So, you'd like to prevent another Newtown shooting...

more stopping to reload means more times to jump the killer.

Its reality

What part of, a criminal does not follow the law, don't you understand? A criminal will not suddenly worry about his 15 round magazine or 30 round magazine with his ALREADY Illegal weapon you moron.

The only people effected by bans and magazine capacity are LAW ABIDING citizens. You disarm them while doing NOTHING about the criminal. God you are STUPID.
 
Colorado -- University student under psychiatric advice and (maybe) treatment is protected by "privacy laws" from informing parents or law enforcement of the potential danger.

Virginia Tech -- University student known to be mentally unstable protected by "privacy laws" that the University deems to be an absolute right.

Tucson -- Loughner was discharged by his school for "disruptive behaviour" without any reporting to law enforcement of his discharge. Known by fellow students as a "head case"..

THERE --- is your assault weapon.. The fiction of University and School "privacy laws".. Where these smug elites believe that they can diagnose and handle these "weapons of mass destruction" that are being sheltered in their classrooms...
 
he was stopped when he had to stop to reload

He used a 15 round magazine you brain dead dumb ass. THE ONLY people effected by magazine size will be LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. Criminals will still get the high capacity magazine for their use. What part of that ESCAPES your pin head?
 
dear idiot that makes no Differance.

he was only stopped when he was stopped because he had to reload.
 
he was stopped when he had to stop to reload

Err, if you read what happened, he emptied his first mag and then loaded another extended mag .. he was only stopped because the extended mag that he had just loaded jammed which is because extended magazines of this type are notoriously subject to jamming. So, and extended magazine of the type employed by Lougner probably saved lives. So lets pass a law requiring extended magazines..
 
We should do what the Conservative answer is to almost every problem: Do nothing.

Or, we could lengthen sentencing for violent crimes and put more cops on the street. Maybe also allow local communities to provide armed security if they see fit.

That's not only doing something, it's doing something that has proven to work. Trying to get criminals to obey the law? Not so much.

Longer sentences means more prisons, more prisoner's and more tax money going to these projects. So pick one...You want laws to prevent or more stronger laws just to imprison?

Not necessarily. I also stand for NOT imprisoning adults engaged in consensual activity that neither harms another nor involves stealing, in which case we'd have PLENTY of prison space. Either way, longer sentences for VIOLENT criminals keeps them off the streets longer, resulting in a lower violent crime rate. So, I reject your false choice.
 
Or, we could lengthen sentencing for violent crimes and put more cops on the street. Maybe also allow local communities to provide armed security if they see fit.

That's not only doing something, it's doing something that has proven to work. Trying to get criminals to obey the law? Not so much.

Longer sentences means more prisons, more prisoner's and more tax money going to these projects. So pick one...You want laws to prevent or more stronger laws just to imprison?

Not necessarily. I also stand for NOT imprisoning adults engaged in consensual activity that neither harms another nor involves stealing, in which case we'd have PLENTY of prison space. Either way, longer sentences for VIOLENT criminals keeps them off the streets longer, resulting in a lower violent crime rate. So, I reject your false choice.

That false choice being what exactly?
 
Longer sentences means more prisons, more prisoner's and more tax money going to these projects. So pick one...You want laws to prevent or more stronger laws just to imprison?

Not necessarily. I also stand for NOT imprisoning adults engaged in consensual activity that neither harms another nor involves stealing, in which case we'd have PLENTY of prison space. Either way, longer sentences for VIOLENT criminals keeps them off the streets longer, resulting in a lower violent crime rate. So, I reject your false choice.

That false choice being what exactly?

Than longer sentences mean choosing between prevention and punishment. It doesn't. Longer sentences FOR SURE keep violent criminals off the streets longer and that's all that matters.
 
Not necessarily. I also stand for NOT imprisoning adults engaged in consensual activity that neither harms another nor involves stealing, in which case we'd have PLENTY of prison space. Either way, longer sentences for VIOLENT criminals keeps them off the streets longer, resulting in a lower violent crime rate. So, I reject your false choice.

That false choice being what exactly?

Than longer sentences mean choosing between prevention and punishment. It doesn't. Longer sentences FOR SURE keep violent criminals off the streets longer and that's all that matters.

Yeah, except I never said that...thanks. You can do both, or choose one or the other. But longer sentences will mean more prisoners, more money to house those prisoners etc. Maybe the thing you are talking about that produces less prisoners is shorter prison sentences.

I don't know why you are disagreeing at this point.
 

Forum List

Back
Top