Gun Control

[Guest]

Is there really a good reason for someone to own an assault rifle????? After Colorado shooting, it is even more clear why this gun should not be sold!

[Guest]

Is there really a good reason for someone to own an assault riffle????? After Colorado shooting, it is even more clear why this gun should not be sold!

Change a few design aspects of an "assault rifle" and it just becomes a rifle, although it's the same firearm.

[Guest]

Because its our constitutional right to own and bear firearms. Criminals and crazies will always kill people no matter what gun, knife, baseball bat brick or chemical they can find.

But that's the liberal way. Any time something goes wrong they want to ban it for everyone else. They say "you don't really need that." I don't have it so neither should you.

What happened in CO is unbelievably tragic and heart breaking but to me personally so is taking the life of so many unborn babies. But that seems to be a right some folks say others should have.

Crimanls will always get guns, just like drunk drivers will always get cars and child molesters will always find children.

It can be cruel and tragic world but you can't legislate sanity.

[Guest]

As I pointed out in a different thread on this subject, mass killings and so-called 'assault rifles’ are not the primary problem. The primary problem is the 10's of thousands of people killed each year by gang shootings. It is not only the number of deaths, but also the impact on our neighborhoods and cities. Detroit did not become a ghost town because people wanted a typical suburban house, but because they fled for the lives of themselves and their children.

Gangs do not use licensed/registered firearms. Cracking down on a particular type of firearm will not impact them. The murder capitol of the United States, Chicago, has one of the strictest if not the strictest gun control laws. Proposed gun control laws on the elimination of assault rifles do no good apart from leaving law-abiding citizens from having some means of self-defense.

So far as I can tell, twelve people have been killed here in the United States by citizens with ‘assault rifles.’ This excludes people being killed with fully automatic weapons furnish to Mexican drug cartels by our government. Contrast that with thousands killed by gangbangers. I realize that gang killings get little publicity. After all, who cares if another gangbanger or perhaps an innocent victim in the inner cities is killed? As a conservative, who believes in the value of life, I care. For this reason, I want to change the focus from the Aurora, CO and the Treyvon Martin killings to the deaths of thousands of our citizens. It’s time to stop focusing on the front page and begin focusing on the health of our nation.

[Guest]

Don't miss the point of Gun Control. It is not Gun Elimination, but Gun Control. Better screening of gun buyers.

I am not concerned that I will be killed in a Drug Buy Gone Bad as I do not do drugs, I don't hang around with drug users or drug dealers nor even in the areas where this is most likely to happen.

I am concerned with indiscriminate killing by NORMAL CITIZENS that have an off day. I would feel safer in line at walmart with an armed drug dealer than with a depressed and armed Villager. CRIMINALS in general use weapons for offense/defense against each other where NORMAL CITIZENS having a bad day, are far more dangerous to the general public.

If better accountability was given to one 24 year old collage student that had bought military gear and four fire arms in a short period of time, there may very well be 12 souls still among the living.

Also, don't tell me it would be better to have more NORMAL folks packing heat in public. I know people that own guns that Should never be allowed to load them due to their inability to handle them properly. I have read posts on here by folks like Fig Bo and I get a comfortable feeling that he would be a good choice to have a concealed weapon, but several others would likely shot more innocent by-standers than the intended target. Please just think twice before you act.

[Guest]

Let's define an Assault Rifle>

An assault rifle is an automatic rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1] Assault rifles are the standard infantry weapons in most modern armies. Assault rifles are categorized in between light machine guns, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge.

The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally "storm rifle", as in "to storm a position"). The name was coined by Adolf Hitler[3] to describe the Maschinenpistole 43, subsequently renamed Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first assault rifle that served to popularise the concept and form the basis for today's modern assault rifles.

The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:

It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
It must be capable of selective fire;
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 (which the M16 rifle is based on) that share designs with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective fire capable. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.

The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s.

The US Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges.

Assault rifles vs. "Assault weapons"

The term assault weapon is a United States political and legal term used to describe a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military assault rifles. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, codified the definition of an assault weapon. It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine containing more than 10 rounds, and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Primary pistol grip
Forward grip
Threaded barrel (for a muzzle brake or a suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
Barrel shroud

The assault weapons ban did not restrict weapons capable of fully automatic fire, such as assault rifles and machine guns, which have been continuously and heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed. Subsequent laws such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 also affected the importation and civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms, the latter fully prohibiting sales of newly manufactured machine guns to non-law enforcement or SOT (special occupational taxpayer) dealers.

You can read the complete article at Assault rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle)

Get the terms correct. Stop with the political correctness.

[Guest]

Let's define an Assault Rifle>

An assault rifle is an automatic rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1] Assault rifles are the standard infantry weapons in most modern armies. Assault rifles are categorized in between light machine guns, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge.

The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally "storm rifle", as in "to storm a position"). The name was coined by Adolf Hitler[3] to describe the Maschinenpistole 43, subsequently renamed Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first assault rifle that served to popularise the concept and form the basis for today's modern assault rifles.

The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:

It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
It must be capable of selective fire;
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 (which the M16 rifle is based on) that share designs with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective fire capable. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.

The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s.

The US Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges.

Assault rifles vs. "Assault weapons"

The term assault weapon is a United States political and legal term used to describe a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military assault rifles. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, codified the definition of an assault weapon. It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine containing more than 10 rounds, and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Primary pistol grip
Forward grip
Threaded barrel (for a muzzle brake or a suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
Barrel shroud

The assault weapons ban did not restrict weapons capable of fully automatic fire, such as assault rifles and machine guns, which have been continuously and heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed. Subsequent laws such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 also affected the importation and civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms, the latter fully prohibiting sales of newly manufactured machine guns to non-law enforcement or SOT (special occupational taxpayer) dealers.

You can read the complete article at Assault rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle)

Get the terms correct. Stop with the political correctness.

I should have waited on my earlier post. This is what I mean when I say Gun Control. We need Guns in the Control of people that understand them and can operate them properly. Putting a gun in the hands of anyone not qualified is as bad as handing the keys of a car to a drunk.

[Guest]

I understand that the Colorado shooter had a rifle with a 100 round drum magazine on it. He used it for assaulting the movie goers with deadly fire. That, to me, is an assault rifle. Hunting rifles, such as a 30-30, usually have a 5 round magazine. His ASSAULT RIFLE was not a hunting rifle.

Also, I understand that the shooter was dressed in head-to-foot body armor. Why was this even available for him?

Why was it allowed for him to buy 6,000 rounds of ammunition?

Shouldn't that all have raised questions?

Figmo is all upset about the semantics of the word ASSAULT RIFLE. I would think a person would be upset about the 12 dead and 59 wounded instead of the technical definition of a gun over the public impression of the gun.

[Guest]

or political phrasing.

Gun control is only effective with the law abiding gun owners. All the others will get their guns the same way they do today.

And thinking about standing in line at Walmart in a no gun society, and watch for the speeding car headed toward you....as one very small example. The person who is "having a bad day" does not need a gun to do bodily harm to themselves or the general public.

Talk about allowing a gun to be owned and operated by someone who is not capable of doing so....is that not just as true for the far too many licensed folks who should not be behind the wheel of a car? Or those who are too old to be safe drivers? Auto ownership and owning one and driving one is pretty well controlled. However there is nothing to stop an unqualified person or an unlicensed person or an incapable person or one "having a bad day" from getting behind the wheel.

Same goes for "gun control" a political only, feel good terminology.

As has been said many times and repeated as many times....it is not the guns!!!!!

btk

[Guest]

the right to purchase a 100 round capacity magazine and full body armor is not guarenteed by the 2nd amendment. A moment of inconvenience reloading your weapon on the shooting range is not more important than the lives of innocent people. Body armor? Why?

[Guest]

Any gun that obama and eric holder allowed into mexico to be used by the drug cartels against american citizens should be allowed to be owned by any american !!!!

[Guest]

Any gun that obama and eric holder allowed into mexico to be used by the drug cartels against american citizens should be allowed to be owned by any american !!!!

The guns to Mexican Drug Cartels was wrong. You think that allowing them to ordinary American citizens is right? Why?

[Guest]

They only allowed semi-autos and we can buy them. The ones that worry me are the fully automatic weapons that our government sold to the Mexician government, who then sold them to the drug cartels. That is the ones that should worry everyone, as they will find their way back across the border and will be used in this country at some point in the future.

Get real, Gun Control is People Control. Pass laws that make it life in prison or a death penalty to use a firearm in the commission of a crime. Illegal possession of a firearm by someone, life in prison, take the bad guy off the street and crime goes down. Passing laws to make gun illegal only allows bad guys to have guns.

[Guest]

Did everybody read the article in yesterday's newspaper about the New York police officer who shot and killed his 37 year old son, in the middle of the night, because he thought he was a burglar? Or how about last week's article about the three year old in Indiana who shot and killed his father, father of three, with his father's gun which was left unattended? This stuff makes for great reading.

[Guest]

Did everybody read the article in yesterday's newspaper about the New York police officer who shot and killed his 37 year old son, in the middle of the night, because he thought he was a burglar? Or how about last week's article about the three year old in Indiana who shot and killed his father, father of three, with his father's gun which was left unattended? This stuff makes for great reading.

In both cases, someone screwed up. Sad but it happens..

[Guest]

Did everybody read the article in yesterday's newspaper about the New York police officer who shot and killed his 37 year old son, in the middle of the night, because he thought he was a burglar? Or how about last week's article about the three year old in Indiana who shot and killed his father, father of three, with his father's gun which was left unattended? This stuff makes for great reading.

And your point of all this is??? Attitude is everything, if you don't have safety attitude around firearms, you should not have them. I have thrown shooters off my range, or refused to issue a training certificate because they had the wrong attitude about firearms.

[Guest]

the right to purchase a 100 round capacity magazine and full body armor is not guarenteed by the 2nd amendment. A moment of inconvenience reloading your weapon on the shooting range is not more important than the lives of innocent people. Body armor? Why?

For some unknown reason, I found myself listening to a conservative radio program in my car this morning. It was some kook named Neil Bortz. A caller asked him a question about his viewpoint on "assault rifles". Bortz jumped on the caller by shouting at him to "define an assault rifle" and then ridiculed him with what he said was Diane Feinstein's definition of an assault rifle.

He then went on to say "within common reason" that civilians should have the same weapons as the military to include 100 round drum magazines for rifles, "streetsweeper shotguns" - but not Stinger missiles - since they cannot be used for target practice or hunting. WHAT A NUT CASE !!!

[Guest]

Assault weapons should only be used in wars, not for every day use. When you go out hunting, why do you need a continuous spray of bullets to kill one animal? The same for self-protection. Really, what purpose do they serve? This discussion should only be about limiting them or getting rid of them for sale to the general public. A lot of amazing people were killed for no purpose in CO. How would you feel about assault weapons, if one of the people killed were one of your loved ones?

[Guest]

I am not concerned that I will be killed in a Drug Buy Gone Bad as I do not do drugs, I don't hang around with drug users or drug dealers nor even in the areas where this is most likely to happen.

The difference between our views is clear. I am concerned about the killing of anyone and feel we should work on reducing killings wherever these killings occur. You, on the other hand are not concerned with the killing of innocent people who cannot afford to move out of the inner city. It's only when the people you consider 'normal', certainly no those untouchables living in the inner cities, are involved that you become concerned.

Please tell us which people you consider to be 'normal' and their lives worth something and which ones are not worth bothering with. It's a legitimate question that progressives starting with Woodrow Wilson had no problem answering. You, Buggy, Dale etc have identified yourselves are progressives. What is your answer to this question?

[Guest]

Assault weapons should only be used in wars, not for every day use. When you go out hunting, why do you need a continuous spray of bullets to kill one animal? The same for self-protection. Really, what purpose do they serve? This discussion should only be about limiting them or getting rid of them for sale to the general public. A lot of amazing people were killed for no purpose in CO. How would you feel about assault weapons, if one of the people killed were one of your loved ones?

I agree with you, but the right will always fall back on the belief that people not guns kill. Yes it is silly and ridiculous to fee that way, but they do and they truly believe it. As WOW REALLY as we feel, they are sincere in their feeling that Guns have no responsibility in the killings.

[Guest]

Did everybody read the article in yesterday's newspaper about the New York police officer who shot and killed his 37 year old son, in the middle of the night, because he thought he was a burglar? Or how about last week's article about the three year old in Indiana who shot and killed his father, father of three, with his father's gun which was left unattended? This stuff makes for great reading.

Did everybody read that on june 1 Maria anna Cruz Lopez of Lewiston MD backed her SUV over 5 children killing her 8 year old daighter? Let's ban all vehicles that are capable of backing up.

[Guest]

Did everybody read that on june 1 Maria anna Cruz Lopez of Lewiston MD backed her SUV over 5 children killing her 8 year old daighter? Let's ban all vehicles that are capable of backing up.

The title of this thread is 'gun control' not 'hazardous driving'.

BTW: if the Colorado shooter's name were Mohammed Mohammed, the FBI would have been at his house before the ammunition was delivered.

[Guest]

BBQ asks, "Please tell us which people you consider to be 'normal' and their lives worth something and which ones are not worth bothering with. It's a legitimate question that progressives starting with Woodrow Wilson had no problem answering. You, Buggy, Dale etc have identified yourselves are progressives. What is your answer to this question?"
_______________

What kind of a dumba-s question is that? That is my answer.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

The usual evasion from the truth. I was not the person claiming that we needed to worry about 'normal' people and not be concerned about those other people who live in the areas that drug deals happen. I expressed the idea that we needed to be more concerned about the thousands of people killed in drug violence in the inner cities than the recent tragedy in Aurora or the Treyvon Martin affair. As a progressive you followed the party line believing that some people are better than others and have a greater right to live.

So lets try the question again. Why are you more concerned about the people who died in Aurora and Trevon Martin than you are about the thousands who die in our inner cities?

I'll let your silly question go unanswered. This appeared to be your idea of intelligence and originality.

[Guest]

BBQ asks, "So lets try the question again. Why are you more concerned about the people who died in Aurora and Trevon Martin than you are about the thousands who die in our inner cities?"

My answer is: When did I ever say that I was more concerned about the people who died in Aurora and Trevon Martin than I was about the thousands who die in our inner cities? Please cite my posts where I said that.

All are tragedies. Needless killings and just about all take place with guns. This thread is about gun control. I never brought up gun control. I mentioned 100 round drum magazines and full body armor and buying 6000 rounds of ammo at one time - but nothing about controlling guns. It looks like you answered yourself about gun control.

[Guest]

For all you libs who would like to take away our 2nd amendment rights, your WRONG AGAIN!! Gun possession does NOT increase violence. Australia and England have banned personal ownership of guns but it hasn't made their countries any safer. In Australia violent crime is UP. England ranks second in violent crime. Switzerland has the highest per capita firepower in the world, but it is one of the peaceful countries in the world. The U.S. where gun ownership is legal is NOT even in the 10 most violent nations and the number of people who privately own guns has increased. So you libs who don't want guns, don't buy them, but for me and my family we will defend ourselves against thiefs, murderers, rapists, etc... Sleep tight ... I know I will

[Guest]

I agree with you, but the right will always fall back on the belief that people not guns kill. Yes it is silly and ridiculous to fee that way, but they do and they truly believe it. As WOW REALLY as we feel, they are sincere in their feeling that Guns have no responsibility in the killings.

The liberal problem is that they want to lock up the gun and not the criminal.

After all the most hardened criminals might be rehabilitated. That cold hard gun will never feel remorse.

And you think we are a silly and ridiculous?

[Guest]

I just hope somehow the problem gets better. My personal opinion is it would be easier if we would make it harder for disturbed people to get large amounts of guns and ammunition.

I should clarify what I meant by normal people:

I refer to those that have shown no sign of criminal behavior BEFORE THEY FLIP OUT. If they show major personality change, keep an eye on them.

The people that I do not care if they die or live are the career criminals.

I know some of you would hug and forgive the man that rapes your child or kills your wife. You are a saint, I could never forgive them and I would love to be the one to throw the switch that takes their life away.

Well anyway, that is what I meant and I apologize for the misinterpretations by some. Also, PLEASE remember, this is only one mans opinion and feelings about career criminals that are responsible for the vast majority of murder.

[Guest]

For all you libs who would like to take away our 2nd amendment rights, your WRONG AGAIN!! Gun possession does NOT increase violence. Australia and England have banned personal ownership of guns but it hasn't made their countries any safer. In Australia violent crime is UP. England ranks second in violent crime. Switzerland has the highest per capita firepower in the world, but it is one of the peaceful countries in the world. The U.S. where gun ownership is legal is NOT even in the 10 most violent nations and the number of people who privately own guns has increased. So you libs who don't want guns, don't buy them, but for me and my family we will defend ourselves against thiefs, murderers, rapists, etc... Sleep tight ... I know I will

I really have not seen an "liberal" posting on here that said gun possession should be eliminated in the USA. A couple have said the types of guns might be limited to hunting or personal protection weapons instead of the "assault type of rifles" with the capability of putting out hundreds of rounds in a minute. I have always said if a person wants a gun for their home protection, go buy one.

I would like to know how many times IN THE VILLAGES that you have felt so unsafe from "thiefs, murderers, or rapists" that you thought you needed a gun. You can include specific experiences both at home and on the streets since lots of Villagers do carry weapons.

[Guest]

I really have not seen an "liberal" posting on here that said gun possession should be eliminated in the USA. A couple have said the types of guns might be limited to hunting or personal protection weapons instead of the "assault type of rifles" with the capability of putting out hundreds of rounds in a minute. I have always said if a person wants a gun for their home protection, go buy one.

I would like to know how many times IN THE VILLAGES that you have felt so unsafe from "thiefs, murderers, or rapists" that you thought you needed a gun. You can include specific experiences both at home and on the streets since lots of Villagers do carry weapons.

Let me answer that questions for hulababy:

It is better to have a gun and not need it, that to need a gun and not have it

Just like auto insurance, do you cancel your at the end of each day when you know that you are not going to drive anymore. How about home owners insurance, do you really need it? Nice to have, even nicer never to have to use it.

BTW, that includes IN THE VILLAGES, but from what I have seen of some of the drivers IN THE VILLAGES, , I upped my auto insurance. :laugh::gc:

[Guest]

Gun control is not going to be an issue in this election. Nobody wants to touch it.

Calls for Gun Control Stir Little Support - U.S. Election 2012 - CNBC (http://www.cnbc.com/id/48283510)

Gun Control Bill Not Likely To Be Taken Up By Senate, Says Senior Dem Aide (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/gun-control-bill-senate_n_1695364.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012)

Continue your healthy debate on it, but it is falling on deaf ears.

[Guest]

Let me answer that questions for hulababy:



Just like auto insurance, do you cancel your at the end of each day when you know that you are not going to drive anymore. How about home owners insurance, do you really need it? Nice to have, even nicer never to have to use it.

BTW, that includes IN THE VILLAGES, but from what I have seen of some of the drivers IN THE VILLAGES, , I upped my auto insurance. :laugh::gc:

No, Figmo, let Hulababy answer for herself. She is an articulate person and is intelligent so she can do it herself.

Homeowners and car insurance are both required. One by lending institutions and one by law. Invalid on both counts, Figmo. I know what you mean about some Villages drivers, though. Driving on golf paths, not knowing what to do in roundabouts, and not being able to see over the dashboards of their big Cadillacs. It does boggle the mind.

The question was "I would like to know how many times IN THE VILLAGES that you have felt so unsafe from "thiefs, murderers, or rapists" that you thought you needed a gun. You can include specific experiences both at home and on the streets since lots of Villagers do carry weapons."

[Guest]

:icon_bored::icon_bored:

[Guest]

I have no problems with gun ownership,I own a .22rifle,a 12 gauge shotgun and a pistol two for hunting one for self-defense. I have taken courses here in CT and have all the necessary permits. I think of myself as a normal gun owner. However I am not a NRA member. Why? They refuse to compromise on any issue related to guns. I have never been given a reason why peaceful,law abiding citizens need 100 round high capacity magazines or why the NRA fails to support any limits on online buying of firearms and ammunition. I truly believe that most gun owners believe that certain restrictions on our guns is good for us and the country.

[Guest]

I have no problems with gun ownership,I own a .22rifle,a 12 gauge shotgun and a pistol two for hunting one for self-defense. I have taken courses here in CT and have all the necessary permits. I think of myself as a normal gun owner. However I am not a NRA member. Why? They refuse to compromise on any issue related to guns. I have never been given a reason why peaceful,law abiding citizens need 100 round high capacity magazines or why the NRA fails to support any limits on online buying of firearms and ammunition. I truly believe that most gun owners believe that certain restrictions on our guns is good for us and the country.

In a nutshell. Friends of NRA - National Corporate Sponsors (http://www.friendsofnra.org/corporate-sponsors.aspx)

[Guest]

I understand that the Colorado shooter had a rifle with a 100 round drum magazine on it. He used it for assaulting the movie goers with deadly fire. That, to me, is an assault rifle. Hunting rifles, such as a 30-30, usually have a 5 round magazine. His ASSAULT RIFLE was not a hunting rifle.

Also, I understand that the shooter was dressed in head-to-foot body armor. Why was this even available for him?

Why was it allowed for him to buy 6,000 rounds of ammunition?

Shouldn't that all have raised questions?

Figmo is all upset about the semantics of the word ASSAULT RIFLE. I would think a person would be upset about the 12 dead and 59 wounded instead of the technical definition of a gun over the public impression of the gun.

Yes, he is upset by the deaths. We both thought this: What if ONE person in the audience had a concealed carry weapon? Think of all the lives that could have been saved.....

[Guest]

Yes, he is upset by the deaths. We both thought this: What if ONE person in the audience had a concealed carry weapon? Think of all the lives that could have been saved.....


He was in full body armor. Where do you shoot him? Would have to be an expert marksman or a very lucky shot bring him down.

[Guest]

again,he was in full body armor. He would have been under the best circumstances tough to take down. I will repeat my mantra on this issue...the right to purchase a 100 round capacity magazine and full body armor is not guarenteed by the 2nd amendment. This is not about the right to own a firearm,it is about what we can do to make it more difficult for someone,anyone to obtain objects that make it easier for them to kill lots of people.

[Guest]

he may have been in body armour, but unless he was a fully experienced, shot at many times in body armour, he, like 98.7% even in body armour would be distracted to defense mode. Maybe not so good for the one shooting at him, but it would most certainly have distracted him and very likely with a different ending....hopefully for the better.

While there are some issues I disagree with from the NRA, I do support not allowing the government to push gun owners into an ala carte scenario. Yes, this time it is for "assault weapons (to be defined) and then the next one and the next one. Once allowed to start dictating what guns to have or have not where does it stop?

As soon as the anti gun or the non gun supporters or those indifferent to gun laws understand that "gun control" is for the law abiding citizens.....AND ONLY THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. All others will get their guns the same way they do today.

As for "gun control" eliminating the nut jobs like the one in CO....it will not deter them from KILLING one second. Their objective is to KILL....they do not need a gun to do that. How many of our military have been KILLED in Iraq and Afghanistan by a rag tag bunch of nut jobs that do not have, have no desire to have and proven they don't need a gun to KILL!!!!!

The sooner more people address the real issue of why do some of these folks flip and turn to killing. That requires a lot more involvement into sorting out differing people and that is not very politically desirable. While GUNS is a very desirable political subject.....however let's just watch and see just how much we hear from the candidates about :gun control"....don't hold your breath.....the vote is much more valuable tha addressing the problem....business as usual.

Go after the ones who kill and why....the cop out position is laying the blame on the weapon or method they chose to use. Does nothing to solve the problem. NOTHING!!

btk

[Guest]

The only candidate who has supported gun control is Mitt Romney when he passed an assault weapons ban in Massachusetts in 2004, which still stands today.

[Guest]

Yes, he is upset by the deaths. We both thought this: What if ONE person in the audience had a concealed carry weapon? Think of all the lives that could have been saved.....

Good to hear from you, Ladydoc. Hope everything is good with you. Planning to be at Canal St. Trivia on Aug. 5. Maybe we can say hi.

Yes, I understand the shooter was in full body armor, chest, legs, neck, legs and stomach. I doubt if anyone with a pistol could have taken him down - but as I said earlier, you would have thought in a filled movie theater that there would have been at least one off duty police officer with a concealed weapon. It would have been better than none.

Of course, Figmo is upset. Everyone should be. I am berating him at all. Heck, he is a lot bigger than me - and he knows where I live!

[Guest]

aaaannnnnddddd.......?:shrug:

btk

[Guest]

Yepper, I know where you live and I am looking forward to the next round of poker. Looks like you guys need some more lessons. *S*

Buggy, even in full boby armour, its not all that you think it is. Anytime you start getting hit it hurts. Did you know that a frontal shot from a 45 ACP in to fully body armour will still knock you to the ground and a 12 gauge shotgun slug will kill you. It crushes your strum into your heart. Unless he was using ceramic plates the armour can be penatrated by a 22 long rifle. Also since he was wearing a gas mask, a head shot would have taken him out. Everyone really needs to get the facts when it comes to firearms, body armour and the rest of the stuff.

Even bouncing the little .380 or .25 auto off of him would have rattled him to the point that quite likely many lives would have been saved.

I would venture to guess that Holmes had never been shot at. You don't realize the amount of "pucker" factor that takes place when bullets start zipping around you and hitting you. Even in body armour.

[Guest]

I suppose that we should ban all vehicles with more tghan a 50 hp engine. Speed kills. And maybe we should ban alcohol, because stupid people who drive also kill people. Oh wait, we tried that back in the 30's and it did not work then.

[Guest]

Yepper, I know where you live and I am looking forward to the next round of poker. Looks like you guys need some more lessons. *S*

Buggy, even in full boby armour, its not all that you think it is. Anytime you start getting hit it hurts. Did you know that a frontal shot from a 45 ACP in to fully body armour will still knock you to the ground and a 12 gauge shotgun slug will kill you. It crushes your strum into your heart. Unless he was using ceramic plates the armour can be penatrated by a 22 long rifle. Also since he was wearing a gas mask, a head shot would have taken him out. Everyone really needs to get the facts when it comes to firearms, body armour and the rest of the stuff.

Even bouncing the little .380 or .25 auto off of him would have rattled him to the point that quite likely many lives would have been saved.

I would venture to guess that Holmes had never been shot at. You don't realize the amount of "pucker" factor that takes place when bullets start zipping around you and hitting you. Even in body armour.

Figmo, as I had posted earlier in the response to Ladydoc, that I would have thought there would have been at least one offduty police officer with a handgun in a filled theater - and that would have been better than none. No agrument with a police officer carrying a concealed weapon when off-duty.

I know you have the thing taught about stressful situations. What could have been more stressful to an inexperienced gun handler? More people could have been killed if an inexperienced gun handler had pulled out his/her .380 or .25 auto and started slinging rounds around willy-nilly.

[Guest]

The question was "I would like to know how many times IN THE VILLAGES that you have felt so unsafe from "thiefs, murderers, or rapists" that you thought you needed a gun. You can include specific experiences both at home and on the streets since lots of Villagers do carry weapons."

You never know when you need personal protection. If the need for a defensive weapon could be definitely predicted, that would be a very useful thing.

I have a friend who must carry nitroglycerin pills because of a heart condition. He's never needed to take one for all the years he's carried them

But he must "carry" just in case, because "what if".

I have a feeling you'll reject my analogy, but the point is made.

[Guest]

You never know when you need personal protection. If the need for a defensive weapon could be definitely predicted, that would be a very useful thing.

I have a friend who must carry nitroglycerin pills because of a heart condition. He's never needed to take one for all the years he's carried them

But he must "carry" just in case, because "what if".

I have a feeling you'll reject my analogy, but the point is made.

Your friend must have a previous heart problem so he carries the pills in case another heart problem presents itself. He did not start carrying the pills when he was completely healthy.

The Villages is like your very healthy heart. There is no problem with it. So like the nitro pills that are not needed to carry for a healthy heart, there is no reason to carry a pistol in The Villages.

Like your friend with the heart issue, IF The Villages had a pre-existing condition with hold-ups of Villagers in parking lots or routine sexual assaults of women behind buildings or other violent criminal behavior that made it unsafe to be on the streets - carrying a concealed weapon might be a pretty good idea to prevent it from happening. :beer3:

[Guest]

Your friend must have a previous heart problem so he carries the pills in case another heart problem presents itself. He did not start carrying the pills when he was completely healthy.

The Villages is like your very healthy heart. There is no problem with it. So like the nitro pills that are not needed to carry for a healthy heart, there is no reason to carry a pistol in The Villages.

Like your friend with the heart issue, IF The Villages had a pre-existing condition with hold-ups of Villagers in parking lots or routine sexual assaults of women behind buildings or other violent criminal behavior that made it unsafe to be on the streets - carrying a concealed weapon might be a pretty good idea to prevent it from happening. :beer3:

You mean violence would have to be routine before you carry personal protection?

I hope you don't mind if I would rather not be one of the early victims of violence in your nonsensical analogy.

[Guest]

No agrument with a police officer carrying a concealed weapon when off-duty.

Buggyone, here is some interesting facts for you.

Myth: Only police should have guns

Fact: “...most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.”

Fact: 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person.

Fact: Police have trouble keeping their own guns. Hundreds of firearms are missing from the FBI and 449 of them have been involved in crimes.

Fact: People who saw the helplessness of the L.A. Police Department during the 1992 King Riots or the looting and violence in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina know that citizens need guns to defend themselves.

Google Gun Facts Version 6.0, you will find that it is interesting reading. You might even learn something.

Me, with the above facts, I would be more trusting of the armed citizen than I would of the armed off duty police officer. :spoken: :shrug: :shrug:

[Guest]

Your opinion is fine with me, Figgy. No problem at all.
Yours, too, Richie. :beer3: