"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.

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.

On 12/18/2012 10:10 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:10:06 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/18/2012 4:50 PM, wrote:

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



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

I would ask why the PoPo need a 30 round magazine too.

Marksmanship went out the window when the cops started carrying double
stack 9MMs and they end up doing things like shooting 11 innocent
bystanders, taking down ONE perp. (recently in NYC)


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

JustWait wrote:
On 12/18/2012 10:10 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:10:06 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/18/2012 4:50 PM, wrote:

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



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

I would ask why the PoPo need a 30 round magazine too.

Marksmanship went out the window when the cops started carrying double
stack 9MMs and they end up doing things like shooting 11 innocent
bystanders, taking down ONE perp. (recently in NYC)


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

ZPAW?

On 12/18/2012 12:21 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:

Fine - do away with 'military style...combat assault rifles with high capacity (not defined)
magazines'. How the hell would that stop someone who wanted to kill twenty kids? It might make him a
little slower, but not much!

Yeah, lets make it as easy as possible.

On 12/19/2012 1:36 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:39:43 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/18/2012 10:10 PM, wrote:

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

I would ask why the PoPo need a 30 round magazine too.

Marksmanship went out the window when the cops started carrying double
stack 9MMs and they end up doing things like shooting 11 innocent
bystanders, taking down ONE perp. (recently in NYC)


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


Since when do you "need" something to be able to buy it?
Does anyone really "need" a ski boat?
How about a sporty car?

People can certainly misuse either of them but that doesn't mean the
majority of people can't have them.


Can't answer the question either... got it...

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.

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?

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.

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.