22 year old ex-convict empties AK-47 into 12 year old

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: seemingly random
Proportional to population growth, individual incidents are going to increase. And, with the media constantly looking for shock and awe pieces, these more frequently occurring incidents will be broadcast far and wide. The solution is to stop growing the population. Gun restriction discussion is just subterfuge.

Good post. I would further point out that despite this simple fact violence in America has been DECREASING, despite increase in firearms, and increases in population.

Basing this on little concrete data, I believe the number of incidents is increasing, even though proportional to population, it is decreasing. As much as the police are dissed and people seem to be going neanderthal, I think there is progress in a number aspects.

Again with no data, I'd guess that violence can't be correlated to firearms. People can do some pretty fucked up stuff with other weapons and even with just their bodies. For example, I don't know what category one would put the deaths of a woman's children after she drowned them by driving a car with them in it into a lake.

I live in a sparsely populated area of the deep south were there is an average of 5-10 guns/house. I haven't heard of an accidental gun death in ages. However, I've heard of several deaths from traffic accidents.

I'm not really into guns either - haven't shot one in ~30 years. If I needed to use one for protection or hunting, there'd be no hesitation.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: seemingly random
Proportional to population growth, individual incidents are going to increase. And, with the media constantly looking for shock and awe pieces, these more frequently occurring incidents will be broadcast far and wide. The solution is to stop growing the population. Gun restriction discussion is just subterfuge.

Good post. I would further point out that despite this simple fact violence in America has been DECREASING, despite increase in firearms, and increases in population.

Basing this on little concrete data, I believe the number of incidents is increasing, even though proportional to population, it is decreasing. As much as the police are dissed and people seem to be going neanderthal, I think there is progress in a number aspects.

Again with no data, I'd guess that violence can't be correlated to firearms. People can do some pretty fucked up stuff with other weapons and even with just their bodies. For example, I don't know what category one would put the deaths of a woman's children after she drowned them by driving a car with them in it into a lake.

I live in a sparsely populated area of the deep south were there is an average of 5-10 guns/house. I haven't heard of an accidental gun death in ages. However, I've heard of several deaths from traffic accidents.

I'm not really into guns either - haven't shot one in ~30 years. If I needed to use one for protection or hunting, there'd be no hesitation.

Actually since about '93 violent crime has been declining steadily, both as a raw number and per capita. The last two years have seen minimal rises is certain specific violent crimes, but nothing outside the general downward slope.

 

[Brian48]

Originally posted by: dawp

Originally posted by: Brian48

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
So what is the legitimate reason for owning a full auto assault weapon?

Normal citizens cannot get them. Military, law enforcement, and class 3 licensee (usually security firms) are the only people allowed to possess full auto firearms. I'd say that's pretty darn legitimate.

That not entirely true. From what I understand, an older, antique pre-existing full auto weapon can be had legally, such as a Thompson sub machine gun or a German MP40. you just have to jump threw so many hoops and the expense is prohibitive.

Not true regarding the German MP40. All full-auto variants brought back after WWII are illegal without a Class 3. Regarding Thompsons, how many pre-1924 manufactured Thompsons do you see used in crimes today? These are collector items and if not in museums, in private armories. FYI, I would not WANT to even shoot one of these antiques unless I had a hankering for brass casing rupturing in my face.

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Brian48

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
So what is the legitimate reason for owning a full auto assault weapon?

Normal citizens cannot get them. Military, law enforcement, and class 3 licensee (usually security firms) are the only people allowed to possess full auto firearms. I'd say that's pretty darn legitimate.

Many normal citizens do get their FFL's. That's why the various machine gun shoots are so popular. A number of states allow them and so they are restricted only by federal law.

I don't consider a FFL holder to be a normal citizen. As hard as it is to get a LTC Class A in my state, it's even harder to get (and keep) a FFL without showing proof that you are running a business and not just some yahoo stock piling the best toys.

My point is, you can't just walk into any gun store and buy a machine gun like a normal firearm.

 

[dbk]

How does he get an AK being an ex-convict?? Or is that allowed? Sorry, I don't know the gun laws.

 

[Brian48]

Originally posted by: dbk
How does he get an AK being an ex-convict?? Or is that allowed? Sorry, I don't know the gun laws.

No, it's not allowed. He broke yet another law.

 

[bob4432]

as with any sad incident, my thoughts go to the family/families of the killed and injured. this type of situation is horrific and i feel for them greatly.

to clear up some inaccurate information in this thread -

1 - if in fact the shooter was a felon, then he again broke the law as once you are a felon many of your rights are taken away - the right to vote, the right to own a firearm, etc. they can be re-instated but that takes time, and if this guy was already a felon @ 22, i highly doubt enough time had passed that any judge would allow him to own a firearm atm

2 - automatic - remember, there are multiple types of automatic - semi and full (plus others i am not going into). semi is 1 round goes off per trigger pull, full is as a long as the trigger is pulled the rounds continue until the magazine is empty. the media uses the terms to mean the same, but they are not.

3 - it is perfectly legal in many states to own full automatic weapons for the general population if they were manufactured before 1986. people who own full auto weapons are generally collectors due the high price of the weapon - a full auto pre 86 m16 in good condition goes for ~$15K-$20K. even getting into the full auto collection on the cheap is going to run you ~$3K, plus the 3-4mos wait time of the atf background check. ffl really has nothing to do w/ this.

4 - the round in question - 7.62x39 is very close ballistically to 30-30. in this case the type of bullet (full metal jacket, soft point, expanding point, hollow point, full lead, etc) wouldn't have mattered since we are talking less than 20yds, probably less than 10 from the pics i have seen. the construction of the house looked as though you could have thrown a baseball through the house.

5 - depending in what state you live in, there still is an assault weapons ban, others, it died w/ the national one in 2004. again, the awb wouldn't have stopped a criminal from having this weapon.

there are already laws on the books to keep this guy from having a firearm, but do you really think he bought it legally? that is a huge misconception that even if the firearm in question was banned, that he wouldn't have had it anyway - he is not a law abiding citizen, why would you think he would obey the law if the gun in question was banned, or the magazine or type of ammo? this sounds like a crack head doing some deal, jacked up and all paranoid and was sitting on his couch and jumped at the first thing that happend, sadly it was halloween, which he probably didn't know because he was probably up for the last 3 or 4 days. imho, this guy needs to ride the lightning and not have lawyers try to save his ass.

the death sentence is no longer a deterrent because it is never used. fire up old sparky quite a bit more and this will help w/ people acting correctly and would be a cleansing of the population of these scumbags.

don't let an extreme minority of felons represent a very large number of law abiding, responsible citizens that enjoy shooting and hunting for fun and also protection.

the info i am basing this off of is from multiple sources stating he in fact was a felon. also, know that there are already thousands of laws on the books regarding firearms, you really think more will help? the problem is w/ the catch and release program that the judicial system has instituted.

driving drunk = illegal but how many reports do you read about daily where somebody died because of it?

this dickhead just gave the liberal news more ammo for their "shock and awe" campaign to get the backing for a new attempt at another gun ban that won't work.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bob4432

the death sentence is no longer a deterrent because it is never used. fire up old sparky quite a bit more and this will help w/ people acting correctly and would be a cleansing of the population of these scumbags.

No, you use assumptions instead of facts to form your views. I'd object to capital punishment for reasons other than its deterrence value, but it lacks deterrence.

Criminals aren't doing the math between long prison sentences - typically life sentences for things that would get capital punishment - and capital punishment.

They're committing the act because they don't think they'll get caught, or they ar e acting crazily. You think this guy acted based on what the sentence might be? No.

I value human life universally more than you do. You talk about 'trash'; I'd note that unjustified mass killings throughout history had the same attitude. Protect society from criminals, but I value them more. I'd also hold this position if it cost more to put them in prison than to execute them, but it doesn't. With the minimum needed constitutional protections, it costs about three times more to execute a criminal than to put them in prison with a life sentence (avergage of $$1.5M v. $500K in one study).

No, the only question is how stubbornly you'll insist on your blood thirst based on your false assumptions. Spare me the cliche slogans if you respond.

 

[silverpig]

Kid wouldn't have been shot if the guy was only armed with a baseball bat...

 

[bob4432]

blood thirst? no, not at all. i value human life highly, but when people are like this guy then there needs to be a punishment equal to his crime. rehab? history tells me it will not work. it is not like this is a first time offender and it was an accident.

and your costs takes out my statement of the lawyers saving a person who has acted in a manner that is deserving of the death penalty.

what false assumptions? if the news i have read is wrong, then this kid was never shot and the guy was never a felon....

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: silverpig
Kid wouldn't have been shot if the guy was only armed with a baseball bat...

You're sure right...so why don't you press that magic button that removes all firearms from the world, the ability to make more, and also magically equalizes an 80yr old woman and 20yr old criminal in a wrestling match.

 

[bananas]

I cant imagine how someone simply knocking on the door would cause this man to shoot...

 

[Lemon law]

Well do the simple math, 30 totally blind shot fired, 3 hits scored, 2 merely injured, one killed. So the the probability of any one given shot scoring a hit was only 10% and the probability of a miss was 90%.
Since it was basically apparent that the shooter kept firing until his magazine ran dry, we can now run probability estimates of scoring a hit based on magazine size.

With a 4 round magazine, the chance of a single hit is (1-.9x.9.x.9x.9 ) or 34.4%

With a 6 round magazine, 46.6%

With a 10 round magazine, 65.13%

With a 15 round magazine, 79.41%

With a 30 round magazine, 95.76%

Now if we want to look at fatal hits, its a basic 1 in 30 chance.

4 round magazine, 12.76%

6 round magazine, 18.41&

10 round magazine, 28.75%

15 round magazine, 39.86%

30 round magazine, 63.83%

60 round magazine, 86.92%

I rest my case folks, large magazines and nuts do not mix well, no legitimate hunter needs a large magazine size. But in the case of a nut, the danger goes up exponentially.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: bananas
I cant imagine how someone simply knocking on the door would cause this man to shoot...

never dealt w/ a crackhead/heavy drug user/dealer? pretty easy to see how it could happen.

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
This is why guns should be banned.

You know, I hate coming into this P&N forum, but it's responses like this that make me keep coming back.

This person who killed this unlucky kid was obviously insane and on some kind of drugs or drunk or all of the above. Since you can't properly regulate the sale of these assault weapons to people who are not insane, semi automatic military assault weapons should be banned. They should have been banned at least 50 years ago, but the NRA is full of constitutional holier than thou asshats who can't figure out the difference between HUNTING and PERSONAL DEFENSE and OFFENSIVELY KILLING LARGE CROWDS OF PEOPLE in a few seconds.

An AK-47 is not a hunting rifle. It is not a self defense weapon. It is an offensive weapon, not a defensive one, and it is designed for maximum fatalities. If it is legal and not a modified fully automatic, it is a semi-automatic military assault rifle designed to kill multiple targets at one time. Weapons like these do not belong in the hands of anyone but the cops and the military.

If you are defending your house against an army, a few of these would be a nice weapon to have. If you are defending your house against a few burglers, this is an insane weapon to have. You will likely do considerable damage to your own home, and any nearby neighbors homes while trying to use this weapon. Not to mention making a really big mess of the targets while they are reduced to splattered blood and guts all over the place, especially at close range.

This is why you can go out and buy a used tank or a military aircraft, but they also remove the mounted automatic weapons and turret guns from it. There is absolutely no reason for automatic or semi automatic assault weapons to be in the hands of anyone unless they are fighting in a war.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well do the simple math, 30 totally blind shot fired, 3 hits scored, 2 merely injured, one killed. So the the probability of any one given shot scoring a hit was only 10% and the probability of a miss was 90%.
Since it was basically apparent that the shooter kept firing until his magazine ran dry, we can now run probability estimates of scoring a hit based on magazine size.

With a 4 round magazine, the chance of a single hit is (1-.9x.9.x.9x.9 ) or 34.4%

With a 6 round magazine, 46.6%

With a 10 round magazine, 65.13%

With a 15 round magazine, 79.41%

With a 30 round magazine, 95.76%

Now if we want to look at fatal hits, its a basic 1 in 30 chance.

4 round magazine, 12.76%

6 round magazine, 18.41&

10 round magazine, 28.75%

15 round magazine, 39.86%

30 round magazine, 63.83%

60 round magazine, 86.92%

I rest my case folks, large magazines and nuts do not mix well, no legitimate hunter needs a large magazine size. But in the case of a nut, the danger goes up exponentially.

i agree 100% w/ the bolded area, but why should i, who is of sound mind and no record, not be allowed to have a weapon w/ a larger magazine? all of my purchases have always been and will always be legal, not like this person who illegally acquired the weapon, and still would have even w/ a ban on them.

no matter what is put into place, the criminals will still always have a way to get this stuff and again, the law abiding citizen gets fucked.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
This is why guns should be banned.

You know, I hate coming into this P&N forum, but it's responses like this that make me keep coming back.

This person who killed this unlucky kid was obviously insane and on some kind of drugs or drunk or all of the above. Since you can't properly regulate the sale of these assault weapons to people who are not insane, semi automatic military assault weapons should be banned. They should have been banned at least 50 years ago, but the NRA is full of constitutional holier than thou asshats who can't figure out the difference between HUNTING and PERSONAL DEFENSE and OFFENSIVELY KILLING LARGE CROWDS OF PEOPLE in a few seconds.

An AK-47 is not a hunting rifle. It is not a self defense weapon. It is an offensive weapon, not a defensive one, and it is designed for maximum fatalities. If it is legal and not a modified fully automatic, it is a semi-automatic military assault rifle designed to kill multiple targets at one time. Weapons like these do not belong in the hands of anyone but the cops and the military.

If you are defending your house against an army, a few of these would be a nice weapon to have. If you are defending your house against a few burglers, this is an insane weapon to have. You will likely do considerable damage to your own home, and any nearby neighbors homes while trying to use this weapon. Not to mention making a really big mess of the targets while they are reduced to splattered blood and guts all over the place, especially at close range.

This is why you can go out and buy a used tank or a military aircraft, but they also remove the mounted automatic weapons and turret guns from it. There is absolutely no reason for automatic assault weapons to be in the hands of anyone unless they are fighting in a war.

look into home invasions in the southwest u.s., and you will see that the invaders are coming in w/ bullet proof vests/body armor and weapons like this, so it is a defensive weapon. the idea of a shotgun for home defense is not a good choice anymore.

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: bob4432

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
This is why guns should be banned.

You know, I hate coming into this P&N forum, but it's responses like this that make me keep coming back.

This person who killed this unlucky kid was obviously insane and on some kind of drugs or drunk or all of the above. Since you can't properly regulate the sale of these assault weapons to people who are not insane, semi automatic military assault weapons should be banned. They should have been banned at least 50 years ago, but the NRA is full of constitutional holier than thou asshats who can't figure out the difference between HUNTING and PERSONAL DEFENSE and OFFENSIVELY KILLING LARGE CROWDS OF PEOPLE in a few seconds.

An AK-47 is not a hunting rifle. It is not a self defense weapon. It is an offensive weapon, not a defensive one, and it is designed for maximum fatalities. If it is legal and not a modified fully automatic, it is a semi-automatic military assault rifle designed to kill multiple targets at one time. Weapons like these do not belong in the hands of anyone but the cops and the military.

If you are defending your house against an army, a few of these would be a nice weapon to have. If you are defending your house against a few burglers, this is an insane weapon to have. You will likely do considerable damage to your own home, and any nearby neighbors homes while trying to use this weapon. Not to mention making a really big mess of the targets while they are reduced to splattered blood and guts all over the place, especially at close range.

This is why you can go out and buy a used tank or a military aircraft, but they also remove the mounted automatic weapons and turret guns from it. There is absolutely no reason for automatic assault weapons to be in the hands of anyone unless they are fighting in a war.

look into home invasions in the southwest u.s., and you will see that the invaders are coming in w/ bullet proof vests/body armor and weapons like this, so it is a defensive weapon. the idea of a shotgun for home defense is not a good choice anymore.

Well, since I LIVE in the southwest, I would shoot for the head in self defense. Less screaming and moaning that way, and you don't have to worry about pesky body armor. And even with body armor, a shot or 2 from a 12 gauge slug will knock them down, and most likely disarm them, making a fatal head shot then that much easier.

And I have also read that a huge amount of weapons bought in the US (mostly assault style) are being traded for drugs and money at the borders, since these assault style weapons are ILLEGAL in Mexico and much of South America. We would also be doing our south of the border neighbors a big favor in banning assault weapons.

The vast majority (over 90%) of confiscated weapons in Mexico that still have serial numbers intact, originated in the US.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: bananas
I cant imagine how someone simply knocking on the door would cause this man to shoot...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, the beauty of those in denial, like any other manufacturing process, certain human being belong it the class of fraction defective.

The object of the game is to limit the damage the the fraction defective can do without infringing on the rights of the non fraction defective.

Large magazine sizes does nothing to empower my rights as a legitimate hunter while
exponentially expanding the damage fraction defective nuts can do.

Since fraction defective nuts seldom understand anything about the complexities of manufacturing processes, the control of fraction defective nuts must start at the manufacturing process. There is zero, let me repeat zero, legitimate basis for large magazine sizes in non military applications, conferring that right to crazed drug dealers is a delusion only the NRA endorses.

Message from a legitimate fire arms owner, CURRENT NRA LEADERSHIP, PLEASE DROP DEAD, CEASE YOUR IRRATIONALITY, AND REJOIN THE HUMAN RACE.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: bananas
I cant imagine how someone simply knocking on the door would cause this man to shoot...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, the beauty of those in denial, like any other manufacturing process, certain human being belong it the class of fraction defective.

The object of the game is to limit the damage the the fraction defective can do without infringing on the rights of the non fraction defective.

Large magazine sizes does nothing to empower my rights as a legitimate hunter while
exponentially expanding the damage fraction defective nuts can do.

Since fraction defective nuts seldom understand anything about the complexities of manufacturing processes, the control of fraction defective nuts must start at the manufacturing process. There is zero, let me repeat zero, legitimate basis for large magazine sizes in non military applications, conferring that right to crazed drug dealers is a delusion only the NRA endorses.

Message from a legitimate fire arms owner, CURRENT NRA LEADERSHIP, PLEASE DROP DEAD, CEASE YOUR IRRATIONALITY, AND REJOIN THE HUMAN RACE.

Except that, as already proven time and again by enough statistics and studies to choke a donkey, it still could have happened in this case, and it still doesn't form a statistically significant portion of any problems, nor can any form of ban alter anything in any way. Remember that assault style weapons (even not a true assault weapon) are only used in .2% of crimes...so all your bullshit and blathering wouldn't fix anything in the end. It would be utterly useless legislation, affecting far more law abiding citizens than criminals.

But hey, just go ahead and bold a little more next time and maybe some more 35IQ dweebs will believe you.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: bob4432

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
This is why guns should be banned.

You know, I hate coming into this P&N forum, but it's responses like this that make me keep coming back.

This person who killed this unlucky kid was obviously insane and on some kind of drugs or drunk or all of the above. Since you can't properly regulate the sale of these assault weapons to people who are not insane, semi automatic military assault weapons should be banned. They should have been banned at least 50 years ago, but the NRA is full of constitutional holier than thou asshats who can't figure out the difference between HUNTING and PERSONAL DEFENSE and OFFENSIVELY KILLING LARGE CROWDS OF PEOPLE in a few seconds.

An AK-47 is not a hunting rifle. It is not a self defense weapon. It is an offensive weapon, not a defensive one, and it is designed for maximum fatalities. If it is legal and not a modified fully automatic, it is a semi-automatic military assault rifle designed to kill multiple targets at one time. Weapons like these do not belong in the hands of anyone but the cops and the military.

If you are defending your house against an army, a few of these would be a nice weapon to have. If you are defending your house against a few burglers, this is an insane weapon to have. You will likely do considerable damage to your own home, and any nearby neighbors homes while trying to use this weapon. Not to mention making a really big mess of the targets while they are reduced to splattered blood and guts all over the place, especially at close range.

This is why you can go out and buy a used tank or a military aircraft, but they also remove the mounted automatic weapons and turret guns from it. There is absolutely no reason for automatic assault weapons to be in the hands of anyone unless they are fighting in a war.

look into home invasions in the southwest u.s., and you will see that the invaders are coming in w/ bullet proof vests/body armor and weapons like this, so it is a defensive weapon. the idea of a shotgun for home defense is not a good choice anymore.

Well, since I LIVE in the southwest, I would shoot for the head in self defense. Less screaming and moaning that way, and you don't have to worry about pesky body armor. And even with body armor, a shot or 2 from a 12 gauge slug will knock them down, and most likely disarm them, making a fatal head shot then that much easier.

And I have also read that a huge amount of weapons bought in the US (mostly assault style) are being traded for drugs and money at the borders, since these assault style weapons are ILLEGAL in Mexico and much of South America. We would also be doing our south of the border neighbors a big favor in banning assault weapons.

The vast majority (over 90%) of confiscated weapons in Mexico that still have serial numbers intact, originated in the US.

i guess you are a much better shot than most considering the intense stress of such a situation and your mere single digit seconds to react to the threat. unless active highly trained mil in an offensive manner, i doubt many would be able to perform what you describe in the situation outside of hollywood.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well do the simple math, 30 totally blind shot fired, 3 hits scored, 2 merely injured, one killed. So the the probability of any one given shot scoring a hit was only 10% and the probability of a miss was 90%.
Since it was basically apparent that the shooter kept firing until his magazine ran dry, we can now run probability estimates of scoring a hit based on magazine size.

With a 4 round magazine, the chance of a single hit is (1-.9x.9.x.9x.9 ) or 34.4%

With a 6 round magazine, 46.6%

With a 10 round magazine, 65.13%

With a 15 round magazine, 79.41%

With a 30 round magazine, 95.76%

Now if we want to look at fatal hits, its a basic 1 in 30 chance.

4 round magazine, 12.76%

6 round magazine, 18.41&

10 round magazine, 28.75%

15 round magazine, 39.86%

30 round magazine, 63.83%

60 round magazine, 86.92%

I rest my case folks, large magazines and nuts do not mix well, no legitimate hunter needs a large magazine size. But in the case of a nut, the danger goes up exponentially.

So theres no way to fire 60 rounds out of a weapon unless you have a 60 round magazine? Bummer. The shooter was an idiot and you are acting like one too.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: bob4432
the death sentence is no longer a deterrent because it is never used. fire up old sparky quite a bit more and this will help w/ people acting correctly and would be a cleansing of the population of these scumbags.

Capital punishment has never been effective as a deterrent.

 

[Lemon law]

The PrinceofWands somehow manages to ignore the whole issue when he says " Except that, as already proven time and again by enough statistics and studies to choke a donkey, it still could have happened in this case, and it still doesn't form a statistically significant portion of any problems, nor can any form of ban alter anything in any way. Remember that assault style weapons (even not a true assault weapon) are only used in .2% of crimes...so all your bullshit and blathering wouldn't fix anything in the end. It would be utterly useless legislation, affecting far more law abiding citizens than criminals.

But hey, just go ahead and bold a little more next time and maybe some more 35IQ dweebs will believe you."

Ok, granted PrinceofWands, this is not the typical case of gun violence, but still, if he was unable to find a ready supply of a large magazine capacity firearms, this incident would have never made the national news. As it is, the perp did get a hold of such a firearm, and that class of firearms should never wind up in the hands of the general public. AND TO BOLD IT, THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE DENIAL ABOUT, NO MATER WHAT CONVULTED ROUTE USED, FIREARMS OF THESE TYPES ONLY BENEFIT KOOKS, THE CRIMINALLY INSANE, THUGS, AND THE PARANOID. EXACTLY THE LAST SET OF PEOPLE WE SHOULD WANT TO OWN SUCH WEAPONS.

BANNING THEIR MANUFACTURE IS SIMPLE COMMON SENSE. IT WILL NOT BE A PANACEA, BUT ITS STILL A COMPELLING PLACE TO START, AND BEATS THE SHIT OUT OF THE NRA POSITION.

WHEN YOU COMEBACK WITH A SINGE ARGUMENT THAT SUCH WEAPON SHOULD BE PLACED IN THE HANDS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC, PLEASE LET ME KNOW, BUT SO FAR YOU ARE ARE LOGICALLY MISSING IN ACTION.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
WHEN YOU COMEBACK WITH A SINGE ARGUMENT THAT SUCH WEAPON SHOULD BE PLACED IN THE HANDS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC, PLEASE LET ME KNOW, BUT SO FAR YOU ARE ARE LOGICALLY MISSING IN ACTION.

Again, long on emotion, short on facts.

I'm still waiting for your evaluation of the facts that I posted about the Ruger Mini 14 that sells in large quantities as a ranch rifle.

You have given no reason why responsible individuals should not have access to these items. Your entire position is, "some people may misuse them, so we should ban them entirely". You have given no reason why the responsible majority should be made to suffer because an infinitesimal minority are irresponsible.

ZV

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The PrinceofWands somehow manages to ignore the whole issue when he says " Except that, as already proven time and again by enough statistics and studies to choke a donkey, it still could have happened in this case, and it still doesn't form a statistically significant portion of any problems, nor can any form of ban alter anything in any way. Remember that assault style weapons (even not a true assault weapon) are only used in .2% of crimes...so all your bullshit and blathering wouldn't fix anything in the end. It would be utterly useless legislation, affecting far more law abiding citizens than criminals.

But hey, just go ahead and bold a little more next time and maybe some more 35IQ dweebs will believe you."

Ok, granted PrinceofWands, this is not the typical case of gun violence, but still, if he was unable to find a ready supply of a large magazine capacity firearms, this incident would have never made the national news. As it is, the perp did get a hold of such a firearm, and that class of firearms should never wind up in the hands of the general public. AND TO BOLD IT, THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE DENIAL ABOUT, NO MATER WHAT CONVULTED ROUTE USED, FIREARMS OF THESE TYPES ONLY BENEFIT KOOKS, THE CRIMINALLY INSANE, THUGS, AND THE PARANOID. EXACTLY THE LAST SET OF PEOPLE WE SHOULD WANT TO OWN SUCH WEAPONS.

BANNING THEIR MANUFACTURE IS SIMPLE COMMON SENSE. IT WILL NOT BE A PANACEA, BUT ITS STILL A COMPELLING PLACE TO START, AND BEATS THE SHIT OUT OF THE NRA POSITION.

WHEN YOU COMEBACK WITH A SINGE ARGUMENT THAT SUCH WEAPON SHOULD BE PLACED IN THE HANDS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC, PLEASE LET ME KNOW, BUT SO FAR YOU ARE ARE LOGICALLY MISSING IN ACTION.

Wow, just wow.