Originally Posted by Figmo Bohica

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.

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."

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.

Originally Posted by waynet

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

Originally Posted by buggyone

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.....

Originally Posted by ladydoc

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.

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.

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

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.

Originally Posted by ladydoc

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!

aaaannnnnddddd.......?

btk

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Figmo Bohica

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.

Originally Posted by buggyone

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.