More gun violence, Connecticut School Shooting

[Yssup Rider]

That'll keep the drug lords away from our children! Unless...

[SpeedRacerXXX]

[QUOTE=LexusLover;1052044443
As for "gun control" ... there will have to be a constitutional amendment revoking and/or modifying the 2nd amendment.
[/QUOTE]

Not sure what you mean by that. The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee every person the right to carry any weapon at any time in any place. There are many gun control laws in affect in the U.S. right now. When the Brady Bill was passed that banned several types of assault weapons, the 2nd Amendment was still there.

Debate over what the 2nd Amendment really guarantees citizens has been going on for 200 years without any definitive answer.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

#1, it's a "magazine" .. #2 LE typically uses high-capacity magazines.

"clips" are to hold your hair back out of your face or seal a bag of chips.

As for "gun control" ... there will have to be a constitutional amendment revoking and/or modifying the 2nd amendment.

There may be tougher "new purchase" and/or "ammo" purchase laws on the Federal books and a crack down on "gun shows," but ELIMINATING them "on the street" for sale and in homes won't happen.

You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to. LOL

I'm not an advocate of blanket gun control and I do NOT favor getting rid of the first amendment.

But if you can only buy 38 or 45 revolvers instead of automatics with 15 round clips - excuse me - magazines, I don't see the 2nd amendment violation.

We have first amendment rights, too, and they are still limited by law to prevent you from committing slander, or shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, using a bull horn at 3 AM in a residential neighborhood to advocate for Obama, or telling our military secrets to the enemy during wartime.

The restrictions have to serve a compelling government interest and they have to be the least restrictive means to achieve that compelling interest. But there is NO right that is treated as absolute.

Is preventing mass murder a compelling goverment interest? Can there not be restrictions on calibers and magazines sizes that serve a compelling interest? Are they not the least restrictive means to prevent mass murders?

We already have plenty of restrictions on gun ownership - no children, no convicted felons, no crazies.

We already have plenty of restrictions on gun types and magazines - no machine guns, no sawed-off barrels, etc.

If those don't pose problems, why not eliminate automatics and allow only revolvers for personal use?

Nothing is guaranteed, of course. A mass murder can still walk into an office with 10 revolvers instead of two automatics. But the guy with 10 revolvers is easier to spot and therefore easier to avoid or stop early.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Mătăsăreanu (now there'S a cut and paste job if ever Ive seen one. How do you make those special letters IBPlagiarizing? How do you pronounce that name)and Phillips were also using drugs to deaden their senses, weren't they, ExNYer? You left that part out, didn't you, ExNYer? Plus, you're trying to deflect away from the fact that Phillips was still hit eleven times before he was stopped and that Mătăsăreanu was shot twenty times before he was stopped and that LE was using mostly .9 mm pistols and not the less powerful .38 caliber you're touting. You left that out didn't you, ExNYer. ...

BTW, what say YOU provide statistics that show where a round fired from a .38 caliber pistol definitively stops drugged-up, insensate burglars, rapists, thieves and murderers 100% of the time thus guaranteeing that when one is using a .38 caliber pistol one's loved ones will be protected from such attackers. Statistically, larger caliber weapons are rated superior to the .38 caliber in such situations; YOU cite statistics that say otherwise.

BTW, here’s another story wherein a .38 caliber didn’t stop the attacker from injuring the shooter. . Oh, I get it, this is about why guns aren't so bad, right. You're going to find us stories where someone shoots a gun and dozens of people's children don't die as a way of justifying your most recent string of lunatic blather...


Reynaldo Reyes, shot and wounded during Chicopee robbery at Furnari Jewelers, to be arraigned from hospital bed
...

And you fancy yourself the voice of reason and moderation, Assup? Fuck you and your ignorant pretentiousness, Assup! Ugotome10 has you pegged, Assup. Fuck you and your mock outrage, Assup!

Ain't nothing mock about my outrage over what happened yesterday, nor my total disgust with those of you who predictably are using this tragedy to scream the praises of a gun toting society?

You think ugotome REALLY believes Mexican drug lords are poised to invade the US if we tighten our gun laws? He said that. That was the crux of his entire argument, along with a shot at Hollywood (code name=Jews). Hes as loony as you. In fact, y'all make a good pair, though I'm sure ugotome would probably rebuff your amorous advances...

The pattern is simple. Someone disagrees with your point of view and you fly I to an uncontrollable rage, yielding page after page of name calling, cartoon filled, foul mouthed verbal diarrhea that usually winds up miles away from the intent of the post.

SEEK HELP, DIPSHIT!

[Slappy Balls]

Bloomberg sucks

[Yssup Rider]

Welcome to Eccie, Slappy!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

I'm not an advocate of blanket gun control and I do NOT favor getting rid of the first amendment.



Can there not be restrictions on calibers and magazines sizes that serve a compelling interest? Are they not the least restrictive means to prevent mass murders?

We already have plenty of restrictions on gun ownership - no children, no convicted felons, no crazies.

We already have plenty of restrictions on gun types and magazines - no machine guns, no sawed-off barrels, etc.

If those don't pose problems, why not eliminate automatics and allow only revolvers for personal use?

Nothing is guaranteed, of course. A mass murder can still walk into an office with 10 revolvers instead of two automatics. But the guy with 10 revolvers is easier to spot and therefore easier to avoid or stop early.

A "problem" is ... unless there is a total ban on firearms one is not going to solve anything, and even then it won't be resolved....in reality.

Like you said, we already have laws on who gets weapons and who doesn't, along with what type of weapons can be possessed. About all that will be accomplished by tightening the noose on weapon possession is more burglaries and robberies to get weapons from those who can have them legally at stores and homes, or higher prices off the grid.

But IMO the debate should not occur surrounding this tragedy, the "debate" ought to be how do we provide adequate protection for vulnerable children and staff at our public schools, when we require the children to be in those schools. "Gun control" is not the answer .... perimeter control is, along with ingress and egress control to the facility and security within the facility confines.

We do it for Congress, the Administration, the Court system, local, federal, and state employees and participants .... We can't do it for our children?

[Slappy Balls]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Welcome to Eccie, Slappy!

Thanks, commie boy.

[Yssup Rider]

Whats the over/under on this handle Slappy?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

We do it for Congress, the Administration, the Court system, local, federal, and state employees and participants .... We can't do it for our children?

We can protect Congress and the WH and to a lesser degree court houses, because there are only a few hundred of them.

But I don't think we provide much protection to local and state employees. I can walk into plenty of government offices and they have either no protection or a rent-a-cop security guard. There are simply too many locations. The same goes for schools - there are tens of thousands of them.

And even if you could defend all of the state and local offices and all of the schools, the crazies will just shoot up malls, or playgrounds or sports events. Do we really want to turn the whole country into a barricaded prison? Can we even do it?

BTW, I meant to say I am not in favor of getting rid of the "second' amendment in my earlier post. I wrote "first" instead. I don't want to get rid of that one either, in case anybody is wondering.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

No, actually, I didn't leave out anything - at least nothing that was relevant. I'm not going to repost the entire story.

First, regarding drugs, YOU failed to mention them, probably because all they took was a muscle relaxant, phenobarbital, supposedly for the purpose of calming their nerves. Pheno isn't bath salts and it won't make you into some crazed super human killer - which, I assume is why YOU left it out in the first place. Phenobarbital reduced their sense of pain, ExNYer. It made them insensate.

I did "deflect" (A Freudian slip there, ExNYer!) anything about how many time they were shot.They were wearing body armor. That's how they survived all those shots - the bullets weren't doing much damage. It had nothing to do with drugs. Philips died when he shot himself in the head. He was wounded in both hands and the forearm. He put a gun under his chin - possibly to helpreload due to the wounded hands or possibly to commit suicide. No one knows for sure. AFTER he killed himself, the cops shot him in the back of the neck and several more times while he lay on the ground. But most of those 11 "hits" either occurred AFTER he was dead, were minor wounds to his hands, or were stopped by the body armor while he was still alive. The ONLY shot that counted was his own head shot. Pheno had NOTHING to do with keeping him going.

The same goes for Mătăsăreanu. He was hit 20 times in his unprotected legs by an AR-15. A SWAT cop shot underneath a car to get his legs. He bled to death in minutes. Mătăsăreanu and Phillips – while wearing body armor – were still wounded – physically injured – by a combined 31 shots before they were subdued. So "yes" you are deflecting.

The facts are the the cops shot at both men with a shotgun and with AR-15, not just 9 mm. And it did almost NOTHING until Philips killed himself and ONE copy finally emptied hit magazine into Matas legs.

Givings the cops 45s instead of 9 mm would have changed nothing.You're argument is that .38s should suffice in lieu of 9mm's, ExNYer.

It was the body armor that made the difference. And that is the part YOU left out. The point you are defecting from is that Mătăsăreanu and Phillips were still wounded -- physically injured -- by a combined 31 shots before they were subdued.

Also, I've advocated reducing the calibers or the magazine sizes or both that are available to the public. I said nothing about the police or the military. The cops can keep their 45s, although I don't think they want them. They prefer the 9mm for a number of reasons. The point your ignoring is that the FBI agents in Miami used .38s and they didn't stop their killers. The cops in Hollywood used 9s and had to shoot and hit Mătăsăreanu and Phillips 31 times before they were subdued.

Stupid, stupid, stupid argument. But exactly the type I expect from you. Your argument is that a .38 should suffice in lieu of a larger caliber hand gun. Everyone knows larger caliber hand guns have a greater "knock down" punch and that is the principal object in self-defense: stop the attacker before s/he hurts an innocent. So it's your argument that is stupid, ExNYer.

There are NO weapons that are 100% effective - even against people that are NOT on drugs. Not even the .45 is 100% effective. So should we get rid of the 45, too? Perhaps in favor of 12 gauge sawed-off shotguns?. Where does it end? It's not your prerogative to decide for millions of other law abiding citizens, ExNYer.

These arguments involve tradeoffs. We demand better mileage in cars even though we know the lighter, smaller cars are less crash-worthy than bigger cars. But we make the tradeoff because we believe (rightly or wrongly) that there will be less deaths in the long run due to global warming. But no one takes seriously some raving idiot who demands a 100% safe car before he will agree to higher gas mileage.

Which is why no one takes you seriously on your demand for a 100% effective .38 gun.. So why are you insisting that it's "good enough", ExNYer?


Really? No fucking kidding? The next think I know you will be telling me a 12 inch knife cuts deeper than a 6 inch knife.

I never said a 45 was less effective in stopping someone than a 38, so stop asking for statistics to that effect. If and when you stop insisting that a .38 can provide the same degree of "knock down" power as a .45, ExNYer.

I am saying there are tradeoffs that we have to make. Eliminate the big magazines and the big calibers. We will end up with less civilian deaths. But we will not get more crimes. Criminals aren't going to increase their activities because the general population now has only 38 revolvers instead of 45 automatics. Crooks don't want to get shot at all. You're ignoring the Wiki article, ExNYer. The FBI figured it out 25 years ago: .38s do not create enough injury or pain to stop a determined perpetrator. The October article from Massachusetts underscores that point.

And you can still defend your home with a shotgun or a bolt action rifle with a small magazine. Crooks aren't going to mess with that stuff either.

ALSO, on the subject of DEFLECTION, you made some exaggerated assertions above about the .38 filing to stop MOST of the Moros and about SCORES or even HUNDREDS of bath salt stories being buried in the press.I asked for some kind of studies or statistics to back up either of these assertions. You were UNABLE to do either. So, I take it then that your assertions about the Moros and the bath salts stories are just bull shit you made up to try to win an argument. FAIL. Once again you misinterpret the obvious! There are hundreds of articles where attackers – drugged crazed or not – are not stopped by 9mm bullets let alone smaller, less effective, .38 caliber bullets. Each such article underscores how ridiculous your assertion that smaller caliber weapons should “equivalently suffice” in lieu of larger caliber weapons.

Instead, you demanded that I cite statistics to phony straw man argument (.38s are 100% effective) that you pulled out of your ass. You also demanded that I provide statistics that show smaller caliber weapons are more effective that larger caliber weapons. Another stupid strawman argument. I never said that, you are trying to put words in my mouth. You make these ridiculous strawman arguments to deflect from the fact that you have no good arguments as to why the tradeoffs to smaller calibers and smaller magazineswon't result in less civilian deaths overall. And by GOOD arguments, I mean arguments supported by surveys and statistics - not anecdotes about 7-11 shootouts and bank robberies. It's your argument that smaller caliber hand guns should "equivalently suffice" when even you concede that larger caliber hand guns have more stopping power -- which, BTW, is the primary purpose of self-defense: stop the attacker. So "no", it's not a "straw man argument", and it's you who cannot back up your assertions with factual documentation to support your goofy premise.

“The U.S. Cavalry had fielded some double action revolvers in .38 Long Colt. They determined the .38 caliber round was significantly less effective against determined opponents, such as the warriors encountered in the Moro Rebellion of the Philippine–American War, than the .45 Colt.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.45_ACP

“Based on the experience with the Moros and extensive testing on animals and human cadavers, an Army Ordnance Board headed by Col. John T. Thompson (inventor of the Thompson sub-machine-gun) and Col. Louis A. La Garde, determined that the Army needed a .45 caliber cartridge to provide adequate stopping power.” http://www.sightm1911.com//1911-History.htm

“It is thought the .45 caliber revolver [meaning the Constabulary Model 1902 ] is the one which should be issued to troops throughout the Army. Instances have repeatedly been reported during the past year where natives have been shot through and through several times with a .38 caliber revolver, and have come on, cutting up the unfortunate individual armed with it. The .45 caliber revolver stops a man in his tracks, usually knocking him down. It is [also] recommended that each company serving in this department be furnished with four 12-gauge Winchester, repeating shotguns. For outpost duty and advance guard [walking point] there is no weapon in our possession equal to the shotgun loaded with buckshot.” General Leonard Wood Annual Report of June, 1904.
http://www.morolandhistory.com/Relat...20of%20.45.htm

“[I]t [the .38 caliber Colt] failed to stop Moros unless it struck them in a vital spot.” Major General Adna Chaffee, the Philippine Department Commander, Annual Report to the War Department for 1902.
http://www.morolandhistory.com/Relat...20of%20.45.htm

Here's another citation that reports that the .38 was inadequate to the challenge posed by the Moros, and it appears the Moros didn't need drugs to stand up to the impact of a .38. “Another officer reported that that his soldiers had several times shot attacking Moro multiple times with a standard revolver, only to be cut to pieces by their still charging foe” (p. 39).
http://books.google.com/books?id=og9...0drugs&f=false

More at:
http://www.morolandhistory.com/Relat...20of%20.45.htm

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Ain't nothing mock about my outrage over what happened yesterday, nor my total disgust with those of you who predictably are using this tragedy to scream the praises of a gun toting society? You’re “mock human”; hence, you are incapable of anything except “mock outrage”, jackass!

You think ugotome REALLY believes Mexican drug lords are poised to invade the US if we tighten our gun laws? He said that. That was the crux of his entire argument, along with a shot at Hollywood (code name=Jews). Hes as loony as you. In fact, y'all make a good pair, though I'm sure ugotome would probably rebuff your amorous advances...

The pattern is simple. Someone disagrees with your point of view and you fly I to an uncontrollable rage, yielding page after page of name calling, cartoon filled, foul mouthed verbal diarrhea that usually winds up miles away from the intent of the post. That’s exactly what you do, Assup! That’s exactly what you do.

SEEK HELP, DIPSHIT! Seek a real education, Assup.

[Yssup Rider]

No, that's exactly what YOU do! That's exactly what YOU do!!!

LMAO @ Meltdown Master Dipshit

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

No, that's exactly what YOU do! That's exactly what YOU do!!!

LMAO @ Meltdown Master Dipshit

Cited below are a few of many posts documenting Assup when he cannot deal with reality:

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...8&postcount=36

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...2&postcount=34

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...5&postcount=24

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...7&postcount=39

[Yssup Rider]

NAW. You're a fool IBMeltingdown.

and I apologize to everybody for my childish engagement with the dipshit of the year in this thread.

sorry folks. My bad.

why don't you give it up too, IBMentingdown?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

More of Assup’s childish, dribbling-blather, spouting shit and foaming spatter!

Assup needs to apologize to the universe for his existence. Cited below are a few of many posts documenting Assup when he cannot deal with reality:

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...8&postcount=36

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...2&postcount=34

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...5&postcount=24

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...7&postcount=39