Either you are implying that a mass killing of a lesser number of people is OK, or you didn't think through your idea.
toldailytopic: Do you support or oppose tightening gun control laws in USA?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
According to this article http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns/index.html he had more than one 15 round magazine for each pistol. Which would mean at least 60 rounds. A ban on high capacity magazines would have meant he would have needed three magazines per pistol to add up to 60 rounds.
And type this into google images:
north korea american propaganda
- they dont love us too much either - and most are too bad to post
...or simply preferable to larger numbers.
Have you thought this through? Isn't it better to have a shooting with five victims than one with fifty? I don't think we can get to perfect, which would be no deaths, but we can get closer.
There was at least one victim with twenty rounds in him. That means there was at least one reload during his shooting alone. I wonder how long it would have taken.
lightbringer
TOL Subscriber
Of all the articles I've read on this tragedy I have not heard that before, please show a link to it.
Less than 2 minutes.
I don't have a link. I'm pretty sure it's something I heard on the radio. I don't even remember where. And what would be the more interesting statistic probably isn't conclusively known yet, which is how many rounds were fired finally.
lightbringer
TOL Subscriber
Was just curious since I hadn't read it any where else.
In a multiple victim shooting it is unusual for the shooter to fixate on one target that long. We understand that the shooter was obviously in a rage but to focus so much rage and energy on one child is curious.
In a multiple victim shooting it is unusual for the shooter to fixate on one target that long. We understand that the shooter was obviously in a rage but to focus so much rage and energy on one child is curious.
I thought it was strange too. And honestly, it may turn out just to be wrong. There was so much bad information coming out at first, though I think this was a bit later in the cycle.
zoo22
Well-known member
No. He left a shotgun in the car. (Though some initial reports said that he left the Bushmaster in the car). The Bushmaster, according to the medical examiner, was the primary weapon used. And Lanza had rigged it for faster reloading.
Christ's Word
New member
If anyone believes that more gun laws will stop illegal murder, you are sincerely too stupid to solve this problem. I have been reading gun threads on this website for a long time, and still............
Not one person has gotten to the heart of why we have millions of guns in America. It boils down to trust and truth.
1. Americans will never and should never trust government with absolute power.
2. The truth is, Americans can't trust the Government with their money. The truth is, if you can't trust someone with your money, you certainly can't trust them with your guns.
Long live freedom, democracy, and the 2cnd Amendment. Never trust liars and thieves, and we know the U.S. Government is sooo honest and would never misappropriate tax dollars.....right?:crackup:
Not one person has gotten to the heart of why we have millions of guns in America. It boils down to trust and truth.
1. Americans will never and should never trust government with absolute power.
2. The truth is, Americans can't trust the Government with their money. The truth is, if you can't trust someone with your money, you certainly can't trust them with your guns.
Long live freedom, democracy, and the 2cnd Amendment. Never trust liars and thieves, and we know the U.S. Government is sooo honest and would never misappropriate tax dollars.....right?:crackup:
Would you kill 5 innocent people to possibly save 50?
As your graphs show, the rates went up after the gun ban. Why there is a drop, or rise, in the rate later on can also be due to the great number of variables that involve crime (or how crime is counted).
The point being that we know crime goes up right after a gun ban. And surveys of criminals reveal why this should be obvious.
The point being that to reduce violence in a society, allowing people to defend themselves is the best policy.
It still would have been a massacre even with a couple less kids dead. But in that case, you would have proposed an even *smaller* mag. Suddenly, you've made criminals out of many millions of good people because their mags just happen to be bigger than your arbitrary ideal (which will change in the next massacre). Or, criminals will be made from many good people that sell their personal property to someone else not because they are violent, but because your arbitrary ideal has given a great deal of power to the state.
If you thought this through, you would realize that the size of mags has nothing to do with it. What you propose is just an arbitrary reduction of freedom that at some point results in negative returns.
The point being, the size of the mag is such a trivial matter you shouldn't mention it, as a thinking person. Unless you are not interested in reducing violence but in increasing the power of the state.
It's best if the only victim is the person who came in with the mindset to victimize everyone else.
Does that actually help you to rationalize doing nothing? That we couldn't have stopped the whole shooting, only saved a few lives?
Alternatively, those millions of people could, perhaps, follow the new law. Then they wouldn't be criminals.
You yourself said it would reduce the number of deaths. :idunno:
Even better if no one died at all. Are you under the impression that we live in a perfect world?
No, I'm not. But I am convinced that if someone seeks to commit murder, especially mass murder, they are better off dead; and we are better off if they're dead.
Doing nothing? I propose we do the right thing. Smaller mags isn't it.
If we knew it would actually saved lives. We don't. But we do know what would save more lives.
Sure. And they could follow any laws that makes their own state into a prison so they won't be criminals.
That is a horrible argument. Why don't you try again?
If it only would, for sure. It *maybe* could have saved a life in Sandy Hook. But it will cost more lives in other places. Once you support the concept of arbitrary law, you must ride that horse right over the cliff. Reducing freedom will cost many more lives than the mag reduction will save in the long run. And you get to make innocent people into criminals to boot.
Last edited: