More gun violence, Connecticut School Shooting

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

"Son"?? I'll be willing to be I'm older than you, traveled more than you and, unless you earn well into the 6 figures, earn more $ than you. I have been in Detroit, St. Lous, SF, LA, NY (many times), Miami, Boston, Philadelphia, And countless other cities throughout the U.S. Never needed a handgun. My wife has visited over 100 of the approximately 200 countries in the world and all 50 states and has NEVER needed a handgun for protection. I lived in Austin for 15 years. Have you ever looked at where the the 15 or so murders in Austin each year occur? Very specific areas. My advice -- stay out of those areas at night and you will live a long an healthy life. I doubt you have a need to be there, or around St. Johns, or in certain areas of East Austin at night.

Be smart and you'll be safe. No handguns needed.

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. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Three of my neighbors have been burglarized. On one of the occasions, I witnessed three teenagers (truant/delinquent 9th graders during school hours) escaping across a field into some woods behind my neighbor's house carrying a garbage can full of video games and computer equipment. By the time the cops responded to my call, the boys were long gone.

The murder rate in the city is also pretty high and mostly drug related.

Yep, COG. Kansas has had some colorful characters cross it's borders: Coronado, John Brown, Quantrill, the Youngers, the Daltons, the James brothers, Bonnie and Clyde . . . hell, I'd be the rest of the night just typing the criminals. But you also have others like Carrie Nation and Ike.

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. Originally Posted by dirty dog

Not at all calling you a liar, but could you post an article or two on such home invasions. All I can say, is if I lived in an area where home invasions where injuries and/or death was so commonplace, I would do everything in my power to move.

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? Originally Posted by threepeckeredbillygoat

Ridiculous argument. You can't carry a concealed weapon in almost any state without a CHL. This is an infringement. You can't carry a handgun on a commercial airplane. This is an infringement. You can't carry a weapon into my home or into the place where I work or into any establishment that has a sign forbidding it. This is an infringement. You can't carry a concealed handgun on almost any college campus. This is an infringement.

So please stop with this crap that there are no laws that prohibit people from doing whatever they want to when it comes to owning or carrying weapons.

Probably had it coming to them..... Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Really a child had a shooting coming to them ? you are a very very sick person and you need lots of help.

All I can say, is if I lived in an area where home invasions where injuries and/or death was so commonplace, I would do everything in my power to move. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The same could be said about someone who is afraid of the fact that he is surrounded by people who have the right to take up arms of all callibers and magazine capacity to defend theirselves, home and family.

Don't like the rights, go somewhere where they aren't allowed.


They have made it very hard to get guns in Norway.

And didn't some nut job just last year murder 70 some odd people? And injur 300+?

And they did such a good job of making it hard to get guns there that there were no good guys with guns to stop him so he had free reign to murder at will.



Google Norway massacre

Then get back with me and tell me how good gun control worked there.

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.

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.

I have also NEVER said that the weapons of the cops or the military should be limited - just the civilian populace.

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.

IBH - "Mătăsăreanu and Phillips – while wearing body armor – were still wounded – physically injured – by a combined 31 shots before they were subdued. So "yes" you are deflecting."

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. 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. 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.

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, 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.

IBH - "You're argument is that .38s should suffice in lieu of 9mm's, 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.

IBH - "The point you are defecting from is that Mătăsăreanu and Phillips were still wounded -- physically injured -- by a combined 31 shots before they were subdued."

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.

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.

IBH - The point your ignoring is that the FBI agents in Miami used .38s and they didn't stop their killers.

Again, bullshit. I never said anything about the Miami cops or their 38s. I never said they shouldn't have 45s.

IBH - It's not your prerogative to decide for millions of other law abiding citizens, ExNYer.

It's not YOUR prerogative either. It is up to the voters to decide and I am advocating a position.

IBH - If and when you stop insisting that a .38 can provide the same degree of "knock down" power as a .45, ExNYer.

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.

I have EXPLICITY stated that opposite - that the 45 is more powerful. But I also pointed out that the 45 is also NOT 100% effective. So what then? Do you go up even higher in caliber? 50 cal machine guns? Sawed-off 12 gauge shotguns? Where does it end?

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?

IBH - You're ignoring the Wiki article, ExNYer. The FBI figured it out 25 years ago: .38s do not create enough injury or pain to stop a determined perpetrator. The October article from Massachusetts underscores that point.

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?

IBH - Once again you misinterpret the obvious! There are hundreds of articles where attackers – drugged crazed or not – are not stopped by 9mm bullets let alone smaller, less effective, .38 caliber bullets. Each such article underscores how ridiculous your assertion that smaller caliber weapons should “equivalently suffice” in lieu of larger caliber weapons.

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?

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?

IBH - "It's your argument that smaller caliber hand guns should "equivalently suffice" when even you concede that larger caliber hand guns have more stopping power -- which, BTW, is the primary purpose of self-defense: stop the attacker"..

Wow, is that the purpose of self defense? I thought it was to play Parcheesi. Thanks for clearing that up.

IBH - So "no", it's not a "straw man argument", and it's you who cannot back up your assertions with factual documentation to support your goofy premise.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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? Especially mass murders? Originally Posted by ExNYer

. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

JEEEEEEEEEEEEEZUS KEEEEEEEEERIST !!!!
Have either of you two phuckers ever heard the term "Can't see the forest for the trees?"

Give it a phucking rest!! Why don't y'all just go off and 69 each other into oblivion?

Ridiculous argument. You can't carry a concealed weapon in almost any state without a CHL. This is an infringement. You can't carry a handgun on a commercial airplane. This is an infringement. You can't carry a weapon into my home or into the place where I work or into any establishment that has a sign forbidding it. This is an infringement. You can't carry a concealed handgun on almost any college campus. This is an infringement.

So please stop with this crap that there are no laws that prohibit people from doing whatever they want to when it comes to owning or carrying weapons. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Well some folks claim that we are actually still well within the range of the wording of it. At least you agree it has been trampled on.

I was wondering if exnyr thought the same or if he thought limiting we the people to a revolver was an infringement, or if that would still keep us true to the origional intent of it.

JEEEEEEEEEEEEEZUS KEEEEEEEEERIST !!!!
Have either of you two phuckers ever heard the term "Can't see the forest for the trees?"

Give it a phucking rest!! Why don't y'all just go off and 69 each other into oblivion? Originally Posted by MrGiz

+1

I came into the middle of something apparently. I think Speedie is trying to say that no one needs a handgun for protection because he is so well traveled. I can say that in two distinct instances I have protected myself with a handgun. Neither time required that I fire it but I was ready. The perps decided that an armed citizen was not what they wanted. It has nothing to do with how much money you make (and it is boorish to bring it up) but it more likely that you will be a victim of violence if you make less money. FBI crimes statistics support the right use a gun for protection. Millions of times yearly the mere presence of a weapon has stopped a crime or protected a life. Oh, I have also stared down the barrel of gun during a robbery. It was in broad daylight in public and it was a .22


Went back a couple more pages and saw that Speedie was talking about OCD. Everyone has something that could be called into question and used as a pretext to take away your rights to self defense. Ask any metal health professional, no one is completely sane if you want to put it in those terms. Everyone has some little quirk, and this has been the case forever, that affects how they live their lives. I have a mild case of OCD and I was onetime told that I had a personality disorder; I have problems dealing with stupid people. No joke, that is what they wrote. They also said, since we're talking quirks, that I was highly intelligent, extremely well informed, and highly motivated. So I guess that I come out ahead but I do worry that being a veteran it sounds like the senate is coming after me and my 2nd amendment rights.

I lived in Austin for 15 years. Have you ever looked at where the the 15 or so murders in Austin each year occur? Very specific areas. My advice -- stay out of those areas at night and you will live a long an healthy life.

Be smart and you'll be safe. No handguns needed. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I'm willing to bet everyone in Newtown Ct felt they were safe too, cause nothing ever happens there, right? And it wasn't even in the scary dark night. It was at an elementary school in broad daylight for pete sakes.

They played smart and tried to be safe, had a security door and everything. They didn't think anybody needed a gun to protect them either. I hope your "it could never happen here" attitude doesn't turn out like theirs did some day.

Youre damn right there, Dr Pecker.

I would also like to say that no one should have to fear walking or driving down a public street of my choice regardless of what day it is. That is a very pathetic stance to suggest that we Americans cower and stay of criminal's "territory".

Probably had it coming to them..... Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

It seems you got bashed pretty good over this one. How do you feel about that?

I would also like to say that no one should have to fear walking or driving down a public street of my choice regardless of what day it is. That is a very pathetic stance to suggest that we Americans cower and stay of criminal's "territory". Originally Posted by Slappy Balls

And you make a very good point Slappy Nuts. I guess its just bad luck if you have car trouble passing through the wrong area at the wrong time and we are just supposed to accept it.

Well I guess I'm at you bad guys's mercy now, here all my money and wallet, and do what ever ya want to my girlfriend and daughter.... but please please please you evil bastards, just don't kill them when your done with them.


FUUUUUUUCK THAT SHIT !!!