NRA Publicity Fiasco

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by Francoitalianarmy

Sorry, I don't buy it....

That's your problem bro..

..... while I lived in Europe for over 5 years, I rarely seen any problems.

Why should there be "problems"? We don't hate you...well not much anyway. We just see you as loud-mouthed, brash, ignorant, arrogant gun-totting fat bastard fuckwits who know very little about what is going on outside your own country and in many cases, your own state and who are not yet civilised enough to have learned that there are other ways to settle an argument other than shooting each other.

I mean..come on bro. Any country that voted for bush... TWICE must be fuckwits!!!! LMFAO!

The only time we had issues were the times that little punk ass Brits, living in Spain needed smacked for running their mouths...

Oh go fuck yourself!!!

[bpjimmy]

Originally Posted by dumbass

What about the nut case woman that pushed a man in front of a train in the sub-way in NY. No gun, no bomb, no knife, not even a baseball bat. Just an unarmed nut case. The man is still dead

Wouldn't restrictive access have defeated the very purpose for Gabby Gifford day where she wanted to meet face to face with her people. How far can we take this without becoming completely paranoid?

We can never be completely safe.

No one gets out alive.

I agree with you. Truth is, some people live in fear their entire lives and expect government to FIX EVERYTHING.

Of course it can't. Reality is what it is and some folks can't accept that. They try to change reality with wishful thinking. They emote rather than think. They legislate what won't work with "good intentions" and call those who point out the flaws in their laws as the enemy not the rational ones.

And when anyone confronts their fantasy with facts they get hostile in some cases. Funny really.

[madmax]

Originally Posted by dumbass

What about the nut case woman that pushed a man in front of a train in the sub-way in NY. No gun, no bomb, no knife, not even a baseball bat. Just an unarmed nut case. The man is still dead

Wouldn't restrictive access have defeated the very purpose for Gabby Gifford day where she wanted to meet face to face with her people. How far can we take this without becoming completely paranoid?

We can never be completely safe.

You are absolutely correct on that: we can never be completely safe. So the question becomes "where do we draw the line?"
And although Wouldhe has some good points I don't believe the concepts of controlled access will do it either. Had there been a fence around Sandy Hook Lanza could have been shooting into a school yard at recess or dismissal... or taken out a bus load of kids, which could easily been more than 20.

[madmax]

Originally Posted by bpjimmy

Max,

I DISAGREE. As I discussed in my earlier post to you a ban on any specific weapons or magazine size would have little to no impact on shootings like the Sandy Hook one. You ignore my logic and simply repost this opinion. PLEASE respond with something with meat on it not an emotional response about scary words and magazine capcities.

HOW would an assault weapons ban (which need a description from you to mean anything) have prevented or lessened this tragedy?

To be fair, nothing you have posted has had any "meat on it" just opinions and scary words of your own.

Let's just take Sandy Hook: Lanza went in there with an assault weapon and unloaded 3 30 shot magazines out of it. It looks like he unloaded somewhere around 50 rounds out of the handguns. His high capacity magazines DOUBLED his shot capability of the AR-15 over each hand gun. Secondly, the AR-15 is more lethal. Third is the psychological aspects of having the AR-15, the serious killing machine weapon. One could argue (but we will never know for sure) that having the AR-15 gave Lanza the assurance that he could do a LOT of damage before being stopped.
One thing is certain: without those 90 rounds out of the AR-15 a lot of those 26 would still be alive today.

Had an assault weapon ban prevented Nancy Lanza from having that AR-15 in the first place we would be looking at a tragedy of much lower carnage levels... and perhaps no tragedy at all.

[Wouldhe]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

That's your problem bro..

Why should there be "problems"? We don't hate you...well not much anyway. We just see you as loud-mouthed, brash, ignorant, arrogant gun-totting fat bastard fuckwits who know very little about what is going on outside your own country and in many cases, your own state and who are not yet civilised enough to have learned that there are other ways to settle an argument other than shooting each other.

I mean..come on bro. Any country that voted for bush... TWICE must be fuckwits!!!! LMFAO!

Oh go fuck yourself!!!

LMFAO - You nailed it with the Bush comment!

[bpjimmy]

Originally Posted by madmax

To be fair, nothing you have posted has had any "meat on it" just opinions and scary words of your own.

My post had meat on it. Please show me what "scary words" I employed. However this post of yours has some inaccuracies:

Originally Posted by madmax

Let's just take Sandy Hook: Lanza went in there with an assault weapon and unloaded 3 30 shot magazines out of it. It looks like he unloaded somewhere around 50 rounds out of the handguns. His high capacity magazines DOUBLED his shot capability of the AR-15 over each hand gun.

Again, magazine changes are fast. In this case if we assume your shot count is correct (I have no idea) then he did at least 3 mag changes with the AR and at least that number with the handgun. So if he had to do triple the number of mag changes do you think it matters? Have you ever handled an AR15 and do you know how mag changes are done?

Originally Posted by madmax

Secondly, the AR-15 is more lethal.

No. A 1911 handgun fires a .45 ACP round. The AR15 fires a .223 round. Both are lethal hitting a vital spot but the AR round has a higher likelihood of passing through or missing vital spots as it is a much smaller bullet. If you knew anything about weapons you would know that many in the Army consider the .223 round as inadequate. It isn't inadequate but it is hardly more lethal than a .45 ACP.

Originally Posted by madmax

Third is the psychological aspects of having the AR-15, the serious killing machine weapon. One could argue (but we will never know for sure) that having the AR-15 gave Lanza the assurance that he could do a LOT of damage before being stopped.

You want to argue how a specific gun game Lanza some "assurance". Please, let's just discuss what we can find some data on not the mind of a crazy.

Originally Posted by madmax

One thing is certain: without those 90 rounds out of the AR-15 a lot of those 26 would still be alive today.

Had an assault weapon ban prevented Nancy Lanza from having that AR-15 in the first place we would be looking at a tragedy of much lower carnage levels... and perhaps no tragedy at all.

But you MISS THE POINT. I'm beginning to think it is intentional. But for any lurkers - he could have fired the same number of rounds from an AR15 with 10 round mags and it would have added only about 30 seconds total to the process.

And as I have pointed out AND YOU IGNORE there could have been just as many casualties using lesser technology.

Let's go back to the beginning.

WHAT LAW WOULD YOU PASS.

WHAT PROBLEM ARE YOU ADDRESSING.

You continue to repeat errors in the face of being corrected. You try to guess the mind of a killer. This isn't rational debate. In any event, a magazine ban will accomplish little. And the last assault weapon ban did nothing. Why do you think it will change NOW.

[dumbass]

Originally Posted by Wouldhe

LMFAO - You nailed it with the Bush comment!

Than for an encore the same voters elected Obama twice. Go figure!

[pladecalvo]

It must be an odd thing to live in a society where one of the most compelling interests is owning guns.

[OneArm]

Originally Posted by dumbass

Than for an encore the same voters elected Obama twice. Go figure!

The people that voted for bush, did not vote for Obama. The majority of the people that voted for Obama, didn't vote for bush.

[dumbass]

Originally Posted by OneArm

The people that voted for bush, did not vote for Obama. The majority of the people that voted for Obama, didn't vote for bush.

Couldn't have been completely different or neither one would have been elected.