Don’t hold your breath for new gun laws

posted at 12:31 pm on July 22, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

We’ve already seen the sadly inevitable rush to capitalize on the tragedy in Colorado as an excuse to start passing strict gun laws, ranging from Bloomberg to Rendell and more. But as we sort through the aftermath of the disaster and the victims begin to pick up the pieces, is this opportunism going to result in any new legislation along those lines? One study linked by the AP seems to indicate that the gun grabbing crowd may wind up being disappointed.

Once, every highly publicized outbreak of gun violence produced strong calls from Democrats and a few Republicans for tougher controls on firearms.

Now those pleas are muted, a political paradox that’s grown more pronounced in an era scarred by Columbine, Virginia Tech, the wounding of a congresswoman and now the shooting in a suburban movie theater where carnage is expected on-screen only.

“We don’t want sympathy. We want action,” Dan Gross, president of the Brady campaign said Friday as President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney mourned the dead.

As this look at history lays out, there was a time in the nineties when gun control garnered a lot more public support. A ten year ban was placed on certain types of rifles while Bill Clinton was in office and the Brady Campaign obviously felt like they were winning the day. But then, slowly but surely, the tide began to shift.

By 2004, when the assault weapon ban lapsed, congressional Democrats made no serious attempt to pass an extension. President George W. Bush was content to let it fade into history.

Public sentiment had swung.

According to a Gallup poll in 1990, 78 percent of those surveyed said laws covering the sale of firearms should be stricter, while 19 percent said they should remain the same or be loosened.

By the fall of 2004 support for tougher laws had dropped to 54 percent. In last year’s sounding, 43 percent said they should be stricter, and 55 percent said they should stay the same or be made more lenient.

While many of the Democrats in this article bemoan the ascendency of the NRA in the modern era, the fact is that they have deftly handled a campaign of public awareness which has been winning support on both sides of the aisle. There are some cycles where their financial support to campaigns has been almost exclusively to the GOP. This year 12% of their donations went to Democrats. And the far Left side of the Hill hasn’t been able to swing anything close to a majority of their own members to take a big stand on this. Obama himself said we must protect our 2nd amendment rights after the tragedy. The issue is simply too politically toxic.

This isn’t to say that 2nd amendment supporters shouldn’t be vigilant in the weeks and months ahead. But I also don’t think it’s time to panic.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 8

If you realistically feel that a Citizen using a concealed carry caliber would have successfully engaged this COWARD, then your years of supposed training have been for naught.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 3:04 PM

If you realistically feel that nobody being armed was a better scenario than if some people could potentially shoot for his legs, arms, or head, your attitude about the carrying of firearms is totally whacked.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 3:50 PM

To clarify for the 99.9 guy.

A group of friends who also enjoy shooting sports and are CC holders go to the movies. This guy would come in the back door and starts shooting (with a shotgun at first by all reports, not a long range weapon) and be facing 2 people armed with 9mm and one with a .45, all of whom can keep a good grouping. The odds that lives would be save are better than not.

Its all a shame. Hope the guy gets the chair.

TheGarbone on July 22, 2012 at 3:50 PM

but it could be just enough.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Absolutely. It would be something better than nothing.

CorporatePiggy on July 22, 2012 at 3:54 PM

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Don’t know if this one has a bullet resistant vest, but that skull is apparently full of crap and impervious to logic.

novaculus on July 22, 2012 at 3:54 PM

400+ armed and trained ~vs~ 2,, pt. II.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy0NBA5jw7c&feature=youtube_gdata_player.

KMC1′s point is this. And he is right.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Isa id yesterday, and saying it again. Shooter’s bank account record must be carefully back tracked, that money he spent on arming himself, booby traps, etc. was not small chunk and came from somewhere. No way in hell he was able to organize this whole thing just by himself, booby traps at the least were probably taught to him by someone.

riddick on July 22, 2012 at 3:46 PM

It’s definitely something that should be investigated, but Holmes was if I remember correctly a PhD candidate, in other words, while he was obviously psychologically screwed up, he was also pretty damned smart. The degree of planning that went into his attack would not by any stretch of the imagination be outside the scope of a PhD candidates abilities.

SWalker on July 22, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Badger40 on July 22, 2012 at 3:47 PM

It appears the gun range owner who never even met the young man did what he could to prevent him getting a gun in his hand. What is puzzling to me is that those who came in contact with Holmes every day didn’t seem to notice his off-setting behavior.

Flora Duh on July 22, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Actually, it’s more accurate to accept that there are some scenarios where having a weapon will do no good, then it is to believe there aren’t.

[KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 3:30 PM]

I’m intrigued by this. Of all the gun related incidents reported, how many ended where the conclusion was that the defenders gun did no good as compared to the ones where it did do some good.

Wouldn’t that be a reasonable metric by which to judge your assertion?

Dusty on July 22, 2012 at 3:57 PM

If you realistically feel that a Citizen using a concealed carry caliber would have successfully engaged this COWARD, then your years of supposed training have been for naught.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 3:04 PM

If you realistically feel that nobody being armed was a better scenario than if some people could potentially shoot for his legs, arms, or head, your attitude about the carrying of firearms is totally whacked.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 3:50 PM

As usual, you have completely misrepresented what I said in order to give yourself an opportunity to cast an insult.

I have to say, it’s very disappointing to see how a few people who call themselves conservatives behave.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 3:58 PM

As novaculus pointed out earlier, that kinetic energy is still dangerous to someone wearing body armor, it’s just not as likely to be lethal. A couple of round in the right place and someone wearing body armor is still going down and could be in big trouble.

SWalker on July 22, 2012 at 2:59 PM

That is true, but the conditions on the ground would have made it very hard for someone without law enforcement training to send that ‘couple of round in the right place’, that you mentioned there…we’re talking a dark cinema theatre full of people who are in total panic and running for their lives (so, total motion chaos)…what are the chances under the circumstances that someone with a gun in the audience actually shoots in the killer’s direction other than more or less randomly…of course it depends a lot where the person is situated in relation to the gunman, how far/close, do they have visuals of him, etc…also how do you ensure in the darkness that you don’t shoot other people who are running (are in motion) around…chances are that a person who carries a gun and is no law eforcement would panic too, and they might do more harm than good under pressure….not all would, to be clear, I am sure depending on their personality traits, background, training, level of cold-bloodiness and sef-control, different individuals would handle it differently, but still..

jimver on July 22, 2012 at 3:59 PM

400+ armed and trained ~vs~ 2,, pt. II.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy0NBA5jw7c&feature=youtube_gdata_player.

KMC1′s point is this. And he is right.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Sorry, I live in California, lived here when that happened and you guys are still wrong.

SWalker on July 22, 2012 at 3:59 PM

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Apples and oranges. As already mentioned.

a capella on July 22, 2012 at 4:01 PM

riddick on July 22, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Everything about this tragedy deserves investigation, but I see nothing in what we know to date that suggests this perp couldn’t have done all of these things on his own.

novaculus on July 22, 2012 at 4:02 PM

As usual, you have completely misrepresented what I said in order to give yourself an opportunity to cast an insult.

I have to say, it’s very disappointing to see how a few people who call themselves conservatives behave.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Quit f**king whining. I attacked your attitude, not you personally, and your attempt to misrepresent what I said shows incredible projection.

You just stated your opposition to the notion that a citizen who engaged the suspect could have been successful. They could have. Anyone with a lick of sense could determine this. The guy was not robbing the Hollywood Bank of America. He had numerous exposed areas that could have disabled him. A 21-year-old with an ancient .25 pistol could have made a difference.

You know what didn’t make a difference at all? Nobody being armed.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 4:02 PM

The reasonable metric is full body armor with a 100 rd drum up against a teeshirt and a 9mm.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 4:03 PM

I think you meant to say “married, property-owning,taxpaying citizen paying for his kids’ higher education with not insignificant sums invested in the capitalist system.”

Because you want to be accurate, right.

urban elitist on July 22, 2012 at 2:33 PM

If any of that was true…you’d be a Republican.

Solaratov on July 22, 2012 at 4:04 PM

I have to say, it’s very disappointing to see how a few people who call themselves conservatives behave.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 3:58 PM

What does the discussion that is going on between you and the others have to do with conservatism? I have take from it as a difference in opinion as to whether someone else in the theater armed would have made a difference in the outcome.

Rio Linda Refugee on July 22, 2012 at 4:05 PM

That is true, but
jimver on July 22, 2012 at 3:59 PM

But nothing. 1 armed individual against 100 unarmed individuals is always going to have the same outcome. Every single additional armed individual you add into that equation alters the outcome.

SWalker on July 22, 2012 at 4:05 PM

I have to say, it’s very disappointing to see how a few people who call themselves conservatives behave.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Took you long enough to getting around to your true point…

tom daschle concerned on July 22, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Three survivors of the Colorado movie-theater massacre escaped with minor wounds, but were left with broken hearts because their heroic boyfriends died saving them.

In final acts of valor, Jon Blunk, Matt McQuinn and Alex Teves used their bodies to shield their girlfriends as accused madman James Holmes turned the Aurora cineplex into a shooting gallery.

Blunk’s girlfriend, Jansen Young; McQuinn’s girlfriend, Samantha Yowler; and Teves’ gal pal Amanda Lindgren made it out of the bloodbath — but they would have been killed had it not been for the loves of their lives.

“He’s a hero, and he’ll never be forgotten,” a tearful Jansen Young told the Daily News of Blunk. “Jon took a bullet for me.”

She was too distraught to speak more, but her mother called Blunk, 25, who had two young children from a previous relationship, “a gentleman.”

“He was loving, the kind of guy you want your daughter to be with, and ultimately, she’s alive because of this, because he protected her,” Shellie Young said.

She said Blunk, a security guard, had served in the Navy and had recently filled out papers to reenlist with a goal of becoming a Navy SEAL. “To her, he was a hero anyway because he wanted to serve his country,” she said of her daughter, who was left with shrapnel wounds to her side. “He said that all the time: ‘I was born to serve my country.’”

Jansen Young, 21, said Blunk took her to see Friday’s midnight premiere of “The Dark Knight Rises” to celebrate her graduation from veterinarian school. As the black-clad killer burst into the theater and unleashed tear gas and a torrent of indiscriminate gunfire, Blunk selflessly protected his girlfriend.

He pushed Jansen on the ground and under her seat, then threw his body on top of her, the mother said. “He was 6-feet-2, in incredible shape, which is why he was able to push her down under the seats of the theater,” the mother said. “He pushed her down on the floor and laid down on top of her and he died there.”

Read More

Flora Duh on July 22, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Oh and me bein’ from Rio Linda and all what exactly is ‘concealed carry caliber’?

Rio Linda Refugee on July 22, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Flora Duh on July 22, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Absolutely heartbreaking.

tom daschle concerned on July 22, 2012 at 4:08 PM

The reasonable metric is full body armor with a 100 rd drum up against a teeshirt and a 9mm.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 4:03 PM

It is only a metric if that body armor wearing individual knows exactly where the individual with the 9mm is. Otherwise the comparison gives a slight to moderate advantage to the individual in body armor and that is all it does.

SWalker on July 22, 2012 at 4:09 PM

If any of that was true…you’d be a Republican.

Solaratov on July 22, 2012 at 4:04 PM

As I posted earlier in response to that post, you can’t fix stupid.

Rio Linda Refugee on July 22, 2012 at 4:09 PM

What does the discussion that is going on between you and the others have to do with conservatism?

Rio Linda Refugee on July 22, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Nothing. I didn’t insult him, either. What is fairly evident is that he is working on emotion rather than logic, so…

…maybe the discussion does have something to do with conservatism.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Oh and me bein’ from Rio Linda and all what exactly is ‘concealed carry caliber’?

Rio Linda Refugee on July 22, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Apparently it’s something he/she has absolutely no intention of defining.

SWalker on July 22, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Actually, it’s more accurate to accept that there are some scenarios where having a weapon will do no good, then it is to believe there aren’t.

[KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 3:30 PM]

I’m intrigued by this. Of all the gun related incidents reported, how many ended where the conclusion was that the defenders gun did no good as compared to the ones where it did do some good.

Wouldn’t that be a reasonable metric by which to judge your assertion?

Dusty on July 22, 2012 at 3:57 PM

No, because as I stated SOME SCENARIOS are unwinable. I accept that, and don’t bother deluding myself into believing otherwise.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Apples and oranges my ass.

You guys should step back and understand what KMC1 is trying to say. Watch the video of hollywood. They weren’t even choking on teargas.

John Wayne BS.

Yea, I would have tried. Yea, I would have died.

I carry every minute of everyday. No way you are ready for this.

So attack him all you want. He’s not the one playing clint eastwood.

SAF,, USN. Boarding party counter-narcotics.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 4:15 PM

No, because as I stated SOME SCENARIOS are unwinable. I accept that, and don’t bother deluding myself into believing otherwise.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 4:12 PM

So some scenarios are unwinnable. Are any scenarios winnable? The question is rhetorical, so yes, there are winnable scenarios.

Here’s the question: do you prepare yourself based on unwinnable scenarios, or winnable ones? Do you put your seatbelt on even if you don’t think it would save your life in some scenarios?

I repeat: only a person with a whacked attitude would base their decision to carry on the possibility that it WON’T save their life. Given your overreactions to arguments on this point, it’s clear that you’re not operation on reason or logic, but emotion…mostly fear.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Quit f**king whining. I attacked your attitude, not you personally, and your attempt to misrepresent what I said shows incredible projection.

You just stated your opposition to the notion that a citizen who engaged the suspect could have been successful. They could have. Anyone with a lick of sense could determine this. The guy was not robbing the Hollywood Bank of America. He had numerous exposed areas that could have disabled him. A 21-year-old with an ancient .25 pistol could have made a difference.

You know what didn’t make a difference at all? Nobody being armed.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Seriously, you’re the worst keyboard hero on this entire website. Your constant swearing and vulgar language do nothing but bring this site down.
And you completely butchered my statement, ( as have a couple of others on here today). So much for the moral high ground or intellectual honesty eh, “conservative”?

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 4:17 PM

No, because as I stated SOME SCENARIOS are unwinable. I accept that, and don’t bother deluding myself into believing otherwise.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Yes, in some scenarios winning is not possible. Therefore by your logic, no scenario is winnable and since no scenario is winnable all resistance is futile.

The fault with your logic is actually quite simple. It is the assumption that all scenarios are fixed and the result forgone. Reality however has prove time and time again that all scenarios have multiple variables and the outcomes are never 100 percent certain.

SWalker on July 22, 2012 at 4:18 PM

But nothing. 1 armed individual against 100 unarmed individuals is always going to have the same outcome. Every single additional armed individual you add into that equation alters the outcome.

SWalker on July 22, 2012 at 4:05 PM

And it doesn’t matter whether he had on body armor or not. When bullets start coming back at you it changes things psychologically. You are no longer in control of the situation. You are no longer shooting fish in a barrel. And body armor does not equal invulnerability. Body armor has gaps and holes. The impact of bullets alone, even if they don’t penetrate, can knock you down and break ribs or other bones. And as for neck protectors. Get hit with a 45 in the neck while wearing a neck protector and chances are good you will still die. Besides.. his face wasn’t protected. Oh yeah.. a gas mask? So what. Do you realize how badly his vision is restricted? Besides.. a gas mask is not body armor.

You know… in the old days they had public hangings. I think we should bring them back, although, without morality, it could become a circus. I don’t believe it used to be a circus. I believe parents took their kids out and said.. “Look.. this is what happens when you break the law. When you murder, rape or steal a horse.” Tell me that didn’t make an impact on young people. Today.. it’s turned completely around. We’ve got madmen laughing and shooting at us as we run away and try to hide they’re yelling “This is what you get when you obey the law! You get shot at by murderers, rapists and thieves!”

Our whole system is turning upside down. The righteous and innocent live in fear of criminals, murders and their government.
And as for crime… we have more crime statistically in our big cities than they ever had in the worst cities in the old west. Rape was non-existent in the old west. If you stayed out of saloons and didn’t gamble crime never touched you. Even in stage coach robberies the thieves only stole the strong box, seldom from the passengers and never from the women. They were always treated with respect, because they feared vigilante justice.

JellyToast on July 22, 2012 at 4:23 PM

That is true, but
jimver on July 22, 2012 at 3:59 PM

But nothing. 1 armed individual against 100 unarmed individuals is always going to have the same outcome. Every single additional armed individual you add into that equation alters the outcome.

SWalker on July 22, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Yeah, the outcome can be more casualties, from the hand of the armed individuals and accidentally so…that qualifies for ‘it alters the outcome’ too…

jimver on July 22, 2012 at 4:24 PM

What a field day for liberals. Finally a mass murderer whose first (or last)name isn’t ‘Mohammad’and who didn’t buy the weapons from some ‘Fast & Furious’ gun runner.The liberals will use the Colorado Killer (actually just another California Kook)to disarm the “dangerous” flyover territory “goat ropers.”

MaiDee on July 22, 2012 at 4:25 PM

You know what didn’t make a difference at all? Nobody being armed.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 4:02 PM

I’m coming in late so if this obvious point was made by someone else – please forgive me.

I can recall a number of reported situations recently where armed citizens prevented something very bad from happening. I can recall a number of reported situations recently (such as the one spawning this thread) where an unarmed citizenry was unable to stop a horrific act.

But – I have no memory what-so-ever of a situation involving collateral damage done by an armed citizen against criminal activity.

Given the journalistic bias we are now only to familiar with, you gotta know that wounds or deaths to innocent bystanders associated with an armed citizen taking defensive action would make the headlines of every newspaper in the English speaking world.

I’m probably on the hyperbolic side of this argument but in the blackest and whitest terminology, I can think of no benefit (other than to the criminally inclined) in keeping the law abiding citizens on the scene vulnerable versus prepared.

Working against the preparation of a populace as first line responders to address these types of situations is pretty much (in my opinion) why these situations occur. How many mass murders have we seen occur at gun clubs or shooting ranges?

oldfiveanddimer on July 22, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Yea, I would have tried. Yea, I would have died.

Clearly, whether you tried or not, whether you would have died was not in your hands. Whether you were able to try, on the other hand…was.

I carry every minute of everyday. No way you are ready for this.

Nonsequiter. Few people are ever ready for occasions of self-defense against deadly aggressors. Readiness is irrelevant. Preparedness is all that matters.

So attack him all you want. He’s not the one playing clint eastwood.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Nobody’s playing Clint Eastwood, and anyone who attacks someone who favors a greater armed populace as “playing tough guy” evidently gives less than half a s**t about the concept of self-defense.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 4:26 PM

You know what didn’t make a difference at all? Nobody being armed.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Worth repeating:

The average response time of a 911 call is 23 minutes. The response time of a .357 magnum is 1400 feet per second.

If you carry a gun, people may call you paranoid. That’s ridiculous. If you have a gun, you have no reason to be paranoid.

In an emergency, *Do Something*. It may be wrong, but do *something*.

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 4:27 PM

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 4:17 PM

^^^
Is making sense.

WTH?

I guess I picked the wrong day to give up
glue,
laughing gas,
PCP,
Opium,
the collected speeches of Lord Barky the dogslayer.

CorporatePiggy on July 22, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Seriously, you’re the worst keyboard hero on this entire website. Your constant swearing and vulgar language do nothing but bring this site down.

Like I said, quit f**king whining. I haven’t insulted you yet. You just keep deflecting my very valid points by attacking me personally, which I have not yet done to you

And you completely butchered my statement, ( as have a couple of others on here today). So much for the moral high ground or intellectual honesty eh, “conservative”?

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Then correct it. Stop deflecting.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 4:29 PM

The way Kevlar vests “STOP” bullets is based on the physics principal that energy can always be deflected. As the rotating bullet strike the Kevlar, the individual Kevlar fibers get caught on the bullet, friction heats them up and causes them to bind to the bullet. As the bullet rotates it stretches the Kevlar, each time an individual Kevlar fiber is stretched to the point of breaking, their is an angular transfer of kinetic energy from the bullet to the Kevlar fibers in the vest.
SWalker on July 22, 2012 at 2:59 PM

This is not my understanding of the dissipation mechanism. The rotational energy is not transferred into the matrix through the fibers wrapping around the projectile, but rather through the large surface area of the broken fibers abrading the projectile. The energy transfer into the surrounding matrix comes from the forward momentum of the projectile, while the spin induces abrasion and heat, which defeats the fibers individually.

Your explanation is not one that I’ve heard before. Is that testing that was done with DARPA? I’d like to check that out. We’re looking at doing some destructive testing soon and just purchased a new high speed camera for it, I’m really looking forward to getting started on it.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 4:30 PM

KMC1′s point is this. And he is right.

[wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 3:55 PM]

400: Local patrol officers at the time were typically armed with their personal 9 mm or .38 Special pistols, with some having a 12-gauge shotgun available in their cars

2: Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally modified fully automatic AKMs and an AR-15 rifle with high capacity drum magazines and ammunition capable of penetrating police body armor.

Death Toll: 2 — Mătăsăreanu & Phillips

A couple of vignettes from the Wiki:

– Phillips fired from 50 to 100 rounds from the HK91, until it was struck in the receiver and magazine by police bullets, and Phillips was hit in the shoulder

– After abandoning the rifle, Phillips drew a Beretta 92FS pistol and continued firing at police. He was then shot in the right hand, briefly dropped the pistol, retrieved it, and placed the muzzle of his pistol under his chin and shot himself.

– At least one SWAT officer fired his AR-15 below the cars and wounded Mătăsăreanu in his unprotected lower legs; he was soon unable to continue and desperately put his hands up twice to show surrender.

Did Holmes have automatic weapons? Did he have high capacity drum magazines?

Phillips got hit in the hand so he killed himself. Why did he do that, he was wearing body armor?

The fact is Mătăsăreanu & Phillips would have gotten away if people didn’t have guns there to stop them.

Oh, and Mătăsăreanu & Phillips’ plan turned to sh!t before they even got into the bank. And yet the argument KMC1 and you make is that the scenario would have been no different with the introduction of a person or two with CCWs.

My point is that arguing a CCW holder would make no difference to the outcome of the event is not accurate. It might be true, but it’s not 99.9% assured.

Dusty on July 22, 2012 at 4:31 PM

You remember saving private ryan at the end? Firing that .45 at a tank?

Yea, there are unwinnables…

You are stupid not to realize there aren’t.

So pull your .380 against a fully decked out in body armor doped up on pain meds freak of life with a high end AR with a. 100 rd drum and a gas mask after dropping tear gas.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 4:31 PM

KMC1′s point is this. And he is right.

[wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 3:55 PM]

Should have been quote tags, above.

Dusty on July 22, 2012 at 4:32 PM

No, because as I stated SOME SCENARIOS are unwinable. I accept that, and don’t bother deluding myself into believing otherwise.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Yes, in some scenarios winning is not possible. Therefore by your logic, no scenario is winnable and since no scenario is winnable all resistance is futile.

The fault with your logic is actually quite simple. It is the assumption that all scenarios are fixed and the result forgone. Reality however has prove time and time again that all scenarios have multiple variables and the outcomes are never 100 percent certain.

SWalker on July 22, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Wow. It’s like a bad dream on here today. And you said you are in SCIENCE?! To take what I said and turn it into what you said……well, frankly, I don’t even know how to rationalize that.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Nobody’s playing Clint Eastwood, and anyone who attacks someone who favors a greater armed populace as “playing tough guy” evidently gives less than half a s**t about the concept of self-defense.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Duwayne Henderson, one of the suspects who were shot by the 71-year old in the attempted armed robbery in Ocala, Florida was quoted as saying that neither he nor his accomplish ‘ever expected anyone to be armed.’ Now imagine that only 50% — make that 25% of the eligible adults in this country actively exercised a legal right to concealed carry. Still imagine this Colorado massacre occuring? Still imagine the shooter even planning it?

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 4:33 PM

And it doesn’t matter whether he had on body armor or not. When bullets start coming back at you it changes things psychologically. You are no longer in control of the situation. You are no longer shooting fish in a barrel. And body armor does not equal invulnerability. Body armor has gaps and holes. The impact of bullets alone, even if they don’t penetrate, can knock you down and break ribs or other bones. And as for neck protectors. Get hit with a 45 in the neck while wearing a neck protector and chances are good you will still die. Besides.. his face wasn’t protected. Oh yeah.. a gas mask? So what. Do you realize how badly his vision is restricted? Besides.. a gas mask is not body armor.

JellyToast on July 22, 2012 at 4:23 PM

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, I used to design Body Armor for DARPA. So I probably have a pretty good idea of the limitations of body armor. Body Armor is most emphatically not designed to prevent you from being killed, what it is designed to do is increase your odds of surviving being shot.

SWalker on July 22, 2012 at 4:33 PM

I’m probably on the hyperbolic side of this argument but in the blackest and whitest terminology, I can think of no benefit (other than to the criminally inclined) in keeping the law abiding citizens on the scene vulnerable versus prepared.

oldfiveanddimer on July 22, 2012 at 4:25 PM

It’s not at all hyperbolic. It’s analog:

If you are not armed against an armed attacker, they are in control.

If you are armed, you have at least some control.

Just as with a seatbelt: you might die in a crash. Your odds of dying are less if you wear the seatbelt. Therefore, what logic is there in not wearing the seatbelt?

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 4:34 PM

My point is that arguing a CCW holder would make no difference to the outcome of the event is not accurate. It might be true, but it’s not 99.9% assured.

Dusty on July 22, 2012 at 4:31 PM

There’s a good chance that if anyone had even returned fire he would have fled. When confronted by the armed police he was apparently arrested without incident.

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 4:34 PM

For every example of an armed civilian stopping someone from killing someone else with a gun, I can give you ten, no, a hundred examples of pointless shooting deaths of innocent children, family members and bystanders. “We need to defend ourselves” is no argument at all, as the presence of guns leads inevitably to murder and manslaughter. Crowing about how you read on the internet of someone stopping an armed robbery conveniently ignores the hundreds of children killed by their parents’ or friends’ or neighbors’ guns every year. Just go ahead and admit that there’s no RATIONAL reason to own a gun except to give yourself an adrenaline rush and pretend that “freedom” means the ability to kill others easily.

pm123 on July 22, 2012 at 4:35 PM

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, I used to design Body Armor for DARPA. So I probably have a pretty good idea of the limitations of body armor. Body Armor is most emphatically not designed to prevent you from being killed, what it is designed to do is increase your odds of surviving being shot.

SWalker on July 22, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Even with the body armor, how would it feel if I shot you from close range with my .38 or .357 and struck you in the chest area? Would it knock you down? Would it sting? Would it stop you from firing at more innocent people long enough for them to make it to the exits?

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 4:36 PM

It’s funny how several of you have keyed into this one very accurate statement I made. You feel threatened that the “Liberals” will use this argument to “justify” suppressing 2nd Amendment Rights, don’t you? I get it, it’s scary to think that there could ever be a scenario where having your weapon won’t do you a bit of good, and that “Liberals” will use that against us.

It doesn’t change the fact that this was an unwinable scenario, 99.9% of the time,

That is why I posted that this scenario is not the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment, but I guess some of you have trouble accepting the reality of this particular situation, and at that point don’t really care what the facts are.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Sometimes, you just do the right thing and fight back…just because it’s the right thing to do.

Your mileage may vary.

Solaratov on July 22, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Apples and oranges my ass.

You guys should step back and understand what KMC1 is trying to say. Watch the video of hollywood. They weren’t even choking on teargas.

John Wayne BS.

Yea, I would have tried. Yea, I would have died.

I carry every minute of everyday. No way you are ready for this.

So attack him all you want. He’s not the one playing clint eastwood.

SAF,, USN. Boarding party counter-narcotics.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Thanks Wolly….but unfortunately, there are a few folks on here today who really don’t care what was actually said as long as they can take a few things out of context to give themselves some fun acting like trolls.

And Madison”Conservative” is the worst of the all. Nothing but vulgar childish swearing and insults with it, so don’t waste your time.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 4:36 PM

He had numerous exposed areas that could have disabled him. A 21-year-old with an ancient .25 pistol could have made a difference.

You know what didn’t make a difference at all? Nobody being armed.

MadisonConservative

Not only that, how do we know he wouldn’t have been scared off by someone returning fire? Wearing body armor doesn’t mean you automatically have the will to stand there being shot at.

xblade on July 22, 2012 at 4:37 PM

The first victim was local veterinarian Michael Griffith, 48, who ran to the driver’s side of the pickup truck to offer assistance to the driver after the truck crashed through the window. Hennard also approached 32-year-old Suzanna Hupp and her parents. Hupp reached for her revolver in her purse, only to remember she had left it in her car to comply with Texas law. Her father Al, 71, rushed at Hennard in an attempt to subdue him but was fatally shot in the chest. A short time later, as Hupp was escaping, her mother Ursula, 67, was shot in the head and killed as she cradled her wounded husband.

Luby’s Cafeteria Massacre, 1991.

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Wow. It’s like a bad dream on here today. And you said you are in SCIENCE?!

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 4:32 PM

You are indistinguishable from our usual liberal trolls. Not even going to bother with you from here on out, you disgusting, cowardly elitist.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 4:38 PM

For every example of an armed civilian stopping someone from killing someone else with a gun, I can give you ten, no, a hundred examples of pointless shooting deaths of innocent children, family members and bystanders. “We need to defend ourselves” is no argument at all, as the presence of guns leads inevitably to murder and manslaughter. Crowing about how you read on the internet of someone stopping an armed robbery conveniently ignores the hundreds of children killed by their parents’ or friends’ or neighbors’ guns every year. Just go ahead and admit that there’s no RATIONAL reason to own a gun except to give yourself an adrenaline rush and pretend that “freedom” means the ability to kill others easily.

pm123 on July 22, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Absolutely untrue.

And everyone on here who is a supporter of the 2nd Amendment is MUCH better educated then you are to discuss the FACTS and not the drivel you just posted.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 4:38 PM

No, because as I stated SOME SCENARIOS are unwinable. I accept that, and don’t bother deluding myself into believing otherwise.

[KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 4:12 PM]

Sure, some are, but the evidence goes against you on the data and with the specific conditions of Aurora you don’t allow for any other changes to the events to occur by the introduction of a CCW holder and just pronounce that the results will be the same.

That’s unreasonable.

Dusty on July 22, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Ppl claiming that if someone had a gun there it would be useless are either fools or watch to many movies, If this man got hit in the vest with a .45 he would be on the floor, not like Hollywood would make you believe, I had a cop friend who was hit in the vest with a nine and he told me he fell, it was close range. This man might not have died from a gunshot but he would definitely been hurt………..next argument …………

angrymike on July 22, 2012 at 4:41 PM

And then there is the inconvenient truth that Chicago, NYC, and DC have the strictest gun control laws but the highest murder rates.

BMF on July 22, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Yup. And at times like this it’s always interesting to check up on that town in Georgia that passed a gun ordinance making it mandatory for all households (with minor exceptions) to own a gun and the ammunition to use in it:

“Firearm Ownership is Mandatory for All Households in Kennesaw, Georgia…

25 Years Later, “Gun Town USA” Continues to Maintains Exceptionally Low Crime Stats”

http://voices.yahoo.com/firearm-ownership-mandatory-all-households-1418143.html

After that law was passed almost 30 years ago now, I followed its story to see what the ramifications were. Not only did crime drop to near-nonexistence in the town, suddenly all surrounding towns were complaining because the criminals had escaped to less protected territory. Crime was up in all of the unprotected towns.

Kennesaw, Georgia’s response? Pass your own mandatory gun ownership law, of course! More power to them!

Criminals whose aim is robbery, rape, kidnapping and/or killing will -always- seek out unprotected victims as primary targets. When that entire town in Georgia was suddenly capable of defending itself house by house, the criminals high-tailed it to other towns where there they could be assured of encountering defenseless victims.

And the MSM’s response? Blacklist the entire story and subsequent years of experience, and never ever again write anything about that wonderful town in Georgia which is the safest town in the entire USA to live.

KendraWilder on July 22, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Seriously, you’re the worst keyboard hero on this entire website. Your constant swearing and vulgar language do nothing but bring this site down.

Like I said, quit f**king whining. I haven’t insulted you yet. You just keep deflecting my very valid points by attacking me personally, which I have not yet done to you

And you completely butchered my statement, ( as have a couple of others on here today). So much for the moral high ground or intellectual honesty eh, “conservative”?

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Then correct it. Stop deflecting.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Actually (insert one of your usual vulgar insults here) you took my entire discussion out of content, and only used THAT nonsense position to start insulting and swearing – as usual. So you made NO valid points, since you were never actually discussing the ACTUAL discussion.

(insert another of your vulgar swear words here)

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Do the right thing and mileage varies?

Indeed. That I totally agree with.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 4:43 PM

For every example of an armed civilian stopping someone from killing someone else with a gun, I can give you ten, no, a hundred examples of pointless shooting deaths of innocent children, family members and bystanders.

pm123 on July 22, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Fine. Here’s your example. Now provide a hundred examples of pointless shooting deaths of innocent children, family members, and bystanders in the five days since.

If you can’t, then retract what you said and shut the f**k up. My rights are more important than your emotions.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 4:43 PM

I think you meant to say “married, property-owning,taxpaying citizen paying for his kids’ higher education with not insignificant sums invested in the capitalist system.”

Because you want to be accurate, right.

urban elitist on July 22, 2012 at 2:33 PM

If any of that was true…you’d be a Republican.

Solaratov on July 22, 2012 at 4:04

PM

Hah. I am the Ward Cleaver of the left.

urban elitist on July 22, 2012 at 4:43 PM

No, because as I stated SOME SCENARIOS are unwinable. I accept that, and don’t bother deluding myself into believing otherwise.

[KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 4:12 PM]

Sure, some are, but the evidence goes against you on the data and with the specific conditions of Aurora you don’t allow for any other changes to the events to occur by the introduction of a CCW holder and just pronounce that the results will be the same.

That’s unreasonable.

Dusty on July 22, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Dusty. For cryin out loud.

It IS unreasonable.

It’s also NOT what I said.

Gees.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Absolutely untrue.

And everyone on here who is a supporter of the 2nd Amendment is MUCH better educated then you are to discuss the FACTS and not the drivel you just posted.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Wow. Even MadisonConservative? I knew you’d warm up to him eventually!

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Pm123
Your a fool, if you think the police will protect you ……..Good luck with that…. There may be no reason for YOU to own a gun, but my family depends on me keeping the safe, there for I own……….

angrymike on July 22, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Well, KMC and his defenders are partially right.

Few ‘normal’ people, (even if they have a CC permit and even graduates of Law Enforcement Academies with years on the job, and even competive combat shooting) are really ready for this kind of thing.

To have a high chance of individual success in this situation would require a minimum of two of the following four things:

Military combat training.
Actual combat experience.
Attitude.
Luck.

Oh, make that five things. A projectile weapon would be a big help.

But just because one doesn’t have enough of those requisite things doesn’t mean that it is impossible to succeed, that one, much less several lightly trained and equipped people shouldn’t at least TRY.

LegendHasIt on July 22, 2012 at 4:45 PM

There’s a good chance that if anyone had even returned fire he would have fled. When confronted by the armed police he was apparently arrested without incident.

[cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 4:34 PM]

I think the same thing. He went into this thinking he’s got it all planned out and he would survive. Getting hit with return fire would have been a shock to him; he may not know where it came from and he would have sh!t his pants.

Dusty on July 22, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Appalachian School of Law shootings, 2002:

On January 16, 2002, 43-year-old Nigerian former student Peter Odighizuwa[1][2] arrived on the Appalachian School of Law campus with a handgun.[3] Odighizuwa first discussed his academic problems with professor Dale Rubin, where he reportedly told Rubin to pray for him.[3] Odighizuwa returned to the school around 1:00 p.m. and proceeded to the offices of Dean Anthony Sutin and Professor Thomas Blackwell, where he opened fire with a .380 ACP semi-automatic handgun. According to a county coroner, powder burns indicated that both victims were shot at point blank range.[3] Also killed was student Angela Dales. Three students were wounded.

When Odighizuwa left the building where the shooting took place, he was approached by two students with personal firearms[4] and one unarmed student.[5] There are two versions of the events that transpired at that moment, one by Tracy Bridges and one by Ted Besen.

According to Bridges: at the first sound of gunfire, he and fellow student Mikael Gross, unbeknownst to each other, ran to their vehicles to retrieve their personally-owned firearms[6] placed in their glove compartments. Mikael Gross, a police officer from Grifton, North Carolina retrieved a 9 mm pistol and body armor.[7] Bridges, a county sheriff’s deputy from Asheville, North Carolina[8] retrieved his .357 Magnum pistol from beneath the driver’s seat of his Chevrolet Tahoe.[9] Bridges and Gross approached Odighizuwa from different angles, with Bridges yelling at Odighizuwa to drop his gun.[10] Odighizuwa then dropped his firearm and was subdued by several other unarmed students, including Ted Besen and Todd Ross.[11]

According to Besen: Before Odighizuwa saw Bridges and Gross with their weapons, Odighizuwa set down his gun and raised his arms like he was mocking people.[12] Besen, a former Marine and police officer in Wilmington, North Carolina, engaged in a physical confrontation with Odighizuwa, and knocked him to the ground. Bridges and Gross then arrived with their guns once Odighizuwa was tackled.[5] Additional witnesses at the scene stated they did not see Bridges or Gross with their guns at the time Besen started subduing Odighizuwa.[13] Once Odighizuwa was securely held down, Gross went back to his vehicle and retrieved handcuffs to detain Odighizuwa until police could arrive.

It’s too bad these stupid so-called Good Samaritans didn’t just mind their own business. Someone could have gotten hurt!

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Wow. It’s like a bad dream on here today. And you said you are in SCIENCE?!

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 4:32 PM

You are indistinguishable from our usual liberal trolls. Not even going to bother with you from here on out, you disgusting, cowardly elitist.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Yeah. It IS a lot easier to just call someone names and get all happy with yourself because you “just showed them” rather than take a reading comprehension course.

And trust me, you are not at all someone I respect or give a rats patootie about, and frankly you do more harm than good to any causes that any real Conservatives care about. It would be best if you would just go away, failing that, not having to deal with you any longer is like a gift from God all by itself.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 4:47 PM

For every example of an armed civilian stopping someone from killing someone else with a gun, I can give you ten, no, a hundred examples of pointless shooting deaths of innocent children, family members and bystanders.

pm123

So, basically what you’re saying is we should do away with bicycles and swimming pools because of all the innocent children killed by both.

Just go ahead and admit that there’s no RATIONAL reason to own a gun except to give yourself an adrenaline rush and pretend that “freedom” means the ability to kill others easily.

There’s no rational reason for YOU to own a gun. Clearly you’re one of those mentally unstable people who should never have access to guns, knives, scissors, sharp objects, etc.

xblade on July 22, 2012 at 4:48 PM

For every example of an armed civilian stopping someone from killing someone else with a gun, I can give you ten, no, a hundred examples of pointless shooting deaths of innocent children, family members and bystanders.

pm123 on July 22, 2012 at 4:35 PM

WTF?!? Give me just one example of an armed private citizen attempting to intervene as a Good Samaritan accidentally shot a bunch of civilians in the crossfire. Hundreds?!? Wow.

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Absolutely untrue.

And everyone on here who is a supporter of the 2nd Amendment is MUCH better educated then you are to discuss the FACTS and not the drivel you just posted.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Wow. Even MadisonConservative? I knew you’d warm up to him eventually!

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Lol! Trouble maker!

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Wow. Even MadisonConservative? I knew you’d warm up to him eventually!

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 4:43 PM

He’s one of the few idiots that will ignore everything I say because he didn’t like an opinion I had on a pet issue of his.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 4:50 PM

MC- a .25cal???

Now I know you are stooopid.

For God sake.you’d be better off throwing your raisinettes.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 4:50 PM

This guy had homemade hand grenades. He’s obviously very bright. Had all guns been completely illegal, and that ban actually enforced to the point of total compliance, he likely would have carried out this massacre using explosives, poisons, caustics, or some combination of the above.

Which makes me echo the sentiments of the Wall Street Journal… how does a free society protect itself from a twisted mind?

JohnGalt23 on July 22, 2012 at 4:51 PM

And trust me, you are not at all someone I respect or give a rats patootie about,

Clearly. You don’t think I’m very important or relevant or anythi-

and frankly you do more harm than good to any causes that any real Conservatives care about.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Wait…you don’t care what I think, but what I think is apparently relevant enough to do harm to causes.

Got it.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Every-time there is a tragedy people get all wee-weed up about Gun control. Always trying to find someone to blame. While every life is precious and the loss of even one life is incomprehensibly, the fact is that there are nearly 400 million people in the USA out of which over 250 million are gun owners. We have an average of two of those massacres a year, and while even two is a lot, considering it’s people’s lives we’re dealing with. Two evil people out of 250 million is a pretty good statistic.

The fact is that there are evil people out there, some people do horrible things and no law will stop those lunatics from doing harm. You can have every law on the book, but evil people don’t exactly follow the law. introducing strict gun controls will only effect the law abiding people it wont make any difference on the criminals who are by definition “criminals” “People who BRAKE the law”.

People should keep the victims and their prayers, people should reflect on the events and people should take some time to focus on what’s important to them. But we don’t ban air travel after every air crash and we don’t ban driving after every car accident. life is unfair, and in life tragedy happens. This was a sad sad tragedy, but don’t go and blame and punish the rest of us because of one evil man’s bad behaviour.

Sheya on July 22, 2012 at 4:51 PM

This is not my understanding of the dissipation mechanism. The rotational energy is not transferred into the matrix through the fibers wrapping around the projectile, but rather through the large surface area of the broken fibers abrading the projectile. The energy transfer into the surrounding matrix comes from the forward momentum of the projectile, while the spin induces abrasion and heat, which defeats the fibers individually.

Your explanation is not one that I’ve heard before. Is that testing that was done with DARPA? I’d like to check that out. We’re looking at doing some destructive testing soon and just purchased a new high speed camera for it, I’m really looking forward to getting started on it.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 4:30 PM

I suggest you do some research then, the Engineer I worked for obtained his PhD from Caltech on the properties of Kevlar as a bullet resistant material. Yes, those are the characteristics of Kevlar that define DARPA’s research into body armor.

As I stated in the post you referred to, Kevlar is a 2 valence bond synthetic carbon fiber. It’s strength is in it’s capacity to resist breaking via it’s tensile strength and ability to stretch. it’s weakness is in it’s crystal lattice structure which has a 90 degree shear.

In other words it breaks quiet easily when bent at 90 degrees. Blunt force strikes against Kevlar shatter it along it’s crystal matrix, which is why you never see Kevlar used as a bullet resistant body armor material in resin impregnated composite laminate form. (the amount of Kevlar required would make the body armor excessively heavy)

Basically Kevlar is used like a bungy cord in body armor, it resist’s breaking and when it does break it transfers kinetic energy via transfer of angular momentum.

SWalker on July 22, 2012 at 4:51 PM

The accidental gun death rate has been falling since 1930 and US accidental gun deaths per year were down to 613 by 2007, out of the 301,579,895 people in the USA, according to the CDC. For comparison, there were 29,846 accidental deaths by poisoning in 2007, again according to the CDC. Note that it is extremely easy to prevent accidental gun deaths by following Jeff Cooper’s Four Rules Of Gun Safety.

What we should be worried about are swimming pools:

•Each day in the United States, nine people drown.
•For each death caused by drowning, there are 1-4 nonfatal submersion accidents serious enough for the victim to be hospitalized.
•Drowning is the second leading cause of accidental injury-related death among children ages 1 to 14.
•Drowning is the leading cause of accidental injury-related death among children ages 1 to 4.
•Each day in the United States, nine people drown.
•For each death caused by drowning, there are 1-4 nonfatal submersion accidents serious enough for the victim to be hospitalized.
•Drowning is the second leading cause of accidental injury-related death among children ages 1 to 14.
•Drowning is the leading cause of accidental injury-related death among children ages 1 to 4.

And when was the last time a swimming pool saved anyone from being robbed, raped, beaten or murdered??? Please.

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 4:54 PM

The average response time of a 911 call is 23 minutes. The response time of a .357 magnum is 1400 feet per second.

If you carry a gun, people may call you paranoid. That’s ridiculous. If you have a gun, you have no reason to be paranoid.

In an emergency, *Do Something*. It may be wrong, but do *something*.

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Love this!

Yeah.. you are always called paranoid until something happens. Then they call you “well prepared.”

The gun is the great equalizer. Why do we want cops and security on site? Because of their badge? No! It’s because of their gun!
Guns are simple to operate. Any fool can pull a trigger. Any trained full can hit a target. If guns didn’t work then we wouldn’t use them in our armies, our police forces and law enforcement. Guns work! That’s why the libs want them banned.

But then of course.. gun bans are also just a lie. The libs don’t want them banned. They just want them banned for all of us. The want the ownership of guns transferred to only the privileged few. Bans are never really bans. Just transfers of ownership. They will keep their guns. See.. if gun bans worked then why would the police and all the law enforcement agencies still want their guns? They shouldn’t need them anymore. Once the ban is in place, they should melt their guns as well. Oh no.. can’t do that. Because there is still crime out there. Somebody might still have a gun.
We might as well blame door locks for crime too.

Look folks.. Obama is going to sign this Arms treaty. We might as well realize it. He’s going to. And I would not be surprised if he doesn’t have some good Oct. surprises in store. I have a hard time believing the people who thought up Fast and Furious have just been sitting around sucking their thumbs. This President doubles down. I am sure they have other things planned. Probably 16 different October surprises. Everyone of them a crisis too good to waste.

JellyToast on July 22, 2012 at 4:54 PM

MC- a .25cal???

Now I know you are stooopid.

For God sake.you’d be better off throwing your raisinettes.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Yes. It’s a type of outdated handgun caliber, same as .32. Both can usually be found at gun shows or most used gun shops. They’re not great, but they’re better than nothing, and can be just as deadly if used against unarmored areas of the body.

Your scoffing attitude shows you know far less about firearms and self-defense than you think you do. Given the choice between no weapon and a Hi-Point .22, your life is at less risk with the latter. Objective fact.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Hah. I am the Ward Cleaver of the left.

urban elitist on July 22, 2012 at 4:43 PM

…wait till we tell the Ward Cleaver who posts here!

KOOLAID2 on July 22, 2012 at 4:55 PM

He’s one of the few idiots that will ignore everything I say because he didn’t like an opinion I had on a pet issue of his.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 4:50 PM

And because propaganda and agendas will always trump cold heart facts and logic.

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Let me know if you have other questions and I can put up a few links for you, if you want to research what you might want to carry.
KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Well, thank you for that info. Which by the way, was a test, rather than a request for new information

And yeah, while a .45 is not a good penetrator (barring some *arcane ammo), it is not something to be sneered at, because the blunt force trauma through a vest without a hard plate is still massive.

Yeah, you have to step up to a level 3 to be safe from a ‘hot’ .357 load.

Or, if you are going for penetration rather than BFT, there are a couple of smaller caliber , quite concealable, handgun rounds one could consider, even against level 3.

*That was a test too.

LegendHasIt on July 22, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Oh. Well, then thanks for wasting my time???

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 4:56 PM

MadisonConservative: I guess the 2nd amendment now trumps the first! Here’s one that’s only about two weeks old:

http://tinyurl.com/d6qqvp2

Then there’s this report:

http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/protect-children-not-guns-2012.html

Which I’m sure you’ll dimiss as pinkie commie leftist propaganda. The indisputable fact remains that if guns were illegal, FAR fewer people would die from shootings in this country. Of course, since most Americans would happily trade a few thousand gun deaths for the freedom to own a machine whose sole purpose is to kill, not much will change soon, sadly.

pm123 on July 22, 2012 at 4:57 PM

For every example of an armed civilian stopping someone from killing someone else with a gun, I can give you ten, no, a hundred examples of pointless shooting deaths of innocent children, family members and bystanders.

pm123 on July 22, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Fine. Here’s your example. Now provide a hundred examples of pointless shooting deaths of innocent children, family members, and bystanders in the five days since.

If you can’t, then retract what you said and shut the f**k up. My rights are more important than your emotions.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 4:43 PM

And please pm123, tell us how many of those innocent children were killed by guns left within the reach of those children by careless adults who should not have had a gun in the first place if they didn’t practice gun safety.

Or better yet, tell us how many of those innocent children were killed by unregistered guns left within the reach of those children by careless adults who should not have had the gun in the first place because it was illegal for them to do so.

Flora Duh on July 22, 2012 at 4:58 PM

He’s one of the few idiots that will ignore everything I say because he didn’t like an opinion I had on a pet issue of his.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Quite so.

Maddy is a TruCon purist of the worst kind but the central thrust of what he is saying is correct.

Yes, a trained man fully kitted out who rushes into a theater is a nightmarish threat. You stand a very good chance of getting wiped. But what Maddy is saying is given that you’ll be lucky to get out alive, throwing some lead at the perp is A VERY GOOD IDEA. The odds of him being a Miami shootout style former SF guy are extraordinarily slim.

Some of you are just saying, meh whatever. You’re dead meat in that situation.

Maddy’s more like a ‘rage against the dying of the light’ guy. I’d rather have him next to me in the theater, TruCon antics and all.

CorporatePiggy on July 22, 2012 at 4:58 PM

I don’t usually say this, but the use of firearms for self-defense is an inarguable conservative principle. There are facets of most any issue that leave them up to debate, including what types of weapons should be legal. The right of citizens to carry firearms for self-defense is not.

If you argue that the risks of carrying a firearm for self-defense are sufficient to suggest that anyone other than yourself should not carry, you are not conservative. End of story.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 4:58 PM

MadCon
Let the trolls say what they will, but if they were at the cinema they would have found god.
You and me on the other hand realize what kind of world we face, and face it with our heads up…

angrymike on July 22, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Crowing about how you read on the internet of someone stopping an armed robbery conveniently ignores the hundreds of children killed by their parents’ or friends’ or neighbors’ guns every year. Just go ahead and admit that there’s no RATIONAL reason to own a gun except to give yourself an adrenaline rush and pretend that “freedom” means the ability to kill others easily.

So what’s next that you want to forbid people to do, have knives? People use them to hurt maim and kill too. How about no more cars.. good heavens knows more are hurt maimed and killed with cars each year , and don’t kid yourself baby, but those cars are often used ass.yes…. wait for it.. weapons. The fact is the states with LESS crime dear heart.. are the ones with more permissive gun laws. That is because.. and my young daughter is smarter OBVIOUSLY than you because she was saying this just yesterday, that gun laws only stop law abiding citizens. Aren’t you just just not quite getting that through your dense noggin?.. criminals don’t give a fig for your guns laws.. they get them. they kill people with them and that won’t stop when you have taken the means away from law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

You lefty’s truly are illogical… yes I will dare say it.. idiots.

Noelie on July 22, 2012 at 5:00 PM

And trust me, you are not at all someone I respect or give a rats patootie about,

Clearly. You don’t think I’m very important or relevant or anythi-

and frankly you do more harm than good to any causes that any real Conservatives care about.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Wait…you don’t care what I think, but what I think is apparently relevant enough to do harm to causes.

Got it.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Right.

Because you act like a 10year old who just learned swear words, which provides “Liberals” opportunity to make real Conservatives look like buffoons, by using you, your behavior and lack of self control as an example.

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Look folks.. Obama is going to sign this Arms treaty. We might as well realize it. He’s going to. And I would not be surprised if he doesn’t have some good Oct. surprises in store. I have a hard time believing the people who thought up Fast and Furious have just been sitting around sucking their thumbs. This President doubles down. I am sure they have other things planned. Probably 16 different October surprises. Everyone of them a crisis too good to waste.

JellyToast on July 22, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Let’s call it like it is:

“Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.”
– Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control International

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 5:00 PM

MadisonConservative: I guess the 2nd amendment now trumps the first! Here’s one that’s only about two weeks old:

pm123 on July 22, 2012 at 4:57 PM

There’s one. Produce 99 more, as you said you could, or retract your ignorant, life-destroying fallacy and shut the f**k up. Until you produce the other 99 to back up your statement, you’re not worthy of another response.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 5:00 PM

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Considering my CCW is a Kimber Pro Carry .45 – yes – that is PRECISELY what I would say. If you think a .45 wouldn’t stop ANYONE, then YOU are the one who is deluded.

PJ Emeritus on July 22, 2012 at 5:01 PM

SWalker on July 22, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Even with the body armor, how would it feel if I shot you from close range with my .38 or .357 and struck you in the chest area? Would it knock you down? Would it sting? Would it stop you from firing at more innocent people long enough for them to make it to the exits?

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Unless you have a boron-carbide front or back plate, then your .38 or .357 would knock the individual down, potentially breaking a couple of ribs and possibly knock them unconscious. Bullets are notorious for going right through Kevlar vests if the bullet is coming from a side angle as opposed to striking the vest directly head on.

SWalker on July 22, 2012 at 5:01 PM

I have a scar on my left arm from a .25cal. I got mugged at an atm in 84. it barely broke the skin. I pulled it out with my fingers. I wasn’t wearing body armor.

wolly4321 on July 22, 2012 at 5:02 PM

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 5:00 PM

All you have done is complain about my profanity, and falsely accuse me of insulting you.

Not once have you addressed my points.

Two facts that lead me to call you a coward…which you are.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 8