"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:17:51 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 06:59:26 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 23, 9:47 am, Doug wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "





wrote:
On Dec 22, 11:39 pm, Doug wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:14:25 -0600, " Attila Iskander"

wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...

Hmmm,
Are you going to arm your self with assault rifle and 200 rounds
magazine
or drum?

"Assault rifles" are and have been strickly controlled since 1934
(They are machine guns don't ya know...)
You have to jump through all kinds of hoops with the Feds and
local
police
and pay a $200 tax before you can get one.
If one the other hand you are babbling your ignorance about
"assault
weapons" then you are talking about CERTAIN SEMI-automatic (single
shot to
single trigger pull) rifles that have certain cosmetic features
like
a
bayonet lug that magically turn them into "assault weapons" while
changing
NOTHING about how they operate, or anything else about their
performance.

Owning a 200 round magazine or drum is really a novelty item that
you would
only use for fun but not for serious shooting
They have a NASTY habit of jamming at the worst moments.
Smart shooters stick with what the firearm was designed to use
normally

You know wackos will come there with such a weapon with mass
killing power
in short time.

And ???
What ??

All I need is just one shot to stop them
And then what ?

I am not against owning fire arm, first step should be banning
the
ownership of assault type automatic weapons and high capacity
magazines/clips.

LOL
Are you really this ****ing stupid ?
IN the same sentence you declare, you're OK with owning firearms
but
let's
just ban firearms

And owning a gun is one thing using it properly and well is
another,
how many owners are like that?

Just about most who own them
The seem to be much better qualified to using their guns properly
than car
drivers with all the training and licensing they go through...
Let's see
Gun owners with about 330,000,000 guns, have about 600 deadly
accidents a
year, about a thousand injuries, and property damage that is so
low
as to be
negligible.
Car owners with about 300,000,000 cars have over 43,000 deaths,
injuries in
the millions and property damage in the Billions

Maybe you should worry more about car owners.

Are always ready for surprise attack? If teachers are armed can
they
concentrate on teaching or be on the look oiut for the sudden
danger?

If you carry, you don't become a defact security guard
It's much closer to carrying an umbrella in case it rains.

IMO, the more gun, the more possibility of trouble. No thanks
no gun for me or my family.

Apparently stupidity is a requirement for hoplophobia.
I feel sorry for your defenseless family.

Hopefully your defective genes will stop with you and yours.

You bypass all the checks and balances if you buy privately and 40%
of
all gun purchases are done this way.

If I understood the NRA, I agree only partially with them. I like
the
idea of armed guards (professionals) in schools but not armed
teachers. But armed guards in schools will not solve the overall
problem of mass killings because the criminals will just move from
schools to churches, malls, stadiums, train stations, etc... or
other
places with less resistance.

I too was in favor of no semi automatic weapons in civilian hands
but
I now I prefer to say it differently now.....I don't want civilians
to
have guns as good or better than the military or police use, unless
they already own them. In other words, I don't want military or
police to be out gunned by civilians. If they satisfy this,
civilians
can get whatever guns they want.

Do you realize that we did ban "assault weapons" and high
capacity magazines for a decade, starting in 1994. Study after
study done by various organizations, including the CDC, which
clearly has no pro-gun agenda, concluded it made no difference
in crime rates, murder rates, etc.

Oh by the way, that's not what the CDC said. If you go to their
website...http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
they say ....
"Evidence was INSUFFICIENT to determine the effectiveness of any of
these laws for the following reasons." They explain this as
depending on which study you go by, some say it went higher and other
studies say it went lower.

Therefore, since it's inconclusive, I'd say to do it because taking no
action is NOT the solution.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's apply that logic. We have a new experimental drug for
cancer. Many studies have been done. Some show the drug
increased the 5 year survival rate. An equal number say the
drug decreased the 5 year survival rate. So, the FDA should
approve the drug, put it on the market, because, as you say
"taking no action is not the solution".

You really are quite the village idiot.


No you are. Guns are not drugs.

Really ?
At least you figured that much out
So let's try it again

STUDIES show that gun-control has NO EFFECT because the results are
INCONCLUSIVE

No not ineffective, just INCONCLUSIVE. See my earlier reference to
the CDC.

If you spend money and effort for 30+ years and yet get NO POSITIVE
DEMONSTRATABLE RESULTS, only a fool would not consider that a failure and
argue to keep doing the same all over again.
Are you a fool ??