if I remember right
some crazy sumbitch blew up a building with fertilizer and a truck
outlawing firearms will not stop the crazies from hurting others
but I have noticed the crimmals never go after a cop shop
only gun free zones
wonder what that is all about
3000 dead and no guns, 9/11
How would tougher gun laws have stopped attack like Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, and so on?
FUS RO DAH!
2012/08/11 21:48:27
Top Opinion
-
cutter's falls 2012/08/11 21:59:17
But.. they would make it easier for criminals to rape our women and children.
They would also make it much easier for Terrorists to torture us and get away with it.
AND.. they would make it easier for another country to attempt a hostile takeover of mainland USA, because they would be unopposed by the unarmed general population.
To use a rock in a deadly manner requires a significant level of personal involvement and exposure. The more you distance yourself from your target, your accuracy and effectiveness decrease exponentially.
Using a modern weapon, or even an antique one, you're able to deliver lethal power without revealing your location, or even your presence.
Granted, a rock and a Glock are similar in potential deadliness. but quantum levels different in range, scope and effectiveness, thus making the comparison, in my mind, lame.
TIM MC VEIFGH HAD NO GUN..
CHARLES MANSON HAD NO GUN..
IT IS THE PERSON THAT IS THE PROBLEM.. ASK ABLE ABOUT THE ROCK.
Jim Jones and Charles Manson had charismatic personalities, an audience that they were able to persuade to do their bidding, and extensive periods of time to do that persuading and the planning and grooming of their minions to commit the crimes that occurred.
Timothy McVeigh had a 'firearm' the size of a truck. It's effectiveness speaks for itself, but you'll need to clarify your comparison or contrast between it and a pistol.
"Cain rose up and slew his brother, Able." One man, one rock (presumably, scripture doesn't specify the weapon used), one victim. I seriously doubt that one man with one rock could have killed the number of people that were killed in any of the examples cited.
Again, I am a 2nd Amendment proponent. Always have been, likely always will be. What I take exception to is the "rock and Glock" comparison.
Charles Whitman climbed to the top of a tower on the University of Texas Campus in 1966. In one-and-a-half hours, using a high-powered rifle and scope, he shot 45 strangers, killing fourteen of them. I seriously doubt that he would have been able to kill even one pigeon nesting on the tower, much less a human being, if he had been limited to using only rocks. Please tell me that's not what you're trying to say.
Yo...
Jim Jones and Charles Manson had charismatic personalities, an audience that they were able to persuade to do their bidding, and extensive periods of time to do that persuading and the planning and grooming of their minions to commit the crimes that occurred.
Timothy McVeigh had a 'firearm' the size of a truck. It's effectiveness speaks for itself, but you'll need to clarify your comparison or contrast between it and a pistol.
"Cain rose up and slew his brother, Able." One man, one rock (presumably, scripture doesn't specify the weapon used), one victim. I seriously doubt that one man with one rock could have killed the number of people that were killed in any of the examples cited.
Again, I am a 2nd Amendment proponent. Always have been, likely always will be. What I take exception to is the "rock and Glock" comparison.
Charles Whitman climbed to the top of a tower on the University of Texas Campus in 1966. In one-and-a-half hours, using a high-powered rifle and scope, he shot 45 strangers, killing fourteen of them. I seriously doubt that he would have been able to kill even one pigeon nesting on the tower, much less a human being, if he had been limited to using only rocks. Please tell me that's not what you're trying to say.
You're right, the shooter is the problem. But it's the weapon that makes the problem a national news story. If you don't acknowledge that and address it you're ignoring the bigger problem.
Ban guns completely, only the criminals have guns.
Even in a magical world where they all disappear, the criminals learn how to make a bomb with ingredients and materials available at local stores.
It's not the weapons, people. It's the moral decline of society.
Rifling dates back to the 1490's in use with cannons and other non-hand held devices.
It takes less than two seconds for an experienced shooter to reload.
How about a secondary weapon?
Who's going to go 'John Wayne' on that?
More citizens packing heat is the answer.
No waiting for that moment of opportunity,.... fire at will.
Are you drunk, by chance?
Never mind, you're drunk.
You are German and probally a Door man at a Hotel We do not tell you who to elect as Chancellor
THESE GUYS FORGOT ABOUT THE CAL. LAW..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
1777
Therefore your thesis is spurious and unconvincing.