More gun violence, Connecticut School Shooting

The VA tech, the CO movie theater, and the school in CT, were all done by guys that should have been locked up. People knew they were sick in the head and let them stay out on the street. Originally Posted by threepeckeredbillygoat

My wife happens to be the autistic specialist in the Austin ISD. I'm sure she would love to meet you to beat some sense into your head. Where do you draw the line? I am OCD. Is that sick in the head? What about people with Asperger's syndrome? Should they all be locked up because they are a little bit different than "normal" people? What about ADD? or ADHD?

It's very easy to have 20-20 hindsight vision and tell everyone after the fact what should have been done.

That's exactly the attitude of gun owners that I strongly disagree with. Random home break-ins where the people breaking in are intent on committing violent crimes are so rare that it isn't even worthwhile talking about.

You live in Cedar Park, son. Try visiting Detroit, Philadelphia, St Louis, or even Rundberg Lane. Absolutely unfuckingbelievable.

You set up an imaginary scenario. Contrary to what you are implying, you don't know who the mass murders are.

There are millions of people with a range of mental disorders from the truly violent psychopaths on one end of the spectrum (like Son of Sam) to the merely addled and slow-minded on the other end (like IB Hankering). The vast majority will never do anything wrong, let alone commit mass murder. What is the cutoff point in that range? Psychiatrists don't even know the cutoff point. How can you? Are you really advocating locking up hundreds of thousands who have never committed a crime, but who MIGHT commit a crime, just so gun owners can continue to have assault rifles and really big automatics?


Isn't that obvious? One guy is confined to a mental institution for life or at least decades. The other guy just gets stuck with a smaller gun. Which harm to liberty do you think is more important?

You're essentially advocating sending a guy to jail "just in case". Why don't we just get rid of the Constitution altogether? Originally Posted by ExNYer

My point is you CAN NOT stop this. If you REALLY wanted to, that is what you would have to do. It would be ONLY way to stop it.

Go back and read my #153 post, and please see the sarcasm in it.

I know we can't afford to lock up every babbeling idiot in an insane assylum. But these loons that we know are dangerous and fantasize about this kind of shit need to be put away.

But to say limiting amounts bullets in a mag, caliber of bulletts, or any other gun grabbing agenda nonsense is just as foolish. There were more people killed with box cutters on 9/11 than any mass murderer with a gun... EVER... a box cutter!

And in your last statement "why don't we just get rid of the constitution all together". The first step to doing just that is to allow your goverment to disarm its people.

On the subject of firepower, check out the video surveillance footage of the Empire State Building shooting. I tried to post the YouTube link, but it is huge.

Just search for "Empire State Building Shooting Surveillance Footage" on YouTube and check it out. You will have to sign in as it is not for minors.

Two NY cops squeezed off 16 rounds in seconds from their 9 mm weapons. No word on how many hit the guy, but he went down instantly and died on the spot. So, I guess you don't HAVE to have the biggest caliber possible to stop a bad guy.

The downside is 9 bystanders got wounded - all by the cops. 6 got wounded by bullet fragments and 3 got wounded by direct hits.

Perhaps if the cops had been using 45s, one of those direct hits might be dead? There is a downside to big calibers. Just saying.

So, that's MY anecdote about gun calibers. Does that mean I win the argument?

No doubt we will see a flurry of discussion, but it seems to me that when push comes to shove, most politicians decided long ago that gun control is a political loser. New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy is one of the public figures most closely identified with the effort. But I read earlier this evening that she's likely to do little more than appeal for the resurrection of some sort of "assault weapons" ban similar to the one passed in 1994, but not renewed. (Sorry, I forgot whose opinion that was.)

So I won't be surprised if we see proposals that are little more than "window dressing" that can be passed off as political victories. After all, that's what congress did when it crammed through Dodd-Frank, which does little to address the most fundamental problems placing the financial system at risk.

My sister is a progressive activist, and here's what she believes:

(Well, I think she really believes only the police and military should own handguns, but realizes that's not realistic!)

She is in favor of some sort of fairly strict licensing procedure for handgun ownership. My home state of Texas and many other states have such requirements for concealed carry, but not for ownership. My sister would carry it a bit further and mandate training and gun safety instruction, as well as an FBI background check, for any handgun purchase, even if the gun is to be kept in the home. One of her key points is that many people don't take gun ownership seriously, and aren't sufficiently aware of all the tragic instances where carelessly unsecured handguns have killed family members.

My sister also believes that such a process would at least weed out some of the potential nutcases, since most of these people want no part of being fingerprinted and background-checked. I think the extent to which this sort of licensure requirement might be an impediment to their gun acquisition efforts is unclear, but it might at least make it significantly more difficult for people who clearly have no business owning handguns.

I realize that a lot of people might consider such a measure an unreasonable infringement on liberty, but I suspect that a large number of people agree with my sister on this issue.

IB Hankerwrong - When an argument isn't going your away, you repeatedly try to put words into your opponents mouth in order to make yourself look better. It looks as if you are squirming, ExNYer. You’ve argued throughout that the .38 caliber is sufficient for a citizen’s personal defense even when the historical evidence clearly shows that that caliber of weapon is inferior to the .45 which you, ExNYer, maintain should be outlawed. Is that not your position, ExNYer?

My argument from the start has been that we can get rid of larger calibers such as the 45 - OR - failing that, we can at least get rid of the big magazine automatics. If someone has to have a 45, let them get a revolver. It takes more time to reload. I noticed you haven't addressed what I've said about magazine size at all. Oh, ExNYer! Didn’t you notice all of those examples of how individuals using six shot, .38 caliber pistols were hurt, killed or unable to save others from injury when they ran out of bullets – bullets they had shot into their assailants – before they or others were hurt or killed, ExNYer? Did you not see those newspaper articles and military reports, ExNYer?

I have also NEVER said that the weapons of the cops or the military should be limited - just the civilian populace. You’re deflecting, ExNYer. You’ve always been for disarming the law abiding citizen, ExNYer. Never claimed you said cops and the military should accept the inferior weapons that you propose to “allow” American citizens, ExNYer.

So stop trying to tell me what my arguments are. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

Now, turning to your last set of distortions. There were no distortions, ExNYer, only your willful blindness and purposeful deflection.

No, I'm not. I never said they weren't shot a bunch of time. I made the point that they survived because they were wearing body armor, not becuase they were hopped up on drugs. . It was both the body armor and the drug. It’s funny how criminals don’t follow the rules, isn’t it, ExNYer?
You got caught in a lie of omission when you left out the detail about body armor. You clearly read the Wiki article or another article so you knew they were wearing body armor - yet you never mentioned it. Almost everyone knows about the North Hollywood Shootout, ExNYer. There’s no secret about the fact they were wearing body armor. James Holmes was wearing body armor also, ExNYer – one must engage the dangerous criminal you meet, and not the sane/rational criminal you’ve created with your imagination, ExNYer. Instead, you tried to imply that the cops 9mm weapons were to weak to stop two drugged up crazies. The 9 mm rounds didn't stop them right away because of the body armor - NO OTHER REASON. It was both the body armor and the drug. It’s funny how criminals don’t follow the rules, isn’t it, ExNYer?

And having a 45 instead of a 9mm would NOT have changed that.An AR-15 and a shotgun are BOTH more powerful than a 45. Matas and Philips were both shot with higher caliber weapons and the body armor stopped that too.

It appears that Philips had only superficial wounds on his hands and forearm - the parts of his body NOT covered by armor. We don't know what caliber caused those wounds. For all we know, it was an AR-15 or the shotgun. Then he shot himself in the head. The remaining shots of the 11 shots that hit him came AFTER he was already dead, including one in the neck that would have killed him instantly if he was still alive.

Matas finally got stopped when one cop with an AR-15 shot him 20 times in the legs from under a car. His legs were the only unprotected part of his body. Apparently the cop just emptied the magazine into his legs. It doesn't appear that Matas was shot at all before being hit in the legs - at least not seriously. And, CONTRARY to what you say, the leg shots DID stop Matas right away. Once he was finally hit in a spot NOT protected by the armor, he went down. He dropped his weapon and raised his hands. But he bled to death in minutes.

The AR-15, (AR-15s “borrowed” from law abiding citizens, ExNYer, just an FYI – very similar to what happened in Coffeyville, KS. and Northfield, MN. Many years ago.) shotgun, and 9mm rounds either did not penetrate the body armor, or if some rounds did, they did not have enough power left to do serious damage to the internal organs of either man. So, the body armor was what made the difference. We don't actually know how many total bullets hit both of them because of the body armor. It was probably a LOT more than 31. Point is, it took hundreds of shots to fell two criminals caught perpetrating a criminal act, and you’re advocating that a .38 caliber revolver is sufficient for defense against such men and others like them. One must engage the dangerous criminal you meet, and not the sane/rational criminal you’ve created with your imagination, ExNYer.

Bullshit. First, you don't get to put words in my mouth or tell me what my arguments are. Especially because you lie. Second, see my arguments above. I never said anything about what cops and the military should have. Although, frankly, if a 12 gauge shotgun and an AR-15 couldn't get through the body armor, neither would the 45. Nonetheless, I never advocated downsizing police calibers. Never said you were. It’s obvious you are arguing to disarm the citizens.

Again, bullshit. See above. I did not deflect anything. Your assertions that they kept going after being hit 31 times by 9mm isn't supported by the reports. I don't know why you count both sets of bullets as if they all hit the same man. Bullets that hit Philips did nothing to Matas and vice versa. The only relevant shot counts are 11 and 20. Each of those enumerated shots struck flesh, yet those two men marched on. Hundreds of other shots didn’t hit flesh, so “six shots” isn’t enough.

Here’s an irrelevant but fascinating aside. On 5 October 1892, in the small town of Coffeyville, KS. – up near where COG lives – Emmett Dalton and his brothers tried to rob two banks at one time. Emmett Dalton received 23 gunshot wounds before he was incapacitated, and he survived. Cole Younger was shot five times during the Northfield Minnesota raid. Both men were tough criminals, but the black powder charges in the bullets back in those days were inferior to those in modern weapons. Just an FYI.

Philips had only a few minor wounds on his hands before he shot himself in the head. The other shots came after he was dead. We don't know how many of his 11 hits were 9mm or shotgun or AR-15. But he wasn't hit in any vital spot until his own head shot. The other shots came after he was dead.

Mata took all 20 in the legs right at the very end. he doesn't appear to have been hit seriously before that. And he stopped fighting immediately and died in a few minutes.

So nothing about the North Hollywood shootout supports your arguments that the supposedweakness of the 9mm was to blame. There is NOTHING in that story that indicates that a 45 would have stopped Philips or Mata sooner. Conversely, what it did demonstrate was that the 9mms and the .38s used DID NOT stop Phillips and Mata in a timely manner, so something bigger was clearly needed!

Again, bullshit. I never said anything about the Miami cops or their 38s. I never said they shouldn't have 45s. What you are ignoring is that the Miami example provided convinced the FBI that the .38 is an inadequate weapon when engaging hostile attackers. That fact holds true whether you are LE or a civilian: the .38 is an inadequate weapon when engaging hostile assailants!

It's not YOUR prerogative either. It is up to the voters to decide and I am advocating a position. It’s you who is arguing for change, and imposing your ideals on others, ExNYer. Not vise versa.

Again, you lie. Go back up in the thread and POINT OUT WHERE I said that about the 38. Cite the post number and the paragraph. That’s been your position throughout, ExNYer. You can choose almost anyone of your post in this thread and see that has been what you are arguing. Others here have read your posts the same way and argued against your position.

I have EXPLICITY stated that opposite - that the 45 is more powerful. That’s exactly the point – the .45 is more powerful than the .38. That fact alone destroys your position that the .38 should suffice in lieu of .45: it doesn’t! But I also pointed out that the 45 is also NOT 100% effective. It doesn’t matter that the .45 isn’t 100% effective. What matters is that the .45 has historically demonstrated that it is superior to the .38! Hence, you’ve just admitted your whole argument is fallacious. So what then? Do you go up even higher in caliber? 50 cal machine guns? Specious hyperbole, ExNYer! Who has been arguing that every citizen should have a .50 cal? Sawed-off 12 gauge shotguns? More specious hyperbole, ExNYer! Who has been arguing that every citizen should have a sawed-off shotgun? Where does it end? SIZE="3"] Where does it end isn’t the correct question, ExNYer. Leave things as they are: there are thousands of laws on the books governing the sale of guns in this country. Why add more? And the real question, ExBYer, is why do Kool Aid sucking libetards believe putting more restrictions on law abiding citizens will change the behavior of the criminal element intent on visiting violence on others? [/SIZE]
You keep holding up perfection or 100% effectiveness as the goal to attain, despite the fact that the 45 is not 100% effective either.

The only relevant inquiry is what is GOOD ENOUGH for the average citizen to have. Are you really telling me that a 38 isn't worth shit? That we MUST have 45s? Or if we have 45s, they MUST be automatics, because a 45 revolver with 6 shots isn't good enough? The point is, the .38 is inferior to the .45. Ask the Massachusetts jeweler if “six shots” from a .38 is enough! The jeweler shot his assailant multiple times with a six shot revolver, but the multiple bullets did not stop the assailant nor did it keep the assailant from injuring the jeweler. The jeweler didn’t have enough bullets to stop the first assailant let alone engage the second assailant. Six shots wasn’t enough. Recent news reports frequently report that burglars are working in teams of two or more. Six shots are not enough.

No, I didn't ignore it. I just don't have a disagreement with it. I'm all in faovr of the FBI having .40s instead of .38s, if that is what they want.

What you are ignoring is that the FBI was only making recommendations for what the FBI should carry. They did NOT advocate allowing the general population to get bigger guns. Quite the opposite. I think you will find that the FBI and most police departments are very much in favor of increased gun control for the general population. So, what exactly is your point? What you are ignoring is that the Miami example provided convinced the FBI that the .38 is an inadequate weapon when engaging hostile attackers. That fact holds true whether you are LE or a civilian: the .38 is inadequate weapon when engaging hostile assailants!

And there are plenty of articles where 45s, AR-15s and shotguns did not stop the bad guy either. So where do we stop? Give everybody a bazooka? It’s noteworthy that you didn’t post any examples, and your “straw man” argument that the .45 sometimes doesn’t stop a crime in progress is specious, because it’s your argument that the .38 should suffice in lieu of a .45: that in and of itself demonstrates the fallacy in your position. The .38 is demonstrably not equal to the .45, and there is ample evidence demonstrating that the .45 surpasses the .38 in “stopping power”.
And you consistently ignore the upside - less victims dying from powerful calibers. It is a TRADEOFF, remember? Yes, some crooks will not be stopped by the first shot from a .38 or a 9mm. But some .38 gunshot victims will live because the crook could not get his hands on a 45. Who's too say that's not a better outcome that letting everybody have a 15 round 45 automatic?
Wow, is that the purpose of self defense? I thought it was to play Parcheesi. Thanks for clearing that up. You are welcome. It was obvious you didn’t know what you were talking about, ExNYer.

My assertion was that getting rid of big calibers and/or big magazines should be tried. Cops and the military can keep the big calibers. “When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away!” That’s a truism based on fact! And you can STILL have a shotgun or rifle in your home that is MUCH more powerful than a 45. The only people affected will be people carrying weapons outside the home. They will be limited to smaller calibers and/or smaller magazines. The shotgun is fine, if you greet the attacker at the front or back door. But when s/he catches you in bed you’re slightly more vulnerable and not likely to have the shotgun handy.

I said that a .38 revolver (or .45 revolver for that matter) was good enough for the average civilian for self defense purposes and the TRADEOFF would work in favor of victims. Not when the next “victim” is a family member because .38 caliber bullets did stop the attacker. You’re all for disarming the “average” American citizen and leaving them vulnerable to the cruelty of the criminally minded. Less mass killings for starters. More victims surviving 38 wounds instead or dying from 45 wounds. Those are pretty general statements. The TRADEOFF will be that from time to time a bad guy will survive a shot from a 38 and go on to harm or kill someone else, whereas a shot from a 45 MIGHT have stopped him immediately. It matters when that “someone else” is a family member.

Instead, you made the assertion that .38s weren't good enough and the 45 was needed. And as proof, you posted ANECDOTES about Moros and bath salt crazies and shootouts that involved body armor. Anecdotes aren't proof. Those reports from the Philippines by Generals Chaffee and Woods are based on scores of documented incidents where the .38 failed to stop Moro attackers. The Miami incident – where the FBI was in “control” and initiated the attack – again demonstrated that the .38 does not reliably stop the bad guys, and the recent Massachusetts jewelry store incident demonstrated the same. The “bath salts” incidents have demonstrated that even the 9mms – not just the lesser powered .38 calibers – also fail to stop attackers. The Hollywood incident further underscores the limitations of both the .38 and the 9mm. All of this serves as factual documentation that proves your assertion that the .38 should suffice in lieu of a .45 is nothing more than a goofy premise demonstrably proven false by history and physics. Those “anecdotes” that you are so eager to dismiss as irrelevant make up the empirical evidence that is backed by the numbers – as JDB posted:

The 1903 .45 automatic was developed specifically about problems putting down drug affected attackers (Moro tribesmen). The later 1911 model is the model we know today. The .38 was the standard side arm and they paid attention the Colt .45s ability to stop someone. When you have to go to a handgun the danger is close. You don't want to fire several shots.

There is an equation that results in the Taylor number. The Taylor number gives an idea of the energy deposited into a target. Take the mass of the projectile in grains, multiply by the diameter in inches, multiply by the velocity in feet per second and divide the result by 7000. Your typical 230 grain, .45 bullet moving at 800-900 fps delivers a 12 to 13.3 shock. A typical 115 grain, 9 mm (.355 inches) moving at 1200 to 1600 fps delivers a 7 to 9.3. I repeat that this equation has nothing to do with penetration or special bullets. This is just about kinetic energy and how the human body reacts to it. Just in case anyone likes math. The TKOF for a .38 Special is 6.2; whereas, the .45, at 12.3 is twice that of a .38 Special. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_KO_Factor Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

That doesn't address the fundamental point about tradeoffs.If you think the tradeoff won't work tell us why. The truth is we don't know how the tradeoff will work because it has never been tried. So we can't gather statistics on it for either sides of the argument. The trade off between a .38 and a .45 is very well known and can be expressed with math. History and math deem the .45 as more reliable than a .38 caliber at stopping attackers in their tracks.

What is true is that there are TOO many easily available automatics with big magazines that hold some kind of strange appeal to gangster types. All the tough guys want to strut around with a big Glock or a 45 automatic with a 15 round magazine. I guess a 6-shot 38 revolver isn't good enough as a substitute penis for some guys. But then there are those supercilious others who compare their dicks to .22 cal, single-shot, rubber-band powered zip guns to assuage their “flagging” egos.

So we end up with too many big caliber, big magazine guns on the street. And they are too easy to get. Do you honestly believe that if the average citizen could not get anything bigger than a 6-shot 38 revolver we would have this many killings? Yes – it’s only the criminally minded and mentally ill that commit such crimes – not the “average citizen”. The criminally minded and mentally ill do not care about “laws”. Especially mass murders? And what about the McVeighs in the world, ExNYer??? Originally Posted by ExNYer

.

That's exactly the attitude of gun owners that I strongly disagree with. Random home break-ins where the people breaking in are intent on committing violent crimes are so rare that it isn't even worthwhile talking about. The odds are much higher that I will be killed in an auto accident, yet I drive. The odds are that anyone of us will die from being overweight and from lack of exercise yet we do little to protect ourselves from that. We smoke and drink, which kill far more people each year than are killed by handguns.

So, no, I do not worry AT ALL about home break-ins. I don't worry about my car being car-jacked while I'm in it. I don't worry about being shot during a hold-up on the street.

If you choose to protect yourself against things that are not likely to happen, that is certainly your choice, and please do so. That is the type of paranoia that the NRA feeds off of. "It can happen to you." "Even if you live in a safe neighborhood, crime is mobile." "You owe it to your family to own a gun to protect them." It goes on and on.
I just don't buy into it.

There is very little any of us can do to stop something like the murders in Newtown. Or Virginia Tech. Or Columbine. Or in Oregon. I fully support gun laws that allow you to have a gun in your home and in your car and on your person (with a CHL). But I think that there is too much firepower available to the average citizen, much more than would ever be necessary to stop any crime from being committed. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Well I dont know about TX but here in Kansas City home invasions are very common and in about 25% result in injuries to the homeowners and death in about 4% of the incidents.

Are there high capacity revolvers?

You spoke lovingly of 50 round mag and a 100 round drum. You don't get that in a revolver.

Or are you going to split hairs and say that I omitted "semi" (as opposed to full auto) when I was wrote about 45 automatics with 15 round magazines?

Either way, semi or full auto, BOTH are problems if they have big magazines. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Once again, look back and show me where I said I wanted a 50 rnd mag or a 100 round ON A RELVER? I never did.

The differance between a semiauto and an automatic is not splitting hairs. A semi auto is a civilian firearm. Even some of the relvolvers you want to limit gun owners to are semi autos.

Automatic firearms are military only. I'm not even aware of any police departments that are allowed to have them, but I could be mistaken there. But I don't think so.

You say a big magazine is a prolem. In a home invasion it could mean the differance between your family living and dying. I don't see my family living to see another day being a problem.

Captain Midnight, does your sister know that more often than not it is quicker and more convenient to buy a gun illegally than legally? Do other people seriously believe this????? Adding more hoops to legal gun ownership absolutely wont weed anyone out. I am staring at my computer screen in total disbelief at what Ive read.

On the subject of firepower, check out the video surveillance footage of the Empire State Building shooting. I tried to post the YouTube link, but it is huge.

Just search for "Empire State Building Shooting Surveillance Footage" on YouTube and check it out. You will have to sign in as it is not for minors.

Two NY cops squeezed off 16 rounds in seconds from their 9 mm weapons. No word on how many hit the guy, but he went down instantly and died on the spot. So, I guess you don't HAVE to have the biggest caliber possible to stop a bad guy.

The downside is 9 bystanders got wounded - all by the cops. 6 got wounded by bullet fragments and 3 got wounded by direct hits.

Perhaps if the cops had been using 45s, one of those direct hits might be dead? There is a downside to big calibers. Just saying.

So, that's MY anecdote about gun calibers. Does that mean I win the argument? Originally Posted by ExNYer

Facts are facts, ExNYer. 16 bullets is ten more rounds than the six you advocate for law abiding citizens, and the .45 has more stopping power than the .38 caliber. Facts remain facts, despite all of your squirming, shifting and deflecting, ExNYer.

You set up an imaginary scenario. Contrary to what you are implying, you don't know who the mass murders are.

There are millions of people with a range of mental disorders from the truly violent psychopaths on one end of the spectrum (like Son of Sam) to the merely addled and slow-minded on the other end (like IB Hankering). The vast majority will never do anything wrong, let alone commit mass murder. What is the cutoff point in that range? Psychiatrists don't even know the cutoff point. How can you? Are you really advocating locking up hundreds of thousands who have never committed a crime, but who MIGHT commit a crime, just so gun owners can continue to have assault rifles and really big automatics?

Isn't that obvious? One guy is confined to a mental institution for life or at least decades. The other guy just gets stuck with a smaller gun. Which harm to liberty do you think is more important?

You're essentially advocating sending a guy to jail "just in case". Why don't we just get rid of the Constitution altogether? Originally Posted by ExNYer

You must be pretty damn brain damaged to believe a .38 caliber will suffice in lieu of a .45, ExNYer, when ballistically there is no comparison between the "stopping power" of the two. Your declaiming posts and your posts regarding the Constitution reek of hypocrisy, ExNYer.

Hey, IB! My grandfather knew Emmitt Dalton! But it was up in South Dakota, not around here.

Home invasions are rare. I had a kid break into my house in broad daylight through the window next to the front door. I caught him before he took anything, but he got away just as the cops showed up. I don't own a gun, and I thought it was the cat getting into something.

So home invasions are rare, but they happen.

What the fuck are you all talking about?

Every time a tragedy happens, the American public is driven into anti-Constitution hysteria. Does anyone remember 911? The headspace of people at the time, to some, it still is, that since 3000 people died, civil liberties and a right to privacy are obsolete in the age of terrorism.

And so it goes here again.... a tragedy comes upon America, the media spins it and politicizes it to suit the agenda of you know who, and the feeble minded American public is ready again to shred the Constitution in the name of personal safety. I would like to think of the American public as being a little bit more intelligent and level headed in times of crisis than this.

Yssup Rider..... go back to California. Or a place with gun laws that suit your fancy. I suggest south side Chicago, or maybe anywhere in New York City. Im sure their crime rate is far below gun Austin. Originally Posted by Slappy Balls

Fuck you Humpty

It just drives me nuts on this crap, now all the gun control idiots will be screaming.

Gun control , the gun needs no control. By itself it is a useless piece of metal. Go ahead sit one down and see how many people it kills . NONE !! until a person or persons pick it up and aims the gun and pulls the trigger.

We as American people have the constituional right to bear arms . Thank God we do. Thats how we keep our freedoms in tact.

I am appaled at what happen , my heart goes out to all those families . No one ever wants to bury a child of theirs.

Gun control will never be the answer to stopping these things. Unless , everyone wants to surrender their weapons. NOT GOING TO Happen!!

Exnyr, what part of the second amendment is so hard for you to get?

Is it the "SHALL NOT" or the "BE INFRINGED"?

Isn't limiting people to 1 type of handgun an infringement?

Are you trying to split hairs with the words that are plain as day, or do you think we should get rid of that one and let the goverment go against the origional intent and just rewrite it to fit their agenda?