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

[TurtleDude]

How do you figure? CCW laws often allow people to carry guns who otherwise would not have been allowed to.

Or are you suggesting that there's an inherent right for every American to bear arms at any time, in any place, without the state's permission?

a law that requires training, payment of fees and a license to carry a gun is a gun control law

The NRA pushed Project Exile which targets armed criminals for federal charges. That is the type of gun control law that should be supported

ones that ban honest people owning the same weapons civilian law enforcement officers use are both unconstitutional and have nothing to do with crime control

 

[TurtleDude]

Semantics;simple spin. I fully and completely addressed each issue citing sources that further elaborate on the matter. You call the NFOPA or 86 gun control where in effect it underscores gun control as was stated in GCA of 68.
Gun control laws without effective means of enforcement as is demonstrated by the 86 vs 68 measures is no gun control. It's not about what I like or what you like or what you feel "is" gun control, it's about what really takes these weapons off the streets what allows authorities to enforce.
The VT shooting is a clear case in which gun control was not enforced or lack of expiration of the assault weapons ban allowing for the gun clip purchase - allowing a nut head to purchase the weapons. Thus the case to be made for more stringent gun control laws.

given how many times you have been in error on this topic I don't know if telling you the truth has any utility but all the clinton gun ban did was increase the cost of normal capacity magazines (they are not clips BTW)

are you telling me that banning normal capacity magazines would have had any effect upon this shooting?

 

[jfuh]

I'm sorry -- I didnt see where you conceded that the NRA DOES support certain gun control laws, thusly negating your assertion that the NRA opposes ALL gun control.

I didn't, the NRA doesn't support gun control. Laws passed on guns do not equate to gun control - which is what you are defining here. Hence I repeat my premise. The NRA opposes all gun control.

 

[jfuh]

given how many times you have been in error on this topic I don't know if telling you the truth has any utility but all the clinton gun ban did was increase the cost of normal capacity magazines (they are not clips BTW)

are you telling me that banning normal capacity magazines would have had any effect upon this shooting?

I'm not a gun person and I don't really care what you prefer to reference clips or magazines, semantics. But here you're dishonestly leaving out large portions of the assault weapons ban.
The Clinton assault weapons ban illegalized the large capacity magazines that the VT shooter used. Were the ban not left to expire by the republican congress the shooter would not have been able to purchase those large "magazines" to which he had more shots before reloading - hence very likely not as many deaths.

 

[DeeJayH]

I'm not a gun person and I don't really care what you prefer to reference clips or magazines, semantics. But here you're dishonestly leaving out large portions of the assault weapons ban.
The Clinton assault weapons ban illegalized the large capacity magazines that the VT shooter used. Were the ban not left to expire by the republican congress the shooter would not have been able to purchase those large "magazines" to which he had more shots before reloading - hence very likely not as many deaths.

negative. since he was wearing a vest of magazines, all of which were not expended as far as I know
it only takes a second or 2 to reload, and since nobody confronted him during his other reloadings, I doubt anyone would have, if he did it more often.
but if you like we can play the what if game all day

 

[Hatuey]

I don't get it. How is this question relevant to the issue at hand? More guns will somehow protect the populace? There are 250 million legally owned guns in this country. Thats one gun for 5 out of 6 people in this country. How safe are we?

 

[jfuh]

negative. since he was wearing a vest of magazines, all of which were not expended as far as I know
it only takes a second or 2 to reload, and since nobody confronted him during his other reloadings, I doubt anyone would have, if he did it more often.
but if you like we can play the what if game all day

one or two seconds is enough time to get the frack out of the way not to mention the need to reaim I would say that's about a good 3 or 4 seconds worth of time.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I didn't, the NRA doesn't support gun control. Laws passed on guns do not equate to gun control - which is what you are defining here. Hence I repeat my premise. The NRA opposes all gun control.

Then you're just not willing or able to admit you're wrong.

Unless you have a better definition:
Gun control = limitations, conditions and restrictions on who can have and/or use what guns, where, when and how.

Thus: The NRA supports gun control.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm not a gun person and I don't really care what you prefer to reference clips or magazines, semantics.

if you dont know about the specifics and mechanics of guns, then its impossible for you to carry on an intelligent conversation about same -- which is what you;re trying to do, below.

The Clinton assault weapons ban illegalized the large capacity magazines that the VT shooter used. Were the ban not left to expire by the republican congress the shooter would not have been able to purchase those large "magazines" to which he had more shots before reloading - hence very likely not as many deaths.

:rofl

The guy fired 190 rounds. Thats 13x 15-rd magazined. 12 reloads.

Had he only been able to get 10 rounds mags, he would have had to reload 18 times.

Please tell me know having to reload 6 more times would have saved just one life.

:rofl

Never mind that the hi-cap ban didnt ban existing magazines. Its --entirely-- possible (and even fairly probable) that ALL his magazines were pre-ban, and thus, the ban, had it still been in place, would have had absolutely NO effect.

 

[M14 Shooter]

one or two seconds is enough time to get the frack out of the way not to mention the need to reaim I would say that's about a good 3 or 4 seconds worth of time.

4 seconds x +6 magazine changes = +24 seconds.

24 more seconds for trapped, unarmed victims to ponder their doom.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't get it. How is this question relevant to the issue at hand? More guns will somehow protect the populace? There are 250 million legally owned guns in this country. Thats one gun for 5 out of 6 people in this country. How safe are we?

It doesmt matter how many guns there are in he US when the people in question here -- people on the VT campus -- arent allowed to have them.

 

[Hatuey]

It doesmt matter how many guns there are in he US when the people in question here -- people on the VT campus -- arent allowed to have them.

So your theory is that safety would have been ensured by handing guns to kids who are under constant social and academic stress? Oh alright. That makes a lot more sense. :roll: Because obviously stressed out people don't lose it. And then we have Mr. Cho.

\end sarcasm.

 

[jfuh]

It doesmt matter how many guns there are in he US when the people in question here -- people on the VT campus -- arent allowed to have them.

So you're suggesting that schools allow kids to bring guns to class?

 

[jfuh]

Then you're just not willing or able to admit you're wrong.

Unless you have a better definition:
Gun control = limitations, conditions and restrictions on who can have and/or use what guns, where, when and how.

Thus: The NRA supports gun control.

The NRA does not support any limitations, conditions or restrictions. It broadly and wrongfully interprets right to bear arms as restriction free.
The 86 bill undercut the 68 bill Each bill that the NRA supports chips away on conditions of earlier bills. Each instance I have backed up with sources the NRA has put money into over turning bills that either set limitations or out right ban (NJ case).
For you to claim that the NRA supports gun control has got to be the greatest joke there is here.

 

[jfuh]

if you dont know about the specifics and mechanics of guns, then its impossible for you to carry on an intelligent conversation about same -- which is what you;re trying to do, below.


:rofl

The guy fired 190 rounds. Thats 13x 15-rd magazined. 12 reloads.

Had he only been able to get 10 rounds mags, he would have had to reload 18 times.

Please tell me know having to reload 6 more times would have saved just one life.

:rofl

Never mind that the hi-cap ban didnt ban existing magazines. Its --entirely-- possible (and even fairly probable) that ALL his magazines were pre-ban, and thus, the ban, had it still been in place, would have had absolutely NO effect.

Pre ban? given that the kid was only 26 and the ban went into effect in 98, we do the math and it's 8 years ago he would have been at most just turn 18. I seriously doubt the first thing an 18 year old of Korean decent would do would be to go out and get a gun with a magazine of 15 and then wait 8 years to finally use it - talk about pre-meditation. Who do you think you are kidding?
Saving just one more life would've been worth it. And no, do I need to know all the internal workings of a cell phone to know how to operate a cell phone? Do I need to know all the mechanics of a gun to fire a gun? :roll:

 

[jfuh]

4 seconds x +6 magazine changes = +24 seconds.

24 more seconds for trapped, unarmed victims to ponder their doom.

So you are telling me that 4 seconds is not enough time to tackle a guy or run the hell away? give me a break. Not all his victims were locked up in a single room. I can cover just about 40 meters in a sprint in 4 seconds that's plenty of distance to get out of a handgun's effective range.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So you are telling me that 4 seconds is not enough time to tackle a guy or run the hell away?

He reloaded 12 times. 12. A full dozen.

No one took the opportunity to tackle him or run away during any of the 12 reloads.

On what do you base your assumption that any of the 6 addistional reloads would have been any different?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Pre ban? given that the kid was only 26 and the ban went into effect in 98, we do the math and it's 8 years ago he would have been at most just turn 18. I seriously doubt the first thing an 18 year old of Korean decent would do would be to go out and get a gun with a magazine of 15 and then wait 8 years to finally use it - talk about pre-meditation. Who do you think you are kidding?

WTF are you talking about?

The 1994 magaxine banned the purchase of NEW hi-cap mags from 1994 to 2004. It did NOTHING to ban the posession and sale of existing hi-cap mags.
There isnt any reason that this guy could not have still gotten the h0cap mahs even if the ban had still been in place -- I bought literally dozens of h-caps from 1994 to 2004, and there isnt any reason I could not have continued to do so up to and through this very day had the ban still been in place.

Theres NO way to argue that teh hi-cap ban woudl have kept this huy from getting the hi-cap mags. None whatsoever.

Do I need to know all the mechanics of a gun to fire a gun? :roll:

You have to know something about the technical aspects of guns if you're going to base an argument on the technical aspects of guns. You clearly don't know enough to have any such discussion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The NRA does not support any limitations, conditions or restrictions.

This is simple willful ignorance or utter intellectual dishonesty -- or complete unwillingness to admit you;re wrong. Your choice.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So you're suggesting that schools allow kids to bring guns to class?

YOU said:

More guns will somehow protect the populace? There are 250 million legally owned guns in this country. Thats one gun for 5 out of 6 people in this country. How safe are we?

I said:

It doesmt matter how many guns there are in he US when the people in question here -- people on the VT campus -- arent allowed to have them.

Your argument is "there are already a lot of guns, more wont make any difference". Your argument doesnt address that no matter how many guns there are in the US, there were NONE on the VT campus, except for the shooter's.

That is, your argument that 'we already have lots of guns, more would not make a difference here' is, at best, fallacious.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So your theory is that safety would have been ensured by handing guns to kids who are under constant social and academic stress? Oh alright. That makes a lot more sense. :roll: Because obviously stressed out people don't lose it. And then we have Mr. Cho.
\end sarcasm.

Hundreds of thousands of law abiding CCW holders carry guns every day. College students arent under any more stress than some of these people -- and yet, misuse of guns by CCW holders is extraordinarily rare.

What you apparently dont want to admit is that if just one of students or facuilty members involved in or around the VT shooting had been able to carry while on campus, many lives might very well have been saved. Instead, in ensuring that these victims were disarmed -- much to the delight of many -- they were guaranteed easy picking for Nutjob.

As jfuh said -- if it saves just one life...

I understand that some people are just plain afraid of the idea that responsible, law abiding citizens sometimes carry guns so they might protect themselves and others. I dont understand how or why those people have that fear -- indeed, I often wonder what causes such severe hoplophobia -- but then I also don't understand why people eat anchovies.

 

[TurtleDude]

Pre ban? given that the kid was only 26 and the ban went into effect in 98, we do the math and it's 8 years ago he would have been at most just turn 18. I seriously doubt the first thing an 18 year old of Korean decent would do would be to go out and get a gun with a magazine of 15 and then wait 8 years to finally use it - talk about pre-meditation. Who do you think you are kidding?
Saving just one more life would've been worth it. And no, do I need to know all the internal workings of a cell phone to know how to operate a cell phone? Do I need to know all the mechanics of a gun to fire a gun? :roll:

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

 

[TurtleDude]

one or two seconds is enough time to get the frack out of the way not to mention the need to reaim I would say that's about a good 3 or 4 seconds worth of time.

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

 

[TurtleDude]

So you're suggesting that schools allow kids to bring guns to class?

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?

 

[jfuh]

He reloaded 12 times. 12. A full dozen.

No one took the opportunity to tackle him or run away during any of the 12 reloads.

On what do you base your assumption that any of the 6 addistional reloads would have been any different?

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.
Yes, many ppl did run away down the halls which, remember he went from room to room, the 32 were not all concentrated in one place. It's plain simple fact - just read the articles on the matter.