Obama urges tighter background checks on gun buyers

[rawhide]

If the Aurora shooter had multiple weapons, it's a moot point.

 

I am more curious as to why the shooter didn't take on the police that responded. Probably because he doesn't like getting shot at and might possibly forfeit his oh so precious life.

So my argument is a CCW may have prevented some loss of life. Hint, hint I said may have prevented some loss of life.

 

The first time you hear a projectile whiz past your ear you either react in one of two ways; duck or honor the threat and fire in that direction. Maybe there are more ways to react than my simplistic theory/experience.

 

Many accepted "HUNTING" weapons also have detachable mags, granted usually only 4-6 rounds. But if you carried pockets full of said mags, who is the brave unarmed person that is going to rush you hoping you can't reload fast enough?? Without too much trouble, I can squeeze off 4 rounds from a bolt action pretty fast and still hit pretty much whatever I'm shooting at. It's going to be an off duty policeman, military person or someone of that ilk that would attempt disarming a shooter. Most everyone else is either on the floor wounded/dying; on the floor paralyzed in fear or headin' for the exits with everyone else. Just to let you know; I feel it is the duty of all LEO's to carry off duty; not just for our safety but for theirs also. SHEEPDOGS RULE

 

I actually am not against gun control even though being a card carrying "Life" NRA member. I don't mind waiting 14-30 days for all the checks to be performed to pickup my purchase. What I do mind is seeing people that commit crimes using firearms EVER seeing the light of day again. If people that use firearms to commit crimes realize their life has just turned into a LARGE turd sammich and they are going to eat that the rest of their lives; may cause them pause, and to reflect on their priorities. The bleeding hearts that allow these POS's to be paroled are f'ing nuts. And the same people whining that our prisons are too dangerous. Tough sh#t once again. Do the crime, take your lumps. I have a really great idea that takes the jails of Arizona many steps further.

 

I better stop here and step away from the keyboard whew don't wanna scare the kids Yes I am a salt/pepper haired person :+ no freakin' blue hair ya mealy mouthed little . . . ... ......... SWEET

[sd'sker]

The first time you hear a projectile whiz past your ear you either react in one of two ways; duck or honor the threat and fire in that direction. Maybe there are more ways to react than my simplistic theory/experience.

 

Many accepted "HUNTING" weapons also have detachable mags, granted usually only 4-6 rounds. But if you carried pockets full of said mags, who is the brave unarmed person that is going to rush you hoping you can't reload fast enough?? Without too much trouble, I can squeeze off 4 rounds from a bolt action pretty fast and still hit pretty much whatever I'm shooting at. It's going to be an off duty policeman, military person or someone of that ilk that would attempt disarming a shooter. Most everyone else is either on the floor wounded/dying; on the floor paralyzed in fear or headin' for the exits with everyone else. Just to let you know; I feel it is the duty of all LEO's to carry off duty; not just for our safety but for theirs also. SHEEPDOGS RULE

what do zodiac signs have to do with anything?

 

also, i do not think even the bleeding hearts will have any sympathy for mass murders. that guy was deranged though, i do not think life in prison was ever a concern or even a thought. i respect your thoughts and we are arguing in the hypothetical realm now (as i think a mob could have apprehended him as he reloaded, especially because he would not have been mowing down people as he was able to with an automatic assault rifle), so we may have to just leave it at that. reasonable minds can differ.

[rawhide]

tru dat.

 

thoughts to ponder:

 

A sword is never a killer; it's a tool in the killer's hand. Lucius Seneca 4 BC- 65 AD

[sd'sker]

i did not want this to turn into a sword debate, but:

[rawhide]

bastages

[carlfense]

Address the post and not the poster.

So you did notice the "and" in the supremacy clause?

 

We've made progress.

[Yossarian]

Address the post and not the poster.

So you did notice the "and" in the supremacy clause?

 

We've made progress.

 

As long as you continue to post on the taxpayers' dollar, we have not made progress.

[knapplc]

Address the post and not the poster.

So you did notice the "and" in the supremacy clause?

 

We've made progress.

 

As long as you continue to post on the taxpayers' dollar, we have not made progress.

 

This is the end of this line of personal attacks. This kind of comment has zero to do with the topic.

[carlfense]

Address the post and not the poster.

So you did notice the "and" in the supremacy clause?

 

We've made progress.

 

As long as you continue to post on the taxpayers' dollar, we have not made progress.

 

This is the end of this line of personal attacks. This kind of comment has zero to do with the topic.

Is this is directed at Yossarian's comment and not at my post about the supremacy clause? Or both?

 

(BTW, my thoughts regarding violations of board rules don't really matter . . . but Yossarian's quips don't bother me.)

[Yossarian]

Address the post and not the poster.

So you did notice the "and" in the supremacy clause?

 

We've made progress.

 

As long as you continue to post on the taxpayers' dollar, we have not made progress.

 

This is the end of this line of personal attacks. This kind of comment has zero to do with the topic.

 

Let me make sure i have this right. carl calls me a liar and says I'm stupid...I complain about a public employee (carl) spending his time at work on the internet, and I get warned about personal attacks. I'm just trying to understand the boundaries here, but I believe I have it figured out.

[knapplc]

The warning is for both of you. Can it.

[carlfense]

The warning is for both of you. Can it.

edit

[rawhide]

I had forgotten about this incident:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/suspect-in-colo-church-sh_n_1450313.html

[knapplc]

I had forgotten about this incident:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/suspect-in-colo-church-sh_n_1450313.html

 

If you're posting this as a support for people shooting back at shooters, the fact that the person who returned fire was an off-duty police officer is crucial to that scenario.

 

Weekend/casual shooters with gun permits returning fire in a shootout situation can't be counted on to aim that well, and that's the problem. Instead of bullets flying around from the shooter, now you have bullets flying around from the shooter and 1, 2, 5 or 10 people, and inevitably you're going to have more injuries and deaths.

[walksalone]

If you're posting this as a support for people shooting back at shooters, the fact that the person who returned fire was an off-duty police officer is crucial to that scenario.

 

Weekend/casual shooters with gun permits returning fire in a shootout situation can't be counted on to aim that well, and that's the problem. Instead of bullets flying around from the shooter, now you have bullets flying around from the shooter and 1, 2, 5 or 10 people, and inevitably you're going to have more injuries and deaths.

 

Most people don't have the training,either military or law enforcement, to assist them in assessing the situation, and determining what to do. Even then, with that training, not always are the best decisions made.