rangerssuck wrote in
:

On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:43:15 PM UTC-5, Doug Miller
wrote:
rangerssuck wrote in
:

[huuuuge snip]

As to the current subject - my understanding is that similar
laws have been in place for quite some time in, at least, NY.

And in Connecticut, too, I believe.

What has been the huge negative result?

Twenty children murdered by a violent nutball because
law-abiding adults were prohibited
from carrying weapons that could have been used to defend them.

Oh bull****. Y'know, Doug, for an otherwise intelligent guy, you
surely have come up with some asinine remarks in this gun
control discussion.

ad hominem noted with disappointment, but not surprise.

There is no part of the law we are
discussing here that would have prohibited anyone from carrying
a reasonably sized weapon that would have surely, in the hands
of someone reasonably skilled at marksmanship, been more than
sufficient to stop Lanza.

Nonsense. That school was, and is, by law a "gun free zone".

*That* worked well, didn't it.

Laws don't change the behavior of the lawless.

If it would have taken larger than a ten-shot magazine to do the
job, I submit that the "defensive" shooter would not have been
aiming carefully or accurately enough to prevent killing even
more innocent kids.

The principal went after the shooter with her bare hands. Don't you think the results might
have been a little better for the kids if the law had allowed her to be armed?