Man caught trying to enter Magic Kingdom with gun

[Vaughn4380]

Please stop trying to use logic and reason. It is all down to the criminal element, nothing to do with how easy it is to gain legal weapons.

Agreed, it is no way the fault of criminals who make choices to hurt others, it all about legal weapons.

 

[Vaughn4380]

you can't even ban assault rifles...

We banned them from 1994 until 2004. The Justice Department said there was no measurable reduction in crime during this time.

 

[G00fyDad]

Seriously? Shooting a suicide bomber before he can detonate is "very little effect"? I try to stay out of gun debates online, but your comment just makes no sense. It is my hope that any attempted suicide bombing is stopped immediately. Either by trained police using the handgun they carry every day, or by any CCW holder that might be in the area (although I will admit the police are probably better trained for such a scenario).

Why are you in favor of doing nothing to stop a suicide bomber? You have already given up should such an event happen.

Can you hit the bomber right between the eyes? Short of that the bomber will still have the capacity to push the button to detonate. That CCW holder is A) likely going to crap themselves and start shooting blindly and injure far more people, or B) (and FAR more likely) die with the rest of the people because you aren't going to know who has the bomb until it is too late. That is unless you are suggesting we start shooting everyone we "think" may have an explosive strapped to them?

So, how would you stop a suicide bomber that is not brandishing a bomb? Or did you think a suicide bomber would stand in line with the bomb tucked under their arm while carrying on a conversation with the person next to them, check the bomb with security, and then carry it openly in one hand until they were ready to blow somebody up?

 

[Mr Ferret 75]

Agreed, it is no way the fault of criminals who make choices to hurt others, it all about legal weapons.

So explain away the legal obtained weapon used to shoot everyone in the Sandy hook massacre.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

So who are the extremists?

That's subjective, but IMO, the people who go beyond hunting, sport, target practice, and/or a handgun in the nightstand or rifle in the closet (all of which I fully support.)

If you think it should be open carry everywhere, you're an extremist.
If you think restricting people on a terrorist watch list from buying guns is an infringement of rights, you're an extremist.
If you think universal background checks are an infringement of rights, you're an extremist.
If you think banning assault rifles (whatever you want to call them) is an infringement of rights, you're an extremist.
If you think the government is the enemy to a large degree, you're an extremist.
If you are a member of a militia in the mountains based on "white power" or whatever, you're an extremist.

Free speech is not 100% and neither is free use of guns everywhere.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Agreed, it is no way the fault of criminals who make choices to hurt others, it all about legal weapons.

Here's the thing:

a lot of people aren't "criminals" until the first time they shoot someone.

 

[Matthew]

Please stop trying to use logic and reason. It is all down to the criminal element, nothing to do with how easy it is to gain legal weapons.

please tell me the sarcasm I detect is actually sarcasm.

 

[lazyboy97o]

So what? If given the opportunity (however limited) the police shouldn't shoot them?

It's not a limited chance but a non-existent one. Nobody around will know until the explosion. That's the whole point.

 

[Matthew]

We banned them from 1994 until 2004. The Justice Department said there was no measurable reduction in crime during this time.

so because for 10 years there was no 'measurable reduction in crime' you allowed them again..... probably because of lobbying from the NRA not because you needed them...... after 10 years without was it necessary to allow them again? did life change that much without assault rifles?

and what about reconsidering a ban now after all how many recent school shootings involved assault rifles? did Orlando not involve assault rifles? fair enough the right to bear arms etc... a handgun fair enough but do people really need to be able to own assault rifles?

forgive me it's not something I have to consider in my country so it beggers belief!

 

[Vaughn4380]

So explain away the legal obtained weapon used to shoot everyone in the Sandy hook massacre.

The weapon that Adam's mom passed a background check to obtain? What other law would have stopped a mad man from making the conscious decision to hurt those children? Let's go down that path and assume an assault weapons ban was in place, now Adam would have only had 10 rounds in each magazine that he used. It takes half a second to change a magazine and he can carry as many magazines as he wants, so no effect on the outcome.

Heck, let's assume that AR-15's were completely banned. Most pump-action rifles still hold six to fifteen rounds and are legal in every state right now. Same outcome. So let's assume we can ban everything with the exception of single shot shotguns. Those still shoot 9 to 12 projectiles with each shell, he still could have done just as much harm in that school.

You want to stop another Sandy Hook? You put police officers in the schools so they can stop the shooter as quick as possible.

 

[Vaughn4380]

If you think it should be open carry everywhere, you're an extremist.
If you think restricting people on a terrorist watch list from buying guns is an infringement of rights, you're an extremist.
If you think universal background checks are an infringement of rights, you're an extremist.
If you think banning assault rifles (whatever you want to call them) is an infringement of rights, you're an extremist.
If you think the government is the enemy to a large degree, you're an extremist.

That is a rather broad definition you have there.

 

[Vaughn4380]

and what about reconsidering a ban now after all how many recent school shootings involved assault rifles?

The Columbine shooting occurred during the last ban. I guess our politicians don't see the need to keep useless laws on the books just to feel good.

 

[Vaughn4380]

It's not a limited chance but a non-existent one. Nobody around will know until the explosion. That's the whole point.

You still don't know that and are making assumptions. Israel manages to stop the occasional suicide bomber. While not a 100% guarantee, there is a slight chance a bomber could be stopped once discovered.

 

[Matthew]

The Columbine shooting occurred during the last ban. I guess our politicians don't see the need to keep useless laws on the books just to feel good.

to the best of my knowledge no assault rifles were used during columbine... if they had assault rifles given the damage they caused without them then it could of been alot worse.

but thinking about it.. since most school shootings are by teenagers who are mad at the world or have mental issues and end up taking mummy or daddy's guns... if you banned guns totally you wouldn't have school shootings.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

The weapon that Adam's mom passed a background check to obtain? What other law would have stopped a mad man from making the conscious decision to hurt those children? Let's go down that path and assume an assault weapons ban was in place, now Adam would have only had 10 rounds in each magazine that he used. It takes half a second to change a magazine and he can carry as many magazines as he wants, so no effect on the outcome.

Heck, let's assume that AR-15's were completely banned. Most pump-action rifles still hold six to fifteen rounds and are legal in every state right now. Same outcome. So let's assume we can ban everything with the exception of single shot shotguns. Those still shoot 9 to 12 projectiles with each shell, he still could have done just as much harm in that school.

You want to stop another Sandy Hook? You put police officers in the schools so they can stop the shooter as quick as possible.

omg.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

The Columbine shooting occurred during the last ban. I guess our politicians don't see the need to keep useless laws on the books just to feel good.

 

[lazyboy97o]

to the best of my knowledge no assault rifles were used during columbine... if they had assault rifles given the damage they caused without them then it could of been alot worse.

but thinking about it.. since most school shootings are by teenagers who are mad at the world or have mental issues and end up taking mummy or daddy's guns... if you banned guns totally you wouldn't have school shootings.

Assault rifles available for civilian purchase are not fully automatic.

 

[Vaughn4380]

to the best of my knowledge no assault rifles were used during columbine... if they had assault rifles given the damage they caused without them then it could of been alot worse.

An assumption on your part. Had a police officer stopped both of the scumbags the massacre could have been reduced. You are assuming the type of gun used makes a difference. It is the individuals that made a choice to kill that day, and they would have found a way to do so with or without the guns. Heck, the worst terrorist attack in our country was done with box cutters and airplanes. France just saw a horrible attack using a truck. There are no laws that will stop dedicated terrorists.

 

[Mr Ferret 75]

The weapon that Adam's mom passed a background check to obtain? What other law would have stopped a mad man from making the conscious decision to hurt those children? Let's go down that path and assume an assault weapons ban was in place, now Adam would have only had 10 rounds in each magazine that he used. It takes half a second to change a magazine and he can carry as many magazines as he wants, so no effect on the outcome.

Heck, let's assume that AR-15's were completely banned. Most pump-action rifles still hold six to fifteen rounds and are legal in every state right now. Same outcome. So let's assume we can ban everything with the exception of single shot shotguns. Those still shoot 9 to 12 projectiles with each shell, he still could have done just as much harm in that school.

You want to stop another Sandy Hook? You put police officers in the schools so they can stop the shooter as quick as possible.

No as has been proved in the UK if you want to stop school shootings you ban guns . Plain and simple .
1989 hungerford prompted a ban on semi auto weapons and limits on shotguns
1996 dunblaine prompted a ban on handguns .

Severe lack of school shootings since.

but hey you cling to your second amendment rights.

 

[DizArielFan]

We banned them from 1994 until 2004. The Justice Department said there was no measurable reduction in crime during this time.

From what my brother explained to me, they weren't really banned, they were still available with very minor modifications, like fixed stock versus adjustable, no lug for bayonet etc