Think you'll ever get tired of using the same stupid joke over and over and over again. It was funny 20 years ago when it was original.

Thing is, it's not a joke. But I wouldn't expect a gun grabber to follow the logic. I've said it a thousand times and I'll say it again: "It's the people, stupid!"

You left out one part. "It's the people with guns, stupid!"

airhammer

You left out one part. "It's the people with guns, stupid!"

Really? I could have sworn this article was about a stabbing.

Thank you, Anthony California. That is exactly the point. Has nothing to do with the weapon, everything to do with the person using it and CHOOSING to do evil with it. Why is this so hard for some people to understand? Are they really that mentally challenged?

Let's ask the police officer this question: Would you have rather been shot multiple times or stabbed? My guess is that he'd stick with the stabbing.

"What if" questions prove nothing. I could come up with a thousand scenarios to the situation. Personally, I would rather get kicked in the shin than stabbed with glass. So, what is your point again?

I am going to say this slowly so you can understand: Access to a weapon does not cause someone to decide to do evil.

Got it?

I'm going to say this slowly so you can understand: Easy access to a weapon does increase the likelihood that someone will use a gun when they act out in violence.

Did I read this right? Flew from Nevada to Dallas Texas, the prisoner was wired so the rented a SUV to drive from Dallas to Miami Florida??? Sounds like a bunch of numnuts transporting him. Hey Earl, now can we stop at Walmart to git some cheetos and porkrinds for our 1000 mile drive??

There is more to this story and I see a suspension(s) coming for Blue...........

I'm going to say this slowly so you can understand: Easy access to a weapon does increase the likelihood that someone will use a gun when they act out in violence.

Ah! See the fallacy in your argument? I never used the word "gun." I used the word "weapon." You are the one who implied that a weapon is always a gun. Your statement betrays you. So taking access to a gun away will cause someone to decide not to kill? I call B.S. The decision to kill is already made. So now we are back to Jwright's post: Banning an inanimate object does nothing to deter the intent to do evil. If we had banned box cutters, do you think 911 would not have happened? You will never get that logic, will you?

Let Texas have him.

This guy's big trouble.

.

Not that it takes a lot, but this guy really outsmarted the cops. If only the cops had guns and brains, this would never had happened.

I've said it a MILLION times, "don't exaggerate". :-)

This one is so unusual because for a difference, a gun was not involved.

Anything can be used as a weapon....guns are designed to be very efficient at killing and that's why they should be limited and restricted. Just like RPGs and nuclear weapons.

Anyone that wants to ban Constitutionally protected items can Move to Britton or Australia. Weapons are not protected by law in those countries. I hear violent crime is 5 times that of the US per 100,000 people, and the UK is not trying to ban kitchen knives. They have already restricted people under the age of 21 from buying knives, hunting knives are banned, I don't know if pocket knives are banned yet or not, but I don't think it will be long before they go after those the next time they have more violence with knives.

Mr.Steady "So taking access to a gun away will cause someone to decide not to kill?"

No, it just makes it harder.

Easy access to a gun just makes it easier to kill one or more people when that person has decided to act out in anger as opposed to using box cutters, sun glasses, or knives. There wouldn't be too many domestic violence deaths if guns were less handy.

A determined killer will always find a way. A hot head who has been enflamed in the heat of the moment will often cool down later and not do any damage if he doesn't have a lethal weapon immediately available.

If the Sandy Hook killer was armed with a knife or box cutter there wouldn't have been so many children killed. You will never get that logic, will you?

Airhammer,

A group of people armed with box cutters killed over 3,000 people in a matter of minutes. People are still dying today because of it.

Never Forget 9/11/01

Good thing he didn't have a gun. The officer lived because the badguy only had a make shift stabber.

Badguys with less lethal tools than a gun = fewer deaths. More people die when badguys have a gun, than when they don't.

Obviously these officers don't watch movies. Sunglasses can easily be used to make a number of objects that a bad guy shouldn't have. Whether its made into a weapon, or a tool to pick the lock on handcuffs.

MoreJustice,

You do know that movies are mostly fabricated right? Like cops shooting a gas tank on a fleeing car in reality won't make it explode. Cops are actually only marginal shooters and typically fire their weapon maybe once in their entire career. Even then if they empty their mag they might hit the target once, and then reload. Take the officers in CA for instance. They fired on a truck 40+ times, and the two ladies had minor injuries. The other truck that was fired on 15+ times and the driver was not hurt.

If you don't like guns then that is your right to not own one. I on the other hand have the right to own as many as I want. That's up to me to decide how much of something I want. If you still aren't satisfied with that, then you can move to England. I hear they have very few gun deaths, but violent crime rivials that of third world countries per 100,000 people. It's five times higher than the US. I also hear they are trying to now ban kitchen knives over there. Sounds like your Utopia.

Dawgfan wrote: "A group of people armed with box cutters killed over 3,000 people in a matter of minutes. People are still dying today because of it."

Yes, and new weapons control laws for air travel have prevented that from ever happening again.

Did you graduate from high school?

Airhammer,

People are still trying to take over planes. Remember the Christmas bombing attempt? How about the printing cartridges that were filled with explosive materials headed for the US? It hasn't prevented anything. Just slowed the criminals and forcing them to find new ways.

Yes, I graduated High School. 3.5 GPA. I double majored in College in Business Management and Marketing. I hold an MBA, and four professional designations. I did all of that while running two companies that I started as a teenager, played three years of College Baseball, and I paid for it all on my own.

Can I ask what you accomplished?

If the Sandy Hook killer was armed with a knife or box cutter there wouldn't have been so many children killed. You will never get that logic, will you?

What makes you think he would have used a knife or box cutter? What did Timothy McVeigh use? Fertilizer and diesel fuel. You will never ban enough objects to keep people from killing each other. I can think of a dozen ways to kill a mass of people and never touch a gun.

I own a residential and commercial design-build firm, 32 years in business continuously.

Trying is not succeeding. Transportation security and on board weapons control has worked despite criminals efforts to find new ways.

The "don't pass and enforce laws bc some criminals may defeat them" reasoning is not logic, it's marketing smoke.

"What makes you think he would have used a knife or box cutter?" Yeah right, a disturbed teenager is going to rent a truck with his mommy's credit card, buy a massive load of explosive components, and pull off a mass casualty crime all by himself? Even McVeigh needed help to pull it off.

You have proved my point again. The degree to which a weapon is employed to commit a mass casualty crime is directly proportional to its availability and inversely proportional to the methods deployed to prevent its use.

keeps the boogers off the upholstery.

He asked if the officer would kindly bend over for a second.

Honestly, glad the cop is doing OK, and I get the jokes about deadly glasses, but here's the funny part:

This guy is loose in my state, and he thinks he pulled off a major coup? One wrong move and he'll find himself riddled with bullets, and none of them will have come from any cop!

I think I'd've rather escaped into the deserts of Arizona than face what he's got in store.

It's called "chemical restraint" and is a violation of Rights,even insane people have rights.

Sleeping through transit is a bad thing?

Gneisenau

1. Was he convicted of a crime or presumed innocent?

2. Doing things that make it EASIER on the law is a slippery slope.

Of course, the bleeding hearts would never go along with that. You have got to love the logic: Give criminals every break available, abolish the death penalty, and take the firearms from the law abiding citizens who aren't the one abusing them. Yep, makes sense to me.

You've got to love the NRA logic: Keep gun registration loopholes intact so it's harder to solve crimes so you can continue to complain about enforcing the laws already on the books. Yep, makes sense to me.

The NRA wants to make it harder to solve crimes???? You really believe that? And for the record, I am not a member of the NRA.

Bet this guy was another one of those inner city right wing Republican NRA people and is was Bush's and Global Warming's fault he was "Acting Out."

They've gone on record as being opposed to closing gun registration loopholes so yeah, that would mean they're in favor of loopholes that make it harder to solve crimes in which a gun was involved.

How many criminals do you know that would register their guns?

And that's a reason not to register guns and make it easier for LEO's to solve crimes? How many speeders do you know pay attention to speed limit signs? Therefore, we should abolish speed limits?

Did you graduate from high school?

Like the first post here using 3rd grade logic I guess we're going to have to ban elementary school.

If there were no elementary schools that crazy person could not have done the awful thing he did.

Hey, makes as much sense as most of the gun control logic...which never mentions alcohol control or Drug control or indiscriminate sex control or really looking at the statistics for killers actual weapons and their "political persuasions" and whether they were NRA members.

Well, we were talking about logic, weren't we?

"If there were no elementary schools that crazy person could not have done the awful thing he did." That's NRA logic right there.

We do have Drug control laws. We do have alcohol control laws. We do have sex control laws. And your point is we shouldn't have gun control laws? More NRA logic.

Yes, we were talking about NRA logic.

Have you not seen the prices?!

Probably buying bullets...

No bullets at walmart. Shelves are Empty.

m-612920

Have you seen any indication any of these people want FACTS or SOLUTIONS? Most are like Witch Hunters and conspiracy nuts. None want facts about the killers that either back up or refute the claims about political party or organizational affiliation or ethnicity or culture or religion or anything that might be a factual clue. Just take a stance and scream obscenities at anyone who disagrees with you. Who cares about crime or victims or real motives?

We sure don't want to imply the issue might be a loss of morality in our country and world. That implies a "Standard" of right and wrong.

Nobody is proposing a ban on weapons that I am aware of. Just SA assault style rifles and high capacity magazines not suitable for use for hunting.

Universal gun registration helps LEO's trace crimes to weapons ownership and in many cases to the criminal who can be jailed if convicted thus reducing crimes committed by that particular offender.

I wouldn't mind one bit registering all my guns which were purchased before registration was required if it would help solve one crime.

So your in favor of Banning Assault Rifles(I cannot however agree with you on this one), and Hi-Cap Mags(I can agree with you on this one).

An assault rifle is nothing more than a modified rifle with components that make said weapon look like something that the Military uses. Some of these option can affect performance I understand but most just alter the weapons appearance.

Take this model ("http_//www_ruger_com/products/mini14RanchRifle/models_html") rifle looks like a hunting rifle fires .223 same round as AR-15 fires them as fast 1 round per trigger depress 5 and 10 round mags. If this had been used instead of the Bushmaster would the uproar have been as bad would gun bans on Assault Rifles been yelled as loud. Who knows. This weapon can be modded with heavier barrels, composite stocks for lighter weight, muzzle breaks and the like and still look like a hunting rifle and still inflict the same amount of carnage. Many of the weapons you see that look like military weapons can be modified to look like regular hunting rifles. So banning a semi-auto weapon because it looks like a military weapon is IMHO a lame excuse to further a political agenda or make a percentage of the population feel better.

The definition of a SA assault style weapon for the purposes of legislative control goes way beyond appearance and would have to be defined the way good banking regulation is, with every conceivable loophole closed, then re evaluated regularly to close the inevitable loophole that only a gun manufacturer could conceive to create.

It's been done before to good effect. Australia has robust and effective gun control laws.

I own a SA hunting rifle, the magazine is not modifiable, and it's too long to make a good assault weapon. I have trained on an M-16 and that weapon is no go for hunting game but very good for close quarter combat and that's really just about all it's good for. Sure there are lots of weapons that don't fit the image of what we would normally consider an assault weapon but those anomalies can be addressed effectively as they have been in Australia.

You can come up with a zillion ways around simple gun control but if you put your mind to sensible comprehensive gun control it could work better for us just as it has for other countries. Just bc you can think of a few loopholes now is no excuse not to work toward closing them.

Your reasoning based on surface appearances is just a surface argument to do nothing.

Maybe so I will concede on that point, but I totally believe it is the person behind the weapon that makes them appear to be bad not the weapon itself. Limiting them is not going to limit the horrors of the human race. People will always find another way to kill efficiently. The banning of a group of weapons or chemicals or anything that can be used in one way for shall I said good can always be turned around and use again I shall say evil. Banning them only make people look for other ways to do the things we find in life as evil, horrible, disgusting and all the other words that really describe pain and suffering . There are many examples out there where we as a people ban things because society says they are bad and something else comes along. Banning Semi-Auto Assault Rifles will do very little to quell the evil that men do.