Jump to content

From my cold dead hands!


WWWTT

Recommended Posts

Guest Derek L

if you're going to quote the graphic I provided, you should at least have the decency to directly acknowledge the circumstance/timing/words of the mother of the dead Sandy Hook victim relayed. Cause, like you see... apparently... 11 kids escaped during the time it took for the perpetrator to reload one of his 30-round magazines.

11 kids... in spite of your preferred figure spew.

what "recreational enthusiast" needs 30 round magazines? What requirements of a "recreational enthusiast" couldn't be met/satisfied with say, uhhh... a 10 round magazine load? Oh wait, don't tell me - did your militia go and buy up a tonna huuuuge capacity magazines? Are they coming for your mags... as well as your guns?

I did acknowledge said words…….In this case, as reported in numerous media sources, police found multiple magazines with rounds still in them, this is indicative of a more experienced shooter since reloading said AR-15 with the bolt closed (as opposed to open) and a round chambered, allows the shooter to cycle the new magazine by firing the chambered round as opposed to manually closing the bolt……..Hence a faster reload………Works the same on a 30 round magazine as it does on a 10 rounder, and indicates that the shooter understood the concept of a “tactical reload”.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 465
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

“tactical reload”.

your tactical ignoring of the 11 kids saved during the "tactical reload" is noted... along with your tactical avoidance of the following questions:

what "recreational enthusiast" needs 30 round magazines? What requirements of a "recreational enthusiast" couldn't be met/satisfied with say, uhhh... a 10 round magazine load? Oh wait, don't tell me - did your militia go and buy up a tonna huuuuge capacity magazines? Are they coming for your mags... as well as your guns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

your tactical ignoring of the 11 kids saved during the "tactical reload" is noted... along with your tactical avoidance of the following questions:

The “saving of said kids” indicates the shooter wasn’t going after them, ~3-5 seconds only maters in movies and the Olympics………
The answer to the mothers question, as I demonstrated is likely no.
As to your other “questions”………When did you stop beating your wife with a baseball bat and switch to fists?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The saving of said kids indicates the shooter wasnt going after them, ~3-5 seconds only maters in movies and the Olympics

The answer to the mothers question, as I demonstrated is likely no.

wow! That's quite the revisionism... even for you! Why, I've not even heard any of the NRA's own apologists trot out your pathetic attempt to minimize... to trivialize... the kids that actually managed to escape. "He wasn't going after them"!!!

As to your other questionsWhen did you stop beating your wife with a baseball bat and switch to fists?

yes, clearly... I've hit a sore point with you... one you apparently can't respond to. They seem like pretty innocuous straight-forward questions. Oh wait, when I said "recreational enthusiast" I didn't include you survivalist militia types! So, in that clarified context, just answer the questions, hey!

what "recreational enthusiast" needs 30 round magazines? What requirements of a "recreational enthusiast" couldn't be met/satisfied with say, uhhh... a 10 round magazine load? Oh wait, don't tell me - did your militia go and buy up a tonna huuuuge capacity magazines? Are they coming for your mags... as well as your guns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you're going to quote the graphic I provided, you should at least have the decency to directly acknowledge the circumstance/timing/words of the mother of the dead Sandy Hook victim relayed. Cause, like you see... apparently... 11 kids escaped during the time it took for the perpetrator to reload one of his 30-round magazines.

11 kids... in spite of your preferred figure spew.

what "recreational enthusiast" needs 30 round magazines? What requirements of a "recreational enthusiast" couldn't be met/satisfied with say, uhhh... a 10 round magazine load? Oh wait, don't tell me - did your militia go and buy up a tonna huuuuge capacity magazines? Are they coming for your mags... as well as your guns?

Even if Lanza was using limited clips, the incident would have still happened, children would still be dead (although less would be dead), and people would STILL be saying that we did not do enough.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if Lanza was using limited clips, the incident would have still happened, children would still be dead (although less would be dead), and people would STILL be saying that we did not do enough.

Captain Obvious... I've bold-highlighted your recognition of the obvious intent/focus of my last posts... you know, as it ties in with saved/escaped lives versus reload times. That's ordinary reload times... not the "tactical" kind. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Captain Obvious... I've bold-highlighted your recognition of the obvious intent/focus of my last posts... you know, as it ties in with saved/escaped lives versus reload times. That's ordinary reload times... not the "tactical" kind. :lol:

Does not matter if he had to change magazines more often. Sure we may have LESS dead children, but we still have dead children. The intent to kill was there either way. And that is the point that is completely ignored for the sake of pushing any kind of gun control. People who have the will to commit murders will still commit them plain and simple.

Don't forget the guns were legally owned by his mother and all locked up and stored safely.

But it's crap like this that simply makes me laugh.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/28/warrants-to-be-released-in-newtown-investigation/

A loaded 12-gauge shotgun was found in the glove compartment of the Honda Civic Lanza drove to the school with two magazines containing 70 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge shotgun rounds.

Really? a 12 gauge in the glove box of a Civic? This is how stupid the media/investogators think you are. Good luck trying to fit 70 rounds of shotgun ammo in the glove box..... how do you fit a shotgun in any glovebox?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this is a quality reply. Thanks for nothing.

I thought it was a valid question. Perhaps I misunderstood and you were just being sarcastic? Your comment seemed to be from the, because we can't do everything, there is no point in doing anything school. Used to that from Derek but surprised me a bit coming from you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was a valid question. Perhaps I misunderstood and you were just being sarcastic? Your comment seemed to be from the, because we can't do everything, there is no point in doing anything school. Used to that from Derek but surprised me a bit coming from you.

I've talked to the point before about Lanza's mental state and the pharmaceuticals he was on. Which most likely led to his rampage. Even if the intent was to kill, reducing the clip size wont prevent deaths, simply reduce the number of it, which still fails to address the main issue of the intent to kill.

This is why 'So?' without some explanation (as you provided here thanks!) is simply a useless question/reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've talked to the point before about Lanza's mental state and the pharmaceuticals he was on. Which most likely led to his rampage. Even if the intent was to kill, reducing the clip size wont prevent deaths, simply reduce the number of it, which still fails to address the main issue of the intent to kill.

This is why 'So?' without some explanation (as you provided here thanks!) is simply a useless question/reply.

There is no complete solution to this problem and won't be as long as humans are involved but that doesn't mean you do nothing to reduce the carnage. I have a 1966 convertible that I spent years and quite a bit of money restoring. It is in great shape but dangerous as hell compared to todays cars. My wife doesn't feel safe in it and I know I am a lot less safe in it than my other vehicles. No crumple zones, no telescoping steering column, solid steel dash except for the pad on top, seat backs that don't lock, no shoulder belts, just lap belts, no airbags, no roll over protection, terrible suspension, brakes, steering and door latches compared to todays cars. Most of the safety improvements in todays vehicles were a result of government getting involved and mandating standards. People still die in vehicle crashes because of their own actions but If we had that attitude toward vehicles, we would still be driving the same dangerous crap today and a lot more would be dieing.

There are two approaches to this type of problem. One is technical and one is human. You have to work on both of them. Reducing magazine size isn't a solution, it's one step in process that needs to be taken in concert with many other steps if people are really serious about doing something to reduce gun deaths.

On edit.

Contrary to the vehicles we drive, which have become safer, the weapons available to the public have become more lethal.

Edited by Wilber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no complete solution to this problem and won't be as long as humans are involved but that doesn't mean you do nothing to reduce the carnage. I have a 1966 convertible that I spent years and quite a bit of money restoring. It is in great shape but dangerous as hell compared to todays cars. My wife doesn't feel safe in it and I know I am a lot less safe in it than my other vehicles. No crumple zones, no telescoping steering column, solid steel dash except for the pad on top, seat backs that don't lock, no shoulder belts, just lap belts, no airbags, no roll over protection, terrible suspension, brakes, steering and door latches compared to todays cars. Most of the safety improvements in todays vehicles were a result of government getting involved and mandating standards. People still die in vehicle crashes because of their own actions but If we had that attitude toward vehicles, we would still be driving the same dangerous crap today and a lot more would be dieing.

There are two approaches to this type of problem. One is technical and one is human. You have to work on both of them. Reducing magazine size isn't a solution, it's one step in process that needs to be taken in concert with many other steps if people are really serious about doing something to reduce gun deaths.

All good points. And I agree that multiple things need to be done to correct the issue, but the mental issues are not even something the MSM or those pushing gun control want to talk about.

Contrary to the vehicles we drive, which have become safer, the weapons available to the public have become more lethal.

And yet the deaths from vehicle accidents far outweigh the deaths from firearms, and that number of firearm deaths gets increasingly small when specifically talking about 'assault' rifles.

I love the bit that Piers Morgan trots out taking about the reduced amount of deaths by firearms in the UK without giving the other part of the information where deaths by other means have made a significant increase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

State of Connecticut passed gun laws.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/04/us/connecticut-gun-law-overhaul/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Saying he hopes it sets an example for the nation, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy on Thursday signed what advocacy groups call the strongest and most comprehensive gun legislation in the nation.

The new law bans some weapons as well as the sale or purchase of high-capacity magazines like those used in the Newtown shooting in December that left 20 children and six adults dead.

It also requires background checks for all gun purchases.

"This is a profoundly emotional day, I think, for everyone in this room," Malloy said at the signing ceremony. "We have come together in a way that relatively few places in our nation have demonstrated an ability to do."

However, he noted, "Today does not mark the end of our efforts" to combat gun violence.

With the governor's signature, Connecticut became the third state to pass such tough measures since the December rampage in Newtown. New York and Colorado passed gun-control legislation limiting magazine capacity, among other provisions.

Well I expect more states to go this way this year.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All good points. And I agree that multiple things need to be done to correct the issue, but the mental issues are not even something the MSM or those pushing gun control want to talk about.

Doesn't matter, that doesn't mean you don't do what is doable. The human element will take a lot more time and effort to deal with. Do the simple things first, then work on the rest. As we were all told when we were kids, two wrongs don't make a right.

And yet the deaths from vehicle accidents far outweigh the deaths from firearms, and that number of firearm deaths gets increasingly small when specifically talking about 'assault' rifles.

Have they really decreased? Again, I say so what. I find the attitude that we can occaisionally kiss of 20 little kids and their teachers getting shot in their school room, just because more people get killed doing something else, disgusting. It's not acceptable.

I love the bit that Piers Morgan trots out taking about the reduced amount of deaths by firearms in the UK without giving the other part of the information where deaths by other means have made a significant increase.

Really? Homicide rates in the UK are at a 30 year low. Last year was the lowest since 1983.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

When the same can't be accomplished with a semi-automatic weapon, such as the mini Ruger 14, which is still an unrestricted weapon in Canada, as an automatic with unlimited clips, then I'll get behind banning automatic weapons et al. Until then, it's just a 'holier than thou' feel-good solution - that will accomplish nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

wow! That's quite the revisionism... even for you! Why, I've not even heard any of the NRA's own apologists trot out your pathetic attempt to minimize... to trivialize... the kids that actually managed to escape. "He wasn't going after them"!!!

Could one then state that the shooter didn’t kill the entire student body because he didn’t have a belt fed automatic? :rolleyes:

yes, clearly... I've hit a sore point with you... one you apparently can't respond to. They seem like pretty innocuous straight-forward questions. Oh wait, when I said "recreational enthusiast" I didn't include you survivalist militia types! So, in that clarified context, just answer the questions, hey!

Of course it’s an issue with me, it’s an ineffective law, for 120 rounds carried in four magazines is no less “deadly” then 120 rounds carried in twelve magazines, with as I highlighted the only difference being measured in seconds.

Charles Whitman managed 17 killed and over 30 injured with a bolt action, four round integral box magazine in his primary weapon……….

What's the difference between Gramps 40 year old Remington 700 308 deer rifle and a police sniper's Remington 700 308 "sniper" rifle? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

Does not matter if he had to change magazines more often. Sure we may have LESS dead children, but we still have dead children. The intent to kill was there either way. And that is the point that is completely ignored for the sake of pushing any kind of gun control. People who have the will to commit murders will still commit them plain and simple.

Don't forget the guns were legally owned by his mother and all locked up and stored safely.

But it's crap like this that simply makes me laugh.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/28/warrants-to-be-released-in-newtown-investigation/Really? a 12 gauge in the glove box of a Civic? This is how stupid the media/investogators think you are. Good luck trying to fit 70 rounds of shotgun ammo in the glove box..... how do you fit a shotgun in any glovebox?

That would be a pretty big glove box to fit the gun, but a 100 round box of 2 ¾ shells measures about 1’ x 6”………..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

There is no complete solution to this problem and won't be as long as humans are involved but that doesn't mean you do nothing to reduce the carnage. I have a 1966 convertible that I spent years and quite a bit of money restoring. It is in great shape but dangerous as hell compared to todays cars. My wife doesn't feel safe in it and I know I am a lot less safe in it than my other vehicles. No crumple zones, no telescoping steering column, solid steel dash except for the pad on top, seat backs that don't lock, no shoulder belts, just lap belts, no airbags, no roll over protection, terrible suspension, brakes, steering and door latches compared to todays cars. Most of the safety improvements in todays vehicles were a result of government getting involved and mandating standards. People still die in vehicle crashes because of their own actions but If we had that attitude toward vehicles, we would still be driving the same dangerous crap today and a lot more would be dieing.

There are two approaches to this type of problem. One is technical and one is human. You have to work on both of them. Reducing magazine size isn't a solution, it's one step in process that needs to be taken in concert with many other steps if people are really serious about doing something to reduce gun deaths.

On edit.

Contrary to the vehicles we drive, which have become safer, the weapons available to the public have become more lethal.

Bullshit..........This gun was readily available back in the 60s

carbine.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the same can't be accomplished with a semi-automatic weapon, such as the mini Ruger 14, which is still an unrestricted weapon in Canada, as an automatic with unlimited clips, then I'll get behind banning automatic weapons et al. Until then, it's just a 'holier than thou' feel-good solution - that will accomplish nothing.

Semi automatic magazine sizes in Canada have been restricted since 1993. I don't care what you do, so just keep finding excuses to do nothing. That'll fix it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Semi automatic magazine sizes in Canada have been restricted since 1993. I don't care what you do, so just keep finding excuses to do nothing. That'll fix it.

Doing something that won't fix the problem is nothing but a feel good non-solution; no better than "nothing." So what if semi automatic magazine sizes have been reduced in Canada, as long as the damage can be done within what is allowed?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doing something that won't fix the problem is nothing but a feel good non-solution; no better than "nothing." So what if semi automatic magazine sizes have been reduced in Canada, as long as the damage can be done within what is allowed?

That's the problem, everyone just sits around and points at the other guy. No one wants to take any ownership of the problem themselves. Restricting magazine sizes isn't a solution, it's just one small step in the right direction but even that doesn't seem possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Restricting magazine sizes isn't a solution, it's just one small step in the right direction but even that doesn't seem possible.

What's the right direction? Honest people entirely defenseless? If there were no need for honest people to have firearms then few would have them. Something needs to be done about criminals and the criminally insane not about honest citizens. Actually, are the people dispensing psychotropic drugs contributing to these incidents by creating the insanity that results in these bizarre random acts of senseless violence?

There is a big resistance to having that conversation because there are so many that feel they are better off with the

psychotropic drugs and if you take them away they will not survive. It is true that they need professional medical assistance to wean themselves off these drugs but many don't see the need to be weaned off. When you prescribe these drugs it is a form of Russian Roulette as to the outcome. Nothing more adverse than dependency may occur but someone may go to a theatre or school and do some shooting. How many times have you heard those responsible for these acts of violence were "off their meds".

So what do you do? The more laws the politicians make to restrain honest citizens and that criminals or the criminally

insane will skirt and always have skirted the more they look like an ass.

As far as your analogy with the car goes once a problem is identified and becomes broad knowledge people start demanding the improvement. It's why the laws are made. If the laws weren't made there would still be the demand for a move toward improving safety. If there is true competition it will occur but if there is a cartel or monopoly it probably has to be forced with law. Cartels and monopolies resist change for economic reasons and whine about costs to production, warningthat their products will become unaffordable. That's when you know a cartel or monopoly exists when they don't have to

react to public demand and need a law to do so. The innovations when legislated never do seem to make their products entirely unaffordable. Let's start to return to real competition. Why does the solution always have to be a new law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

That's the problem, everyone just sits around and points at the other guy. No one wants to take any ownership of the problem themselves. Restricting magazine sizes isn't a solution, it's just one small step in the right direction but even that doesn't seem possible.

No, everyone doesn't do that. Restricting magazine size most definitely isn't a solution, and since it would do nothing to prevent the problem, I have to wonder how it's a small step in the right direction. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For cripes sake, limiting magazine sizes to ten rounds is not leaving anyone defenseless except someone who can't hit a barn door at 5 paces and they shouldn't be let anywhere near a firearm in the first place. The slippery slope argument is always used as an excuse to do nothing.

Yes something does also have to be done about mentally unstable people getting firearms, so why the objection to mandatory background checks? I hear groups like the NRA saying they are useless because very few people are prosecuted for lying on them. Well, the object of firearms background checks is not to put people in jail for lying, it's to prevent people who shouldn't have them from getting them, so lets look at that statistic. If someone is caught lying, confiscate the firearm and prosecute if you can but don't lose sight of the real reason for doing the checks. Maybe there can be improvements made to the way the checks are done but the fact some people lie sure as hell isn't a reason not to have them. Special interest groups will grab onto any argument in order to deflect from the real issue and prevent change. That's just as true as the fact some people lie. One more truth, the more firearms there are out there, the greater the chances of some one who is unstable getting their hands on one. That's just simple arithmetic

Concoct all the theories you want but government was the prime mover when it comes to establishing vehicle safety standards, not the industry. Government did the research and identified the problems, not industry. When it came to things like mandatory airbags, industry pushed back and that's a fact. In the US at least, things like ABS, ESC, and tire pressure monitoring on certain vehicles are mandatory. In Canada, so are things like daytime running lights, and demobilizers. The argument against these things has always been that it will make products unafordable. If it isn't sexy and costs money, industry is not interested. When it comes to vehicles, competition sure hasn't been affected, there are more and better choices out there now than there have been since I can remember. I don't think anyone builds bad cars any more.

One of the purposes of government is to intervene when the interests of the public are not being served properly by the profit motive.

The same goes for vehicle emission standards. During the sixties and seventies, the Los Angeles basin was a smog bowl, now the air is clear even though the number of vehicles has more than doubled. The Fraser Valley where I live is prone to smog during temperature inversions, but it is certainly no worse and probably better than it was when I moved here 25 years ago despite the fact the population of the lower mainland has increased by more than 50%. When I back my old 66 ragtop and it's big V8 with no emission controls into the garage, I have to leave the door open for 20 minutes to let the place air out because the fumes are so bad. My two year old diesel pickup is so clean, I can shut the door right away when I bring it in. Government made that happen by imposing standards on industry.

Edited by Wilber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...