Media ignoring 1 crucial factor in Florida school shooting

[The emperor has no clothes]

The difference is that in the process of reloading it would give some chance at subduing the shooter.

Allowing teachers and other school staff to be armed would give a MUCH better chance at "subduing" the shooter than restricting magazine size (Which wouldn't work since anyone with a $300 3D printer can just make their own)

You ready to support that, I assume?

I’m out. You guys are right. We need more guns in our society. God knows we don’t have enough. I resisted joining this conversation for a couple days. I should have resisted longer.

Thought you didnt believe in GOD, so why bring him into this conversation? Also glad I made another purchase today

You thought wrong. That would be Serk. 

[Serk]

Thought you didnt believe in GOD, so why bring him into this conversation? Also glad I made another purchase today

No, that was me... I believe Mr. Head is a believer...

And I too think I might hafta stock up on some more stripped lowers, just because...

I might just hafta pick up a few Spike's Tactical Snowflake lowers... because reasons...

[Serk]

...they'd match so nicely with my existing Jack lower build, after all!

[Bighead]

No i knew serk wasnt a believer but could swear MH has had the same view in the past if not I appologize.
BTW I bought a sweet 1911 .45 cal today  

[Gavin_Sons]

I'm planning on buying several normal capacity (30 round) magazines.

I HIGHLY recommend MagPul PMAG G3's... Good enough for the Marines, good enough for me!

(And kudos to MagPul for pulling out of Colorado when the state turned communist. They said they'd leave if it happened, it happened, and they left.)

I found a place at a local fun show recently that had 'em for $14 each, I asked 'em how much if I bought in bulk, he told me buy 10 or more, $10 each... I bought a few hundred dollar's worth at that price...

Yeah most of mine are MagPul. That is how I bought my last 15. 10 bucks each. I have a guy that will sell me 10+ for 12 bucks now. I need to build 4 or 5 more AR's. Got one going right now in 458 socom. Uses the 223 mags. I wish someone would figure out how to eject 44 mags, I would have one of those uppers tomorrow.

[Serk]

Yeah most of mine are MagPul. That is how I bought my last 15. 10 bucks each. I have a guy that will sell me 10+ for 12 bucks now. I need to build 4 or 5 more AR's. Got one going right now in 458 socom. Uses the 223 mags. I wish someone would figure out how to eject 44 mags, I would have one of those uppers tomorrow.

I really need to slow down on my ARs... I'm a little over a dozen now, maybe closer to 15, not positive... (MANY 5.56, some 7.62x39, some 300 BO, now a 50 Beowulf, some .308 (Do AR10's count?), etc...)

I need to save my money for the Tavor 308 and Tavor 12-gauge later this year... But dangit, if it makes liberals cry, I might build a few more just because...

A 44 Mag AR would indeed be an interesting platform, but what mags would it use? that's the beauty of the 50 Beowulf (And 458 SOCOM), it uses the stock mags...

(And one of the many many MANY problems with a magazine capacity ban. The exact same physical mag that holds 10 rounds of 50 Beowulf also happens to hold 30 rounds of 5.56. Would it be legal if you owned a .50 Beowulf?)

[Bighead]

The difference is that in the process of reloading it would give some chance at subduing the shooter.

Allowing teachers and other school staff to be armed would give a MUCH better chance at "subduing" the shooter than restricting magazine size (Which wouldn't work since anyone with a $300 3D printer can just make their own)

You ready to support that, I assume?

I’m out. You guys are right. We need more guns in our society. God knows we don’t have enough. I resisted joining this conversation for a couple days. I should have resisted longer.

Thought you didnt believe in GOD, so why bring him into this conversation? Also glad I made another purchase today

You thought wrong. That would be Serk. 

And I did apologize Mr MH.

[The emperor has no clothes]

The difference is that in the process of reloading it would give some chance at subduing the shooter.

Allowing teachers and other school staff to be armed would give a MUCH better chance at "subduing" the shooter than restricting magazine size (Which wouldn't work since anyone with a $300 3D printer can just make their own)

You ready to support that, I assume?

I’m out. You guys are right. We need more guns in our society. God knows we don’t have enough. I resisted joining this conversation for a couple days. I should have resisted longer.

Thought you didnt believe in GOD, so why bring him into this conversation? Also glad I made another purchase today

You thought wrong. That would be Serk. 

And I did apologize Mr MH.

No problem.

[98valk]

The difference is that in the process of reloading it would give some chance at subduing the shooter.

Allowing teachers and other school staff to be armed would give a MUCH better chance at "subduing" the shooter than restricting magazine size (Which wouldn't work since anyone with a $300 3D printer can just make their own)

You ready to support that, I assume?

I’m out. You guys are right. We need more guns in our society. God knows we don’t have enough. I resisted joining this conversation for a couple days. I should have resisted longer.

Thought you didnt believe in GOD, so why bring him into this conversation? Also glad I made another purchase today

You thought wrong. That would be Serk. 

but u vote to murder babies as other liberals do. so your actions say u are against God, just because u believe in Him means nothing. for the Scripture says even the Devil and his demons believe in God and Jesus. just as your voting says u are against the constitution. maybe u need to re-examine your life and accept Jesus the Christ as your Lord and Savior and ask for forgiveness of your sins.

[The emperor has no clothes]

The difference is that in the process of reloading it would give some chance at subduing the shooter.

Allowing teachers and other school staff to be armed would give a MUCH better chance at "subduing" the shooter than restricting magazine size (Which wouldn't work since anyone with a $300 3D printer can just make their own)

You ready to support that, I assume?

I’m out. You guys are right. We need more guns in our society. God knows we don’t have enough. I resisted joining this conversation for a couple days. I should have resisted longer.

Thought you didnt believe in GOD, so why bring him into this conversation? Also glad I made another purchase today

You thought wrong. That would be Serk. 

but u vote to murder babies as other liberals do. so your actions say u are against God, just because u believe in Him means nothing. for the Scripture says even the Devil and his demons believe in God and Jesus. just as your voting says u are against the constitution. maybe u need to re-examine your life and accept Jesus the Christ as your Lord and Savior and ask for forgiveness of your sins.

Maybe you need to get a life.

[98valk]

The difference is that in the process of reloading it would give some chance at subduing the shooter.

Allowing teachers and other school staff to be armed would give a MUCH better chance at "subduing" the shooter than restricting magazine size (Which wouldn't work since anyone with a $300 3D printer can just make their own)

You ready to support that, I assume?

I’m out. You guys are right. We need more guns in our society. God knows we don’t have enough. I resisted joining this conversation for a couple days. I should have resisted longer.

Thought you didnt believe in GOD, so why bring him into this conversation? Also glad I made another purchase today

You thought wrong. That would be Serk. 

but u vote to murder babies as other liberals do. so your actions say u are against God, just because u believe in Him means nothing. for the Scripture says even the Devil and his demons believe in God and Jesus. just as your voting says u are against the constitution. maybe u need to re-examine your life and accept Jesus the Christ as your Lord and Savior and ask for forgiveness of your sins.

Maybe you need to get a life.

I do have a life, however you and your liberal ilk are blindly trying to do away with it and the constitution with your voting and supporting democrats who support the destruction of this country and the murdering of unborn American babies. Just like Mother Theresa said right into cold faces of the clintons who didn't flinch a muscle when she said it to them. u cannot denied it and will have to give an account for your actions before God Almighty one day. u need to repent before it is too late for u.

[old2soon]

Question please. Has Any law abiding citizen that has jumped through ALL the hoops the feds and state puts in front of said law abiding citizen Ever been involved in what the "media" labels a mass shooting? Curious and likea dat ya see. My x b I l asked when I picked up my .40 Smith WHY I needed 14 rounds.  While I am still a fair shot I'd raher have em-the extra rounds-and not need  them than to need them and not have them. This debate as I perceive it is on a see saw. I was deemed-what?-acceptable by two gubmints-fed and state-to be able to carry a weapon LEGALLY here and a few other states-BUT by no means all states. BUT if I've read the 2nd amendment correctly the states that don't "allow" me to carry are infringing on my Constitutional Rights. Far as magazine capacity goes-I can see instances where 14 may Not be enough. I PRAY I'm never in a situation where 14 rounds ain't but I can envision where 14 won't be enough. I'll keep what I have and might just git in some range time to resharpen some skills. Far as the knee jerk reaction goes-did we REALLY spect anything different? RIDE SAFE.

[MP]

So tell me again why these automatic and semiautomatic  weapons need to be available to the genl public....I missed your response....

Because they "want" them. Their desires outweigh the greater good of our kids.

 OK guys. Meathead has spoken and says we don't need AR15s or any high capacity rifles. So everyone send your EVIL looking rifles to him so he can destroy them.  Better yet. Meathead why don't you come and take them. I'm sure we will all give them up to you voluntary.

Or you could just explain why you "need" them.

 You obviously didn't see my post about action/three gun matches. We use them to compete in speed and accuracy. The faster you can shoot and reload the better your time.  So yes we "need" them to be competitive. Do you play golf? If so why do you have 12 or so clubs. You can't play golf with just one club right? Well you can't compete in the gun sports with just one gun. If you don't understand that I don't know what to tell you.

Just give it up.  You are not going to change the minds of the many gun guys here.

That is not a need, that is a want. I will never give up trying to protect our kids. I have no illusions of changing your mind or many others here.

By your requirements, we don't NEED any of our other rights either. Lots of people live their entire lives in this world without our Rights, so they are not NEEDED.

[Skinhead]

There is something wrong with the law if you are not old enough to buy a beer but buying an assault damn rifle is just fine...
 

There is no such thing as an assault rifle. That is just a term made up by the liberal press to apply to a gun that looks scary. I have a couple of AR-15s, along with other stuff. I have several hunting rifles that are much more powerful and more accurate than any AR-15. The rifle is just a tool

Yes, the AR-15 is just a tool. A tool designed and purposed for the efficient killing of people.

You can say the same for almost anything. The recent attack in China shows that Meat Cleavers are an efficient killing tool, so are knives, rocks, hammers, automobiles, baseball bats, etc.
I can take any one of my guns, load it up and leave it out in the middle of my living room. It will not hurt anyone until someone picks it up and uses it to hurt someone. We don't have a gun problem, we have a bad person problem.

If you can’t see the differences in efficiencies of a meat cleaver and multiple 30 round magazines in an AR type of weapon, I give up.

I do know the difference and yes the AR is a more efficient tool, but it is just that. Alone it is a benign entity. It is the intent of the person that uses the tool that makes it an assault weapon. I have an old Remington 742, it's older than me. I've used it for hunting once, it was handed down to me by my uncle. They make a 10, 20, and 30 round magazine for it if you want one. It has a heaver bullet with more velocity than an AR round, more kinetic energy, and much more range. It also will shoot as fast an an AR. It has a nice wood stock, a scope and is definitely a more efficient killing weapon than an AR. Should I not be allowed to have this either??? It doesn't look scary like an AR so it should be OK right???

Ya know, I used a pneumatic impact wrench to tighten the rear case bolts on a Valk engine once as I was in a hurry and wanted to tighten the bolts quickly.  The problem is with the high torque capacity and fast bolt tightening rate of the pneumatic impact wrench, I broke or stripped all the bolts.  I don't think anyone needs or should be allowed to own a pneumatic impact wrench to prevent this from happening again.  I can't see any reason for some one to own a pneumatic impact wrench, when a perfectly good combination wrench would do the job.  Maybe instead of a fully pneumatic impact wrench, I could have used a ratchet and socket, but they look scary to me and by using wobble extensions and 6 and 12 point sockets, I could tighten more bolts than with the combination wrench, but could also break or strip more bolts faster than with the combination wrench, so ratchets should be illegal as well.  Sounds pretty stupid don't it?

BTW- this is a fictional scenario, No actual Valkyries were harmed in this scenario.  You can dry your eyes Meathead.

I have many doubts that your "pneumatic impact wrench" has the capacity to slaughter a school classroom full of 6 year olds. See the difference ?

Of course I see the difference, it's called an analogy, the same only different.

Or you could just explain why you "need" them.

Because sometimes there can be multiple threats to deal with.  You may wind up in a situation where you may need 100 rounds to defend your self.  In that case if all you had was your breach load or bolt action rifle, your chances of successfully defending yourself or your loved ones would be severely limited.  I prefer to err on the side of too much firepower rather than too little.  Just because you think I don't need something is no reason for me not to have it.  You could ride a 50cc scooter to get from point A to point B, in fact I don't think you need a 1500cc bike, so you shouldn't have one.

[Gavin_Sons]

my stance on gun control still stands. If you are willing to take my guns away and restrict the capacity of my magazines then you are my enemy. I will not protect you in any shape or form if you are in trouble. You are on your own. Just as it is your right to want to restrict these things, it is my right to not protect you. All of you liberals say all of this but if asked to help collect guns you will go cower in a corner. I dare anyone to try to take my weapons. Why do i need to give them up and my normal capacity magazines? When the criminals will have them and use them against us. Should i not have the same firepower as them? We should all arm ourselves and carry every day. I feel it is my duty to do so. Everyone wants to blame the gun when the gun did nothing. Who do you blame when a drunk driver kills a innocent family? Do you blame the car? You people are idiots when it comes to this kind of stuff. Don't blame the system even though it clearly failed, don't blame the crazy guy holding the gun, hell no, let's blame the gun and everyone who owns guns.

[MAD6Gun]

The difference is that in the process of reloading it would give some chance at subduing the shooter.

Allowing teachers and other school staff to be armed would give a MUCH better chance at "subduing" the shooter than restricting magazine size (Which wouldn't work since anyone with a $300 3D printer can just make their own)

You ready to support that, I assume?

I’m out. You guys are right. We need more guns in our society. God knows we don’t have enough. I resisted joining this conversation for a couple days. I should have resisted longer.

Thought you didnt believe in GOD, so why bring him into this conversation? Also glad I made another purchase today

You thought wrong. That would be Serk. 

but u vote to murder babies as other liberals do. so your actions say u are against God, just because u believe in Him means nothing. for the Scripture says even the Devil and his demons believe in God and Jesus. just as your voting says u are against the constitution. maybe u need to re-examine your life and accept Jesus the Christ as your Lord and Savior and ask for forgiveness of your sins.

Maybe you need to get a life.

 Says the guy who has spent several days trying to push his narrative on gun control that no one wants to hear but keeps going. And then says he's OUT and continues to try. Give it up you are just beating a dead donkey.

[Skinhead]

Site one example of someone needing a 30 round magazine to ward off 30 people.
Here is just one example of your delusion and ignorance.

https://www.snopes.com/trump-sign-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-illnesses/

If you care to research that and not blame Trump for all the evil in this world, you will find that he revoked obama's unconstitutional mental illness policy based on the recommendations of several different committees that determined the policy was vague and did not provide for funding to support the checks and also did not provide due process for those affected.  It was not "Hey, let's revoke this and let Psychos buy automatic weapons" as many knee jerk gun banners continue to put forth.

[Jess from VA]

I'm not arguing against anyone here, but thought I'd take a different approach.

Let's say they stuck us with a 10 rd mag limit, and lets say we obeyed (a really big leap).

Who thinks this type of shooting would be prevented with a 10 rd mag limit?

You walk in and start shooting up a school (or someplace).  You have plenty of 10rounders on your belt, drop your empties to the floor and keep moving and replace as needed.

How many teachers and school kids are going to start counting shots and figure out when it's safest to charge the shooter, during the 3 second interval between mags?

So that didn't work (at all), so lets just take away all semiautos.  That's exactly how this banning stuff works.

The military and police will not give up 30 (or more) round mags (or semiautos), and neither will we.     

[The emperor has no clothes]

I'm not arguing against anyone here, but thought I'd take a different approach.

Let's say they stuck us with a 10 rd mag limit, and lets say we obeyed (a really big leap).

Who thinks this type of shooting would be prevented with a 10 rd mag limit?

You walk in and start shooting up a school (or someplace).  You have plenty of 10rounders on your belt, drop your empties to the floor and keep moving and replace as needed.

How many teachers and school kids are going to start counting shots and figure out when it's safest to charge the shooter, during the 3 second interval between mags?

So that didn't work (at all), so lets just take away all semiautos.  That's exactly how this banning stuff works.

The military and police will not give up 30 (or more) round mags (or semiautos), and neither will we.     

I said I wasn’t going to continue, but I’ve always felt you are able to debate respectfully. There was an instance of that very thing happening. When the nut job in Tucson killed that little girl and wounded Giffords he was subdued while reloading.

[Skinhead]

I have many problems with a standard capacity magazine ban... A few:

-It doesn't work. We HAD a standard capacity magazine ban for a DECADE. And in the middle of that decade of tyranny was Columbine.

-It's easily circumvented. VERY easily. FIVE years ago was when this was done, you can crank out standard capacity magazines on a $300 3D printer all day long now, imagine where we'll be in another few years?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY16r6EkUNY

-IT DOESN'T WORK. And if we give in and "compromise" the forces of evil will then come back and say "Well, that didn't work, now we need you to give up MORE of your rights to make you safe." No compromise with evil I say. They will never be satisfied, or successful.

I could go on, but I'm getting too emotionally worked up, I'll leave it at that.

Molon Labe.

That's just it, Serk.  It's not really compromise.  Let's say someone owns 5 cars (which, why the heck would someone need 5 of those evil things!), and the government (pushed by those limousine libs) say we can only have 2.  So, the gov't (pushed by those limousine libs), takes 3.  What have you gained by the deal?  Nothing.  You have lost 3 cars.
The same way with rights (and property).  A compromise is where both sides gain and lose.  When rights are lost, only the takers of those rights gain anything.

[whineyMeatheadFont] But cars aren't dead 6 year olds, can't you see the difference?[/whineyMeatheadFont]

[Skinhead]

In the spirit of pissing off liberals I'm going gun shopping tomorrow.  and I'm planning on buying several normal capacity (30 round) magazines. I already have 15 but another 5 won't hurt. Kel tec has their new shotgun out that holds 25 2 3/4" rounds. Load that sucker up with 00 buck for home defense. 

I love it when you talk dirty....

[Serk]

Multiple examples of #1, #2, a little #3, a whole lot of #4 and some #6. Haven't seen #5 lately but I'm sure it's in there:

http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/06/6-reasons-right-wing-friend-isnt-coming-side-gun-control/

[Gavin_Sons]

I'm not arguing against anyone here, but thought I'd take a different approach.

Let's say they stuck us with a 10 rd mag limit, and lets say we obeyed (a really big leap).

Who thinks this type of shooting would be prevented with a 10 rd mag limit?

You walk in and start shooting up a school (or someplace).  You have plenty of 10rounders on your belt, drop your empties to the floor and keep moving and replace as needed.

How many teachers and school kids are going to start counting shots and figure out when it's safest to charge the shooter, during the 3 second interval between mags?

So that didn't work (at all), so lets just take away all semiautos.  That's exactly how this banning stuff works.

The military and police will not give up 30 (or more) round mags (or semiautos), and neither will we.     

I said I wasn’t going to continue, but I’ve always felt you are able to debate respectfully. There was an instance of that very thing happening. When the nut job in Tucson killed that little girl and wounded Giffords he was subdued while reloading.

just like the majority of us feel like you're a thorn in our side.

[98valk]

https://www.ocregister.com/2012/07/31/larry-elder-how-often-are-guns-used-in-self-defense/

So, how often do Americans use firearms for self-defense?

Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns to defend themselves each year. Out of that number, 400,000 believe that but for their firearms, they would have been dead.

Professor Emeritus James Q. Wilson, the UCLA public policy expert, says: “We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond 100,000 uses of guns for self-defense occur every year. We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature that the number may be as high as 2 1/2 or 3 million. We don’t know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, it’s not a trivial number.”

Former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney David P. Koppel studied gun control for the Cato Institute. Citing a 1979-1985 study by the National Crime Victimization Survey, Koppel found: “When a robbery victim does not defend himself, the robber succeeds 88 percent of the time, and the victim is injured 25 percent of the time. When a victim resists with a gun, the robbery success rate falls to 30 percent, and the victim injury rate falls to 17 percent. No other response to a robbery – from drawing a knife to shouting for help to fleeing – produces such low rates of victim injury and robbery success.”

When asked if additional gun laws would be beneficial or have no effect, most Americans, like Ice-T, get it. They oppose shifting power to the criminal. And they don’t need the National Rifle Association to tell them: The only people willing to abide by additional gun laws are the law-abiding.

[¿spoom]

Regarding the recent student speeches, demands, and plans to skip school, when I have important political or life decisions to make, I always seek the wise council of upset 16 year-olds  
While I have empathy for what they've been through, it really matters not to me if they declare to have the solutions, and will skip school until the Country does what they demand. From what we're finding out in this instance, law enforcement and social services from federal to local levels dropped the ball on this big time. I refuse to give up my rights because a crazy person got a gun.
I hate to always sound like I'm blaming the left, but I truly believe the liberal lawmakers have poisoned the well to the point where I will agree to almost nothing, as far as new "safety" laws restricting firearms. When many on the left are on record as stating their one and only end game is to get rid of all firearms, period, what sane person would sit down with them to discuss restrictions? If my neighbor's publicly stated goal was to take over my driveway, why would I ever say yes to them, "parking there on weekends where I was away"?
When a crazy person mows folks down with a truck, we don't demand getting rid of rental trucks and private ownership of anything more powerful than a rickshaw.  I am to the point I don't want to hear anything.  At All. About more gun control laws. It completely mystifies me how they can shriek and tear their hair about guns when there is so much violence in TV, movies, and worst of all, video games.  No one will ever convince me that playing immersive kill them all video games for hours on end doesn't desensitize the mind to massacre. People understand the valuable training pilots get from flight simulators, NASCAR does the same, and many folks can hone their planning and success rate with GTAuto and other games.

[Jess from VA]

I'm not arguing against anyone here, but thought I'd take a different approach.

Let's say they stuck us with a 10 rd mag limit, and lets say we obeyed (a really big leap).

Who thinks this type of shooting would be prevented with a 10 rd mag limit?

You walk in and start shooting up a school (or someplace).  You have plenty of 10rounders on your belt, drop your empties to the floor and keep moving and replace as needed.

How many teachers and school kids are going to start counting shots and figure out when it's safest to charge the shooter, during the 3 second interval between mags?

So that didn't work (at all), so lets just take away all semiautos.  That's exactly how this banning stuff works.

The military and police will not give up 30 (or more) round mags (or semiautos), and neither will we.     

I said I wasn’t going to continue, but I’ve always felt you are able to debate respectfully. There was an instance of that very thing happening. When the nut job in Tucson killed that little girl and wounded Giffords he was subdued while reloading.

I can get very disrespectful, very quickly, but promised myself I would not let that happen anymore, some years ago (at least on here).

The example you cited is an entirely different scenario.  When you attack in schools or buildings or train cars, you automatically herd people down halls and into rooms (all in front of the shooter).  It is the only rational response to such an attack.  If you attack in an open air scenerio (like Giffords), you can be stopped in all 360 degrees, and no one has eyes in the back of their heads.  Yes, the pistol mag in that case was less than 30, but that wasn't the main reason he was stopped.  He was in a surrounding crowd.

It is because schools present such a difficult method of counterattack (and they are kids), that I spent time discussing the need for increased and better security.  Not only do there need to be good guys with guns in schools, ideally, the plan should make it damn difficult (or impossible) to get in the front (or any side) door with any firearm.  THAT is where the efforts must be made (and mental health), not banning gun mags or types (in direct violation of our law abiding people 2d amendment rights).     

[3fan4life]

I'm not arguing against anyone here, but thought I'd take a different approach.

Let's say they stuck us with a 10 rd mag limit, and lets say we obeyed (a really big leap).

Who thinks this type of shooting would be prevented with a 10 rd mag limit?

You walk in and start shooting up a school (or someplace).  You have plenty of 10rounders on your belt, drop your empties to the floor and keep moving and replace as needed.

How many teachers and school kids are going to start counting shots and figure out when it's safest to charge the shooter, during the 3 second interval between mags?

So that didn't work (at all), so lets just take away all semiautos.  That's exactly how this banning stuff works.

The military and police will not give up 30 (or more) round mags (or semiautos), and neither will we.     

I said I wasn’t going to continue, but I’ve always felt you are able to debate respectfully. There was an instance of that very thing happening. When the nut job in Tucson killed that little girl and wounded Giffords he was subdued while reloading.

I can get very disrespectful, very quickly, but promised myself I would not let that happen anymore, some years ago (at least on here).

The example you cited is an entirely different scenario.  When you attack in schools or buildings or train cars, you automatically herd people down halls and into rooms (all in front of the shooter).  It is the only rational response to such an attack.  If you attack in an open air scenerio (like Giffords), you can be stopped in all 360 degrees, and no one has eyes in the back of their heads.  Yes, the pistol mag in that case was less than 30, but that wasn't the main reason he was stopped.  He was in a surrounding crowd.

It is because schools present such a difficult method of counterattack (and they are kids), that I spent time discussing the need for increased and better security.  Not only do there need to be good guys with guns in schools, ideally, the plan should make it damn difficult (or impossible) to get in the front (or any side) door with any firearm.  THAT is where the efforts must be made (and mental health), not banning gun mags or types (in direct violation of our law abiding people 2d amendment rights).     

The problem with those suggestions are that they make sense and might actually work.

Good luck trying to get ANY liberal to agree to ANYTHING.

That WILL  protect children.

That DOESN'T involve taking guns away from LAW ABIDING citizens.

[98valk]

I'm not arguing against anyone here, but thought I'd take a different approach.

Let's say they stuck us with a 10 rd mag limit, and lets say we obeyed (a really big leap).

Who thinks this type of shooting would be prevented with a 10 rd mag limit?

You walk in and start shooting up a school (or someplace).  You have plenty of 10rounders on your belt, drop your empties to the floor and keep moving and replace as needed.

How many teachers and school kids are going to start counting shots and figure out when it's safest to charge the shooter, during the 3 second interval between mags?

So that didn't work (at all), so lets just take away all semiautos.  That's exactly how this banning stuff works.

The military and police will not give up 30 (or more) round mags (or semiautos), and neither will we.     

I said I wasn’t going to continue, but I’ve always felt you are able to debate respectfully. There was an instance of that very thing happening. When the nut job in Tucson killed that little girl and wounded Giffords he was subdued while reloading.

I can get very disrespectful, very quickly, but promised myself I would not let that happen anymore, some years ago (at least on here).

The example you cited is an entirely different scenario.  When you attack in schools or buildings or train cars, you automatically herd people down halls and into rooms (all in front of the shooter).  It is the only rational response to such an attack.  If you attack in an open air scenerio (like Giffords), you can be stopped in all 360 degrees, and no one has eyes in the back of their heads.  Yes, the pistol mag in that case was less than 30, but that wasn't the main reason he was stopped.  He was in a surrounding crowd.

It is because schools present such a difficult method of counterattack (and they are kids), that I spent time discussing the need for increased and better security.  Not only do there need to be good guys with guns in schools, ideally, the plan should make it damn difficult (or impossible) to get in the front (or any side) door with any firearm.  THAT is where the efforts must be made (and mental health), not banning gun mags or types (in direct violation of our law abiding people 2d amendment rights).     

The problem with those suggestions are that they make sense and might actually work.

Good luck trying to get ANY liberal to agree to ANYTHING.

That WILL  protect children.

That DOESN'T involve taking guns away from LAW ABIDING citizens.

and isn't it funny that all of the govt elitist politicians buildings are all secured with arm guards with one entrance most of the day. busy times there might be 2-3 entrance/exit doors still with at least one arm guard. but they don't want that for our schools.  cause their agenda which is also the UN agenda is people control in the guise of gun control. and now they have these teenagers that really know very little of the world and are for the most part not taught about the constitution and the founding of this country. the protests and what they say is what they have been taught through the govt controlled schools.