomous.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Casportsfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Quagmire3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Cap your obviously more informed on football than gun rights, so stick to football! Guns dont kill people any more than cars kill people (when driven by a drunk) or forks make people fat. Evil people kill people. P.S. I dont expect my answer to be very popular in the liberals lair of "The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts" but its one gun owners opinion. P.P.S no assault weapons were used in Connecticut, 2 handguns a 9mm and a glock 40.

    [/QUOTE]

    And why does any person need a glock anyway???  To go hunting Deer??  Yes guns don't kill people.  People WITH guns kill people.  Explain how this guy was going to kill 27 people with a FN knife or a pipe.  It's not a liberal thing.  It's kind of a common sense thing.  Love to hear your answer to that question.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Do you REALLY think if somebody wants to kill a whole bunch of people they couldn't do it without guns? You've GOT to have more common sense than that.

    [/QUOTE]

    You really think a gun doesn't make it easier to kill things?  If you need proof, try deer hunting with a knife sometime . . . 

    Guns--and particularly high-capacity firearms--make these kinds of massacres much, much easier.  A lot of countries with saner gun control laws ban high-capicity weapons for a reason.  Those are killing machines.  When I lived in the US, I could go online and purchase a 33 round magazine for a 9 mm Glock for 30 bucks, no questions asked.  But because I live in Canada, that's impossible for me now.  

    Maybe you're a peace-loving guy who doesn't know much about weapons, but if you did know anything about firearms and other weapons, there's no way you'd claim that killing lots of people is just as easy with a knife as it is with a high-capacity pistol or rifle. 

    And yes, bombs are effective too, but bombs still require more time, knowledge, skill, and forethought to construct.  It's pretty easy to buy a gun and ammo and go out and kill.  No special skills or planning are requred. 

       

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It's a silly/specious argument anyway.

    Bombs and most bomb materials are regulated and monitored. People who order quantitites of these things are tracked by the FBI.

    I's color by numbers, but people don't want to pick up the crayons. The U.S. has a major murder problem, on par with 3rd world countries, and the sole difference between the U.S. and other 1st world countries without those issues is that here I can get a semi-automiatc weapon now, no questions asked. 

    Bombs being the topic ... the anti-gun control position is akin to saying ... Nuclear materials don't kill people ... people do, and evil is timeless too ... so why regulate it at all? Regulate evil.

    [/QUOTE]


    If you want to prevent people from being able to make a bomb you would have to close every gas station in the country. Reloaders buy gun powder by the can. Hell, you would have to ban the sale of black powder weapons and fireworks.

    Availability of guns isn't the sole difference between the US and other 1st world countries. The differences are legion. We have 12 million illegal immigrants for just one example.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    As has been pointed out to you before, 2 less deaths per 100K is not a reasonable person's idea of "working" when weighed against the right for states to be autonomous.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm sure the parents of the 20 kids in Newtown feel a lot better knowing that states rights have been protected.  

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    Guns don't kill people, bullets do.  Let people have all the shiny semiautomatic guns they want just control the projectile.  Say $1000 a bullet.  You can buy 4 or 5 to put in that shiny steel handgun you use for home protection.  That's all you need.

    I have a NY state hand gun lisence and I own a Glock 17', Colt Mustange .380 and A Mossburg 500 stainless steel assault shotgun.

    F**K the NRA and their ludicious trailer trash views.

    Sensible law for sensible People!!

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from harleyroadking1. Show harleyroadking1's posts

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to Patsman3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to harleyroadking1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    let's put the blame where it belongs-the shooters' mother. she bought the guns legally as is her right. The fault lies with her not securing those guns in a home with mentally disturbed person living there. Gun locks or a gun safe might have prevented this tragedy. 

    [/QUOTE]


    And maybe she died trying to stop him from taking the guns? or you just like jumping to conclusions?

    [/QUOTE]

    if the guns were secured then she did her best in stopping him

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]


    It's a silly/specious argument anyway.

    Bombs and most bomb materials are regulated and monitored. People who order quantitites of these things are tracked by the FBI.

    I's color by numbers, but people don't want to pick up the crayons. The U.S. has a major murder problem, on par with 3rd world countries, and the sole difference between the U.S. and other 1st world countries without those issues is that here I can get a semi-automiatc weapon now, no questions asked. 

    Bombs being the topic ... the anti-gun control position is akin to saying ... Nuclear materials don't kill people ... people do, and evil is timeless too ... so why regulate it at all? Regulate evil.

    [/QUOTE]

    I would disagree that the "sole difference" between the U.S. and other developed countries with lower murder rates is the availability of semi-automatic weapons.  There are enormous demographic differences between this country and say Canada and European countries which have largely homgenous populations, very restrictive immigration policies and don't have an open border with a third world country or tens of millions of illegal immigrants.

    That said, if you want to limit who can get what weapons, that's fine.  My view is it's too late for that. There are literally millions of those weapons out there and it's not practical to think you can confiscate them.  And if the law abiding folks turn theirs in, then what do you have?

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Availability of guns isn't the sole difference between the US and other 1st world countries. The differences are legion. We have 12 million illegal immigrants for just one example.

    [/QUOTE]


    Was Adam Lanza an illegal immigrant? Was Holmes? Was Laughner?  Was Page? Was Roberts? Was Engledinger? Was Haughton?  These are just some of the mass killings since Holmes shot up the theatre in July . . . 

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from SFBostonFan. Show SFBostonFan's posts

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]


    It's a silly/specious argument anyway.

    Bombs and most bomb materials are regulated and monitored. People who order quantitites of these things are tracked by the FBI.

    I's color by numbers, but people don't want to pick up the crayons. The U.S. has a major murder problem, on par with 3rd world countries, and the sole difference between the U.S. and other 1st world countries without those issues is that here I can get a semi-automiatc weapon now, no questions asked. 

    Bombs being the topic ... the anti-gun control position is akin to saying ... Nuclear materials don't kill people ... people do, and evil is timeless too ... so why regulate it at all? Regulate evil.

    [/QUOTE]

    I would disagree the the "sole difference" between the U.S. and other developed countries with lower murder rates is the availability of semi-automatic weapons.  There are enormous demographic differences between this country and say Canada and European countries which have largely homgenous populations, very restrictive immigration policies and don't have an open border with a third world country or tens of millions of illegal immigrants.

    That said, if you want to limit who can get what weapons, that's fine.  My view is it's too late for that. There are literally millions of those weapons out there and it's not practical to think you can confiscate them.  And if the law abiding folks turn theirs in, then what do you have?

    [/QUOTE]


    Yep. I've said that many times before as well.  It does factor in, but I think in essence, everyone is on the same page here.  Better gun control laws are needed, but it won't eliminate much of the obvous reasons why we have the issues we do.

    [/QUOTE]

    Amazing that this just happened. Can't believe an adult (s) couldn't have picked up something to hit this quy with and someone to tackle him etc. as to injure so many with a knife ??? We in the US do not have a monopoly on crazies !!!

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/12/14/china-school-stabbings/1770395/

     

    Man with knife injures 22 kids at school in China 1:35a.m. EST December 15, 2012 44 Comments ShareStory Highlights

    • Security guards are across China after a spate of school attacks in recent years
    • Min Yingjun, 36, attacked the students, according to police
    • An elderly woman and 22 children were injured by knife

    BEIJING (AP) — A knife-wielding man injured 22 children and one adult outside a primary school in central China as students were arriving for classes Friday, police said, the latest in a series of periodic rampage attacks at Chinese schools and kindergartens.

    The attack in the Henan province village of Chengping happened shortly before 8 a.m., said a police officer from Guangshan county, where the village is located.

    The attacker, 36-year-old villager Min Yingjun, is now in police custody, said the officer, who declined to give her name, as is customary among Chinese civil servants.

    A Guangshan county hospital administrator said the man first attacked an elderly woman, then students, before being subdued by security guards who have been posted across China following a spate of school attacks in recent years. He said there were no deaths among the nine students admitted, although two badly injured children had been transferred to better-equipped hospitals outside the county.

    A doctor at Guangshan's hospital of traditional Chinese medicine said that seven students had been admitted, but that none were seriously injured.

    Neither the hospital administrator nor the doctor would give his name.

    It was not clear how old the injured children were, but Chinese primary school pupils are generally 6-11 years old.

    A notice posted on the Guangshan county government's website confirmed the number of injured and said an emergency response team had been set up to investigate the attacks.

    No motive was given for the stabbings, which echo a string of similar assaults against schoolchildren in 2010 that killed nearly 20 and wounded more than 50. The most recent such attack took place in August, when a knife-wielding man broke into a middle school in the southern city of Nanchang and stabbed two students before fleeing.

    Most of the attackers have been mentally disturbed men involved in personal disputes or unable to adjust to the rapid pace of social change in China, underscoring grave weaknesses in the antiquated Chinese medical system's ability to diagnose and treat psychiatric illness.

    In one of the worst incidents, a man described as an unemployed, middle-aged doctor killed eight children with a knife in March 2010 to vent his anger over a thwarted romantic relationship.

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from dustcover. Show dustcover's posts

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    More than 3000 people died in this Countries largest mass murder on 9/11/01...

    Taken down by evil and box cutters.

    You can ban guns if you wish...but you will never ban evil.

    People who use the death of children to push their anti-gun agendas are truely pieces of S,,T

     

    Nothing more...nothing less

    [/QUOTE]

    And more than 30,000 die every year thanks to gun violence.  

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Some 11,000 die yearly from drunk driving. Should we re-institute prohibition? Because when we had that before, nobody could get a drink, right?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Or perhaps ban automobiles.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: With all Due Respect ...

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]



    Actually, the easier way to bag a deer would be to set an explosive b00by trap. And the meat would already be sectioned for you.

    I can assure you my knowledge of firearms is likely vastly superior to yours. Get back to me when you can answer the question of how many .33 caliber bullets a 12 gague pump is actually capable of putting into the room compared to an SKS with a 30 round mag.

    It doesn't take much skill at all to throw together a half dozen molotov cocktails.

    [/QUOTE]


    To start, 12 gauge pumps don't shoot bullets . . . .

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Oh yes they do.

     

    A 3" shotgun 00 buck cartridge fires 15 .33 caliber BULLETS. A pump shotgun can fire 7 of those in a matter of seconds without reload. That's 105 high caliber projectiles. If you want more lead in the air go down to .24 caliber #4, which is still lethal at close range and you are talking about around 244 projectiles of lethality scattering around the room. Two cut off pumps can easily be hidden under a coat and that gives you nearly 500 "bullets" emitted in around 15-20 seconds.

    Do you want to ban hunting too?

    I frankly doubt you even know the purpose of full metal jacket yet you are an expert on what guns should be restricted. But don't feel bad. The vast majority of gun control advocates are pretty much gun ignorant.

    I'm not trying to pound on you, I'm just pointing out how "gun control" isn't the panacea some think it is.

     

Share