guns

Babagounj

Strength through joy
Sounds like the killer(s) had more cartridges than the dead guy .
Reports say he was shot at least 20 times with many hits .
And he had a camera set up within the house to monitor his ill wife .
 

Nimnim

The Nim
I just wonder, if a gun won't protect you from a bad guy intent on harming you, what do you really need a gun for, other than sport? Who are you protecting yourself from?

Well if that's the case what's the harm in letting people legally own guns to protect themselves? I mean really if it won't protect me why can't I have it? It's not like it would make me feel any safer or anything, not like a law telling me I can't legally own one while knowing that someone who wants to kill me won't care about the law telling them they can't own a gun. . .
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
I thought it was the Aryan Brotherhood, same ones that have killed two others recently?

He was aware he was targeted, armed, and was taking precautions, even answering the door at home. So you are saying that even being ex-military, armed and aware you are targeted, will not make a difference? Why have a gun then? Why should any law abiding person? You are saying that if someone wants to kill you, they will, no matter how well armed you are, or how aware you are of the situation.

You can't consistantly twist the facts to suit your narrative and expect to be taken seriously. At least you are consistent.


The fact that having a gun failed to save his life in this one particular instance is irrelevant to the larger debate about whether or not we should have the right to own guns for the defense of self and of the state.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Taken one step further, "Give us total control and your unquestioning loyalty, The Gov't will take care of you."

or

"Give us the portion of your labor valued in dollars we say without question and ............."

In the end the outcome is always the same. Even Geronimo understood the reservation as nothing but a prison by another name.
 

roadrunner2012

Four hours in the mod queue for a news link
Troll
"We learned, the way that no other parents should learn, that the most dangerous, dangerous part of an assault weapon is the magazine," Nicole Hockley, whose son Dylan, 6, was killed Dec. 14, said at a press conference with other parents at the Capitol Monday morning. "The horrible, brutal truth is that 154 bullets were fired in four minutes, killing our children, our daughters, our wives. The shooter carried 10, 30-round large-capacity magazines," Hockley said. "We have learned that in the time it took him to reload in one of the classrooms, 11 children were able to escape. We ask ourselves every day — every minute — if those magazines had held 10 rounds, forcing the shooter to reload at least six more times, would our children be alive today?"
 

roadrunner2012

Four hours in the mod queue for a news link
Troll
The fact that having a gun failed to save his life in this one particular instance is irrelevant to the larger debate about whether or not we should have the right to own guns for the defense of self and of the state.

Defense of the state? What do you mean?
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
Lets visualize an alternate outcome for the Sandy Hook tragedy.

Lets visualize for a moment the principal who, with no other weapon available to her, flung her body at Lanza in a desperate, futile attempt to save the lives of her students.

Now lets visualize a steel locker mounted on the wall of the principals office with an electronic keypad lock that prevents unauthorized access. Within that locker resides a Remington 870 12- gauge shotgun loaded with 8 rounds of 00 buckshot and an Eotech laser sight mounted beneath the barrel. This is by far the most brutally effective weapon made for short-range antipersonnel work, especially indoors where overpenetration or riccochets pose a risk.

Now lets visualize the principal again, only this time rather than emerging from her office with nothing but her body to throw atLanza she instead emerges with the aforementioned shotgun and proceeds to throw a load of 00 buckshot moving at 1500 feet per second right throughLanza.

Its kinda tough to continue murdering children when you have just had a fist-sized hole blown through your chest with a 12 gauge. Lets visualize that for awhile, and then ask ourselves why in the hell we cant start taking some realmeasures to keep our kids safe?
 

Babagounj

Strength through joy
Because keeping kids safe is not the real issue.
bhos has to maintain control over everyone who might challenge his rule .
Just like Fast & Furious was about showing the world that gun dealers were the real crooks , that they were fueling Mexico's drug wars by supplying 90% of all the weapons used .
bhos knows that an armed citizen is more dangerous than an unarmed one .
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
.... "The horrible, brutal truth is that 154 bullets were fired in four minutes, killing our children, our daughters, our wives. The shooter carried 10, 30-round large-capacity magazines," Hockley said. "We have learned that in the time it took him to reload in one of the classrooms, 11 children were able to escape. We ask ourselves every day — every minute — if those magazines had held 10 rounds, forcing the shooter to reload at least six more times, would our children be alive today?"

No, they probably wouldn't.

Lanza used 30 round mags, but throughout the massacre he kept doing "tactical reloads"...meaning that instead of waiting until a mag was empty to replace it, he would drop a partially depeted mag out and pop in a full one during a pause in the shooting. According to the reports I have read, all of the magazines that the police found on the scene still had rounds left in them. Had Lanza been equipped with 10 rounders instead of 30's, he may have had to reload a couple of extra times, but not six. I also find it highly unlikely that 11 children were able to escape from the classroom during the time that he was reloading; even a novice shooter can drop and replace a magazine in less than 5 seconds with practice, especially if they have done the "jungle mag" trick of duct-taping a pair of magazines to one another.

Here's another fact to consider. According to reports, Lanza spent the last two years planning, fantasizing and preparing for the massacre. Two years. Even if it had been illegal to possess 30 round magazines, is it realistic to think that (a) he would have felt any obligation to obey that law prior to committing a mass murder, or (b) that he would not have simply modified his 10 round mags into higher capacity ones (easy to do with basic hand tools) had the 30 rounders been somehow impossible for him to obtain during that time frame?

One last question; why do the same people who justify banning hi-caps on the basis that potential victims might escape while the lunatic reloads his gun get their panties all up in a knot when you suggest to them that it might be better if an armed civlian just shot the lunatic while he was reloading his gun?
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
"We learned, the way that no other parents should learn, that the most dangerous, dangerous part of an assault weapon is the magazine," Nicole Hockley, whose son Dylan, 6, was killed Dec. 14, said at a press conference with other parents at the Capitol Monday morning.

Her statement is, sadly, based on emotion rather than fact.

The most dangerous part of an assault weapon...or any weapon for that matter....is the lunatic behind the trigger who has been granted a monopoly of force by the cowardly and idiotic politicians and school administrators who cling to the fantasy that the best way to protect our children is to herd them into clearly marked and designated "gun free zones" where they can be slaughtered without the risk of armed interference.

It didnt keep them safe at Thurston, it didnt keep them safe at Columbine, it didnt keep them safe at Virginia Tech, it didnt keep them safe at the theater in Colorado and it didnt keep them safe at Sandy Hook.

How many more must die before the bitter truth about "gun free zones" finally sinks in?
 

roadrunner2012

Four hours in the mod queue for a news link
Troll
No, they probably wouldn't.

Lanza used 30 round mags, but throughout the massacre he kept doing "tactical reloads"...meaning that instead of waiting until a mag was empty to replace it, he would drop a partially depeted mag out and pop in a full one during a pause in the shooting. According to the reports I have read, all of the magazines that the police found on the scene still had rounds left in them. Had Lanza been equipped with 10 rounders instead of 30's, he may have had to reload a couple of extra times, but not six. I also find it highly unlikely that 11 children were able to escape from the classroom during the time that he was reloading; even a novice shooter can drop and replace a magazine in less than 5 seconds with practice, especially if they have done the "jungle mag" trick of duct-taping a pair of magazines to one another.

Here's another fact to consider. According to reports, Lanza spent the last two years planning, fantasizing and preparing for the massacre. Two years. Even if it had been illegal to possess 30 round magazines, is it realistic to think that (a) he would have felt any obligation to obey that law prior to committing a mass murder, or (b) that he would not have simply modified his 10 round mags into higher capacity ones (easy to do with basic hand tools) had the 30 rounders been somehow impossible for him to obtain during that time frame?

One last question; why do the same people who justify banning hi-caps on the basis that potential victims might escape while the lunatic reloads his gun get their panties all up in a knot when you suggest to them that it might be better if an armed civlian just shot the lunatic while he was reloading his gun?

Your math is faulty. This is the person we were dealing with:
ap_adam_lanza_ll_121217_wg.jpg

The boys entire family knew he was unstable, yet his mother kept numerous weapons in the house, that he was able to get his hands on.

As to your last point, I would just as soon ban all firearms than rely on armed civilians to protect me. I've seen the way people drive, I sure don't want them 'protecting' me with their guns.
I don't fear my government, which seems to be an underlying theme of the pro-gun crowd.
 
Top