Connecticut massacre fallout

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

More guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have guns would absolutely increase death and injuries by guns. Of that I have no doubt.

A lot of statistics tend to say otherwise about gun control laws.

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less...uns+less+crime

Ironically, we all pretty much agree with you about "those who shouldn't have guns." It's just that punishing everyone else for fear of a few, who, if criminals, will get them anyway, is not something gun owners are interested in contending with.

Track the nutty people better and make sure THEY never get a gun.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by joeydb

A lot of statistics tend to say otherwise about gun control laws.

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less...uns+less+crime

Ironically, we all pretty much agree with you about "those who shouldn't have guns." It's just that punishing everyone else for fear of a few, who, if criminals, will get them anyway, is not something gun owners are interested in contending with.

Track the nutty people better and make sure THEY never get a gun.

Why did you ignore Danzig's post about Australia?

If you read what people are saying, instead of NEEDING to post your conservative talking points you would realize I am not advocating taking all guns away from people.

I'm for stricter regulations on who can purchase a gun. A lot stricter. And a ban on weapons that average people have no business owning. There are enough things out there that dudes with small pricks can buy to help ease their pain. Weapons don't need to be one of them.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Why did you ignore Danzig's post about Australia?

If you read what people are saying, instead of NEEDING to post your conservative talking points you would realize I am not advocating taking all guns away from people.

I'm for stricter regulations on who can purchase a gun. A lot stricter. And a ban on weapons that average people have no business owning. There are enough things out there that dudes with small pricks can buy to help ease their pain. Weapons don't need to be one of them.

Right, no reason for average person to own assault weapons..military and police only..If average Joe needs a handgun for home protection, fine...Keep it away from the kids..

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Right, no reason for average person to own assault weapons..military and police only..If average Joe needs a handgun for home protection, fine...Keep it away from the kids..

I just hope the guys breaking into Average Joe's house only have handguns. If they show up with an assault rifle (they really don't care what the law says), Joe is screwed.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I just hope the guys breaking into Average Joe's house only have handguns. If they show up with an assault rifle (they really don't care what the law says), Joe is screwed.

This sort of answers the question I guess. People need military assault rifles because people might theoretically break into someone's home with a similar gun.

Interesting.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

This sort of answers the question I guess. People need military assault rifles because people might theoretically break into someone's home with a similar gun.

Interesting.

And whacky..Most home invasions are committed by multiple perps, Joe is outnumbered..by the time he reaches his locked up assault weapon he's a gonner..the bad guys are after valuables then they go...now you alive to dial 911..

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

And whacky..Most home invasions are committed by multiple perps, Joe is outnumbered..by the time he reaches his locked up assault weapon he's a gonner..the bad guys are after valuables then they go...now you alive to dial 911..

I have my judge on the nightstand. I might not get them all, but they may change their minds about staying where they werent invited when those 44 and. 410s start flying.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I just hope the guys breaking into Average Joe's house only have handguns. If they show up with an assault rifle (they really don't care what the law says), Joe is screwed.

a shotgun is great for home protection. especially when loaded with number one buck. no need for fabulous accuracy when you get a nice pattern with the right choke.

my husband and i firmly believe in the 2nd amendment, and being able to defend ourselves.
we own ZERO assault rifles. now, my .270 knocks a deer in its tracks, i have no doubt it would do the same with a human. you see, if someone tries to break in-you already know their point of entry. they, however are at a disadvantage, as they don't know where you, the homeowner, will be located.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

a shotgun is great for home protection. especially when loaded with number one buck. no need for fabulous accuracy when you get a nice pattern with the right choke.

my husband and i firmly believe in the 2nd amendment, and being able to defend ourselves.
we own ZERO assault rifles. now, my .270 knocks a deer in its tracks, i have no doubt it would do the same with a human. you see, if someone tries to break in-you already know their point of entry. they, however are at a disadvantage, as they don't know where you, the homeowner, will be located.

I think a majority of hunters feel the same way as you. There is no need to own an assault rifle.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

a shotgun is great for home protection. especially when loaded with number one buck. no need for fabulous accuracy when you get a nice pattern with the right choke.

my husband and i firmly believe in the 2nd amendment, and being able to defend ourselves.
we own ZERO assault rifles. now, my .270 knocks a deer in its tracks, i have no doubt it would do the same with a human. you see, if someone tries to break in-you already know their point of entry. they, however are at a disadvantage, as they don't know where you, the homeowner, will be located.

100% agree with the advantage and disadvantages of home owner vs. intruder. Tried to explain this to friends many times. In addition, they probably don't know the layout of your house, in the dark. If you're smart you'll be well covered with a better vantage point on them should they be stupid enough to seek you out, as opposed to just grabbing the flat panel TV from the living room and running.

Yep, shotgun ideal for home defense too. Not to belabor the point, but if some nut some years from now tries a similar incident by walking into a school with one or more shotguns, you know what the next legislative initiative will be like, right?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

100% agree with the advantage and disadvantages of home owner vs. intruder. Tried to explain this to friends many times. In addition, they probably don't know the layout of your house, in the dark. If you're smart you'll be well covered with a better vantage point on them should they be stupid enough to seek you out, as opposed to just grabbing the flat panel TV from the living room and running.

Yep, shotgun ideal for home defense too. Not to belabor the point, but if some nut some years from now tries a similar incident by walking into a school with one or more shotguns, you know what the next legislative initiative will be like, right?

sorry. i don't buy the slippery slope argument, that today assault rifles, tomorrow your 12 gauge. but then, i don't buy the 'gay marriage will end up with polygamy/bestiality' slippery slope line of 'reasoning' either.
there's no such thing as a rapid fire, large magazine shotgun that holds hundreds of rounds. the only older model rifle i know of that can be shot repeatedly without reloading would be whatever gun john wayne is using in his movies.
i have a .30/.30 winchester, but it's funny...i only get a few shots before having to reload!

we already have a line of demarcation between legal/illegal weaponry for the citizenry. it's time to move the line a bit-you know, back to where it was before the ban ended. and why was it just for a time, rather than permanenet?