Scarborough gets it right
 

In article , says...

On 12/18/2012 4:02 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:56:43 -0500, JustWait
wrote:



So what do you all think of 30 clips?

I bet you $1000 the guy did not have a single "clip".

There were no M-1s mentioned and I doubt seriously he had the charging
adapter to load a magazine from a stripper clip.


Forgetting that I support "your" right to bear arms... you sound like
the guys on the groups that can only answer the question as to why they
need them, the only answer they wrote up was "because we can"... It's a
dodge for them, is this a dodge for you?

Ok... then for those of us not in the cool group:) What do you all think
of a weapon that can hold and fire up to 30 rounds in succession without
anything but pulling the trigger?

I think they should be banned for use by ordinary citizens.

Scarborough gets it right
 

In article , says...

On 12/18/2012 4:50 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:32:08 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/18/2012 4:02 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:56:43 -0500, JustWait
wrote:



So what do you all think of 30 clips?

I bet you $1000 the guy did not have a single "clip".

There were no M-1s mentioned and I doubt seriously he had the charging
adapter to load a magazine from a stripper clip.


Forgetting that I support "your" right to bear arms... you sound like
the guys on the groups that can only answer the question as to why they
need them, the only answer they wrote up was "because we can"... It's a
dodge for them, is this a dodge for you?

Ok... then for those of us not in the cool group:) What do you all think
of a weapon that can hold and fire up to 30 rounds in succession without
anything but pulling the trigger?



Just making the point that a magazine is not a clip.



So why does anybody need 30 in a clip outside PoPo, or Military?

They don't.

Scarborough gets it right
 

In article , earl8471
@hotmail.com says...

ESAD wrote:
On 12/18/12 12:01 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 06:47:07 -0500, ESAD wrote:

Perhaps the police have found or will find some clues that shine light
on the shooter's mental state. Maybe not. The problem with guessing on
these cases where the shooter is dead and there is a lack of concrete
evidence is that it usually points in the wrong direction. I've read
and
heard some reports that "violent video games" may have been involved.
Well, video games don't cause schizophrenia.




We have a culture of violence. We were started in a revolution where
we threw out all of the rules of "civilized warfare", our most bloody
war was amongst ourselves and the rest of the world uses us as their
enforcer/hit man.
You really just have to look to the media to see the model for these
shootings. What passes for news and entertainment (which is only
separated by a blurry line) all you see is mass killing of one kind or
another. The public seems to be drawn to it and the media outlets are
more than happy to oblige.
The biggest news story last year was the cold blooded murder of Osama
Bin Laden. I agree he needed killing but it was still a "hit" worthy
of Al Capone or Pablo Escobar.

We love bomb camera and drone strike videos even when a bunch of kids
are "collateral damage".
.
It is not shocking that a disturbed individual thinks the best way to
be somebody is to kill a lot of people. The more shocking the victims,
the bigger splash you get.


Once again, you are just extending the psychobabble. What evidence do
you have that the Connecticut shooter wanted to "be somebody"?


Check out the West Memphis Three. Pay your taxes first, deadbeat.

I'm sorry, what does the West Memphis Three have to do with the
Connecticut shooter?

Scarborough gets it right
 

On 12/19/2012 9:30 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:08:53 -0500, JustWait wrote:

On 12/18/2012 4:43 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:47:11 -0500, JustWait wrote:

On 12/18/2012 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Califbill" wrote in message
...


Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why
did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

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

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to
acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in terms of
how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine
capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common
recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just
announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits
magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".


How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy, especially if one is taped to the
other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty rounds. Another four or five
seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up to thirty rounds off.

Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks happy. It won't stop a determined
killer in any way.


It will.

Bull****. A few short practice sessions in the bedroom would make it quite easy to change 10 round
magazines quite rapidly.

I have been watching videos of people put into situations where
they think they are drawing on a situation. Some dropped the weapon,
some froze, some got the thing caught in their tee shirt...

Well, there you go. We should go to ten round magazines because anyone using more than one will drop
his weapon, freeze, or get the magazine caught in a tee shirt.

Right.


A couple of the last shootings were stopped dead in their tracks when
the shooter had mechanical problems, or had a bad clip, or jammed the
weapon changing clips... Like I said, 1-10 is for defense. 30 is
either for penis power, or offense...

The jamming of a weapon may or may not be due to the clip. You've said nothing here that shows a ten
round clip to be less usable for killing than a 30 round clip - penis power or not.


So, why do you need 30... another dodge?

You don't, unless you're fighting off an attack of Taliban folks armed with AK's.

I never espoused the 30-round magazine. Outlaw them. I don't care.

My point is that three 10-round clips can do the same amount of damage in about 7-10 additional
seconds - at most.


WTF are you guys getting so hot about this question? It's just a
question? I am sensing a lot of penis guns here in this group, more
than I originally thought..

Scarborough gets it right
 

On 12/19/2012 10:11 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 08:34:29 -0500, JustWait
wrote:


So, how about you try it since Greg won't answer the question... and
remember, I support the second. But I am starting to wonder why you need
a 30 round clip?

Since when do we base what we can buy by what we need. Nobody NEEDS a
motorcycle.



Sure you do, if you are gonna' race Motocross... What do you use a 30
round clip for?

Scarborough gets it right
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:33:55 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 12/18/12 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Califbill" wrote in message
...


Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why
did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

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

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to
acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in terms of
how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine
capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common
recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just
announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits
magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".


How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy, especially if one is taped to the
other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty rounds. Another four or five
seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up to thirty rounds off.

Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks happy. It won't stop a determined
killer in any way.


So, when will we see the aftermath of your multi-magazine rampage? Are
you going over to Springfield Mall to kill a bunch of Latinos?

ESAD,
I'm not the one with the anger, honesty, narcissism, and tax evasion issues, the rampaging type.
Maybe you know one who is?

There are very few Mexicans in Springfield Mall.

Where did Harry mention Mexicans?

Scarborough gets it right
 

In article , says...

On 12/19/2012 9:30 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:08:53 -0500, JustWait wrote:

On 12/18/2012 4:43 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:47:11 -0500, JustWait wrote:

On 12/18/2012 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Califbill" wrote in message
...


Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why
did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

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

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to
acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in terms of
how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine
capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common
recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just
announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits
magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".


How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy, especially if one is taped to the
other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty rounds. Another four or five
seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up to thirty rounds off.

Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks happy. It won't stop a determined
killer in any way.


It will.

Bull****. A few short practice sessions in the bedroom would make it quite easy to change 10 round
magazines quite rapidly.

I have been watching videos of people put into situations where
they think they are drawing on a situation. Some dropped the weapon,
some froze, some got the thing caught in their tee shirt...

Well, there you go. We should go to ten round magazines because anyone using more than one will drop
his weapon, freeze, or get the magazine caught in a tee shirt.

Right.


A couple of the last shootings were stopped dead in their tracks when
the shooter had mechanical problems, or had a bad clip, or jammed the
weapon changing clips... Like I said, 1-10 is for defense. 30 is
either for penis power, or offense...

The jamming of a weapon may or may not be due to the clip. You've said nothing here that shows a ten
round clip to be less usable for killing than a 30 round clip - penis power or not.


So, why do you need 30... another dodge?

You don't, unless you're fighting off an attack of Taliban folks armed with AK's.

I never espoused the 30-round magazine. Outlaw them. I don't care.

My point is that three 10-round clips can do the same amount of damage in about 7-10 additional
seconds - at most.


WTF are you guys getting so hot about this question? It's just a
question? I am sensing a lot of penis guns here in this group, more
than I originally thought..

Agreed.

Scarborough gets it right
 

On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 8:34:29 AM UTC-5, JustWait wrote:
On 12/19/2012 8:00 AM, BAR wrote:

In article ,

says...



"GuzzisRule" wrote in message

...



On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:47:11 -0500, JustWait

wrote:



On 12/18/2012 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch"

wrote:







"Califbill" wrote in message

...





Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First,

why

did a

person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why

target

assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.



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



My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of

one

to kill the children and adults.

He used a pistol to kill himself.



Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on

assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to

acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in

terms of

how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine

capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common

recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just

announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits

magazine rounds to 10.



So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number

in

our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?

There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false

hope

that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many

guns

exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out

mass

murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.



I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on

magazine

capacity that is "acceptable".





How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy,

especially if one is taped to the

other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty

rounds. Another four or five

seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up

to thirty rounds off.



Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks

happy. It won't stop a determined

killer in any way.





It will.



Bull****. A few short practice sessions in the bedroom would make it

quite easy to change 10 round

magazines quite rapidly.



I have been watching videos of people put into situations where

they think they are drawing on a situation. Some dropped the weapon,

some froze, some got the thing caught in their tee shirt...



Well, there you go. We should go to ten round magazines because anyone

using more than one will drop

his weapon, freeze, or get the magazine caught in a tee shirt.



Right.





A couple of the last shootings were stopped dead in their tracks when

the shooter had mechanical problems, or had a bad clip, or jammed the

weapon changing clips... Like I said, 1-10 is for defense. 30 is

either for penis power, or offense...



The jamming of a weapon may or may not be due to the clip. You've said

nothing here that shows a ten

round clip to be less usable for killing than a 30 round clip - penis

power or not.



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



There's no question that killing someone with a single shot derringer

is possible. That's not really the question or issue.

What has to be resolved in order to make any kind of meaningful gun

control reform possible in this country is to define what

the designed purpose of a weapon is. Defensive? Offensive? Yes,

you can still kill with a gun primarily designed as a defensive

weapon. But why make guns primarily designed as "offensive" weapons

generally available to Joe Doe public? Doesn't make any sense.



Is a knife defensive or offensive? Is a sword defensive or offensive? Is

a baseball bat an offensive weapon or a defensive weapon.



The common thread in all of the mass killings is that there is a person
initiating the sequence of events.


So, how about you try it since Greg won't answer the question... and
remember, I support the second. But I am starting to wonder why you need
a 30 round clip?

Same reason someone "needs" a motocross bike. It's not a life necessity, but it can be fun.

Scarborough gets it right
 

On 12/19/2012 9:46 AM, ESAD wrote:

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:47:34 -0500, wrote:

I keep hearing about these closed mental hospitals but most were
actually closed because civil rights and privacy advocates took away
all of the patients. It is very hard to keep someone in a mental
hospital after 72 hours if they want to go.

There is a guy around the corner from me who has been "Baker acted" at
least 30 times in the last 10 years (hauled away by the cops and put
in for observation). Sometimes he goes into rehab for a few weeks on
our dime, he calls it the spa, but most of the time he is home after
a few days.

Even court ordered (non-criminal) commitments can easily be vacated if
the patient files a "show cause" motion and there are lots of "rights"
groups who will file the motion for you.


There are at least three large mental health facilities with forensic
wards in your state of Florida. My wife did her internship at one of
them, a 650-bed facility. At the time she worked there, there were
several hundred persons resident who had been committed for substantial
or even indeterminate terms as a result of serious, violent criminal
activities in which they had engaged.

Your "guy around the corner" sounds like someone who is a drug addict
and who gets out of control but is not judged a threat to others. A
"Baker Act" commitment is for 72 hours, after which a judge determines
if cause can be demonstrated for a longer commitment. If not, as is
usually the case, the individual is released.

Most communities these days simply don't have out-patient treatment
available for the indigent, so they end up hospitalized.



She'd have to be a real bruiser to be assigned that sort of duty.

Scarborough gets it right
 

On 12/19/2012 10:31 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 8:34:29 AM UTC-5, JustWait wrote:
On 12/19/2012 8:00 AM, BAR wrote:

In article ,

says...



"GuzzisRule" wrote in message

...



On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:47:11 -0500, JustWait

wrote:



On 12/18/2012 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch"

wrote:







"Califbill" wrote in message

...





Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First,

why

did a

person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why

target

assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.



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



My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of

one

to kill the children and adults.

He used a pistol to kill himself.



Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on

assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to

acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in

terms of

how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine

capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common

recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just

announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits

magazine rounds to 10.



So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number

in

our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?

There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false

hope

that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many

guns

exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out

mass

murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.



I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on

magazine

capacity that is "acceptable".





How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy,

especially if one is taped to the

other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty

rounds. Another four or five

seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up

to thirty rounds off.



Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks

happy. It won't stop a determined

killer in any way.





It will.



Bull****. A few short practice sessions in the bedroom would make it

quite easy to change 10 round

magazines quite rapidly.



I have been watching videos of people put into situations where

they think they are drawing on a situation. Some dropped the weapon,

some froze, some got the thing caught in their tee shirt...



Well, there you go. We should go to ten round magazines because anyone

using more than one will drop

his weapon, freeze, or get the magazine caught in a tee shirt.



Right.





A couple of the last shootings were stopped dead in their tracks when

the shooter had mechanical problems, or had a bad clip, or jammed the

weapon changing clips... Like I said, 1-10 is for defense. 30 is

either for penis power, or offense...



The jamming of a weapon may or may not be due to the clip. You've said

nothing here that shows a ten

round clip to be less usable for killing than a 30 round clip - penis

power or not.



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



There's no question that killing someone with a single shot derringer

is possible. That's not really the question or issue.

What has to be resolved in order to make any kind of meaningful gun

control reform possible in this country is to define what

the designed purpose of a weapon is. Defensive? Offensive? Yes,

you can still kill with a gun primarily designed as a defensive

weapon. But why make guns primarily designed as "offensive" weapons

generally available to Joe Doe public? Doesn't make any sense.



Is a knife defensive or offensive? Is a sword defensive or offensive? Is

a baseball bat an offensive weapon or a defensive weapon.



The common thread in all of the mass killings is that there is a person
initiating the sequence of events.


So, how about you try it since Greg won't answer the question... and
remember, I support the second. But I am starting to wonder why you need
a 30 round clip?

Same reason someone "needs" a motocross bike. It's not a life necessity, but it can be fun.


Well there you go... What's fun about it compared to a ten clip. I can
see if you have a fully automatic weapon, but a semi. Enlighten me??