Larry Jaques wrote in
news
On 27 Feb 2011 12:36:43 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
m:

On 27 Feb 2011 00:37:50 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry, I said:

Now personally, I'm really in favor of limiting guns and ammo ...

The fact that people get killed because unstable persons can get
hold of guns and VAST supplies of ammo this easily is proof that
LIMITING should work.

Han, limiting legal guns has no effect on the number of guns in
criminal hands. You can buy a black market gun on many
streetcorners in any large city, and in most small ones. Your gun
bans would only limit the number of _defensive_ weapons in
law-abiding citizens' hands. It would encourage the criminals to
commit more crime. Christ, look at Great Britain for a perfect
example. With no guns, their crime rate is far higher than ours now.

False logic, Larry. If that idiot had been unable to buy a gun, or
even unable to buy a 33-round magazine, there would have been far less

False logic, Han. Illegal guns -are- available on the streets, period.
Laws or no laws. Accept it. It is _fact_, whether any of us likes it
or not. Gun control laws don't have any affect on their presence on
the street.

BTW, Loughner was using a semi-auto pistol. Even without the large
magazine, he could have swapped another one into it within a second
and a half. The size of magazine in his gun doesn't matter to a perp
when nobody is trying to stop him. And he probably could have killed
at least half those people if he came into the scene with a tire iron
or machete, not a gun. Shock and awe cause people to either freeze
and/or run away, not wanting to be struck.


slaughter. Can't you see that? If someone has a legitimate reason
for buying a weapon, I'll let him or her. I just would like to make
it more difficult for idiots to buy lethality. Seems to me you have
to agree if you ever want to look an innocent vistim in the eye.

Your goal is laudable, but your actions would, without any doubt,
allow for -more- death and destruction than is currently happening.


The vast majority of people may be sane and careful etc, etc, the
few fools should NOT get hold of guns. It was a really good thing
that the people who came to the rescue in Tucson didn't start
shooting, because that would have been true slaughter then. It's
great that it then ended because the potential was just terrible.

If an armed person could have gotten a shot off into the killer
before he killed all those people, it would have been LESS of a
slaughter.

See above, If that idiot had been unable to buy a gun, or even unable
to buy a 33-round magazine, there would have been far less slaughter.
Can't you see that?

Bad people get guns, bad people borrow guns, bad people steal guns,
and bad people make guns. You will never stop that with your law.


People who come unhinged and want to kill someone will use whatever
is in front of them, including pocket knives, guns, rocks, clubs,
baseball bats, golf clubs, pieces of glass, bottles, pencils, etc.
to get their evil deed done. If you limit guns, the victim won't be
able to defend himself from the perps. If you want to be an unarmed
victim, fine. I sure as hell don't.

Your statement here again is nonsense in the context of that idiot's
unhingedness.

You're totally blinded by your hate for guns, sir. It's too bad that
you can't see the logic of slowing/stopping criminals with more guns.

Well, sadly, there is no sense talking to a closed mind. Ta!

(P.S: I still dare you to research this subject.)

--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
--Jack London

I don't hate guns, Larry, although I am a bit afraid of them, as a person
who sometimes reacts too fast. And you forgot that I said to really
punish the bad guys. That ought to be part of the whole thing.

Afraid we'll never agree, but respect is there, from me!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid