"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".

On 12/17/12 3:48 PM, 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".




I have a lot of building trades union buddies, and a goodly number of
these "hunt" deer and other critters. I don't hunt because I don't like
the idea of killing Bambi or Bambi's mother, or any other helpless
animal but, even though I don't think hunting is a sport, I don't
begrudge my buddies their woodsy sport. I've been out stomping around in
the forest and in the fields with my buddies while they hunt, though.

That being said, I can't recall any of them hunting with anything but a
traditional hunting rifle that holds a few rounds or a shotgun that
holds a few rounds. Just one of my buddies has the time and financial
wherewithal to hunt really big game, and the rifle round he prefers for
that is a .375 H&H Magnum, which isn't as big a round as it sounds.
Anyway, it holds a total of four rounds, including one in the chamber.

Many states limit how many rounds you can have in a shotgun to three or
four while hunting.

Obviously, there are reasons why serious or semi-serious hunters aren't
walking in the woods with semi-auto assault style rifle 30-round magazines.

What's the real purpose of these semi-auto assault style rifles? To kill
people, of course, and lots of them. They're not that suitable for hunting.

I don't see any rational reason for rifles in calibers larger than, say,
..22LR, to be able to load up with more than a few rounds. A 22? 10-round
magazine is adequate. Same with a semi-auto pistol. No reason for more
than 10 rounds unless you plan to shoot up a school or a movie theater, eh?

I happen to have a couple of hi-cap mags for my CZ target pistol, but I
don't use them. I use the 10-rounders at the range and in competition.

Oh...what might work? Making personal possession of certain firearms and
certain sized mags after a certain date a violation of federal law, with
serious penalties, and eliminating the gun show loophopes. No firearms
transactions without paperwork and a background check.

That would do for starters.

"ESAD" wrote in message
...

On 12/17/12 3:48 PM, 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".




I have a lot of building trades union buddies, and a goodly number of
these "hunt" deer and other critters. I don't hunt because I don't
like
the idea of killing Bambi or Bambi's mother, or any other helpless
animal but, even though I don't think hunting is a sport, I don't
begrudge my buddies their woodsy sport. I've been out stomping around
in
the forest and in the fields with my buddies while they hunt, though.

That being said, I can't recall any of them hunting with anything but
a
traditional hunting rifle that holds a few rounds or a shotgun that
holds a few rounds. Just one of my buddies has the time and financial
wherewithal to hunt really big game, and the rifle round he prefers
for
that is a .375 H&H Magnum, which isn't as big a round as it sounds.
Anyway, it holds a total of four rounds, including one in the chamber.

Many states limit how many rounds you can have in a shotgun to three
or
four while hunting.

Obviously, there are reasons why serious or semi-serious hunters
aren't
walking in the woods with semi-auto assault style rifle 30-round
magazines.

What's the real purpose of these semi-auto assault style rifles? To
kill
people, of course, and lots of them. They're not that suitable for
hunting.

I don't see any rational reason for rifles in calibers larger than,
say,
..22LR, to be able to load up with more than a few rounds. A 22?
10-round
magazine is adequate. Same with a semi-auto pistol. No reason for more
than 10 rounds unless you plan to shoot up a school or a movie
theater, eh?

I happen to have a couple of hi-cap mags for my CZ target pistol, but
I
don't use them. I use the 10-rounders at the range and in competition.

Oh...what might work? Making personal possession of certain firearms
and
certain sized mags after a certain date a violation of federal law,
with
serious penalties, and eliminating the gun show loophopes. No firearms
transactions without paperwork and a background check.

That would do for starters.

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

That's all fine and good and works for the vast majority of gun
owners, but it doesn't answer the question of how many people can a
nut case kill and have it be an "acceptable" level in terms of gun
control laws. I can easily argue that *one* is one too many.

As for round sizes, a .22LR can be just as deadly at short range as a
larger round. In fact, some claim that a head shot with a .22 is
likely to be more deadly for reasons not worth repeating. More
deadly? What's that? Dead is dead.

What do you mean by, "That would do for starters"? Any gun control
laws that are justified as being "for starters" pretty much
insinuates an eventual ban on guns period. I don't think that's the
answer, nor will it ever happen.

On 12/17/12 6:33 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"ESAD" wrote in message
...

On 12/17/12 3:48 PM, 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".




I have a lot of building trades union buddies, and a goodly number of
these "hunt" deer and other critters. I don't hunt because I don't like
the idea of killing Bambi or Bambi's mother, or any other helpless
animal but, even though I don't think hunting is a sport, I don't
begrudge my buddies their woodsy sport. I've been out stomping around in
the forest and in the fields with my buddies while they hunt, though.

That being said, I can't recall any of them hunting with anything but a
traditional hunting rifle that holds a few rounds or a shotgun that
holds a few rounds. Just one of my buddies has the time and financial
wherewithal to hunt really big game, and the rifle round he prefers for
that is a .375 H&H Magnum, which isn't as big a round as it sounds.
Anyway, it holds a total of four rounds, including one in the chamber.

Many states limit how many rounds you can have in a shotgun to three or
four while hunting.

Obviously, there are reasons why serious or semi-serious hunters aren't
walking in the woods with semi-auto assault style rifle 30-round magazines.

What's the real purpose of these semi-auto assault style rifles? To kill
people, of course, and lots of them. They're not that suitable for hunting.

I don't see any rational reason for rifles in calibers larger than, say,
.22LR, to be able to load up with more than a few rounds. A 22? 10-round
magazine is adequate. Same with a semi-auto pistol. No reason for more
than 10 rounds unless you plan to shoot up a school or a movie theater, eh?

I happen to have a couple of hi-cap mags for my CZ target pistol, but I
don't use them. I use the 10-rounders at the range and in competition.

Oh...what might work? Making personal possession of certain firearms and
certain sized mags after a certain date a violation of federal law, with
serious penalties, and eliminating the gun show loophopes. No firearms
transactions without paperwork and a background check.

That would do for starters.

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

That's all fine and good and works for the vast majority of gun owners,
but it doesn't answer the question of how many people can a nut case
kill and have it be an "acceptable" level in terms of gun control
laws. I can easily argue that *one* is one too many.

As for round sizes, a .22LR can be just as deadly at short range as a
larger round. In fact, some claim that a head shot with a .22 is
likely to be more deadly for reasons not worth repeating. More
deadly? What's that? Dead is dead.

What do you mean by, "That would do for starters"? Any gun control
laws that are justified as being "for starters" pretty much insinuates
an eventual ban on guns period. I don't think that's the answer, nor
will it ever happen.


I think it should be at least as difficult to get a firearm as it is to
buy and register a motor scooter. Background check, paper trail, no
exceptions. Period. Banning of certain types of firearms and ancillary
equipment. What else?

1) States should submit their mental health records. A report from
Mayors Against Illegal Guns finds “major failure by 23 states in
submitting mental health records to the system, with 17 states reporting
fewer than 10 records and four submitting none at all.� States can do a
better job of complying with the mandate and the federal government
should establish clear reporting guidelines and fund the requirement.

2) Federal agencies should submit mental records into the NICS.
Following the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in January 2011, the
Justice Department developed a list of “steps the government could take
to expand the background-check system in order to reduce the risk of
guns falling into the hands of mentally ill people and criminals,�
including using “information on file at other federal agencies� to
bolster the database. Currently, “52 of 61 federal agencies that are
required to submit records have not done so.� This can be resolved by
Executive Order

3) Full background check on all gun transactions. Since the passage
of the Brady Act, gun purchasers buying firearms from federally licensed
dealers are subject to background checks. As a result, more than 2
million applicants have been prohibited from purchasing guns.
Unfortunately, 40 percent of firearm acquisitions are from individuals
who are not licensed gun dealers and do not undergo any background checks.

4) Ban assault weapons that can hold mags of more than 10 rounds
and mags that hold 10 or more rounds. Mandatory turn in for compensation.

5) Improve treatment of mental illness. It’s currently easier for a
poor person to obtain a gun than it is for them to receive treatment for
mental health issues, as state governments continue to cut services to
balance budgets.

On 12/17/2012 6:41 PM, ESAD wrote:
On 12/17/12 6:33 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"ESAD" wrote in message
...

On 12/17/12 3:48 PM, 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".




I have a lot of building trades union buddies, and a goodly number of
these "hunt" deer and other critters. I don't hunt because I don't like
the idea of killing Bambi or Bambi's mother, or any other helpless
animal but, even though I don't think hunting is a sport, I don't
begrudge my buddies their woodsy sport. I've been out stomping around in
the forest and in the fields with my buddies while they hunt, though.

That being said, I can't recall any of them hunting with anything but a
traditional hunting rifle that holds a few rounds or a shotgun that
holds a few rounds. Just one of my buddies has the time and financial
wherewithal to hunt really big game, and the rifle round he prefers for
that is a .375 H&H Magnum, which isn't as big a round as it sounds.
Anyway, it holds a total of four rounds, including one in the chamber.

Many states limit how many rounds you can have in a shotgun to three or
four while hunting.

Obviously, there are reasons why serious or semi-serious hunters aren't
walking in the woods with semi-auto assault style rifle 30-round
magazines.

What's the real purpose of these semi-auto assault style rifles? To kill
people, of course, and lots of them. They're not that suitable for
hunting.

I don't see any rational reason for rifles in calibers larger than, say,
.22LR, to be able to load up with more than a few rounds. A 22? 10-round
magazine is adequate. Same with a semi-auto pistol. No reason for more
than 10 rounds unless you plan to shoot up a school or a movie
theater, eh?

I happen to have a couple of hi-cap mags for my CZ target pistol, but I
don't use them. I use the 10-rounders at the range and in competition.

Oh...what might work? Making personal possession of certain firearms and
certain sized mags after a certain date a violation of federal law, with
serious penalties, and eliminating the gun show loophopes. No firearms
transactions without paperwork and a background check.

That would do for starters.

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

That's all fine and good and works for the vast majority of gun owners,
but it doesn't answer the question of how many people can a nut case
kill and have it be an "acceptable" level in terms of gun control
laws. I can easily argue that *one* is one too many.

As for round sizes, a .22LR can be just as deadly at short range as a
larger round. In fact, some claim that a head shot with a .22 is
likely to be more deadly for reasons not worth repeating. More
deadly? What's that? Dead is dead.

What do you mean by, "That would do for starters"? Any gun control
laws that are justified as being "for starters" pretty much insinuates
an eventual ban on guns period. I don't think that's the answer, nor
will it ever happen.


I think it should be at least as difficult to get a firearm as it is to
buy and register a motor scooter. Background check, paper trail, no
exceptions. Period. Banning of certain types of firearms and ancillary
equipment. What else?

1) States should submit their mental health records. A report from
Mayors Against Illegal Guns finds “major failure by 23 states in
submitting mental health records to the system, with 17 states reporting
fewer than 10 records and four submitting none at all.� States can do a
better job of complying with the mandate and the federal government
should establish clear reporting guidelines and fund the requirement.

2) Federal agencies should submit mental records into the NICS.
Following the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in January 2011, the
Justice Department developed a list of “steps the government could take
to expand the background-check system in order to reduce the risk of
guns falling into the hands of mentally ill people and criminals,�
including using “information on file at other federal agencies� to
bolster the database. Currently, “52 of 61 federal agencies that are
required to submit records have not done so.� This can be resolved by
Executive Order

3) Full background check on all gun transactions. Since the passage
of the Brady Act, gun purchasers buying firearms from federally licensed
dealers are subject to background checks. As a result, more than 2
million applicants have been prohibited from purchasing guns.
Unfortunately, 40 percent of firearm acquisitions are from individuals
who are not licensed gun dealers and do not undergo any background checks.

4) Ban assault weapons that can hold mags of more than 10 rounds
and mags that hold 10 or more rounds. Mandatory turn in for compensation.

5) Improve treatment of mental illness. It’s currently easier for a
poor person to obtain a gun than it is for them to receive treatment for
mental health issues, as state governments continue to cut services to
balance budgets.

Can we count on you to get current with your tax liabilities to help pay
for all this?

In article om,
says...

On 12/17/2012 6:41 PM, ESAD wrote:
On 12/17/12 6:33 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"ESAD" wrote in message
...

On 12/17/12 3:48 PM, 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".




I have a lot of building trades union buddies, and a goodly number of
these "hunt" deer and other critters. I don't hunt because I don't like
the idea of killing Bambi or Bambi's mother, or any other helpless
animal but, even though I don't think hunting is a sport, I don't
begrudge my buddies their woodsy sport. I've been out stomping around in
the forest and in the fields with my buddies while they hunt, though.

That being said, I can't recall any of them hunting with anything but a
traditional hunting rifle that holds a few rounds or a shotgun that
holds a few rounds. Just one of my buddies has the time and financial
wherewithal to hunt really big game, and the rifle round he prefers for
that is a .375 H&H Magnum, which isn't as big a round as it sounds.
Anyway, it holds a total of four rounds, including one in the chamber.

Many states limit how many rounds you can have in a shotgun to three or
four while hunting.

Obviously, there are reasons why serious or semi-serious hunters aren't
walking in the woods with semi-auto assault style rifle 30-round
magazines.

What's the real purpose of these semi-auto assault style rifles? To kill
people, of course, and lots of them. They're not that suitable for
hunting.

I don't see any rational reason for rifles in calibers larger than, say,
.22LR, to be able to load up with more than a few rounds. A 22? 10-round
magazine is adequate. Same with a semi-auto pistol. No reason for more
than 10 rounds unless you plan to shoot up a school or a movie
theater, eh?

I happen to have a couple of hi-cap mags for my CZ target pistol, but I
don't use them. I use the 10-rounders at the range and in competition.

Oh...what might work? Making personal possession of certain firearms and
certain sized mags after a certain date a violation of federal law, with
serious penalties, and eliminating the gun show loophopes. No firearms
transactions without paperwork and a background check.

That would do for starters.

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

That's all fine and good and works for the vast majority of gun owners,
but it doesn't answer the question of how many people can a nut case
kill and have it be an "acceptable" level in terms of gun control
laws. I can easily argue that *one* is one too many.

As for round sizes, a .22LR can be just as deadly at short range as a
larger round. In fact, some claim that a head shot with a .22 is
likely to be more deadly for reasons not worth repeating. More
deadly? What's that? Dead is dead.

What do you mean by, "That would do for starters"? Any gun control
laws that are justified as being "for starters" pretty much insinuates
an eventual ban on guns period. I don't think that's the answer, nor
will it ever happen.


I think it should be at least as difficult to get a firearm as it is to
buy and register a motor scooter. Background check, paper trail, no
exceptions. Period. Banning of certain types of firearms and ancillary
equipment. What else?

1) States should submit their mental health records. A report from
Mayors Against Illegal Guns finds ?major failure by 23 states in
submitting mental health records to the system, with 17 states reporting
fewer than 10 records and four submitting none at all.? States can do a
better job of complying with the mandate and the federal government
should establish clear reporting guidelines and fund the requirement.

2) Federal agencies should submit mental records into the NICS.
Following the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in January 2011, the
Justice Department developed a list of ?steps the government could take
to expand the background-check system in order to reduce the risk of
guns falling into the hands of mentally ill people and criminals,?
including using ?information on file at other federal agencies? to
bolster the database. Currently, ?52 of 61 federal agencies that are
required to submit records have not done so.? This can be resolved by
Executive Order

3) Full background check on all gun transactions. Since the passage
of the Brady Act, gun purchasers buying firearms from federally licensed
dealers are subject to background checks. As a result, more than 2
million applicants have been prohibited from purchasing guns.
Unfortunately, 40 percent of firearm acquisitions are from individuals
who are not licensed gun dealers and do not undergo any background checks.

4) Ban assault weapons that can hold mags of more than 10 rounds
and mags that hold 10 or more rounds. Mandatory turn in for compensation.

5) Improve treatment of mental illness. It?s currently easier for a
poor person to obtain a gun than it is for them to receive treatment for
mental health issues, as state governments continue to cut services to
balance budgets.

Can we count on you to get current with your tax liabilities to help pay
for all this?

Very doubtful.

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:18:58 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 12/17/12 3:48 PM, 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".




I have a lot of building trades union buddies, and a goodly number of
these "hunt" deer and other critters. I don't hunt because I don't like
the idea of killing Bambi or Bambi's mother, or any other helpless
animal but, even though I don't think hunting is a sport, I don't
begrudge my buddies their woodsy sport. I've been out stomping around in
the forest and in the fields with my buddies while they hunt, though.

That being said, I can't recall any of them hunting with anything but a
traditional hunting rifle that holds a few rounds or a shotgun that
holds a few rounds. Just one of my buddies has the time and financial
wherewithal to hunt really big game, and the rifle round he prefers for
that is a .375 H&H Magnum, which isn't as big a round as it sounds.
Anyway, it holds a total of four rounds, including one in the chamber.

Many states limit how many rounds you can have in a shotgun to three or
four while hunting.

Obviously, there are reasons why serious or semi-serious hunters aren't
walking in the woods with semi-auto assault style rifle 30-round magazines.

What's the real purpose of these semi-auto assault style rifles? To kill
people, of course, and lots of them. They're not that suitable for hunting.

I don't see any rational reason for rifles in calibers larger than, say,
.22LR, to be able to load up with more than a few rounds. A 22? 10-round
magazine is adequate. Same with a semi-auto pistol. No reason for more
than 10 rounds unless you plan to shoot up a school or a movie theater, eh?

I happen to have a couple of hi-cap mags for my CZ target pistol, but I
don't use them. I use the 10-rounders at the range and in competition.

Oh...what might work? Making personal possession of certain firearms and
certain sized mags after a certain date a violation of federal law, with
serious penalties, and eliminating the gun show loophopes. No firearms
transactions without paperwork and a background check.

That would do for starters.

Makes sense. I just responded to Wayne with an idea about the styling
of the rifle lending permission to go to war with the perceived enemy.

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:41:22 -0800, jps wrote:

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:18:58 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 12/17/12 3:48 PM, 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".




I have a lot of building trades union buddies, and a goodly number of
these "hunt" deer and other critters. I don't hunt because I don't like
the idea of killing Bambi or Bambi's mother, or any other helpless
animal but, even though I don't think hunting is a sport, I don't
begrudge my buddies their woodsy sport. I've been out stomping around in
the forest and in the fields with my buddies while they hunt, though.

That being said, I can't recall any of them hunting with anything but a
traditional hunting rifle that holds a few rounds or a shotgun that
holds a few rounds. Just one of my buddies has the time and financial
wherewithal to hunt really big game, and the rifle round he prefers for
that is a .375 H&H Magnum, which isn't as big a round as it sounds.
Anyway, it holds a total of four rounds, including one in the chamber.

Many states limit how many rounds you can have in a shotgun to three or
four while hunting.

Obviously, there are reasons why serious or semi-serious hunters aren't
walking in the woods with semi-auto assault style rifle 30-round magazines.

What's the real purpose of these semi-auto assault style rifles? To kill
people, of course, and lots of them. They're not that suitable for hunting.

I don't see any rational reason for rifles in calibers larger than, say,
.22LR, to be able to load up with more than a few rounds. A 22? 10-round
magazine is adequate. Same with a semi-auto pistol. No reason for more
than 10 rounds unless you plan to shoot up a school or a movie theater, eh?

I happen to have a couple of hi-cap mags for my CZ target pistol, but I
don't use them. I use the 10-rounders at the range and in competition.

Oh...what might work? Making personal possession of certain firearms and
certain sized mags after a certain date a violation of federal law, with
serious penalties, and eliminating the gun show loophopes. No firearms
transactions without paperwork and a background check.

That would do for starters.

Makes sense. I just responded to Wayne with an idea about the styling
of the rifle lending permission to go to war with the perceived enemy.

The 'styling' of the rifle changed big time during the Vietnam war. However, the style didn't seem
to interfere with our ability to go to war *before* Vietnam. Is this a hunting rifle or a 'go to war
with the perceived enemy' rifle:

http://tinyurl.com/c6jno2d

On 12/17/2012 3:48 PM, 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".



You look at what's reasonable for defense. Like I said before, if you
need clips of 30 to defend yourself, you have gotten yourself into a lot
more trouble than a simple robbery or defending your home... 30 rounds
is an offensive accessory, not a defensive one.

"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".

I heard on the radio he was armed with 2 pistols. Either weapon will kill
someone. And at the range he was shooting from, would not matter much.
Except a rifle may be harder to aim at short range. Still comes down to
what we do about children and mental problems. My daughter is a pediatric
behavior therapist and one of her offices was paid from Calif Regional
Center which were created when the state hospitals were emptied during
Reagan's years. Now they are only covering speech and physical therapy.
No mental services. And we wonder why we have nutcase problems!