On 12/21/2012 11:30 AM, thumper wrote:
On 12/21/2012 6:38 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:40:27 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/20/2012 11:54 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:25:08 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/19/2012 12:49 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:33:35 -0800, thumper wrote:

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.

That was kind of a stupid reply. C-4 would make it *very* easy. In
fact, I'm wondering why some
jihadist hasn't strapped a bomb to her chest and walked into a
school cafeteria during lunchtime.

Yeah, it wasn't the time for sarcasm. You got my point though.

If the goal is to make the killing of 20 kids take 10 seconds
longer, then it's a stupid goal! Do
you get the point?


Look who's being stupid... the goal is to make the potential killing of
20 kids result in less than 20 dead kids. The fewer the better. I
don't buy your assertions.

I'd much rather find a solution that would prevent the killing of all
twenty, not just allow the
killing of 19.

I guess that's a hard one.


It is. I don't think it's effective to hold out for perfection.

And it's all politics on both sides of the argument...

seems like an excuse to do nothing. I'll take improvement.