You can tell the new ones.

They are sweaty and cant stop talking about it!

I hope that people who make the decision to purchase a gun store it safely," McGinness said. "And make it damned difficult for someone to steal it."

They come in all sizes and shapes but I'll bet a good description of the majority would be:
white
male
bottom 30th percentile in education and wage earning
confused about a changiing America were qualifications are becoming more important than race in determing ones place in society

30 round magazines, who cares? Three 10 rounders are just as deadly as one 30 rounder.

No Ron.

If a shooter has to perform three times as many mag changes, that gives an un-armed potential victim three times more chances to rush the shooter, and dis-arm him during one of his mag changes.

Arming folks won't work, because armed potential victims are much more likely to shoot themselves, of a member of their own family.

Get it?

Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you're likely to hear this hard boiled response: "They steal them." But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception. An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars...

Check this our Fear, what do you think?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/01/unreal-bofa-freezes-gun-manufacturers-deposits-saying-we-believe-you-should-not-be-selling-guns-on-the-internet/

for the millions wacked out on illegal drugs and those taking daily doses of doctor prescribed selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors
(SSRI anti-depression pills) rational thinking aint an option.

for the millions wacked out on illegal drugs and those taking daily doses of doctor prescribed selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors
(SSRI anti-depression pills) rational thinking aint an option.

I cannot disagree with your comment about SSRI's strongly enough. Seven years ago I was diagnosed with an endogenous depression. At the time I was completely incapacitated. A prescription for Effexor restored my life. I cannot overstate the need for those suffering from depression to seek medical attention particularly if, like me, there was no apparent external cause.

While I seriously doubt that medication is a good solution for short-term exogenous depressive episodes, some of us really did have our brain chemistry seriously out-of-whack. While I know Effexor does not work for everyone, it has done wonders for me.

Blaming Big Pharma for horrendous crimes perpetrated by unbalanced individuals strikes me as grossly unfair, but implying that SSRI's enhance mental instability is flat-out wrong, at least if the patient has a good neurologist, or other qualified physician, overseeing the regimen, and other necessary professional assistance (e.g. a therapist) in the loop as well.

While I doubt anything short of better firearms security would have stopped the Sandy Hook tragedy, I'm concerned that those who want to pin the blame on pharmaceutical manufacturers will deter people who would greatly benefit from treatment from seeking competent professional help.

John

One figure I've read points to the average human being capable of covering around 75 feet in 3 seconds. I don't know how big those classrooms were, but that would seem sufficient to mount a charge in close quarters.

You're saying a group of 6 year olds and a couple of teachers should have charged a gunmen who randomly came into their room and started slaughtering them.

One figure I've read points to the average human being capable of covering around 75 feet in 3 seconds. I don't know how big those classrooms were, but that would seem sufficient to mount a charge in close quarters. Not that I think charging shooters is a realistic strategy, but denying that high capacity rounds make killing more efficient is pretty weak argumentation.

"The average human running speed is 17 mph. This translates to 24.93 feet per second, or 149.58 in 6 seconds."

http://www.chacha.com/question/how-many-feet-can-an-average-person-run-in-6-seconds

Yes agreed Jeebus, but that wont slow down the crazies. that is my point.

Extra time to charge (in the right situation) or to find egress would change a thing. You just aren't honest, but I don't expect that from you.

A determined goblin armed with an axe could accomplish the same thing, as long as he was up against women and kids in a gun free zone.

how well trained are all these amateur psychopaths to handle every situation?

That was proven UNTRUE by the attack in China the same day, where EVERY KID LIVED

Tune in to CNN-Piers Morgan, tonite (Monday, 7th) for a whole lot of gun talk pros and cons.

Hi-cap mags are more likely to jam.

A manager loses a loved one to a drunk driver and so sabotages the account of a brewery?

...several people intentionally set out to kill dozens of innocent people while drunk driving.

Well I suppose you could argue the meaning of "intentional." But if a person gets drunk in a situation where they plan to drive home, what's not premeditated about that?

But if a person gets drunk in a situation where they plan to drive home, what's not premeditated about that?

Nobody said it wasn't premeditated. The word was intentionally.

A drunk driver does not intend specifically to kill people

consideration or planning of an act beforehand that shows intent to commit that act

DUI checkpoints really do any good? Comon Christ... you know better.

You fear guns because you're taught to fear guns.

Address the root of the issues. Why are people drinking too much and driving? Why are previously non-psychotic people going insane and killing themselves and random folks? Therein those questions lie the keys to real, workable solutions.

He was 20 years old and NOT legally allowed to be in possession of a hand gun. He stole them from him mother after he murdered her.

Your "assault weapon" ban would have had no effect.

Tell me, why would the UK have 3.5 times MORE violent crime than the US, but have 4 time LESS murders? Hint... think about the tools they have access to.

I say it again, at this very moment a jihadist sleeper cell could be legally stocking up on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, training in public ranges, committing no detectable crime up until the moment they open fire on a football stadium, political rally or rock concert. If you think nineteen determined terrorists couldn't kill another 3000 people on US soil, think again. Maybe then, the absurdity of current laws would be apparent.

..."when a totalitarian regime takes control of a society, as is currently happening, the first people they shoot are anyone that they know owns a gun. The current run on guns is a great way to get tabs on who likes to own guns, as it refreshes their tattered old databases. That's the only reason a government wants to register all the guns, so they can confiscate or kill all the gun owners. All the rest is just political posturing by a budding totalitarian government."

Again, if an organized "jihadist sleeper cell" were truly intent on killing Americans, they will. The means is a footnote. Surely you can understand 3,000 people were killed with boxcutters and planes when plenty of "more scary" guns were available. And it was a simple plan to boot.

Laws will not protect us from true evil intent. Understanding WHY "jihadist sleeper cells" are here wanting to kill innocents and dealing with that is the only solution. Sad Americans shuffling shoe-less past TSA agents is just silly. MAYBE we should stop bombing the crap out of different colored people overseas?

Trying to compare violence in Ireland or England to the US is equally absurd. I'm not sure if England has a "Camden, NJ" but we do... and multiply that by 50 or so. Check out Detroit too. Lovely this time of year. You'd have a better chance in Peru.

Again, if an organized "jihadist sleeper cell" were truly intent on killing Americans, they will. The means is a footnote.

Laws will not protect us from true evil intent.

"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the Federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788

THEN WHY THE FUK DO I HAVE TO TAKE MY SHOES OFF AT THE FUKING AIRPORT!

"[Tyranny cannot be safe] without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace."
James Madison, In his autobiography

Laws don't protect us. We protect each other through choices we make.

the US Army, Marines, Air force, CIA Drones.....700 billion dollars a year we spend

and somebody really really believes they can "defend against" this kind of force?

Laws provide a framework for those who CHOOSE to follow them.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin"

Laws will never affect #1 (Wanton acts of malice/destruction. Terrorism, mass killings, etc.) in a free society.

laws that restrict access to the tools of violence are clearly effective

"... of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trial by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms.... If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny."
James Monroe (1758-1831), 5th US President

Arizona’s 3TV reports that Arpaio’s volunteer force is comprised of around 3,000 members, some of which have criminal pasts.

According to CBS5, Arpaio’s office has provided a list of more than 50 schools in unincorporated Maricopa County that will be patrolled by the posses, which are in charge of providing all of their own weapons and equipment. The volunteers will not actually be posted on school campuses, but will instead monitor the areas around the facilities.[...]

Yeah, Ron. That's what I want. Volunteers running around with guns in schools.

Claiming Connecticut had tough gun laws is lame.

The Bushmaster was not legal in Lanza's hands.

Tons of studies indicate such

"... of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trial by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms.... If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny."
James Monroe (1758-1831), 5th US President

His mother paid for her failure to store her guns properly with her life, so increasing the legal penalty for improper firearm storage would have been pointless in her case.

That's why I suggested that tort liability might be a better avenue. It won't help in the Lanza case, but if the gun owner isn't a shooting victim, and ends up at the wrong end of a tort judgment, it might cause others to be a little more careful.

People have tried to sue gun manufacturers but have been unsuccessful.

'Stand Your Ground' Linked To Increase In Homicides

In 2005, Florida became the first of nearly two-dozen states to pass a "stand your ground" law that removed the requirement to retreat. If you felt at risk of harm in a park or on the street, you could use lethal force to defend yourself. The shooting of unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla., drew national attention to these laws.

Now, researchers who've studied the effect of the laws have found that states with a stand your ground law have more homicides than states without such laws.

"These laws lower the cost of using lethal force," says Mark Hoekstra, an economist with Texas A&M University who examined stand your ground laws. "Our study finds that, as a result, you get more of it."

The law didn't really change (as far as I know), but public perceptions of smoking did.

I could see the same thing happening with guns, although there's a big difference in that plenty of people are still in favor of guns, and their support may be growing. It's becoming more of polarizing issue, where's smoking's popularity / social acceptance just sank.

Jan 8, 2013 - 03:22pm PT

John, is there anything in current US law (California, anyway) that would prevent a victim from suing a gun user/owner for negligence, illegal acquisition, ownership, use or the like? Or is such litigation simply based on wrongful death/injury law, or often not worth pursuing due to a judgment-proof defendant? Are there many cases, and if not, why not? Do the victims tend instead to go after deep-pocketed defendants with arguable if often minor responsibility?

Locker, get the facts straight. ;)
He used 4 handguns, not an assault rifle.

The primary weapon used in the attack was a "Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon," said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance.

In the school shooting, police say Lanza's rifle used numerous 30-round magazines.

Why can nobody in agreement with the second amendment for one second believe that maybe it's not the guns that's killing people, but people who should and need to seek mental health?

Look at history! Really. Governments that take guns from the people, turn into police states.

I see enough media showing it is.

Look at the proposals, really. Who is talking about TAKING GUNS FROM PEOPLE?

You mean like Connecticut's gun laws? I think a better way to state it would be that laws that have the effect of limiting access to the tools of violence reduce violence. The quoted statement has two problems that I see:

1. It doesn't differentiate between laws intended to reduce access and laws that actually do so; and

2. It doesn't tell me what it means by "effective."

AGAIN: please explain how all the guns in your possession are going to defend against a CIA drone, the US Marines, an Apache Attack Helicopter, or any other damn thing the US government want to use against anyone, including its own citizens?


How can you be so naive as to think you or anyone else at Ruby Ridge can "defend"?

if our government wants YOU dead, you won't hear or see it coming, get it yet?

You know, crazy totalitarian laws like making dealers keep better records, checking that people that buy guns aren't already criminals, requiring people to lock up their guns, and telling the police if they've been stolen.

Heck, a PSA with pictures of bleeding children, begging owners to lock up their guns would have some small effect, couldn't hurt.

They put up a hell of a defense.

there were initial reports from irresponsible reporters desperate to get the scoop

crazy totalitarian laws like making dealers keep better records, checking that people that buy guns aren't already criminals, requiring people to lock up their guns, and telling the police if they've been stolen.

The fact is, Adam Lanza used a handgun to take his own life, but he relied on the Bushmaster AR-15 to kill most of the victims. He did use that gun.

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

...and move to Communism or Fascism or whatever.

The 1938 German Weapons Act

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:

Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."[4]
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]
The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]
The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[5]
Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[6]

Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.[7]
Current laws

After 1945, the Allied Forces commanded the complete disarming of Germany. Even German police officers were initially not allowed to carry firearms. Private ownership of firearms was not allowed until after 1956.

I ask you again... does the gun in your second video look like an assault rifle to you?