BoatBanter.com - Scarborough gets it right

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:08:41 -0500, Earl wrote:

GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:29:40 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"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.

I agree. I see no need for AR-15s or the like in the marketplace. My point is that outlawing them
would have little effect on a determined killer, who could use a 'hunting rifle', like the ones I
showed you, with 10-round magazines (or 30 if they're not outlawed) and accomplish the same thing.

But, I'm all for outlawing assault weapons, and magazines which hold more than 10 rounds.

I just don't think it would make much difference to a killer.
If you feel that way then why support a ban? The AR15 is a useful
weapon for hunting and recreational shooting and the Colts are a
military collectors piece. Many will say that my Ruger 10/22 is a
deadlier weapon than a higher-powered rifle like the .223. Evidently the
.22LR will not simply pass through the point of entry like a larger
caliber, it will do more damage to more organs.

Only to make happy those in violent opposition to them.

There are a whole lot of weapons I'd rather have for hunting than an AR15, but much of that is
individual preference. I like the Ruger Hawkeye:
http://www.gunsmagazine.com/~gunsma5...12/06/SE02.jpg

But, I haven't done any hunting in years and have no need for a hunting rifle of any kind. If I
lived where I could pick up the rifle and start hunting out the back door. like on my grandfrather's
farm, then I'd be more inclined to get a nice hunting rifle.