Says who ?
Let me give you a good reason (one that you have repeatedly ignored in other
There are about 2,500,000 people who AVOIDED being the victims of criminals
You clearly are ALL FOR disarming those people and guaranteeing that they
would be the victims of criminals
So go ahead and explain to me why you want to create 2,500,000 more victims
of criminals each year.
I'm willing to be that you're either going to ignore this post or try to
change the subject
Sure it is. Nothing will be done, except maybe increasing school
security . Then the gun owning and gun holding shooters will just
Trust me. Might as well write off the death of these kids as "shit
happens," and just move on. The loved ones will just have to deal
with it. The talking heads are already blaming video games, Hollywood
movies, the mental health system, magazine size, "assault rifle laws,"
etc, etc, etc.
It's like they already forgot the Virginia Tech shooter used a couple
of common handguns.
They hardly mention it's the guns of gun purchasers doing the killing.
That's what guns are for - killing. That's why they were invented.
To kill the "bad guys." The bad guys are whoever the gun holder
thinks fill the bill. Could be self-defense against a real attacker,
could be game for the table or just the pleasure of killing game,
could be targets, could be the enemy in war, including unarmed
civilians, could be kids in a school.
It's up to the gun holder to decide. Nobody else.
If you purchase a gun, then lose it, or let it get stolen by a
lawbreaker who goes on a killing rampage, thems the breaks.
Only way to stop mass gun killings is to outlaw and confiscate guns.
Won't happen. Guns are an industry. Lots and lots of money in guns.
So the answer will be to arm school personnel. Then hope a teacher or
school worker carrying doesn't go rogue, pop off the other carriers
with rounds to the back of their heads, then go after the kids.
It's all up to the gun holder. If he can't get inside, he can wait
outside, or go to the zoo where the kiddies have a class outing.
As they say, guns don't kill people - gun owners and gun holders kill
So maybe you need to consider the following
1) There are about 1,500,000 crimes attempted and committed annually with
the use of a gun
Yet there are over 2,500,000 DGUs (Defensive Gun Uses) where a
person used a gun to avoid being a crime victim
2) For over the last 4 years about a million new guns were purchased
Yet during that same time, crime has been dropping steadily
3) Washington D.C shared top crime and homicide billing with Chicago,
before the US Supreme Court Heller decision vacate the near total ban of
guns in D.C.
Crime rates dropped over 25% the following 2 years in D.C.
Meanwhile, Chicago with equally draconian gun-control laws has
remained at the top as crime and murder capital of the country. This year
Chicago has been experiencing the equivalent of an Aurora Co. shooting on
nearly a weekly basis.
4) The UK banned and confiscated handguns.
Following that, the "gun violence" INCREASED by 89%
5) The CDC (center for Disease Control) and NAS (National Academy of
Sciences) both concluded with independent studies that there is NO EVIDENCE
to support the claim that gun-control reduces crime (notice #3 and #4 which
actually point the other way)
6) Over 40+ years ago, schools were NOT "Gun Free Zones".
In actual fact schools taught shooting and hunter safety, had
competitive rifle and pistol teams, and many even had a shooting range ON
Also, in rural areas, many students would bring their guns and ammo
to school in the morning and would hunt on their way home in the afternoon.
We have NO RECORD of "school shootings" 40+ years ago and before
7) When Palestinian terrorists started targeting Israeli schools 30+
years ago, the Israeli responded by arming the teachers, administrators,
other staff, parents and even older (16+y.o) students to protect the school
The terrorists turned to softer targets
So now with the above information, which way do you think we should go ??
Another classic example of a rush to judgement by
one of our lib friends. In another post you claimed a
new law should be passed so that you need a "reason"
to own guns. You said owning them for "sport" was
a legitimate reason. So, with so little known at this
time, tell us how you know she didn't have a legitimate
reason for owning them. How do you know she didn't
use them for sport? What exactly is "sport"? If she
took them to a range a couple times a year to plink at
targets, is that a sufficient sport?
And I've read one report where a neighbor says she
was a gun collector. Is that a legitimate need in your
whacky world of needing a reason?
Another classic. CT has some very tough gun laws. Do
you know what they are? The family was rich. At least
rich according to Obama and the lib standards. Daddy was
paying $270K a year in alimony. Clearly the kid had vry
easy access to healthcare if the family chose to do so.
But, as usual, I guess facts don't matter....
<quote>Nancy Lanza was an avid gun collector who once showed him a "really nice,
end rifle" that she had purchased, said Dan Holmes, owner of a landscaping
recently decorated her yard with Christmas garlands and lights. "She said she
go target shooting with her kids."</quote>
And there you have it. "... would often go target shooting." Sport. So, Han,
even by *your*
standards, she had a legitimate reason to own those guns.
So explain to us how that worked out in the UK ???
They've had "national health" for decades.
And recently they went and confiscated all handguns
And look what happened
"Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to power
as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold.
The latest Government figures show that the total number
of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased
from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent. "
you stupid enough to imagine that we are NOT aware of the MASSIVEfailure of
gun-control in the UK ?
What's a high capacity magazine? It's doubtful that his mother owned an
"Assault Rifle" which very few civilians own because of restrictive laws
on select fire weapons. You're simply using Liberal buzz words meant to
exaggerate the lethality of guns. A revolver has a super high capacity
magazine when compared to musket. O_o
From the pictures of the three weapons shown on the news, there were
no "high capacity" magazines and the the weapon was only a seme-auto
rifle. Yes it "looks like an assault weapon" but is no different in
functioning than a standard semi auto rifle of conventional
I have seen the wild claims beginning immediately after the shooting
about "assault riffle, high capacity mags, etc." Always from the anti-
gun crowd who seem to delight in lying about any weapon used. used in
You are lying again
1) The mother did NOT have an "assault rifle"
Even they it would be perfectly legal for her to own one if she
2) The mother had at best that a rifle that could qualify for that
COMPLETELY BOGUS definition of "assault weapon"
3) What exactly is a "high capacity magazine" ?
How do you differentiate a "high capacity magazine" from a "medium
capacity" or "low capacity" magazines
Please explain to us CLEARLY what the respective limits are.
Also explain to us WHY there should be such restrictins.
And your ignorant paranoia is NOT a VALID reason
On what basis do you make this claim ?
Do you know something about the case that we don't
And where did it get her'
Are you stupid enough to claim that there is a causal link between her
owning guns, having a child with Asperger's, and the child doing something
Feel free to provide us with that causal chain.
Platitudes seem to be your forte.
No solutions just ex cathedra declarations and platitudes
The laws are far too restrictive. If one good citizen had one gun (in
addition to the shooter) 20 + lives could have been saved. No more victim
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
You can't tell me that the existing laws are fine after this tragedy.
Sure the existing laws have faults but doing nothing more isn't the
answer as witnessed by today.
Arming oneself is one thing but using it properly is another matter.
If you carry a gun you should know how to use it right and properly on
any emergency, expected or unexpected. You need a training like SEAL
Team 6. I think number of people getting killed by gun accident every
year is more than saved with gun. You check the stats. You love guns,
you die with guns. Can you hit a target to kill DRT in three seconds?
1. Cops kill more innocent civilians than do concealed carry licensees.
2. There has NEVER been a reported case of an armed civilian in a shoot-out
killing - or even wounding - an innocent bystander.
3. Fifteen surveys have shown that there are as many a two million defensive
uses of a firearm each year, and never less than 108,000, in the United
4. And yes, I can draw and fire accurately in a very short time. I've done
it. Conversely, can you drop to the kneeling position and utter a prayer in
three seconds? What are the chances of divine intervention?
Main problem is allowing any one have military grade automatic weapons.
Yes, I can shoot atraight Weaver stance. My old sniper training is still
in my blood as long as I have good eye sight and mobility. I don't own
any fire arm tho. I trained my kid at rifle range about fire arm hanling
as well as shooting when he was a teenager. He does not own any fire arm
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.