VT Shooting: What do you suppose would have happened...

[jfuh]

what nonsense-all the ban did was to make the magazines more expensive.
what is your point? if you can legally restrict magazines to 10 shots you can restrict them to one which is what the ARC wants

That's a lie.
The ban specifically in Sec. 4 "BAN OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES "

The term `large capacity ammunition feeding device'-- `(A) means--
`(i) a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition;

I'm not talking about if's I'm talking about exactly what the ban outlined - you're juxtaposing.

 

[jfuh]

1) a ban on large capacity magazines will no more make them cease to exist (and a magazine has an almost unlimited lifespan) than stuff like cocaine that is constantly used up

2) all you have to do is carry two pistols (contrary to cowboy movies, shooting two handguns at once is basically fictional but if you have two handguns its tough to get rushed while loading the other one) with ten round magazines versus one with 1 15 round

You're again juxtaposing.
Show me how you load another handgun while you're holding another hand gun in the other hand - talk about fictional.

 

[jfuh]

Kids-to be allowed to even buy handgun ammunition federally you have to be at least 21. Did you know that is two years older than the average infantry soldier in vietnam?

So what? doesn't change the point. Are you suggesting that kids bring guns to school? Maybe the teachers should keep one in their desk?

 

[DeeJayH]

So what? doesn't change the point. Are you suggesting that kids bring guns to school? Maybe the teachers should keep one in their desk?

well the few kids that actually attend college should be excluded
but why should all the adults?
one adult with a gun could have saved atleast one life, if not many more

 

[Panache]

That's a lie.
The ban specifically in Sec. 4 "BAN OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES "

Not precisely a lie. The ban meant that large capacity ammunition feeding devices could not be purchased legally. By the laws of supply and demand, this likely inflated the price of illegal magazines of this sort.

It did help restrict access to them. Now they can only be used by those willing to break the law to aquire them.

Speculation as to "what if" regarding the VT shootings is irrelevant. Let us suppose for the moment, (although my personal thoughts are to the contrary) that gun restrictions would make for a safer America.

The real question is, to paraphrase Ben Franklin, are we willing to sacrifice an essential liberty for a little more security?

Those who would have the government act as a nanny when it comes to gun control, should not get on a high horse regarding personal liberty when it comes to illegal wiretappings and the Patriot Act.

If you want a nanny, you have to let the nanny do her job. If you want liberty, you can't demand a nanny to keep you safe.

 

[M14 Shooter]

12 times, you don't say, and certainly he just reloaded non-stop didn't he? So 24 seconds all at once? You're picking at an irrelevance.

You didnt answer my question.
He reloaded 12 times and no one did anything to stop him.
Why do you suppose 6 more reloads would have mattered?

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's a lie.
The ban specifically in Sec. 4 "BAN OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES "

I suggest you actually try reading something before commentin gon it.

Existing magazines were not banned. At all.
Existing magazines were perfectly legal to buy and sell and own and use.
Completely.

The magazine ban would have done nothing to stop him from buying hi-cap mags.

I'm not talking about if's I'm talking about exactly what the ban outlined - you're juxtaposing.

This is either willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty or both.

And, of course, this is a rather ironic statemnt, given that your argument here strted with 'IF the magazine ban was still in place...'

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not precisely a lie. The ban meant that large capacity ammunition feeding devices could not be purchased legally. By the laws of supply and demand, this likely inflated the price of illegal magazines of this sort.

It did help restrict access to them. Now they can only be used by those willing to break the law to aquire them.

Completely false.

The ban was on NEW magazines produced after the date of the ban. these mags could only be bought by military or law enforcement, and were usually stamped "Law enforcement only". If there was a question about the production date of a magazine, it was up to the government to prove in court that the magazine was produced post-ban.

Existing magazines were still completely legal to buy and sell and posess by anyone, without restrictions of any kind.

The price of those xisting magswent up a little, but as there was a large supply of existing mags, there were always easy to find -- and given that Nutjob was planning on dying, putting a few extra $ on hos credit card meant nothing.

I counted last night -- from 1994 to 2004 I bought 46 hi-cap mags of various kinds. All completely legal.

Why -some- people think the ban would have kept this guy from getting hi0-cap mags is unfathomabe.

 

[jfuh]

You didnt answer my question.
He reloaded 12 times and no one did anything to stop him.
Why do you suppose 6 more reloads would have mattered?

I already answered, 4 seconds each time would be enough to get the hell out of the way.

 

[jfuh]

I suggest you actually try reading something before commentin gon it.

Existing magazines were not banned. At all.

I didn't say they were, the purchase of was.

Existing magazines were perfectly legal to buy and sell and own and use.

No existing were not legal to buy or sell.

The magazine ban would have done nothing to stop him from buying hi-cap mags.

Yes it would have.

This is either willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty or both.

And, of course, this is a rather ironic statemnt, given that your argument here strted with 'IF the magazine ban was still in place...'

Talk about intellectual dishonesty.:roll: at least be honest and show the entirety of the exchange. td was juxtaposing on a completely different type of restriction and here you are tossing out red herrings.

 

[Panache]

I already answered, 4 seconds each time would be enough to get the hell out of the way.

That doesn't make any sense. Why wasn't 4 seconds each time enough to get the hell out of the way the first 12 times?

 

[jfuh]

That doesn't make any sense. Why wasn't 4 seconds each time enough to get the hell out of the way the first 12 times?

If you read the reports from many of the survivors, they ran. What doesn't make sense about it?

 

[mikhail]

Ok from an outsiders perspective this shooting has nothing to do with guns its about crazy people there is far too much support for crazy people to be allowed in public.Im a fairly liberal minded person in some ways im not against gay marriage for example but this idea that everyone has some kind issue thats stop them being ok and deserve pity is bullshit.Some people are crazy and have tobe removed from society

 

[missypea]

Ok from an outsiders perspective this shooting has nothing to do with guns its about crazy people there is far too much support for crazy people to be allowed in public.Im a fairly liberal minded person in some ways im not against gay marriage for example but this idea that everyone has some kind issue thats stop them being ok and deserve pity is bullshit.Some people are crazy and have tobe removed from society

Removed how?

 

[mikhail]

Removed how?

put into a mental hospital.

 

[Diuretic]

Agreed. My feelings are that the nutjob would have killed the cop, the cop is trained to seek a peaceful resolution first and give the nutjob a chance to surrender. The nutjob is under no such compulsion, he's out to kill people, period. He'd be firing first, screw asking questions.

You're also absolutely right that we can't be putting armed guards all over the place on the off chance that anything like this happens again. Who is going to pay for it all? There's a very definite cost/benefit analysis that has to be done here and for the potential benefit, it just isn't worth the insane cost.

That's a very narrow view of police training. Police response in this situation is to incapacitate the shooter. However if the cop was only armed with a handgun it would make it extremely difficult for the shooter to be taken out.

 

[missypea]

put into a mental hospital.

I agree that mental health assistance would be the way to go, but the laws that are in place make that difficult, not impossible, but very difficult. Laws need to be reviewed and revamped. I don't know what the answer is regarding the laws.

I do think the stay would be short in any event. Mental health aid was cut back in the 80's by Reagan and have never been brought up to speed. Our mentally ill Americans represent a large number of the homeless here. It's a nasty circle.

I know that this kid wasn't homeless. I'm talking about mentally ill Americans, in general, and why putting someone in a mental institution isn't a real option without funding.....also slipping off topic, my bad.

Have a good night. Signing off.............

 

[M14 Shooter]

I didn't say they were, the purchase of was.
No existing were not legal to buy or sell.

This is just you stonewalling to avoid having to admit you're wrong.
You KNOW the 1994 didnt ban sales or posession of existing mags, you simply wont admit it.

Yes it would have.

Tell me:
As existing magazines were legal too buy sell and posess, how would the 1994 ban have stopped this guy from getting these mags?

 

[M14 Shooter]

However if the cop was only armed with a handgun it would make it extremely difficult for the shooter to be taken out.

Um... why?

 

[TurtleDude]

This is just you stonewalling to avoid having to admit you're wrong.
You KNOW the 1994 didnt ban sales or posession of existing mags, you simply wont admit it.


Tell me:
As existing magazines were legal too buy sell and posess, how would the 1994 ban have stopped this guy from getting these mags?

its impossble to stop people from getting magazines given how many there are. Its one of those moronic ideas low wattage liberals support thinking it will stop crime and which scheming alpha-liberals pass to harass honest gun owners

 

[jfuh]

This is just you stonewalling to avoid having to admit you're wrong.
You KNOW the 1994 didnt ban sales or posession of existing mags, you simply wont admit it.


Tell me:
As existing magazines were legal too buy sell and posess, how would the 1994 ban have stopped this guy from getting these mags?

I'll tell you, because the arms store and pawn shop that he purchased these items from would've fallen under this law. He didn't buy used or existing mags he bought new ones.

 

[jfuh]

its impossble to stop people from getting magazines given how many there are. Its one of those moronic ideas low wattage liberals support thinking it will stop crime and which scheming alpha-liberals pass to harass honest gun owners

And thus begin the pathetic attack on liberals again. Every time a conservative can't come up with rational they clump their argument framing liberal as their dirty word of the day.
When will you guys learn.

 

[DeeJayH]

and yet when will you 'feel good liberals' learn that if criminals cant buy things legally they will buy it via the loop holes you BS nonsense laws create
deal with the real problem instead of what arises due to teh real situation
it was feel good legislature that made this scumbag rrequired to attend counseling, but it was the flaws in this legislature taht made it possible to bybpass such bullshit because it had no teeth
It could have been avoided with all the legislature currently enacted, but the lack of enforcement is why it came to such a head
this event is teh fault of nimrods that think like you, not the conservatives who would have kept the gun out of this losers hands

when will you idealistic libearals stop allowing such situations to fester
when will you stop this from happening due to your idealistic BS

 

[Diuretic]

Um... why?

Because a lone cop armed with a handgun would have to get out of concealment and cover and get close enough to get an incapacitating shot - or shots - at him.

 

[jfuh]

and yet when will you 'feel good liberals' learn that if criminals cant buy things legally they will buy it via the loop holes you BS nonsense laws create
deal with the real problem instead of what arises due to teh real situation
it was feel good legislature that made this scumbag rrequired to attend counseling, but it was the flaws in this legislature taht made it possible to bybpass such bullshit because it had no teeth
It could have been avoided with all the legislature currently enacted, but the lack of enforcement is why it came to such a head
this event is teh fault of nimrods that think like you, not the conservatives who would have kept the gun out of this losers hands

when will you idealistic libearals stop allowing such situations to fester
when will you stop this from happening due to your idealistic BS

All fine and dandy with your liberal attack if for the mere fact that in this case, the nut head kid that purchased these weapons did so legally because of GOP congress allowing the assault weapons bill to expire.
Now, was the state legislature in this case a bunch of "feel good liberals" or gun wacko appeasement conservative republicans?