McChrystal says ‘serious action’ needed on gun control

Interesting quotes from a man who ought to know.

Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, said some weapons should be carried only by soldiers, not civilians.

"I spent a career carrying typically either an M16, and later an M4 carbine," he said. "And an M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It's designed to do that. And that's what our soldiers ought to carry."

The general added, "I personally don't think there's any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we've got to take a serious look. I understand everybody's desire to have whatever they want, but we’ve got to protect our children, we’ve got to protect our police, we've got to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that."

The former military man told the show, “I think serious action is necessary. Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges, and I just don’t think that’s enough.”

Asked what his message would be to the NRA and the House Judiciary Committee, he said, “I think we have to look at legislation. The number of people in America killed by firearms is extraordinary compared to other nations. And I don’t think we’re a bloodthirsty culture, and so I think we need to look at everything we can do to safeguard our people.”

I think the only part I disagree with him on is his view of our culture. I DO think we're a bloodthirsty culture. Not everyone, but by and large I think our culture is violent, and the Europeans may be right when they speak of 'rude Americans'. There's a hard-headedness in our culture and an arrogance tinged with ulterior motives that prevents our society from taking any REAL steps to change. Our culture is rude and doesnt care what anyone else thinks. Our culture wants access to all types of guns and doesnt want ANY HINT of regulation, no matter how small. No gun checks.
heck, many dont even want to be required to buy gun permits for concealed carry! We dont want waiting periods either. Regardless of how easy it might be for some nut to harm innocents.

We dont want out tv shows and films to change either! No sir. Even Conservatives react angrily if you speak of possibly toning down the content of shows kids can watch. Their mantra...parents should be more responsible.

Yeah...they should. But they arent.

Shall I give other historic examples of why the military would want to disarm the public???

Letter by ex-seal(who also should know)

http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/bracken-dear-mr-security-agent/

To call for a ban on weapons would show either a lack of knowledge about our Constitution or a lack of disregard for said document.

Considering how Government has trampled on that document over the past 12 years or so.......I know which of the two it is.

Patriot Act
TSA
NDAA
Free Speech Zones
AHCA

Yep............we know and we can see.
All those orders for hollow point ammo the past couple of years is starting to make sense.

Molon Labe

Of course we can also have a good perspective from the people who really know what curtails crime in tUSA(like a friggin general who deals with the suppression of the populace would really know.........please).

Law enforcement perspective

http://www.leaa.org/Cops%20Versus%20Gun%20Control/copsversusguncon.html

Then we have other, in the know, who say this:


From Police Chief Mark Kessler:

2nd Amendment Preservation Ordinance
AN Ordinance, which shall be known and may be cited as the “2nd Amendment Preservation Ordinance.”
To prevent federal, State or local infringement on the right to keep and bear Firearms, Firearms accessories or ammunition ; nullifying all federal, state or local acts in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States along with section 21 “Right to Bear Arms of the Pennsylvania constitution.

THE PEOPLE OF THE BOROUGH OF GILBERTON DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1
The Governing body of the Borough of Gilberton within the state of Pennsylvania finds that:
A. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Along with Section 21 of the constitution of Pennsylvania which states, “Right to Bear Arms.” The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
B. All federal, state or local acts, laws, orders, rules or regulations regarding firearms, Firearms accessories or ammunition are a violation of the 2nd Amendment along with section 21 of The Pennsylvania Constitution and in violation of this ordinance.

SECTION 2
PROHIBITIONS ON FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, FIREARMS ACCESSORIES OR AMMUNITION.
A. The Governing Body of the Borough of Gilberton within the state of Pennsylvania declares that all federal ,state or Local acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations – past, present or future – shall be in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Pennsylvania are not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Pennsylvania and violate its true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifies, and are hereby declared to be invalid within Gilberton Borough and all of its boundaries , shall not be recognized by this Borough or within all of its boundaries within the state of Pennsylvania, are specifically rejected by the Borough of Gilberton and within all of its boundaries within the state of Pennsylvania, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in the Borough of Gilberton within the state of Pennsylvania.
B. It shall be the duty of the Governing body of Gilberton Borough and within all of its boundaries within the State of Pennsylvania to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of any federal, state or local acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States along with section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution or any violation of this ordinance.

SECTION 3
EFFECTIVE DATE
A. This act takes effect thirty ( 30 ) days upon approval by the Governing body

Contact:
CHIEF OF POLICE
MARK KESSLER
GILBERTON BOROUGH POLICE DEPARTMENT
2710 MAIN STREET
MAHANOY PLANE, PA 17949

Does any of the anti-gun crowd really, really understand just what will happen if large scale gun control, like what we saw in tUK, were to happen here???

I hope they will be happy with the blood on their hands.

Dennis324 wrote:
I think the only part I disagree with him on is his view of our culture. I DO think we're a bloodthirsty culture. Not everyone, but by and large I think our culture is violent, and the Europeans may be right when they speak of 'rude Americans'. There's a hard-headedness in our culture and an arrogance tinged with ulterior motives that prevents our society from taking any REAL steps to change. Our culture is rude and doesnt care what anyone else thinks. Our culture wants access to all types of guns and doesnt want ANY HINT of regulation, no matter how small. No gun checks.
heck, many dont even want to be required to buy gun permits for concealed carry! We dont want waiting periods either. Regardless of how easy it might be for some nut to harm innocents.

We dont want out tv shows and films to change either! No sir. Even Conservatives react angrily if you speak of possibly toning down the content of shows kids can watch. Their mantra...parents should be more responsible.

I really wanna know just how we are a violent culture when compared to Europe. What part of Europe are we more violent than??? Is it tUK, who has a violent crime rate of about 4X's as much as ours??? Is it Austria who has a rate over 3X's as much as ours??? Is it Belgium who has a rate more than 2X's ours??? I mean your post really confuses me because 7 out of the 10 most violent countries in the world are in the EU. Hell we aren't even in the top ten. Canada is even higher than us(ours is around 433 per every 100000 and is actually very low).

http://www.fox19.com/story/20538164/piers-morgan-vs-alex-jones-the-truth-about-gun-homicide-rates






In fact when you consider that we have far and away the highest gun ownership rate of all countries (88guns per every 100 people as opposed to 2nd place Yemen with 55 per every 100), our firearm murder rate is astronomically low. We rank 28th in the world with a rate of 2.97 per ever 100000 people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list#data

Once again the anti-gun argument cannot hold water.

Marconius wrote:
I really wanna know just how we are a violent culture when compared to Europe. What part of Europe are we more violent than??? Is it tUK, who has a violent crime rate of about 4X's as much as ours??? Is it Austria who has a rate over 3X's as much as ours??? Is it Belgium who has a rate more than 2X's ours??? I mean your post really confuses me because 7 out of the 10 most violent countries in the world are in the EU. Hell we aren't even in the top ten. Canada is even higher than us(ours is around 433 per every 100000 and is actually very low).

http://www.fox19.com/story/20538164/piers-morgan-vs-alex-jones-the-truth-about-gun-homicide-rates






In fact when you consider that we have far and away the highest gun ownership rate of all countries (88guns per every 100 people as opposed to 2nd place Yemen with 55 per every 100), our firearm murder rate is astronomically low. We rank 28th in the world with a rate of 2.97 per ever 100000 people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list#data

Once again the anti-gun argument cannot hold water.

Well, one thing there is that "88 guns per every 100 people" stat isn't really "gun ownership", as that's counting total no of guns vs total no of people. As far as I know though, in the states, people who have guns have lots of guns, so it's heavily skewed. To get a correct "gun ownership" figure you have to calculate the percentage of people who have one or more guns vs people who don't, rather than the no of guns. Also, the "murder rate per X population" is also skewed against countries with smaller populations, as it takes less people to drive the figures up. What you chould look at instead is "no of firearm homicides/no of violent crimes as a percentage of population". So:

Country	Population*	No of gun homicides	Percentage	No of Violent Crimes	Percentage
UK	63,047,162	41	0.000065031	1,158,957	1.838238175
Belgium	10,438,353	70	0.000670604	107,885	1.033544277
Canada	34,300,083	173	0.000504372	306,559	0.893755855
USA	313,847,465	9,146	0.002914154	1,462,529**	0.46599994

So, from that, the US has the least no of violent crimes per head of population, but has more violent crimes in total than britain. So, you could say that the US has more violence than the UK but it's spread out over a larger number of people (do you judge the violence in a society by the no of violent acts or by the ratio per head of population?). It also has more gun homicides than the UK by a factor of a few hundred. Here the higher population doesn't end up working out in the US's favour as the greater no of gun crimes still offsets the greater population - the UK would need over 45 times the no of gun deaths it has to match the US percentage.

Statistics are great aren't they? Any 2 ppl can take the same set of figures and draw totally different conclusions from them, depending on how you read/interpret them :-P

[ * - from the CIA World Factbook ]
[ ** - bit of an extrapolation from that daily mail article: "The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents" ]

Miles1 wrote:

Well, one thing there is that "88 guns per every 100 people" stat isn't really "gun ownership", as that's counting total no of guns vs total no of people. As far as I know though, in the states, people who have guns have lots of guns, so it's heavily skewed.

Yep, thats a pretty accurate statement. Especially here in the south. We have lots of guns.

But to me, the number of guns really isnt as big an issue as what sort of firearm is available. I think Gen. McChrystal made a good point when talking about what sort of ammo is available to the public. Personally I dont have much of a problem with the average so called 'sporting rifle' that folks use to go deer hunting or whatever. 30.06 rifles, deer rifles, etc. I have a .243 Winchester bolt action rifle. And yes, I could probably kill someone with it if I were so inclined to do so. Its a nice rifle. But what I would have a hard time doing is concealing this rifle under my coat, walking into a school with it and slaughtering 18 children before I was taken down.

Also (I think) the sort of ammo that the General is referring to is designed to do tremendous damage to the target, making it highly unlikely the target survives. Whether classified as such or not, this ammo is military-grade and I just dont see why the average sporting enthusiast would want or need such ammo. Why would a deer hunter want or need a rifle with a folding stock?

Steve Beggs, an agent for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, testified that (Colorado shooter James Holmes) went on a buying spree starting May 10, 2012. By July 14, he had bought 6,300 rounds of ammunition, two pistols, a .223 caliber Smith & Wesson AR-15 assault weapon, a shotgun, body armor, bomb-making materials and handcuffs. Excuse me, but shouldnt this raise a red flag to most sane people? Who buys this sort and amount of weaponry on one day? First thing I'd wonder is if this guy was looking to start his own private war.

His is not an isolated case. Shouldnt there be some way to let the ATF or FBI know when someone purchases an unusual amount of firepower in such a short time? You know, if you talk about doing harm to the President, you are very likely to get a visit from the FBI or Secret Service....just to check. If you start talking about bombs in airports, you will likely be escourted to a private room for a few hours and possibly more than one deep full body cavity search. Yet we as citizens are generally ok with this. But nobody better check on those of us who start making unusual purchases such as Holmes did. (Incidentally 911 tapes clearly show that Holmes was able to make 30 shots in 27 seconds...with legally obtained semi automatic firearms).

LEt me ask yall something. Why is body armor legal for civilians? Why would you wish to own body armor? Is your next door neighbor taking pot shots in the middle of the night at your house? Are you afraid you are going to get shot going to the grocery store? Would anyone even wear body armor at the grocer??? And lastly, what amendment to our constitution protects our rights to buy body armor? (Sadly, if anyone needs body armor it the kids in our schools).

Our federal government should be able to track bulk ammunition sales—there is clearly a controlling public interest when somebody is assembling an arsenal that could support a small militia. If authorities had even briefly question Holmes about why he was stockpiling so many weapons, it’s almost a certainty they would have noticed his extremely bizarre behavior.

Banning all guns is not the answer. As I've said our culture is just as big a problem as gun ownership because (maybe moreso).

But here are some ideas that I think could help.

1. The federal government should be able to track bulk ammunition sales.
2. Online sales of ammunition should also be banned or highly regulated.
3. Better mental health screenings for weapons purchases. Holmes was not only stockpiling weapons but, as noted, exhibiting excessively strange behavior. He left a voicemail at a local gun range asking if he could join, but the message was reportedly incomprehensible. Only weeks before his rampage, Holmes’ psychiatrist was alerting police at his university about his behavior—a drastic step for any mental health professional to take.
Yet, Holmes was able to obtain his weapons with ease.

4. Banning assault weapons and large capacity magazines. Holmes used a .223 caliber assault rifle during the attack, which as noted was heard firing 30 shots in 27 seconds. Holmes also bought ammunition drums larger than the standard 30-round high-capacity clip, including one that held up to 100 rounds.

According to details disclosed in court, at most 90 seconds elapsed between the first 911 call and police intervention in the movie theatre, yet Holmes was able to shoot 71 people.

Personally I think rifles should come with no more than 5-round magazines and nothing larger should be legal.

Miles1 wrote:

Well, one thing there is that "88 guns per every 100 people" stat isn't really "gun ownership", as that's counting total no of guns vs total no of people. As far as I know though, in the states, people who have guns have lots of guns, so it's heavily skewed. To get a correct "gun ownership" figure you have to calculate the percentage of people who have one or more guns vs people who don't, rather than the no of guns. Also, the "murder rate per X population" is also skewed against countries with smaller populations, as it takes less people to drive the figures up. What you chould look at instead is "no of firearm homicides/no of violent crimes as a percentage of population". So:

Country	Population*	No of gun homicides	Percentage	No of Violent Crimes	Percentage
UK	63,047,162	41	0.000065031	1,158,957	1.838238175
Belgium	10,438,353	70	0.000670604	107,885	1.033544277
Canada	34,300,083	173	0.000504372	306,559	0.893755855
USA	313,847,465	9,146	0.002914154	1,462,529**	0.46599994

So, from that, the US has the least no of violent crimes per head of population, but has more violent crimes in total than britain. So, you could say that the US has more violence than the UK but it's spread out over a larger number of people (do you judge the violence in a society by the no of violent acts or by the ratio per head of population?). It also has more gun homicides than the UK by a factor of a few hundred. Here the higher population doesn't end up working out in the US's favour as the greater no of gun crimes still offsets the greater population - the UK would need over 45 times the no of gun deaths it has to match the US percentage.

Statistics are great aren't they? Any 2 ppl can take the same set of figures and draw totally different conclusions from them, depending on how you read/interpret them :-P

[ * - from the CIA World Factbook ]
[ ** - bit of an extrapolation from that daily mail article: "The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents" ]

All data reviewed shows that gun ownership in tUSA is a little over 1/2 the population. The 88/100 is an accepted figure used by international data collectors to show total firearms per population and nothing more. I included it to show that more guns in circulation does not mean more violence and since our violent crime is at historic lows, while guns in circulation is at an all-time high, you cannot disprove that.

Well yeah we have more total crime. Anytime time there is an increase in population your gonna have more crime. Put 300000000 in tUK and tell me they wouldn't have astronomically higher crime than tUSA. Since the violent crime rate in tUK is 4X's higher than ours while having 1/5th the pop......what would it be if they had the same number of people. What you did was Non Sequitor.

Of course tUK is gonna have less gun crime. They have hardly any guns at all. How did getting rid of guns affect the murder rate??? It went up. You cannot compare gun murder to gun murder between the 2 countries. You have to compare murder to murder regardless of tool used. I mean if we are gonna do only the gun thing, that means we really don't care that people are being murdered.............we just don't want them to be murdered with a gun. That is also non sequitor.

As a note: If given the choice as to what item I would rather be murdered by...............I will take gun. It is generally quicker and less painful than the knives and bats that are used to kill most people both here and in the UK.

Dennis324 wrote:

But to me, the number of guns really isnt as big an issue as what sort of firearm is available. I think Gen. McChrystal made a good point when talking about what sort of ammo is available to the public. Personally I dont have much of a problem with the average so called 'sporting rifle' that folks use to go deer hunting or whatever. 30.06 rifles, deer rifles, etc. I have a .243 Winchester bolt action rifle. And yes, I could probably kill someone with it if I were so inclined to do so. Its a nice rifle. But what I would have a hard time doing is concealing this rifle under my coat, walking into a school with it and slaughtering 18 children before I was taken down.

Why continue to spread misinformation??? A rifle was not used at Sandyhook. The Bushmaster stayed in the car and was never taken out. And yes, you could kill many time more people with that 30.06 or .243. Those rounds are more powerful than the .223.

Dennis324 wrote:
Also (I think) the sort of ammo that the General is referring to is designed to do tremendous damage to the target, making it highly unlikely the target survives. Whether classified as such or not, this ammo is military-grade and I just dont see why the average sporting enthusiast would want or need such ammo. Why would a deer hunter want or need a rifle with a folding stock?

More misinformation. Military rounds are FMJ and do not do any more damage than any other round. In fact hey are designed to do LESS damage than regular bullets(kill an enemy and you take one man out of the fight, wound an enemy and you also take those who try to tend to him out of the fight). They do not mushroom upon impact. At ranges less than 100 yards they pass right through soft tissue because they do not tumble at those velocities. At the ranges encountered inside Sandyhook, a .22LR with standard soft points woulda been more deadly than a .223 using military grade FMJ's. Sporting enthusiast, like me, buy bulk military grade FMJ's for target practice. We can buy a box of 500 round for less than $200. That way we don't have to spend a mini-fortune on things like sighting in a scope(do you know how many rounds it takes to properly sight in a scope). There is no special science to these bullets. Like all ballistic tip bullets, they are back heavy. When striking a hard or semi-hard target (like tissue) the heaviest part of the bullet is the last part of the bullet to be slowed down so the bullet tumbles inside whatever it is you just shot. This is by design so that the animal suffers greater damage and is killed more quickly and humanely. Ballistic bullets are also desirable due to increased accuracy. Military bullets are ballistic as are 100% of all rifle bullets. Those children were killed with pistol bullets.

Dennis324 wrote:
Steve Beggs, an agent for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, testified that (Colorado shooter James Holmes) went on a buying spree starting May 10, 2012. By July 14, he had bought 6,300 rounds of ammunition, two pistols, a .223 caliber Smith & Wesson AR-15 assault weapon, a shotgun, body armor, bomb-making materials and handcuffs. Excuse me, but shouldnt this raise a red flag to most sane people? Who buys this sort and amount of weaponry on one day? First thing I'd wonder is if this guy was looking to start his own private war.

His is not an isolated case. Shouldnt there be some way to let the ATF or FBI know when someone purchases an unusual amount of firepower in such a short time? You know, if you talk about doing harm to the President, you are very likely to get a visit from the FBI or Secret Service....just to check. If you start talking about bombs in airports, you will likely be escourted to a private room for a few hours and possibly more than one deep full body cavity search. Yet we as citizens are generally ok with this. But nobody better check on those of us who start making unusual purchases such as Holmes did. (Incidentally 911 tapes clearly show that Holmes was able to make 30 shots in 27 seconds...with legally obtained semi automatic firearms).

LEt me ask yall something. Why is body armor legal for civilians? Why would you wish to own body armor? Is your next door neighbor taking pot shots in the middle of the night at your house? Are you afraid you are going to get shot going to the grocery store? Would anyone even wear body armor at the grocer??? And lastly, what amendment to our constitution protects our rights to buy body armor? (Sadly, if anyone needs body armor it the kids in our schools).

Our federal government should be able to track bulk ammunition sales—there is clearly a controlling public interest when somebody is assembling an arsenal that could support a small militia. If authorities had even briefly question Holmes about why he was stockpiling so many weapons, it’s almost a certainty they would have noticed his extremely bizarre behavior.

Do you realize that the government was informed before purchase??? Look up the term "straw purchase" and how it is handled. Our government tracks the purchase of every set of body armor. They were fully aware of everything he did. They allowed it to happen much like they allowed Fast and Furious.

What exactly is an arsenal??? I am in my 40's. I have owned guns since I was 6. Since there is no such things as a be all end all firearm, I buy a new weapon every 3-5 years. I very rarely sell any of them(sold a few old shotguns is about all).
Right now I own(long arms only):
A model 1892 in .44 mag


A model 1 in .300 Win Mag(most powerful and most beautiful rifle I own)


A 10/22 takedownwould be part of the ban


An AR-7(military grade .22 rifle, it breaks down and fits inside its own stock)would be part of the ban


A 12 gauge BPS


A 12 gauge Model 500 for home defense


An AR-10 in .308will be part of the ban and is my favorite deer stand rifle


A Mini-30 Tactical(my wife's hog gun, gonna buy me one this very weekend....at a gun show!!! Best all around rifle we own)will be part of the ban


A Remington 700 in .243(my first deer rifle which is now my wife's)


An M-1 garand(left to me by father-in-law after his death)part of the ban


And one old Scottish double barrel shotgun that came here from Scotland with my dad's father
Add to that 4 pistols

Do I now have an arsenal??? Or is it a collection???
Please note.........none of the above are "assault rifles". The closest are the AR-10 and M1 Garand, but these are both main battle rifles(MBR). MBR's were never capable of automatic fire(the round kicks too much for this type of fire).

Dennis324 wrote:Banning all guns is not the answer. As I've said our culture is just as big a problem as gun ownership because (maybe moreso).

But here are some ideas that I think could help.

1. The federal government should be able to track bulk ammunition sales.
2. Online sales of ammunition should also be banned or highly regulated.
3. Better mental health screenings for weapons purchases. Holmes was not only stockpiling weapons but, as noted, exhibiting excessively strange behavior. He left a voicemail at a local gun range asking if he could join, but the message was reportedly incomprehensible. Only weeks before his rampage, Holmes’ psychiatrist was alerting police at his university about his behavior—a drastic step for any mental health professional to take.
Yet, Holmes was able to obtain his weapons with ease.

4. Banning assault weapons and large capacity magazines. Holmes used a .223 caliber assault rifle during the attack, which as noted was heard firing 30 shots in 27 seconds. Holmes also bought ammunition drums larger than the standard 30-round high-capacity clip, including one that held up to 100 rounds.

According to details disclosed in court, at most 90 seconds elapsed between the first 911 call and police intervention in the movie theatre, yet Holmes was able to shoot 71 people.

Personally I think rifles should come with no more than 5-round magazines and nothing larger should be legal.

I've already pointed out that our society is less violent today than it was just 20 years ago so we can leave that one alone. I just wish you would quit repeating misinformation.

Define "assault weapon". Holmes did not use an "assault weapon". Those are not available for civilian use since they are capable of automatic fire. He use a modern sporting rifle which may look like an assault rifle, but is not even in the same ball park.

Define "high cap magazine". So you really think that banning any mag more than X amount would have stopped Holmes from shooting that many defenseless people??? How long does it take to do a mag change??? Less than 3 seconds. You should be happy Holmes had the 100 round drum. It is what caused his weapon to jam. Standard mags of 30 rounds or less do not jam and he coulda killed even more. He had explosives. He coulda just used that instead. A ban would not have stopped Holmes from killing people.

You wanna ban anything more than 5 rounds??? A Georgia lady pumped 5 shots into the face of an attacker last week. The attacker walked away and tried to drive off. What if that attacker woulda had a friend???

Why did Holmes pick that particular theater??? It was the only one in his area that was a gun free zone. He had theaters closer, but he specifically chose that one. What do all these shooting have in common??? With the exception of the Giffords shooting, all mass shootings in the last 50 years have been in "gun free zones". Do you honestly think a mass shooter woulda done that outside of a gun free zone??? Do you think they would attempt that at a gun show??? I know Miles pointed to the Fort Hood shooting, but US military bases are "gun free zones". How many would Holmes have killed if one or two of the people in the theater had a concealed weapon???

Fact: attempted mass shooting when a citizen has a concealed weapon....the body count is about 2.5.

What weapon did Lanza use??? Pistols
What weapon was used at VT?? Pistols
What weapons were used at Columbine??? Hunting rifles and shotguns.
What percentage of crimes are committed with these so called "assault rifles"??? <1%

Even the FBI states that the last AWB did nothing and you want it reinstated.

Quit living in fear and start living free. Quit trying to take away the freedoms of innocent citizens.

Start blaming the real problem:
http://ssristories.com/

I'll take McCrystal's expertise for how much damage military style ammo can do.

The following is a list of what sort of weapons imo should be banned:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.

These weapons were included in the recent Federal Assault Weapons Ban that Congress let expire in '04.

Personally I would add to the list of guns that should not be allowed, any semi-automatic weapon...period. This would include my own Beretta 9mm.

However, its interesting the debate going on right now over what Obama will do. Rumor has it that he's going to issue an executive order to circumvent Congress on this issue. In 1989, then-President George H.W. Bush halted the importation of some semi-automatic firearms that could be considered “assault weapons” under existing legal authority provided by the 1968 Gun Control Act.

That's typical. I on the other hand will believe what the hard, cold science of physics says about these rounds. I will also continue to believe what our generals said in the mid-60's when they switched to these less powerful rounds. I will never believe a disgraced general with political aspirations.

So how exactly will the banning of those add-ons make us safer???

What does a flash hider do??? Who does it hide the flash from???

How does a pistol grip make a rifle more dangerous???

How does a barrel shroud make one more dangerous???

There are lever action rifles that use detachable mags, you banning those too???

You realize that I can shoot more sustained rounds through a tube mag than a detachable mag right???

You realize the detachable mag was designed as a safety feature for the user and does not make it more lethal right???

How does adjustable stocks make a rifle more dangerous???

How is a semi-auto more dangerous than a pump or lever action???

I mean if your gonna ban them, you should know enough to answer those questions.

So ban all semi-autos.......I have never considered the 10/22 to be that dangerous.

I mean, let's face it, the. CDC , the FBI, and the DOJ all said that AWB of 1994 did absolutely nothing. That is why they let it lapse. Yet you wanna Bring it back.

Why???

If you belive in it, you should be able to defend it. If you cannot defend it......well then your just another totalitarian CINO. If that is the case, please do not be a coward. When the time comes, I want you personally to be the one to come take my guns.

Marconius wrote:I mean, let's face it, the. CDC , the FBI, and the DOJ all said that AWB of 1994 did absolutely nothing. That is why they let it lapse. Yet you wanna Bring it back.

Why???

If you belive in it, you should be able to defend it. If you cannot defend it......well then your just another totalitarian CINO. If that is the case, please do not be a coward. When the time comes, I want you personally to be the one to come take my guns.

You know...I put you on block a couple of weeks ago. I dont get your posts anymore but was alerted to this particular one, so I reluctantly decided to take a peek. Quite frankly, it doesnt surprise me in the least that you'd love nothing more than to personally shoot me.

And you know what...you just made my point. You dont like my political / social views so your reaction is to just shoot em. Gun owners like you scare the hell out of me.

Dennis324 wrote:

Marconius wrote:I mean, let's face it, the. CDC , the FBI, and the DOJ all said that AWB of 1994 did absolutely nothing. That is why they let it lapse. Yet you wanna Bring it back.

Why???

If you belive in it, you should be able to defend it. If you cannot defend it......well then your just another totalitarian CINO. If that is the case, please do not be a coward. When the time comes, I want you personally to be the one to come take my guns.

You know...I put you on block a couple of weeks ago. I dont get your posts anymore but was alerted to this particular one, so I reluctantly decided to take a peek. Quite frankly, it doesnt surprise me in the least that you'd love nothing more than to personally shoot me.

And you know what...you just made my point. You dont like my political / social views so your reaction is to just shoot em. Gun owners like you scare the hell out of me.

So you can't defend it then. You would rather react to some supposed threat.

The difference between you and I:
I leave people alone. I do not trample others rights out of fear. I do not proactively promote the dismantling of innocent citizens rights. If you honestly think I am a danger to anyone not wanting to take away my right, then you miss the point entirely. You are actively talking about proactively taking my right away. I am talking about defending that right. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not personal. It is not something I wouldn't say to anyone else trying to take my rights away.

The fact that you are afraid is not my fault.

Got that?

Sorry you afraid. Sorry you feel that the 2A is somehow less important than others. Sorry you don't know much about firearms. Maybe if you didn't feel afraid, you would be more inclined to protect your own rights instead of freely give them up.

*Clicks the 'block' button again*

Dennis324 wrote:*Clicks the 'block' button again*

Yes, the action of a scared man, a blind man, a man who cannot handle it when his views cannot be supported with fact.

Since you were responding to me just a two or three days ago, it seems you actually lied about blocking me "a couple weeks ago".

Don't worry, I will still fight for your rights even though those rights scare you.