• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

School shooting this morning . . .

ChrisL said:
This country was BUILT on bullets, to ad lib a line from a movie.

Funny thing how most mass shootings occur in gun free zones. It's quite obvious that those areas are intentionally sought out by mass shooters because they KNOW people will be unarmed and unable to defend themselves against the rampage.
Click to expand...

Canada is handgun free zone and that's why we statistically have a lot more shootings than does any region in the US. Oh, wait.......
 
upsideguy said:
...which confirms the postulate.... 25-50 deaths per year from public shootings are acceptable collateral casualties of unfettered gun rights.
Click to expand...
Thats just comical beyond words. You offer this completely moronic concept that "if there were a magical law, would you support it" and when people recognize your completely moronic pose for what it is, you retort "hah...you want to kill 25-50 poor babies".

Lets look at the laws that WERE proposed following that incident and other shootings. Increased background check laws. Ummm...already in place. Did nothing. Gun registration. Check...Connecticut requires gun registration...did nothing. Magazine capacity bans. OK...as proven in VA Tech, Aurora, and even Sandy Hook...mag cap bans do absolutely nothing. Dood had 10 minutes unfettered. He loaded and reloaded numerous times and still had full magazines. Cho in VA Tech did the same. The expanded mag in Aurora jammed and Holmes proceeded to shoot scores of people using a handgun and shotgun which he had to load and reload. Mag cap bans...useless. A ban on 'assault rifles'. Again...VA Tech proves its worthless. Arizona, Colorado, even Sandy Hook where the shooter had handguns and a shotgun...AR bans are worthless. The commissioner of the NYPD stated clearly that only 3 of 1300 rounds fired in all of New York could be attributed to a rifle of ANY kind. The vast majority of school shooters do not use ARs. Again...a worthless proposed law.

Face it...all you offer is fairy tales and bad laws, but then...you dont care if it is realistic...all you care about is finding a way to pass a law...any law...even a 'magic' law.
 
CRUE CAB said:
I think you are making alot of assumptions.
Click to expand...

Any time someone voices an opinion, there are assumptions. Duh. It's not like there is a study being done that polls parents across a 3.1 million square mile country to see if they feel their kids will be stressed by paramilitary in every school. I have six kids and know a lot of other parents. I do not think it's unreasonable to suspect a fairly substantial amount of parents will not be cool with National Guardsmen in their schools armed with M4 rifles and M11 sidearms.
 
Snappo said:
Any time someone voices an opinion, there are assumptions. Duh. It's not like there is a study being done that polls parents across a 3.1 million square mile country to see if they feel their kids will be stressed by paramilitary in every school. I have six kids and know a lot of other parents. I do not think it's unreasonable to suspect a fairly substantial amount of parents will not be cool with National Guardsmen in their schools armed with M4 rifles and M11 sidearms.
Click to expand...
Then leave your little ones as fish in a barrell for the next crazy person. I wonder how stressed the Newtown kids looking down the barrell of a gun?
 
CRUE CAB said:
By reading what you have posted here, I feel you have issue with regular citizens owning certain firearms and magazines. That to me is anti gun.
All I said was a duty officer now a days may carry as much as 52 rounds plus back up, and that an average citizen should have the same level of protection if he so chooses. You are the one that went off the deep end from there about taking over DC repelling invasions machine guns and all the other extremes.
Click to expand...

You are misreading. I have always said I prefer to own anything I want, and it is a personal choice that I do not carry even though I have my CCW and an FFL. I merely am saying that these gun grabbing DNC nuts are probably being Constitutional when they banned my high cap mags in NY and banned them in Colorado. I never said I loved the idea, or even thought it would lower these wholesale killings going on in USA.

To be EXTREMELY clear - the reason we are allowed to own guns Constitutionally is because of Article 1 Section 8, the 2nd Amendment, and the Militia Act. And anyone that does their homework knows why those provisions are in place. They were put in place for an unarmed militia to muster whenever there was the need to repel an invasion or insurrection (like the Whiskey Rebellion, which I told you about earlier). They are a copy of the rights that the British had as early as the 1600's; though the British clearly said the weapons rights were also for self defense. So if we are allowed high-cap mags; the question is merely "do citizens need the firepower that the military and police have?". The short answer is "I am not sure" and it seems that even Constitutional scholars and JD's seem to not agree on the topic.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Then leave your little ones as fish in a barrell for the next crazy person. I wonder how stressed the Newtown kids looking down the barrell of a gun?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's getting obvious that American school children aren't safe in their schools and so armed guards in the schools will probably become quite necessary.

It would seem once again that's what the teabaggers really want, and they want to pay the taxes for those armed guards too!

No wonder decent people consider the teabaggers as having a dishonest agenda of paying less in taxes when in reality they are mostly all about racist hate for Obama. That's what really makes them tick!

As if school children wouldn't be negatively affected by having to see gungoons armed to the teeth in their schools! What are Americans thinking anyway? Is there no embarrassment that goes along needing to have armed guards in schools to protect little children from goons with guns?
 
TurtleDude said:
you know that is great you can do it. I was a pro level Pin and USPSA shooter. I shot at USPSA nationals, major pin tournaments etc. I have 3000 dollar race guns (Currently shooting a CZ Chechmate-back in the 90s I shot for EAA (similar to the pistol Eric Graufel won 5 world IPSC titles with) in open and a Fred Craig Para 1911 in limited. Before that, a Wilson LE Accu-Comp. And yes people have pictures of me shooting where the empty magazine has yet to hit the ground nor the last shells from that magazine while I am firing with the new magazine. But I trained all the time which is why i had national class times in speed events. And guess what, I shoot in a league ever week and I watch GM level shooters miss a reload, fumble a mag and I realize if people who train all the time and shoot on the clock 40-50 times a year miss reloads merely when trying to shoot at a bunch of steel plates, then the chance of an average to good shooter blowing a reload in the middle of the night when its dark and someone is trying to shoot them and they don't have a gun with a huge magwell as My IPSC or steel guns do is far more likely than what I see in competition

I love 1911s. Made Class A back when that was the top rating. Set the Ohio pin records which have never been broken with a Gold Cup I built up into an unlimited pin gun. I am 54 and have been shooting one since I was ten when I inherited my grandfather's 1911 he carried in France in 1917-1918. But for the average person, a 17 shot glock is a better choice for most people which is why almost every police department including the USMS and FBI use them or the similar SW MP

Free choice-you choose what you want, me I choose what I want etc. And I won't tell you you have made a wrong choice since you know your own limitations and skills better than I do. BUt I sure tire of people who have no clue about this subject and admit they don't "need" a gun telling people like me what we "need" or don't "need"
Click to expand...

I would never tell someone they need something or don't need something else; but I merely take the position that Legislators have a right to restrict weapon types if the SCOTUS says it's Constitutional. Of course that is a big "IF". SCOTUS needs to weigh in quickly on what happened to me in NY and to my friends in Colorado. I personally feel it was middle-of-the-night legislative bullsh1t and have told my senators so; but I think SCOTUS needs to decide. And as an American, I will abide by whatever SCOTUS says. BTW - I have a 1911 Delta Elite National Match Gold Cup that I had accurized back at the Colt plant in Hartford (they have a building off to the side that is the Colt Custom Gun Building and they will accurize your piece for you). I wanted to get involved in IPSC. Just couldn't find anyone that wanted to do it with me and I didn't think it would be fun doing it alone.
 
TurtleDude said:
average means nothing. What matters is what is a possibility. The incident I cited in April 2013, Fayettville NC involved one homeowner, four home invaders. He was wounded, he killed two, drove the others off. The news story do not report the number of rounds but if he had a hit probability of 50%-which is pretty high that would have required 8 rounds. You seem to denigrate what your rights should be. Cops are worse shots than your average police officers. MOST POLICE OFFICERS are not assigned to tasks that make them any more likely to engage in firefights than other civilians.

You are buying into the nonsense that Boo and others spew. Part of my duties as an attorney for much of my career was dealing with police shootings. Nothing I have seen justifies claims that cops need more rounds than homeowners or business owners in light of the fact that other civilians ALMOST NEVER choose when a firefight hapens. YOur postings indicate to me someone who thinks having an FFL makes you somehow qualified to tell others what they need. I reject that and having represented Class III makers, major league retailers of weapons, LE agencies and a major NRA organization I have seen just about every bit of evidence useful in this discussion.
Click to expand...

I buy into the concept of a legislative branch and a judicial branch. If Legislators create restrictions and then the SCOTUS says it's Constitutional, I abide by the restrictions. Having an FFL means I am qualified to know what is presently legal to own in USA. Having common sense means I am personally qualified to have an opinion on what firepower I feel I need to repel a home invasion. And being a 3POX1 with quite a bit of weapons training and serving in a war qualifies me to have an opinion on how to return fire. But if you believe that the legislative and judicial system do not properly work with regard to the Second Amendment; I am all ears and would like to understand why you feel my rights are being violated by present day gun laws.
 
Snappo said:
You are misreading. I have always said I prefer to own anything I want, and it is a personal choice that I do not carry even though I have my CCW and an FFL. I merely am saying that these gun grabbing DNC nuts are probably being Constitutional when they banned my high cap mags in NY and banned them in Colorado. I never said I loved the idea, or even thought it would lower these wholesale killings going on in USA.

To be EXTREMELY clear - the reason we are allowed to own guns Constitutionally is because of Article 1 Section 8, the 2nd Amendment, and the Militia Act. And anyone that does their homework knows why those provisions are in place. They were put in place for an unarmed militia to muster whenever there was the need to repel an invasion or insurrection (like the Whiskey Rebellion, which I told you about earlier). They are a copy of the rights that the British had as early as the 1600's; though the British clearly said the weapons rights were also for self defense. So if we are allowed high-cap mags; the question is merely "do citizens need the firepower that the military and police have?". The short answer is "I am not sure" and it seems that even Constitutional scholars and JD's seem to not agree on the topic.
Click to expand...
I pointed out that many officers today carry many more rounds than in the past.
I dont feel it should be mandated that legal citizens should not have the same. That was my only statement. I felt that way as a sworn officer, I feel that way now and my police officer father felt the same way.
Are there officers at the other end of that spectrum? Yes, alot of them. I know cops that relish taking every gun not belonging to another officer.
I also know military that would jump at the chance to turn their weapons on our citizenry. Fortunatly those are in the minority.
 
TurtleDude said:
and you continue to pretend that there are no situations where people need more. You ignored the April 2013 incident I discussed and cited where a homeowner engaged in an extended gun fight with FOUR perps The homeowner was injured, two perps killed, the others repelled. you think that was a case where 7 shots would have been always sufficient? get back to me when you actually have trained with a pistol in such scenarios
Click to expand...

I know how things lay out in my house and I believe that while finding positions that target the enemy and protect me from direct lines of fire; that I could reload. If the firefight is at night I do prefer my XD. Not because of the 10 round magazines; but because I have TFO sights. In the daytime, I feel my 1911 is more accurate. I own a personal range at both of my homes and shoot at least every other day (I have a 300 acre farm in NY and a 66 acre farm in GA). My 25 meter 3 round groupings are tightest with my Kimber 1911, followed by my XD in 357 SIG. My worst groupings are probably my CZ52 or P38; and I cannot imagine those being my go-to life saving weapon in WW 2.
 
Snappo said:
I buy into the concept of a legislative branch and a judicial branch. If Legislators create restrictions and then the SCOTUS says it's Constitutional, I abide by the restrictions. Having an FFL means I am qualified to know what is presently legal to own in USA. Having common sense means I am personally qualified to have an opinion on what firepower I feel I need to repel a home invasion. And being a 3POX1 with quite a bit of weapons training and serving in a war qualifies me to have an opinion on how to return fire. But if you believe that the legislative and judicial system do not properly work with regard to the Second Amendment; I am all ears and would like to understand why you feel my rights are being violated by present day gun laws.
Click to expand...

In essence you are denying yourself rights as you feel the need to protect your home with a firearm. You are at the very least denying yourself peace of mind and the right to not have to be consumed with the need to protect yourself with a firearm or several firearms. One in every room as well as one under your pillow, one behind the toilet, one in your car, one in your belt as you walk the street.

Do you remember the days when you didn't have to worry about 'outgunning' somebody or having more rounds than that imaginary boogeyman you need to be able to shoot down before he shoots you?

If not then ask me and I'll tell you all about having the 'right' to not live in fear in Canada.
 
CRUE CAB said:
I also know military that would jump at the chance to turn their weapons on our citizenry. Fortunatly those are in the minority.
Click to expand...

I am out of the 176th in Syracuse. Before that I was at Dobbins for 11 years. I have never met anyone who would want to go head-to-head with their fellow citizens during an insurrection. We don't even train for that situation. We focus on search and rescue operations, and on high flight missions assisting homeland security with drug interdiction (drug dealers try and fly in with no flight plan and under 1K AGL). I have lots of weapons. As I said typically around 200. 100 of them are not for sale and are my personal permanent collection. I am very pro gun and feel every American should at least consider their obligation towards their own personal protection. I do however feel it's reasonable for the Senate and Supreme Court to weigh in on what is reasonable firepower for homeowners. At any rate - I have to take a buddy over to the VA. If you think I am off with my view of things you can say so and I will respond later. I suspect we just got off on the wrong foot and have a lot of the same views on weapons ownership.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Should have stopped right there.
Click to expand...

It would have been dishonest of me to not go on to talk about it and make light of it. The fact is, the ugliness of your country's gungoon mentality has dictated to Americans that they 'will' need armed protection for their children. It's almost like they want to pay more taxes to prove a point?

So why not arm all the children and that would save a lot of money that would be spent on armed guards?

LOL Pathetic!
 
Michael66 said:
In essence you are denying yourself rights as you feel the need to protect your home with a firearm. You are at the very least denying yourself peace of mind and the right to not have to be consumed with the need to protect yourself with a firearm or several firearms. One in every room as well as one under your pillow, one behind the toilet, one in your car, one in your belt as you walk the street.

Do you remember the days when you didn't have to worry about 'outgunning' somebody or having more rounds than that imaginary boogeyman you need to be able to shoot down before he shoots you?

If not then ask me and I'll tell you all about having the 'right' to not live in fear in Canada.
Click to expand...

I have access to firearms in every room of my house. Literally. I live somewhere with a lower quantity of boogymen. That's common sense to do that if you can afford to. Canadians have some weapons I cannot have and I am actually jealous of that. They shoot beautiful M14 Norinco's and M1 Garand Norinco's at a quarter of the price of my Springfield Armory Super Match and National Match rifles; and for some reason Uncle Sam refuses to let us do business with Norinco. Here are my Scout and Super Match. I could own 10 Norinco's for the same price. ;-(

i-DKpTrhQ-M.jpg
 
Snappo said:
I have access to firearms in every room of my house. Literally. I live somewhere with a lower quantity of boogymen. That's common sense to do that if you can afford to. Canadians have some weapons I cannot have and I am actually jealous of that. They shoot beautiful M14 Norinco's and M1 Garand Norinco's at a quarter of the price of my Springfield Armory Super Match and National Match rifles; and for some reason Uncle Sam refuses to let us do business with Norinco. Here are my Scout and Super Match. I could own 10 Norinco's for the same price. ;-(

i-DKpTrhQ-M.jpg
Click to expand...

Go buy yourself a $3 special off the street and you will have a weapon that's more suitable for protecting yourself than a target rifle. One for every room, one for under your pillow, one for your nose even if you think you will be safer.

And of course you have all those guns loaded and not in a locked safe? I hope you don't have children or have other people's children in your house. If you do then I feel that I should be reporting you to the proper authorities before there's an accident that is going to be attitude adjusting.
 
Snappo said:
I am out of the 176th in Syracuse. Before that I was at Dobbins for 11 years. I have never met anyone who would want to go head-to-head with their fellow citizens during an insurrection. We don't even train for that situation. We focus on search and rescue operations, and on high flight missions assisting homeland security with drug interdiction (drug dealers try and fly in with no flight plan and under 1K AGL). I have lots of weapons. As I said typically around 200. 100 of them are not for sale and are my personal permanent collection. I am very pro gun and feel every American should at least consider their obligation towards their own personal protection. I do however feel it's reasonable for the Senate and Supreme Court to weigh in on what is reasonable firepower for homeowners. At any rate - I have to take a buddy over to the VA. If you think I am off with my view of things you can say so and I will respond later. I suspect we just got off on the wrong foot and have a lot of the same views on weapons ownership.
Click to expand...
Not an insurrection just a sweep to take guns, and lives if they encountered resistance.
And I have known a Colonel that did run training for that type of scenario. Most of the training was out of Patrick AFB and done in Germany. He gave me alot of insight about a few things when it comes to marital law and our circumventing of the constitution. Even he was afraid of it.
And who is to say what is "reasonalble"? I know people that proclaim to be pro gun that are fine with us owning nothing more than a double barrell shotty and no hand guns at all.
I personally am fine with everything within the realm of hand guns and rifles and some restrictions on full auto. Mostly that they are stored in such a manner to not fall in the wrong hands.
Seriously, how many crimes are commited with ARs, AKs, M4s and such? Very very few. But they get the headlines when it happens.
 
Last edited:
Michael66 said:
Go buy yourself a $3 special off the street and you will have a weapon that's more suitable for protecting yourself than a target rifle. One for every room, one for under your pillow, one for your nose even if you think you will be safer.

And of course you have all those guns loaded and not in a locked safe? I hope you don't have children or have other people's children in your house. If you do then I feel that I should be reporting you to the proper authorities before there's an accident that is going to be attitude adjusting.
Click to expand...
Just stop.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Just keep going round and round. You are not making an arguement just repeating your wrong headed idea.
Click to expand...

All I want is a simple answer. Support that he can't defend himself with only 7 rounds. Anything other than that, I'm not too interested in.
 
Boo Radley said:
All I want is a simple answer. Support that he can't defend himself with only 7 rounds. Anything other than that, I'm not too interested in.
Click to expand...
How about the other thread about some serious power outage. You may be the only one in your neighborhood that is armed and you may have to defend against more than one crack head looking to steal your TV.
You may have to defend against other well armed people with ill intent. You never KNOW.
 
Snappo said:
I know how things lay out in my house and I believe that while finding positions that target the enemy and protect me from direct lines of fire; that I could reload. If the firefight is at night I do prefer my XD. Not because of the 10 round magazines; but because I have TFO sights. In the daytime, I feel my 1911 is more accurate. I own a personal range at both of my homes and shoot at least every other day (I have a 300 acre farm in NY and a 66 acre farm in GA). My 25 meter 3 round groupings are tightest with my Kimber 1911, followed by my XD in 357 SIG. My worst groupings are probably my CZ52 or P38; and I cannot imagine those being my go-to life saving weapon in WW 2.
Click to expand...


If you like guns chances are that NY farm is going to be used maybe only for shotgun hunting deer. 1911's tend to be more accurate for sure. I have two RRA limited match (try finding those now) 1911s' and those are my most accurate pistols other than a pair of SW 41 target rim fires
 
Boo Radley said:
All I want is a simple answer. Support that he can't defend himself with only 7 rounds. Anything other than that, I'm not too interested in.
Click to expand...

your silly lies get tiring. I have consistently said that since I have NO IDEA what at the next criminal attack may bring I don't want to be limited to 7 rounds.
 
Michael66 said:
Go buy yourself a $3 special off the street and you will have a weapon that's more suitable for protecting yourself than a target rifle. One for every room, one for under your pillow, one for your nose even if you think you will be safer.

And of course you have all those guns loaded and not in a locked safe? I hope you don't have children or have other people's children in your house. If you do then I feel that I should be reporting you to the proper authorities before there's an accident that is going to be attitude adjusting.
Click to expand...

why does someone who is obviously terrified by guns and hates gun owners pretend to be in a position to lecture someone who obviously has a far greater understanding of gun issues than he does.
 
CRUE CAB said:
How about the other thread about some serious power outage. You may be the only one in your neighborhood that is armed and you may have to defend against more than one crack head looking to steal your TV.
You may have to defend against other well armed people with ill intent. You never KNOW.
Click to expand...


Where do you live? Power outages have never led to any serious trouble in my life.

But ok, say it did. His many will walk into one bullet let alone seven.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom