Adam Lanza's Attack Took Less Than 5 Minutes

[FA_Q2]

(Unrelated, just to continue the fire analogy-- yesterday the NRA was making noises about arming/training school personnel. Not only a grand scheme of slamming the global barn door after the global horse is out (another reactive rather than systemic approach) but plods on in this intellectually bereft idea that the way to counter guns is with ...more guns! -- an approach that, just by amazing coincidence happens to benefit the gun industries that fund the NRA (completely coincidental, I'm sure) and which has aptly been compared to trying to extinguish a fire by dousing it with gasoline)

I would like to engae on this because I think there are a few misnomers here and that the idea of having people armed can and does counter criminals and insane people. I think the major misnomer here is the statement:

“the way to counter guns is with ...more guns!”

That is a false statement. There is no ‘counter’ to guns as guns are not doing anything. The gun control advocates often use this statement (and it has worked as it bled into your arguments here) to place the focus of the conversations on guns rather than the problem: criminals and crazy people (and I understand and agree with the culture aspect but we are looking at the near term in this instance). The counter here is good guys countering bad guys. As the saying goes: the only thing evil needs to triumph is for good people to do nothing. When the criminal is armed, there is nothing that an unarmed person can do to stop them. Nothing. That is why the police (the good guys hopefully) are armed. When people call the police, that is why they are doing it. Others need to obey, they have the force in law, arms and numbers to make that happen.

Armed citizens are, indeed, the absolute best counter you can have against an armed bad guy and, as we have already established, there are going to be armed bad guys. If everyone was armed, there would be virtually no crime (now don’t jump on this yet, I have more)

The problem with that is, of course, not everyone is capable of handling a weapon, capable of killing another human (something that you HAVE to accept you might do as long as you are armed) and most importantly, not everyone is responsible and cool headed enough to carry a weapon. In that light, I don’t want everyone to be armed BUT I certainly have no problem if those that are responsible enough are armed.

The NRA’s ‘solution’ is not a bad one. There is nothing wrong with school personnel being armed. This is a case where it would have made a difference in sandy hook. Gun registries would have done nothing, assault weapon bans would have done nothing, outright weapon bans would have done nothing and virtually every single proposed ‘fix’ that has went to the legislators would have not stopped Sandy Hook. One person armed in the school would have.

Does it address the underlying problem? No but as stated and agreed on in this thread, there are no solutions to that. It takes time and individuals to make that journey down another road to actually change societal morals and culture. Right here, right now there is little that we can do and this IS one of them.

There are some caveats here though that I think should be mentioned because, again, I don’t actually support any of the NRA’s solutions. I don’t think that forcing anyone to be armed is a good idea. These people are school officials and as such, they are not primarily protectors but rather teachers. They do not need to be required to have weapons or even pressured into it. As I said before, I only want responsible people to be armed and I think that such a decision is best reached by individual people. Further, I don’t see the advantage in armed guards (unless the school wants them but that is never for mass shootings, it’s for crime) because advertising guards and/or an armed faculty does nothing other than protect the local area and move the targets elsewhere. To put that in scenario, in Sandy Hook, if the faculty was armed (and such was known because it was through force of policy) and there were armed guards there our crazy shooter would have just hit the bus that picks the kids up. Or the local park. Or any other place that children gather.

The reality is that we cannot place guards everywhere. We are not a police state. What we can do however is shit can the failed idea of a ‘gun free zone’ where targets gather and allow good citizens to make the choice of concealed carry in places like schools and virtually everywhere.

Lastly, you are discounting the NRA mostly because the moneyed interests that you see in the NRA’s donor list. I feel that is a terrible way to look at things. The NRA has a goal and what they claim needs to be viewed in that light BUT an argument is valid weather or not it is promoted by the gun lobby or the green lobby. Attack the MESSAGE, not the messenger and you are on good footing.

You do not counter guns with more guns. You counter armed bad guys with armed good guys.

 

[hunarcy]

Do any of you gun supporters see anything upsetting about this??? People like this Adam Lanza have to be stopped.

Help me out. What proposals do you think would have STOPPED Adam Lanza? Not "what might have made it difficult for him?" but what would STOP him?

 

[Rinata]

As your posts are devoid of reason, it is impossible for you to know this.

Case in point:

Laws cannot stop violence.

Maybe not. But they sure can cool off you gun nuts.

She comes back with a trollish reply. Do You have some vendetta against law abiding citizens? You just admitted you don't care about criminals

I don't have a vendetta against anyone. I just have zero tolerance for immature little boys, such as yourself. You care about nobody else. It doesn't matter to you how many innocent people are murdered each day as long as guns are readily available to you. Grow up.

 

[Rinata]

Do any of you gun supporters see anything upsetting about this??? People like this Adam Lanza have to be stopped.

Help me out. What proposals do you think would have STOPPED Adam Lanza? Not "what might have made it difficult for him?" but what would STOP him?

Not having the guns might have done it!!!

 

[eflatminor]

Do any of you gun supporters see anything upsetting about this??? People like this Adam Lanza have to be stopped.

Not having the guns might have done it!!!

So how would you have stopped HIM from stealing those weapons? Be specific, and please, don't say 'take away everyone's guns', because as we know, that doesn't work either. Ask the folks in Norway or Mexico how a ban on civilian gun ownership worked out.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Trying to reason with gun nuts is an exercise in futility.

As your posts are devoid of reason, it is impossible for you to know this.

Case in point:

I hope laws are passed to stop the violence

Laws cannot stop violence.

Maybe not. But they sure can cool off you gun nuts.

People like you are why the anti-gun side is losing the debate on gun control.
Plese keep up the good work.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A law can't stop crime...

So, why do you want laws that try to do exactly that?

 

[Pogo]

People come to the attention of the authorities for all sorts of reasons.
Both sides of the debate say that firearms should be removed from criminals and those with mental issues.
Once someone has been identified to be mad or bad a registry can be checked to see if they have legally purchased a firearm and the appropriate action taken.
The argument often put forward is that it won't prevent the illegal purchase of guns, which is true, but so what, that's an enforcement issue?
How else would you do it?

I see where you are coming at now. Ill concede the mentioned point above as that is a reasonable statement but I still do not support registration for guns and I will explain why.

First, the systems that are currently in place would fail to actually stop the problems we are having. The major shootings that have happened in recent memory were from people that are not diagnosed or did not have prior records. In other words, they would not have had any problems with a gun registry and it would not have help in these cases. Further, most criminals acquire their weapons through illegal means anyway so, again, I don’t see this as having any real impact on other gun crime as well.

Essentially, I see this as an infringement on a right. It is a tracking system put in place to track people that are not breaking the law and have not had any legal process. In order to track these people I personally believe that they have the right to a day in court. That infringement is simply not warranted when the realized benefits are not sufficient.

As you likely already know, I am naturally distrustful of the government in general anyway and this is yet another method to gain power and knowledge over the people that I don’t see the government needing. You would gain a positive in enforcement of those that become criminals/crazy that were not identified before that BUT how often do we get in that place where such an even would yield positive outcomes. Very rarely.

Do you not find that the tracking of legal citizens who have not committed a crime is against your right to privacy and to be simply left alone? Is that not important, even when approaching weapons and their ownership?

I would support an ID or designation on your ID that identifies you as a legal purchaser of weapons. Such a reality would not identify what you purchased, how much you purchased or even if you purchased anything at all but it would give a seller immediate and positive verification that the purchase was legal. In that light, there would be no ‘gun show loophole’ because a personal seller would only need to look at your ID to identify that you were a legal purchaser.

BTW: I support voter ID for much the same reasons. I see the 2 as almost identicle.

Conversations at your house must be damned interesting at times!!!!

Oh, you have no idea! LOL. Family get together are hilarious as my father and I LOVE to talk politics (if my presence on this board were not evidence enough of that) and we always engage my grandfather. He gets so angry also, usually attempting to avoid the conversations altogether. We are really split, Me and one uncle being libertarians, my father an extreme right (but agnostic, go figure), my grandfather extreme left and my other uncle damn far on the left spectrum as well. I love to stir the pot to

Here's why I see the mental health screening approach as reactive rather than proactive, and amounting to a game of whack-a-mole (and this may be what FA_Q2 is saying here too)--

Suppose instead of concentrating on gun registration and compiling lists of who has what, we were to concentrate on compiling lists of everybody's mental state, just in case they got access to a gun later down the road. That means you have to go around and mental-health-test everybody, including those not currently interested in guns, to compile that database, so that you can screen those people from a future gun purchase. Gun enthusiasts, answer honestly, would that not be a greater infringement of civil liberties than gun registration would? I'd have to put it on the same intrusive category as workplace drug testing (which I'm adamantly against). And it's an awful lot of work to go through for very little return.

Would that system stop a loon here and there from flipping out with firearms? Probably. But then you have the guy in Webster NY who got somebody else to purchase for him. There's always a way around it.

I can't see much more point in gun registration than in bans of this type of firearm or that kind of magazine. The determined will find ways around it. On the other hand I don't see a harm in it either, the fantasies of "the first step in government takeover" being a melodramatic extrapolation. I can't see the post from Jon_Berzerk as anything more than a strange free-verse haiku on CT paranoia.

It basically comes down to a waste of time. So we register the portion of gun transactions that are legal... then what? At most we might be able to do a study on what proportion of mass slaughters were done with illegal guns, as BigReb seems to be hung up on right now. I don't see how that information solves anything in the occurrence of the acts themselves.

 

[hunarcy]

Do any of you gun supporters see anything upsetting about this??? People like this Adam Lanza have to be stopped.

Not having the guns might have done it!!!

So, he couldn't have done something similar with an axe or a baseball bat? A home made bomb?

 

[whitehall]

Jihad major Nadal reloaded several times as he used a standard issue 9mm pistol to kill 13 of his own men and wound 32 others. I doubt is magazine capacity was a problem.

 

[Pogo]

(Unrelated, just to continue the fire analogy-- yesterday the NRA was making noises about arming/training school personnel. Not only a grand scheme of slamming the global barn door after the global horse is out (another reactive rather than systemic approach) but plods on in this intellectually bereft idea that the way to counter guns is with ...more guns! -- an approach that, just by amazing coincidence happens to benefit the gun industries that fund the NRA (completely coincidental, I'm sure) and which has aptly been compared to trying to extinguish a fire by dousing it with gasoline)

I would like to engae on this because I think there are a few misnomers here and that the idea of having people armed can and does counter criminals and insane people. I think the major misnomer here is the statement:

“the way to counter guns is with ...more guns!”

That is a false statement. There is no ‘counter’ to guns as guns are not doing anything. The gun control advocates often use this statement (and it has worked as it bled into your arguments here) to place the focus of the conversations on guns rather than the problem: criminals and crazy people (and I understand and agree with the culture aspect but we are looking at the near term in this instance). The counter here is good guys countering bad guys. As the saying goes: the only thing evil needs to triumph is for good people to do nothing. When the criminal is armed, there is nothing that an unarmed person can do to stop them. Nothing. That is why the police (the good guys hopefully) are armed. When people call the police, that is why they are doing it. Others need to obey, they have the force in law, arms and numbers to make that happen.

Armed citizens are, indeed, the absolute best counter you can have against an armed bad guy and, as we have already established, there are going to be armed bad guys. If everyone was armed, there would be virtually no crime (now don’t jump on this yet, I have more)

The problem with that is, of course, not everyone is capable of handling a weapon, capable of killing another human (something that you HAVE to accept you might do as long as you are armed) and most importantly, not everyone is responsible and cool headed enough to carry a weapon. In that light, I don’t want everyone to be armed BUT I certainly have no problem if those that are responsible enough are armed.

The NRA’s ‘solution’ is not a bad one. There is nothing wrong with school personnel being armed. This is a case where it would have made a difference in sandy hook. Gun registries would have done nothing, assault weapon bans would have done nothing, outright weapon bans would have done nothing and virtually every single proposed ‘fix’ that has went to the legislators would have not stopped Sandy Hook. One person armed in the school would have.

Does it address the underlying problem? No but as stated and agreed on in this thread, there are no solutions to that. It takes time and individuals to make that journey down another road to actually change societal morals and culture. Right here, right now there is little that we can do and this IS one of them.

There are some caveats here though that I think should be mentioned because, again, I don’t actually support any of the NRA’s solutions. I don’t think that forcing anyone to be armed is a good idea. These people are school officials and as such, they are not primarily protectors but rather teachers. They do not need to be required to have weapons or even pressured into it. As I said before, I only want responsible people to be armed and I think that such a decision is best reached by individual people. Further, I don’t see the advantage in armed guards (unless the school wants them but that is never for mass shootings, it’s for crime) because advertising guards and/or an armed faculty does nothing other than protect the local area and move the targets elsewhere. To put that in scenario, in Sandy Hook, if the faculty was armed (and such was known because it was through force of policy) and there were armed guards there our crazy shooter would have just hit the bus that picks the kids up. Or the local park. Or any other place that children gather.

The reality is that we cannot place guards everywhere. We are not a police state. What we can do however is shit can the failed idea of a ‘gun free zone’ where targets gather and allow good citizens to make the choice of concealed carry in places like schools and virtually everywhere.

Lastly, you are discounting the NRA mostly because the moneyed interests that you see in the NRA’s donor list. I feel that is a terrible way to look at things. The NRA has a goal and what they claim needs to be viewed in that light BUT an argument is valid weather or not it is promoted by the gun lobby or the green lobby. Attack the MESSAGE, not the messenger and you are on good footing.

You do not counter guns with more guns. You counter armed bad guys with armed good guys.

Actually I think the way you summed up the last sentence makes my point, if I can explain it...

First, I agree with the end part that teachers (or whoever) should not be forced to arm themselves. For one glaring reason, maybe, like me, they don't believe that approach is constructive, but destructive.

Back to the top of your post -- I sense that you're nudging toward the "guns don't kill people" mantra, concentrating on the gun itself. I have to admit I've never understood the meaning of that argument on semantics. We all understand how gunshots work; nobody's suggesting that guns get up and fire themselves. When I write "the counter to guns" that's a shorthand for "the counter to a bad guy with a gun" -- in other words the only situation where a gun is a threat. We already agree that a gun by itself without a shooter operating it is not in itself a threat. I put in that shorthand so that I can keep the snarky sentence short: "the counter to guns is ... more guns!"

What's supposed to be the obvious greater point there is not about guns; it's about violence. What I'm getting at is (again sarcastically put)- "the answer to violence is ... more violence!" If the folly of that satirical statement is not immediately apparent, then we have much work to do.

Answering violence with more violence, whatever form it takes (guns or otherwise) only reinforces the message that "you had the right approach, you were just outgunned-- bring more firepower next time". It validates the idea of violence before the violence even starts. It encourages the violence to start, much as Prohibition encouraged bootlegging.

I just don't believe psychologically that humans are deterred by an opposing force. If anything it makes some more determined to resist that force. I've already postulated that these mass shooters when they snap are compensating for some personal loss of power by rendering their victims helpless -- now, knowing that maybe some school official is armed, it just becomes that much more of a challenge: "if I can take out the guard and then start strafing people I'll be the most powerful motherfucker in the room!!"

So what I'm getting at here is the concept of escalation. Basically I'm trying to boil it down to, you don't counter a negative with more of the same negative. This gets back to the whole false dichotomy of "good and evil" I guess. I simply don't believe that either "good" or "evil" can ever prevail by force. Either one will be resisted; not because it's the force of evil or good, but simply because it's a force. Here's where I reference your last line, the one that assumes "bad guys" and "good guys". Not only is that hopelessly simplistic, but everybody with a gun is the good guy in his own mind. If he didn't believe in what he was doing, whether that's offense or defense, then he wouldn't be doing it. Human nature is just not that simple.

I'm getting way down to my Taoist philosophical roots I guess but I just don't believe anyone is deterred simply by knowing that what they're about to do will be resisted. That's like the cheap door lock that keeps the honest people out. If anything a determined person is instead motivated by it. Just as we keep noting a gunner determined to get an AR-15 will find a way whether it's legal to do so or not.

It should be obvious that you don't extinguish a fire by dousing it with gasoline. Put a couple of CC holders in the theater in Aurora shooting back at Holmes, and you have not only a shooter more determined, since he's now engaged in self-defense, but you also have a room full of innocent victims caught in the crossfire as well. That's escalation. And that's what the NRA proposed this week-- to escalate school violence pre-emptively. Completely wrongheaded.

As far as the NRA, yeah I can't help noticing that what they offer of late involves adding even more guns that the absurd number we already have (as a nation), and putting them into the hands of people who may (a) not believe in the concept and/or (b) see it as counterproductive and even dangerous for exactly the reasons I just laid out -- we haven't even mentioned the scenario where the school firearms get stolen or commandeered by an instantaneous maniac, who now has firearms he didn't come to school with (what could possibly go wrong there?).

So whether the NRA propose what they do because it makes more money for their underwriters or not, it's still a solution that bites the big one, as it only exacerbates the underlying atmosphere of "gun culture". It rubs salt into the wound. That may be the corruption of their funding sources, or it may be their own myopia, but either way the NRA is doing absolutely zero to address the underlying gun culture.

So ultimately this point goes right back to the culture and value system, and the idea that violence is the way to impose a moral society by force. I believe that value system is entirely bogus, doesn't work, never has worked, and will never work.

As another poster on this board put it, "I don't want my son going to school in a war zone". We've gone to great lengths to supposedly live in a country of peace. It boggles the mind that having achieved that, we then want to throw that concept away, as this latest NRA wet dream would have us do.

We should have a society that lives in peace because it desires peace -- and not because "if I disturb the peace I'll get shot". That's not peace; that's a silent war.

 

[eflatminor]

We should have a society that lives in peace because it desires[i/] peace -- and not because "if I disturb the peace I'll get shot". That's not peace; that's a silent war.

England effectively banned civilian firearm ownership, yet they have a far less peaceful society than America as they have a much higher violent crime rate.

Therefore, I don't see that America's more peaceful society is due to the threat of gunfire or some 'silent war'.

That said, I do believe you're correct that we should strive for as peaceful a society as possible because we should desire that to be the case. This, of course, does not mean we should disarm the people, as that only leads to higher violent crime rates, as results in England and Australia clearly demonstrate.

 

[Pogo]

So, he couldn't have done something similar with an axe or a baseball bat? A home made bomb?

No, he absolutely couldn't have accomplished what he was going for with a bat, a bomb, a sword or anything else. Understand what he was doing in the first place, and why a gun is essential for doing it. I'm going to repost this from earlier:

It's vitally important, and should be obvious if we will acknowledge it -- that we understand this: an Adam Lanza or a James Holmes or the guy in the Oregon mall or Klebold and Harris (etc etc etc) are not simply out for "mass murder", clearly, because they could accomplish that with, say, a bomb or poison gas, which doesn't require one's presence in the moment, and which gives at least a chance of being somewhere else when the shit goes down and possibly not being caught (think Tim McVeigh or Eric Rudolph or the anthrax mailer).

Not only does a mass shooting inevitably result in either the self-inflicted death or incarceration of the shooter (which is not true of the terrorist bomber), but an actual terrorist attack takes meticulous planning, whereas a random shooting, once the shooter takes his position, is random, targeting whatever comes into view. So these are not the same thing going on; who the victim is, to the mass shooter, is unimportant.

We call these guys 'mass murderers' but that's a misnomer.What these mass shooters are after is personal carnage, and by that I mean the real, physical, visual experience of being able to watch helpless people, even kids, scream, run for cover and bleed from their wounds. They're out for a perverse kind of power trip (and I think it's got everything to do with power). You can't get that kind of sensory feedback by poisoning the water or leaving a bomb for later while you get out of harm's way. I have no doubt the moment when they're strafing innocent people absolutely IS their payoff. As I remember the Columbine cameras showed Klebold and Harris whooping with exhilarated delight as they inflicted their carnage.

That-- that sensory experience-- is the goal, and this is why their weapon of choice is guns -- nothing can give the kind of sensory payoff --blood splattering, organ demolishing, and the long-distance range-- that a gun can. And it only ends when they know it must end, when they're cornered and use their last shot on themselves; the goal of the "game" being to run up the score as much as possible before the clock runs out.

Crudely put but I do believe that's what's going on in those heads in that moment-- and is the real goal of what they're doing.

And that's why I keep getting back to the culture. Something in our culture is giving these perverts the idea that mowing people down would be a really cool thing to administer. And that, I believe, is the root of the tree that bears this poison fruit.

 

[Pogo]

We should have a society that lives in peace because it desires[i/] peace -- and not because "if I disturb the peace I'll get shot". That's not peace; that's a silent war.

England effectively banned civilian firearm ownership, yet they have a far less peaceful society than America as they have a much higher violent crime rate.

Therefore, I don't see that America's more peaceful society is due to the threat of gunfire or some 'silent war'.

That said, I do believe you're correct that we should strive for as peaceful a society as possible because we should desire that to be the case. This, of course, does not mean we should disarm the people, as that only leads to higher violent crime rates, as results in England and Australia clearly demonstrate.

Actually I don't think that demonstration is "clear" at all, from what I've seen. Ipse dixit sure saves typing but it doesn't really prove anything.

This is far deeper a question that whether X number of citizens have access to firearms or not. Narrowing analysis down to that is also hopelessly simplistic and ignores cultural contexts.
I think trying to boil this down into a simple question of how we handle guns, does nothing to address the culture that exalts the concept of guns in the first place. If anything it only feeds that fetish.

 

[eflatminor]

We should have a society that lives in peace because it desires[i/] peace -- and not because "if I disturb the peace I'll get shot". That's not peace; that's a silent war.

England effectively banned civilian firearm ownership, yet they have a far less peaceful society than America as they have a much higher violent crime rate.

Therefore, I don't see that America's more peaceful society is due to the threat of gunfire or some 'silent war'.

That said, I do believe you're correct that we should strive for as peaceful a society as possible because we should desire that to be the case. This, of course, does not mean we should disarm the people, as that only leads to higher violent crime rates, as results in England and Australia clearly demonstrate.

Actually I don't think that demonstration is "clear" at all, from what I've seen. Ipse dixit sure saves typing but it doesn't really prove anything.

If you are suggesting that England does not have a higher violent crime rate than the US, that would be incorrect:

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

Read more: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

And for good measure, another source:

Britain has a higher crime rate than any other rich nation except Australia, according to a survey yesterday.

Read more: Violent crime worse in Britain than in US | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

No ipse dixit there!

It is also crystal clear that violent crime rates in Australia and England increased dramatically following their bans on civilian owned firearms...and this during a time in which other western countries were seeing a decrease in violent crime rates. For proof, I would direct you to the British Home Office, reported by BBC news (July 12, 2002), in which it was found, following the gun ban, that Violent crime was up 11%, murders up 4%, and rapes were up 14%. The trend into continued in 2004 with a 10% increase in street crime, an 8% increase in muggings, and a 22% increase in robberies.

Making the situation look even worse for England is the fact that in America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime, while in Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. (Fear in Britain, Gallant, Hills, Kopel, Independence Institute, July 18, 2000.)

And as was already demonstrated, the UK's violent crime rate remains to this day the highest in the EU and higher than in America.

Australia's no better. According the Australian Institute of Criminology (Report #46: Homicide in Australia, 2001-2002 April 2003), in the the first two years after Australian gun-owners were forced to surrender their personal, homicides were up another 20%. Ouch. From the inception of firearm confiscation to March 27, 2000, the numbers are:
• Firearm-related murders were up 19%
• Armed robberies were up 69%
• Home invasions were up 21%

Ouch again.

So, there you go, CRYSTAL clear.

 

[Rinata]

So how would you have stopped HIM from stealing those weapons? Be specific, and please, don't say 'take away everyone's guns', because as we know, that doesn't work either. Ask the folks in Norway or Mexico how a ban on civilian gun ownership worked out.

If his mother didn't have the weapons they would not have been there for him to steal. Right???

Please don't dare demand that I answer any questions!!! At least I make suggestions, whether you like them or not. You people will not even admit there is a problem!!! Not true??? Prove it. Offer some solutions.

 

[Rinata]

As your posts are devoid of reason, it is impossible for you to know this.

Case in point:

Laws cannot stop violence.

Maybe not. But they sure can cool off you gun nuts.

People like you are why the anti-gun side is losing the debate on gun control.
Plese keep up the good work.

Nice try. Running scared, huh??? Good.

 

[Rinata]

So, he couldn't have done something similar with an axe or a baseball bat? A home made bomb?

That's your answer??? You people are just plain incapable of problem solving. All you want to do is whine about your guns being taken away. Which is not even happening.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's your answer??? You people are just plain incapable of problem solving.

Says she who wants to reduce violent crime by making it harder for people who do not commit crime to get guns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Maybe not. But they sure can cool off you gun nuts.

People like you are why the anti-gun side is losing the debate on gun control.
Plese keep up the good work.

Nice try. Running scared, huh??? Good.

Nope - your every post makes my job that much easier.