NRA: "Armed Police Officer in every school"

[risky biz]

Why hasn't this been done years ago?

[O-PGManager]

On Dec 21 2012 4:09 PM, risky biz wrote:

> Why hasn't this been done years ago?

A total police state? We're getting there, be patient.

Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)

[mo_ntresor]

On Dec 21 2012 2:24 PM, O-PGManager wrote:

> > Why hasn't this been done years ago?
>
> A total police state? We're getting there, be patient.

could just train a couple teachers and arm them, give them a pay bump,
rather than deal with goddamn cops frisking out kids at school.

mo_ntresor

[risky biz]

On Dec 21 2012 2:24 PM, O-PGManager wrote:

I don't see a police officer stationed in a school for protection against
violent attacks at the school as being unreasonable.

[VegasJerry]

WHA! HA! HA! "You need more assault weapons in the schools so your shootouts with other assault weapons will be an even fight and perhaps fewer kids will die." Except the shooter knows the cop is there and takes him out first. The ONLY answer is to get assault weapon off the market. The only answer. Neither you, nor the NRA, nor the wing-nut Republicans have been able to answer the question: "Why are you still protecting the Gun Show Loop Hole and the purchase of assault weapons with large clips and armor-piercing bullets?" Why are you not insisting that 50 caliber automatic machine guns be on the market? Why are you not insisting RGP's be on the market? Because YOU CAN'T JUSTIFY ASSAULT WEAPONS AND 30 BULLET MAGAZINES. "Why are you still protecting the Gun Show Loop Hole and the purchase of assault weapons with large clips and armor-piercing bullets?" Why do you keep dodging this question and blabber about anything but that? (Watch how the reply dodges this question).

Jerry 'n Vegas

[BillB]

On 21/12/2012 2:31 PM, VegasJerry wrote:

>Except the shooter knows the cop is there and takes him out first.

The obvious scenario, and, I can almost guarantee you, one that never
even crossed Risky's two dimensional 60 IQ brain.

Not to worry though...there is still one more OBVIOUS nutter solution: a
SWAT team in every school. Doh! What didn't we think of that? Now *that*
would be a serious deterrent!

Of course, we'll also need SWAT teams in every playground, little league
sports event, mall, public library, community center, movie theater,
church, etc. You'll need to increase the nation's police manpower a good
500%, and spend hundreds of billions of dollars, but if your brain is
the size of pea, it still makes perfect sense!

Of course, you *could* just employ common sense measures to help keep
guns out of the hands of idiots and the mentally ill, but that would be
too easy! Failing that, there's always the Sturdivant Doctrine.

[O-PGManager]

No individual police state measure ever seems unreasonable in isolation.
Lets look at this proposal.... it would cost towns about 100k a year to
post one cop. All to address a .0000001% chance of an attack, an attack
that if it occurred like the last one, where 100+ shots was fired in
minutes, the cop likely wouldn't have been around to intercede. Of course
having 1 cop would do nothing, so it won't seem unreasonable to add more,
and more, and more.

[risky biz]

On Dec 21 2012 3:31 PM, VegasJerry wrote:

> WHA! HA! HA! "You need more assault weapons in the schools so your shootouts
with other assault
> weapons will be an even fight and perhaps fewer kids will die." Except the
shooter knows the cop is

> there and takes him out first.. The ONLY answer is to get assault weapon off

the market. The only
> answer. Neither you, nor the NRA, nor the wing-nut Republicans have been
able to answer the
> question: "Why are you still protecting the Gun Show Loop Hole and the
purchase of assault weapons
> with large clips and armor-piercing bullets?" Why are you not insisting that
50 caliber automatic
> machine guns be on the market? Why are you not insisting RGP's be on the
market? Because YOU CAN'T
> JUSTIFY ASSAULT WEAPONS AND 30 BULLET MAGAZINES. "Why are you still
protecting the Gun Show Loop
> Hole and the purchase of assault weapons with large clips and armor-piercing
bullets?" Why do you
> keep dodging this question and blabber about anything but that? (Watch how
the reply dodges this
> question).
>
> Jerry 'n Vegas

I'm posting this again for your personal benefit, Jerry, in the, though
forlorn, hope that you may read and absorb it:

* * * "The most comprehensive study of laws permitting individuals to
carry concealed weapons indicates that these laws reduce murder rates by
about 10 percent, with similar declines in other violent crimes . . ." * *
*

* * * Not only does the passage of a shall issue law have a significant
impact on multiple shootings but it is the only law related variable that
appears to have a significant impact. Other law enforcement efforts from
the arrest rate for murder to the death penalty to waiting periods and
background checks are not systematically related to multiple shootings. *
* *

Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed
Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=161637

"The most comprehensive study of laws permitting individuals to carry
concealed weapons indicates that these laws reduce murder rates by about
10 percent, with similar declines in other violent crimes (Lott 1998b but
see related comments by Bartley et. al., 1998; Black and Nagin, 1998;
Bronars and Lott, 1998; Plassman and Tideman, 1998; Lott and Mustard,
1997; and Lott, 1998a)."

"VIII. Conclusion
The results of this paper support the hypothesis that concealed handgun or
shall issue laws reduce the number of multiple victim public shootings.
Attackers are deterred and the number of people injured or killed per
attack is also reduced, thus for the first time providing evidence that
the harm from crimes that still occur can be mitigated. The results are
robust with respect to different specifications of the dependent variable,
different specifications of the handgun law variable, and the inclusion of
additional law variables (e.g., mandatory waiting periods and enhanced
penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime). Not only does the
passage of a shall issue law have a significant impact on multiple
shootings but it is the only law related variable that appears to have a
significant impact. Other law enforcement efforts from the arrest rate for
murder to the death penalty to waiting periods and background checks are
not systematically related to multiple shootings. We also find that shall
issue laws deter both the number of multiple shootings and the amount of
harm per shooting. Finally, because the presence of citizens with
concealed handguns may be able to stop attacks before the police are able
to arrive, our data also allows us to provide the first evidence on the
reduction in severity of those crimes that still take place."

[BillB]

On 21/12/2012 4:29 PM, risky biz wrote:

> * * * Not only does the passage of a shall issue law have a significant
> impact on multiple shootings but it is the only law related variable that
> appears to have a significant impact. Other law enforcement efforts from
> the arrest rate for murder to the death penalty to waiting periods and
> background checks are not systematically related to multiple shootings. *
> * *

By John Lott LOL!

[risky biz]

It wouldn't be that expensive to monitor approaches to the facility with
cameras. A very large school might require two police officers. Install a
silent alarm system that would pinpoint the location of any violence.
Every small bank branch has something like that and all they're worried
about protecting is money . . usually relatively small amounts. Smaller
schools need improved security- like batter-proof doors that are locked
when class starts. A communication system that allows someone to contact a
reponsible party instantly. It's worth it. A police officer may not be the
best choice for a small school. I don't have a problem with well-trained
school employees carrying weapons or having secured weapons available to
be used if necessary.

[risky biz]

One would think the fact that numerous police officers aren't shot dead
every day in every small to larger sized city and town so that criminals
can do whatever they want to each day because they "take him out first"
would cause you to wonder if your comment has the slightest logical basis,
which it doesn't, does it? Yes, if one thought that, one would be wrong
because you are a rather stupidly opinionated person.

[risky biz]

A peer reviewed paper published by the University of Chicago Law School.

You're an imbecile.

[brattt]

you quote crooksandliars LOL


---------------------------------------------------------
Jerry's litigate that Walmart employees did not strike Walmart

LABOR BOARD CALLS WALMART STRIKE DECISION 'COMPLEX'

On Nov. 29, Jerry n'Vegas wrote
Walmart employees did not strike Walmart.

http://tinyurl.com/cmskadk

[BillB]

On 21/12/2012 5:03 PM, brattt wrote:
> On Dec 21 2012 6:34 PM, BillB wrote:
>
>> On 21/12/2012 4:29 PM, risky biz wrote:
>>
>>> * * * Not only does the passage of a shall issue law have a significant
>>> impact on multiple shootings but it is the only law related variable that
>>> appears to have a significant impact. Other law enforcement efforts from
>>> the arrest rate for murder to the death penalty to waiting periods and
>>> background checks are not systematically related to multiple shootings. *
>>> * *
>>
>> By John Lott LOL!
>
> you quote crooksandliars LOL

more lies.

[BillB]

Peer reviewed??? Oh wow, why didn't you say so! That changes
EVERYTHING!!! lolol

You don't understand that John Lott is a gun lobbyist?

[Hollis2]

Depending on the size of the school district, there could be a number of
K-6 schools. The school district my kids are in has five K-5 schools, two
6-8 schools and one 9-12 school. There's already a cop assigned to the
high school.

[O-PGManager]

Thank you for proving my point. The cop proposal is inadequate, so you
propose even greater police state measures. Now we are going to put
cameras in every single room. And of course additional police will be
required to monitor the cameras. Of course students aren't just confined
to buildings - they go outside for recess, so cameras will have to be
installed covering the entire outdoor facilities as well. Certainly a few
police won't be able to respond fast enough to threats all over campus,
even the smallest schools have square miles of fields and campus. So
guard towers with snipers seem like a reasonable way to ensure total
campus protection.

There is really no logical end to police state measures, besides accepting
that life always carries some small risk and there is no way to ever get
rid of it.

> Every small bank branch has something like that and all they're worried
> about protecting is money . . usually relatively small amounts. Smaller
> schools need improved security- like batter-proof doors that are locked
> when class starts. A communication system that allows someone to contact a
> reponsible party instantly. It's worth it. A police officer may not be the
> best choice for a small school. I don't have a problem with well-trained
> school employees carrying weapons or having secured weapons available to
> be used if necessary.

[Dutch]

Really? That's a lot of cops. Then what about movie theaters, malls,
churches, concerts, sporting events or just about anywhere else people
gather? As long as these deadly weapons are out there unbalanced people
will get their hands on them and find innocent people to slaughter.

[BillB]

On 21/12/2012 5:14 PM, BillB wrote:

>>> By John Lott LOL!
>>
>> A peer reviewed paper published by the University of Chicago Law School.
>
> Peer reviewed??? Oh wow, why didn't you say so! That changes
> EVERYTHING!!! lolol
>
> You don't understand that John Lott is a gun lobbyist?

Here you go. A NEWER, PEER REVIEWED paper from *Stanford Law*.

"Our effort to find the statistically most appropriate model with which
to assess the impact of shall-issue laws on crime has involved an
extended odyssey as our testing, on a more comprehensive county dataset,
has constantly pushed us towards more disaggregated and less restrictive
models than the more aggregated and highly constrained models employed
by Lott and Mustard. The lesson has been a sobering one in that the
facially plausible models relied upon by Lott and Mustard that we
present in Table 10 could well encourage a researcher or policymaker to
believe that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Yet when we reached the end
of the journey with our more complete data, the use of a statistically
superior modelóone that estimates jurisdiction-
specific effects while estimating both main and trend effects (our
ěhybridî) and controlling for state fixed effectsóreduces the initial
conclusion to ashes. The best, albeit admittedly imperfect, evidence
suggests that, for the majority of states, shall-issue laws are
associated with higher levels of crime."

So I guess that settles it, right? PEER REVIEWED, and from a better law
school!!!!!

lol...what a fuckin' simpleton.

[patmp...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, December 22, 2012 5:09:36 AM UTC+8, risky biz wrote:
> Why hasn't this been done years ago?

It would do wonders for unemployment.

[patmp...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, December 22, 2012 10:17:37 AM UTC+8, O-PGManager wrote:
>
> There is really no logical end to police state measures, besides accepting
>
> that life always carries some small risk and there is no way to ever get
>
> rid of it.
>

Nah. The Nazis proved that a totalitarian state was possible. Full employment too. Lots of soldiers, guards, and bureaucracy. Stimulated the economy.

[risky biz]

What would be the point of having cameras in every room?

> And of course additional police will be
> required to monitor the cameras.

No. Just one to monitor anyone approaching the school at odd times.

> Of course students aren't just confined
> to buildings - they go outside for recess, so cameras will have to be
> installed covering the entire outdoor facilities as well. Certainly a few
> police won't be able to respond fast enough to threats all over campus,
> even the smallest schools have square miles of fields and campus. So
> guard towers with snipers seem like a reasonable way to ensure total
> campus protection.
>
> There is really no logical end to police state measures, besides accepting
> that life always carries some small risk and there is no way to ever get
> rid of it.

So you accept that and have one or two cops.

[risky biz]

Don't you have the first clue that when the general populace is deprived
of weapons criminals will make a fortune smuggling weapons to other
criminals? Try thinking.

[risky biz]

I understand that you are an imbecile. Do you have one shred of evidence
that anyone has ever effectively rebutted even a part of this study? No.
You don't. All you have is your ignorant flapping mouth.

[BillB]

On 21/12/2012 10:39 PM, risky biz wrote:

> I understand that you are an imbecile. Do you have one shred of evidence
> that anyone has ever effectively rebutted even a part of this study? No.
> You don't. All you have is your ignorant flapping mouth.

What are you talking about? I just gave you an excerpt a PEER REVIEWED
study doing just that. Did you hear that? PEER REVIEWED!!! Stanford!
Yale! You imbecile!!

lol what a donkey you are. Go cut and paste another John Lott article.
It will make you feel better.

[risky biz]

On Dec 21 2012 7:34 PM, BillB wrote:

> On 21/12/2012 5:14 PM, BillB wrote:
>
> >>> By John Lott LOL!
> >>
> >> A peer reviewed paper published by the University of Chicago Law School.
> >
> > Peer reviewed??? Oh wow, why didn't you say so! That changes
> > EVERYTHING!!! lolol
> >
> > You don't understand that John Lott is a gun lobbyist?
>
> Here you go. A NEWER, PEER REVIEWED paper from *Stanford Law*.
>
> "Our effort to find the statistically most appropriate model with which
> to assess the impact of shall-issue laws on crime has involved an
> extended odyssey as our testing, on a more comprehensive county dataset,
> has constantly pushed us towards more disaggregated and less restrictive
> models than the more aggregated and highly constrained models employed
> by Lott and Mustard. The lesson has been a sobering one in that the
> facially plausible models relied upon by Lott and Mustard that we
> present in Table 10 could well encourage a researcher or policymaker to
> believe that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Yet when we reached the end
> of the journey with our more complete data, the use of a statistically

> superior model�one that estimates jurisdiction-

> specific effects while estimating both main and trend effects (our

> �hybrid�) and controlling for state fixed effects�reduces the initial

> conclusion to ashes. The best, albeit admittedly imperfect, evidence
> suggests that, for the majority of states, shall-issue laws are
> associated with higher levels of crime."
>
> So I guess that settles it, right? PEER REVIEWED, and from a better law
> school!!!!!
>
> lol...what a fuckin' simpleton.

The study I cited was the study done by John R. Lott Jr. and William M.
Landes, asshole, not "Lott and Mustard". Jesus Christ what a dumb shit!

The study done by John R. Lott Jr. and William M. Landes addressed murder
rates and other violent crimes, asshole, not "crime".

And, also, gee- I don't know why but I noticed that you choose not to
reveal a link for "your" highly irrelevant study. Because why- you picked
out only the few paragraphs that kind of supported your prescriptions as
long as someone doesn't know the difference between murder/violent crime
and "crime" and didn't see the rest of the study?

Fail.

[BillB]

You read one Lott paper, you read em all. More guns = less crime. Every
time. No matter what. Tailor made for gullible fools like you. I think
he gets a commission every time a limp dick like you buys another AR-15.

[risky biz]

0 points. Sore loser.

[risky biz]

Please to refer to other post which, once again, reveal you to be
imbecile, Billby.

[Dutch]

Do you always just change the subject when you're losing an argument?

[risky biz]

That isn't changing the subject when you say: "As long as these deadly

weapons are out there unbalanced people will get their hands on them and

find innocent people to slaughter." Your clear implication is expropriate
everyone's guns".

Now read this again: "Don't you have the first clue that when the general

populace is deprived of weapons criminals will make a fortune smuggling
weapons to other criminals?"

Get it this time?

I'm losing an argument?

[fffurken]

On Dec 22, 7:45 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

> >>> I don't see a police officer stationed in a school for protection against
> >>> violent attacks at the school as being unreasonable.
>
> >> Really? That's a lot of cops. Then what about movie theaters, malls,
> >> churches, concerts, sporting events or just about anywhere else people
> >> gather? As long as these deadly weapons are out there unbalanced people
> >> will get their hands on them and find innocent people to slaughter.
>
> > Don't you have the first clue that when the general populace is deprived
> > of weapons criminals will make a fortune smuggling weapons to other
> > criminals? Try thinking.
>
> Do you always just change the subject when you're losing an argument?

I haven't seen that kind of eh, unskillful shifting of the
conversation from one point to another since I can't remember.

risky would give good bots a bad name.

[Dutch]

No it isn't.

> Now read this again: "Don't you have the first clue that when the general
> populace is deprived of weapons criminals will make a fortune smuggling
> weapons to other criminals?"
>
> Get it this time?
>
> I'm losing an argument?
>

I realize you love to trot out your standard talking points but the
subject here is the absolutely ridiculous NRA proposal to place armed
police in all schools, not the black market in guns. Please try to keep
on track. But to your point, the perpetrators of these heinous crimes
are generally not "criminals" per se, as in thieves, murderers or gang
members, before they commit their horrible crimes. They may not have
easy access to the underworld of gun trafficking. They are disturbed
individuals who gain access to the weapons through normal channels,
which means from gun shops or gun shows, or family. It would be pretty
straightforward to make it much more difficult, and less deadly if there
was universal background checks and none of these monster weapons that
cause so much bloodshed. Too bad if you think you need to be able to
resist an army brigade, just too fucking bad.

Your hero. the sleazeball president of the NRA, is quoted as saying that
Obama winning re-election would be worse than the losses in any battle
in any war in American history. What a lowlife bullshit disrespectful
thing to say. Like Romney, the guy evaded serving in Vietnam. Real bunch
of tough guys when other people's lives are on the line.

[brattt]

Like the one you cut and pasted? How about a link to the whole thing?

[brattt]

On Dec 21 2012 8:34 PM, BillB wrote:

> On 21/12/2012 5:14 PM, BillB wrote:
>
> >>> By John Lott LOL!
> >>
> >> A peer reviewed paper published by the University of Chicago Law School.
> >
> > Peer reviewed??? Oh wow, why didn't you say so! That changes
> > EVERYTHING!!! lolol
> >
> > You don't understand that John Lott is a gun lobbyist?
>
> Here you go. A NEWER, PEER REVIEWED paper from *Stanford Law*.
>
> "Our effort to find the statistically most appropriate model with which
> to assess the impact of shall-issue laws on crime has involved an
> extended odyssey as our testing, on a more comprehensive county dataset,
> has constantly pushed us towards more disaggregated and less restrictive
> models than the more aggregated and highly constrained models employed
> by Lott and Mustard. The lesson has been a sobering one in that the
> facially plausible models relied upon by Lott and Mustard that we
> present in Table 10 could well encourage a researcher or policymaker to
> believe that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Yet when we reached the end
> of the journey with our more complete data, the use of a statistically

> superior model�one that estimates jurisdiction-

> specific effects while estimating both main and trend effects (our

> �hybrid�) and controlling for state fixed effects�reduces the initial

> conclusion to ashes. The best, albeit admittedly imperfect, evidence
> suggests that, for the majority of states, shall-issue laws are
> associated with higher levels of crime."
>
> So I guess that settles it, right? PEER REVIEWED, and from a better law
> school!!!!!
>
> lol...what a fuckin' simpleton.

Where's the link for this whole article?

[O-PGManager]

One? I went to a very small high school and there were at least 40
different entrances. And this guy went through a window. So you'll need
complete and total coverage.

>
> > Of course students aren't just confined
> > to buildings - they go outside for recess, so cameras will have to be
> > installed covering the entire outdoor facilities as well. Certainly a few
> > police won't be able to respond fast enough to threats all over campus,
> > even the smallest schools have square miles of fields and campus. So
> > guard towers with snipers seem like a reasonable way to ensure total
> > campus protection.
> >
> > There is really no logical end to police state measures, besides accepting
> > that life always carries some small risk and there is no way to ever get
> > rid of it.
>
> So you accept that and have one or two cops.
>
> > > Every small bank branch has something like that and all they're worried
> > > about protecting is money . . usually relatively small amounts. Smaller
> > > schools need improved security- like batter-proof doors that are locked
> > > when class starts. A communication system that allows someone to contact
a
> > > reponsible party instantly. It's worth it. A police officer may not be
the
> > > best choice for a small school. I don't have a problem with well-trained
> > > school employees carrying weapons or having secured weapons available to
> > > be used if necessary.
> >
> >
> > Opie G. Manager
> > Rec.Gambling.Poker
> > Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)

[mark...@gmail.com]

Opie, 40 doors to a small HS seems high, what school did you go to? My school was about 2000 students and I'm counting 10-12 legitimate entries, are you just making a fallacious argument to make a point?

[mo_ntresor]

On Dec 22 2012 8:13 AM, markdoubt wrote:

> Opie, 40 doors to a small HS seems high, what school did you go to? My
school was about 2000
> students and I'm counting 10-12 legitimate entries, are you just making a
fallacious argument to
> make a point?

crazy got lawyered like accidental. if you can't collect damages, it
can't happen. people go nuts every once in a while. why do we need to
pay for more government nonsense to inconvenience us and make us all
paranoid?

mo_ntresor

[VegasJerry]

On Friday, December 21, 2012 4:29:09 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> On Dec 21 2012 3:31 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> > WHA! HA! HA! "You need more assault weapons in the schools so your shootouts
> with other assault
> > weapons will be an even fight and perhaps fewer kids will die." Except the
> shooter knows the cop is
> > there and takes him out first.. The ONLY answer is to get assault weapon off
> the market. The only
> > answer. Neither you, nor the NRA, nor the wing-nut Republicans have been
> able to answer the
> > question: "Why are you still protecting the Gun Show Loop Hole and the
> purchase of assault weapons
> > with large clips and armor-piercing bullets?" Why are you not insisting that
> 50 caliber automatic
> > machine guns be on the market? Why are you not insisting RGP's be on the
> market? Because YOU CAN'T
> > JUSTIFY ASSAULT WEAPONS AND 30 BULLET MAGAZINES. "Why are you still
> protecting the Gun Show Loop
> > Hole and the purchase of assault weapons with large clips and armor-piercing
> bullets?" Why do you
> > keep dodging this question and blabber about anything but that? (Watch how
> the reply dodges this
> > question).
> >
> > Jerry 'n Vegas

.> I'm posting this again for your personal benefit, Jerry, in the, though
> forlorn, hope that you may read and absorb it:
>
> * * * "The most comprehensive study of laws permitting individuals to
> carry concealed weapons indicates that these laws reduce murder rates by
> about 10 percent, with similar declines in other violent crimes . . ." * *

LOL at you STILL dodging the question: "Why are you still protecting the Gun Show Loop Hole and the purchase of assault weapons with large clips and armor-piercing bullets?"

It was PROVEN that had he had smaller magazines, more kids lives would have been saved. It has been PROVEN that the Gabby Giffords shooter had to stop to reload as was stopped AND IT MEANT LESS DEATHS.

It has been PROVED you're a fucking idiot and a coward to address the real question.

Jerry 'n Vegas









> *

>
> * * * Not only does the passage of a shall issue law have a significant
> impact on multiple shootings but it is the only law related variable that
> appears to have a significant impact. Other law enforcement efforts from
> the arrest rate for murder to the death penalty to waiting periods and
> background checks are not systematically related to multiple shootings. *
> * *
>

> Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed
> Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=161637
>
> "The most comprehensive study of laws permitting individuals to carry
> concealed weapons indicates that these laws reduce murder rates by about
> 10 percent, with similar declines in other violent crimes (Lott 1998b but
> see related comments by Bartley et. al., 1998; Black and Nagin, 1998;
> Bronars and Lott, 1998; Plassman and Tideman, 1998; Lott and Mustard,
> 1997; and Lott, 1998a)."
>
> "VIII. Conclusion
> The results of this paper support the hypothesis that concealed handgun or
> shall issue laws reduce the number of multiple victim public shootings.
> Attackers are deterred and the number of people injured or killed per
> attack is also reduced, thus for the first time providing evidence that
> the harm from crimes that still occur can be mitigated. The results are
> robust with respect to different specifications of the dependent variable,
> different specifications of the handgun law variable, and the inclusion of
> additional law variables (e.g., mandatory waiting periods and enhanced
> penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime). Not only does the

> passage of a shall issue law have a significant impact on multiple
> shootings but it is the only law related variable that appears to have a
> significant impact. Other law enforcement efforts from the arrest rate for
> murder to the death penalty to waiting periods and background checks are

> not systematically related to multiple shootings. We also find that shall
> issue laws deter both the number of multiple shootings and the amount of
> harm per shooting. Finally, because the presence of citizens with
> concealed handguns may be able to stop attacks before the police are able
> to arrive, our data also allows us to provide the first evidence on the
> reduction in severity of those crimes that still take place."

[VegasJerry]

On Friday, December 21, 2012 4:39:17 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> On Dec 21 2012 4:36 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
>
> > On Dec 21 2012 4:39 PM, risky biz wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 21 2012 2:24 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Dec 21 2012 4:09 PM, risky biz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Why hasn't this been done years ago?
> > > >
> > > > A total police state? We're getting there, be patient.
> > > >
> > > > Opie G. Manager
> > > > Rec.Gambling.Poker
> > > > Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)
> > >
> > > I don't see a police officer stationed in a school for protection against
> > > violent attacks at the school as being unreasonable.
> >
> > No individual police state measure ever seems unreasonable in isolation.
> > Lets look at this proposal.... it would cost towns about 100k a year to
> > post one cop. All to address a .0000001% chance of an attack, an attack
> > that if it occurred like the last one, where 100+ shots was fired in
> > minutes, the cop likely wouldn't have been around to intercede. Of course
> > having 1 cop would do nothing, so it won't seem unreasonable to add more,
> > and more, and more.
> >
> > Opie G. Manager
> > Rec.Gambling.Poker
> > Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)

> It wouldn't be that expensive to monitor approaches to the facility with
> cameras. A very large school might require two police officers.

YOU ARE STILL A FUCKING IDIOT!

This is not about gun control, it is about assault weapon control.

ANSWER THE QUESTION: "Why are you still protecting the Gun Show Loop Hole and the purchase of assault weapons with large clips and armor-piercing bullets?"

Install a
> silent alarm system that would pinpoint the location of any violence.

[VegasJerry]

On Friday, December 21, 2012 4:44:52 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> On Dec 21 2012 3:43 PM, BillB wrote:

>
> > On 21/12/2012 2:31 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> >
> > >Except the shooter knows the cop is there and takes him out first.
> >

> > The obvious scenario, and, I can almost guarantee you, one that never
> > even crossed Risky's two dimensional 60 IQ brain.
> >
> > Not to worry though...there is still one more OBVIOUS nutter solution: a
> > SWAT team in every school. Doh! What didn't we think of that? Now *that*
> > would be a serious deterrent!
> >
> > Of course, we'll also need SWAT teams in every playground, little league
> > sports event, mall, public library, community center, movie theater,
> > church, etc. You'll need to increase the nation's police manpower a good
> > 500%, and spend hundreds of billions of dollars, but if your brain is
> > the size of pea, it still makes perfect sense!
> >
> > Of course, you *could* just employ common sense measures to help keep
> > guns out of the hands of idiots and the mentally ill, but that would be
> > too easy! Failing that, there's always the Sturdivant Doctrine.

.> One would think the fact that numerous police officers aren't shot dead
> every day in every small to larger sized city and town so that criminals
> can do whatever they want to each day because they "take him out first"
> would cause you to wonder if your comment has the slightest logical basis,
> which it doesn't, does it? Yes, if one thought that, one would be wrong
> because you are a rather stupidly opinionated person.

YOU ARE STILL A FUCKING IDIOT!

This is not about gun control; it is about assault weapon control.

[mo_ntresor]

On Dec 22 2012 8:48 AM, VegasJerry wrote:

> Jerry 'n Vegas

we know you have no self-respect, but billb's going to agree with you no
matter what! can you at least think about his retard reputation before
drooling again?

mo_ntresor

[VegasJerry]

On Friday, December 21, 2012 10:36:53 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> On Dec 21 2012 7:31 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> > risky biz wrote:
> > > On Dec 21 2012 2:24 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Dec 21 2012 4:09 PM, risky biz wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Why hasn't this been done years ago?
> > >>
> > >> A total police state? We're getting there, be patient.
> > >>
> > >> Opie G. Manager
> > >> Rec.Gambling.Poker
> > >> Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)
> > >
> > > I don't see a police officer stationed in a school for protection against
> > > violent attacks at the school as being unreasonable.
> >
> > Really? That's a lot of cops. Then what about movie theaters, malls,
> > churches, concerts, sporting events or just about anywhere else people
> > gather? As long as these deadly weapons are out there unbalanced people
> > will get their hands on them and find innocent people to slaughter.

.> Don't you have the first clue that when the general
> populace is deprived of weapons.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT GUN CONTROL; IT IS ABOUT ASSAULT WEAPON CONTROL!

Jerry

[VegasJerry]

.> I'm losing an argument?

YES! You STILL refuse to address that is about assault weapon control, not gun control. You are STILL unable to engage in the argument:

"Why are you still protecting the Gun Show Loop Hole and the purchase of assault weapons with large clips and armor-piercing bullets?"

Jerry 'n Vegas

[Abbey Johnsson]

as well as........

[BillB]

Ever heard of google?

http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_article.pdf

[brattt]

yeah - but when I googled peer review guns stanford I didn't get much.
You seem to have a problem lately of posting links. The last one I asked
for took hours to come up with something even semi-reputable, even though
it had copies other sources not so much reputable.

I just opened this one - and guess the first thing I saw "We thank John
Lott and David Mustard for generously sharing their state and county
1977-1992 datasets with us."

So in the words of B-BillB

John Lott LOL

[BillB]

On 22/12/2012 9:36 AM, brattt wrote:
> On Dec 22 2012 11:13 AM, BillB wrote:
>
>> On 22/12/2012 3:55 AM, brattt wrote:

> yeah - but when I googled peer review guns stanford I didn't get much.

For God's sake, susan. Just copy a few sentences of text and put it into
google search box. How can you not know this?

> You seem to have a problem lately of posting links. The last one I asked
> for took hours to come up with something even semi-reputable, even though
> it had copies other sources not so much reputable.

I don't have time to lead you guys by the hand on every issue. I told
you what the aunt was saying to reporters, and you didn't want to
believe me. Is that my problem or yours?

> I just opened this one - and guess the first thing I saw "We thank John
> Lott and David Mustard for generously sharing their state and county
> 1977-1992 datasets with us."
>
> So in the words of B-BillB
>
> John Lott LOL

The entire paper was about proving what a joke John Lott and his
supposed "studies" are. Every paper John Lott comes out with is promptly
laughed at and debunked by serious academics. Here is one more such
critique of Lott's ridiculous "work" in layman's language that may be
more accessible to someone with your level of education and reading
comprehension skills:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/faculty/Hemenway/book.html

[~M~]

"O-PGManager" wrote in message news:ic8fq9x...@news.ezprovider.com...

>Lets look at this proposal.... it would cost towns about 100k a year to
>post one cop. All to address a .0000001% chance of an attack,

It makes more sense than disarming law abiding citizens and depriving them
of their right to defend themselves, over a .0000001% chance of an attack.

>an attack
>that if it occurred like the last one, where 100+ shots was fired in
>minutes, the cop likely wouldn't have been around to intercede.

In this case, the attack could have been stopped by an armed guard when the
killer broke his way in. The only casualty would have been the attacker.


--
"What men value in this world is not rights but privileges."
- H.L. Mencken

[O-PGManager]

Small rural schools.

[O-PGManager]

On Dec 22 2012 10:13 AM, markdoubt wrote:

I was counting elementary, middle, and high school entrances. And don't
forget windows. You're going to need a ton of cameras.

[Dutch]

~M~ wrote:
> "O-PGManager" wrote in message news:ic8fq9x...@news.ezprovider.com...
>
>> Lets look at this proposal.... it would cost towns about 100k a year to
>> post one cop. All to address a .0000001% chance of an attack,
>
> It makes more sense than disarming law abiding citizens and depriving
> them of their right to defend themselves, over a .0000001% chance of an
> attack.

Except nobody has proposed disarming law abiding citizens. Disarming
implies leaving you unarmed and defenseless and that has not been
proposed, nor would it be.

>> an attack
>> that if it occurred like the last one, where 100+ shots was fired in
>> minutes, the cop likely wouldn't have been around to intercede.
>
> In this case, the attack could have been stopped by an armed guard when
> the killer broke his way in. The only casualty would have been the
> attacker.

Maybe, you don't know that. In a number of the recent mass shootings
there were armed civilians nearby that were not able to help. In the
recent case where a guy shot a co-worker right in pubilc then walked
away down the street, there were two armed police officers on the scene.
The result of that intervention was a dead co-worker and nine wounded
bystanders, all by police bullets. An arms race is not the rational
answer, it is mutual assured destruction. The NRA response has been
called "tone deaf", that is the best description I have heard.

[VegasJerry]

Just had a shooting at a church. Does the NRA suggest the preacher carry an assault weapon?

LOL @ gun nuts that keep dodging along with the NRA asshole.

[ChrisRobin]

On Dec 22 2012 10:35 AM, mo_ntresor wrote:

> crazy got lawyered like accidental. if you can't collect damages, it
> can't happen. people go nuts every once in a while. why do we need to
> pay for more government nonsense to inconvenience us and make us all
> paranoid?

Because someone with gov't connections can make a dime off of it, and
because this is how the gov't increases its size and power � by convincing
people that they aren't safe, and that only increased gov't intervention
can protect them. Just wait, before you know it a consortium of "security"
profiteers led by folks like Rudy Giuliani, Michael Chertoff, Dianne
Feinstein and the like will be selling metal detectors, etc., to every
school in the country � paid for by taxpayers, of course.

[ChrisRobin]

On Dec 21 2012 6:36 PM, O-PGManager wrote:

> No individual police state measure ever seems unreasonable in isolation.

> Lets look at this proposal.... it would cost towns about 100k a year to

> post one cop. All to address a .0000001% chance of an attack, an attack

> that if it occurred like the last one, where 100+ shots was fired in

> minutes, the cop likely wouldn't have been around to intercede. Of course
> having 1 cop would do nothing, so it won't seem unreasonable to add more,
> and more, and more.

The government's been looking for ways to expand the TSA's scope for a
while now. It's a match made in heaven!

[~M~]

"Dutch" wrote in message news:kb5519$vme$1...@dont-email.me...

>> In this case, the attack could have been stopped by an armed guard when
>> the killer broke his way in. The only casualty would have been the
>> attacker.
>>
>Maybe, you don't know that.

It's a reasonable conclusion.

>> It makes more sense than disarming law abiding citizens and depriving
>> them of their right to defend themselves, over a .0000001% chance of an
>> attack.
>>
>Except nobody has proposed disarming law abiding citizens. Disarming
>implies leaving you unarmed and defenseless and that has not been proposed,
>nor would it be.

Really?


--
"I never thought I'd come to this, but no private citizen should own a
gun. You have one month to turn them all in or face a prison sentence.

And if you commit a crime with a gun its the death penalty."
- Dutch 12/15/2012

[Dutch]

Repatriate all armed forces overseas and activate all reserves and
National Guard to be posted at schools. That makes at least as much
sense as hiring and training hundreds of thousands of new police officers.

[Dutch]

~M~ wrote:
> "Dutch" wrote in message news:kb5519$vme$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>>> In this case, the attack could have been stopped by an armed guard when
>>> the killer broke his way in. The only casualty would have been the
>>> attacker.
>>>
>> Maybe, you don't know that.
> It's a reasonable conclusion.

The shooter was spraying bullets at a rate of 4-6/sec, it's at least as
reasonable to conclude that a lone security guard would have been cut
down without getting a shot off.

>>> It makes more sense than disarming law abiding citizens and depriving
>>> them of their right to defend themselves, over a .0000001% chance of an
>>> attack.
>>>
>> Except nobody has proposed disarming law abiding citizens. Disarming
>> implies leaving you unarmed and defenseless and that has not been
>> proposed, nor would it be.
>
> Really?

I've yet to hear anyone propose disarming law abiding citizens in the
context of the current or recent events. Have you? Under discussion I
hear mainly assault rifles, expanded ammunition clips, loose
registration requirements, and lack of response to those with mental
problems. I would add to the latter, especially when those with mental
problems live in a house with firearms. The underground gun trade is
another issue that should receive more attention.

[Alim Nassor]

On Dec 21, 4:31 pm, VegasJerry <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
> WHA! HA! HA! "You need more assault weapons in the schools so your shootouts with other assault weapons will be an even fight and perhaps fewer kids will die." Except the shooter knows the cop is there and takes him out first. The ONLY answer is to get assault weapon off the market. The only answer. Neither you, nor the NRA, nor the wing-nut Republicans have been able to answer the question: "Why are you still protecting the Gun Show Loop Hole and the purchase of assault weapons with large clips and armor-piercing bullets?" Why are you not insisting that 50 caliber automatic machine guns be on the market? Why are you not insisting RGP's be on the market? Because YOU CAN'T JUSTIFY ASSAULT WEAPONS AND 30 BULLET MAGAZINES. "Why are you still protecting the Gun Show Loop Hole and the purchase of assault weapons with large clips and armor-piercing bullets?" Why do you keep dodging this question and blabber about anything but that? (Watch how the reply dodges this question).
>
> Jerry 'n Vegas

Hey Jerry, you stupid bitch, there is no "gun show loophole", You
still don't know the difference in a clip and a magazine, and you are
still completely full of shit about armor piercing ammo. And, you
stupid motherfucker, you can buy a 50 caliber machine gun. Simply pay
the 200 dollar tax and pass a background check, and it's yours. RPG's
can be bought the same way. Your complete lack of firearms knowledge
is being exposed for all to see.

A magazine doesn't hold bullets you fucking fool. A magazine holds
cartridges. Do you even fucking know the difference? Of course not.
You are so full of shit on your supposed gun knowledge. hell a Boy
Scout with a Riflery merit badge knows more about guns than you do.


Let's see if Jerry can answer a question. Don't hold your breath
though.

Hey Jerry, if assault weapons are the cause of all these murders, how
come, even though million and millions of them have been sold in
recent years, why are murder rates at all time lows? HMMMM?

No answer shall be forthcoming. Jerry is too fucking senile to answer
questions, or to realize that his questions have been answered.

[Alim Nassor]

On Dec 21, 4:43 pm, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
> On 21/12/2012 2:31 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
>

> >Except the shooter knows the cop is there and takes him out first.
>

> The obvious scenario, and, I can almost guarantee you, one that never
> even crossed Risky's two dimensional 60 IQ brain.

That would be obvious to Jerry, who probably thinks all cops are
oblivious donut eaters like he was.
Guys like this jerk off who shot up the school, go looking for easy
targets. And armed guard does not represent an easy target.

>
> Not to worry though...there is still one more OBVIOUS nutter solution: a
> SWAT team in every school. Doh! What didn't we think of that? Now *that*
> would be a serious deterrent!
>
> Of course, we'll also need SWAT teams in every playground, little league
> sports event, mall, public library, community center, movie theater,
> church, etc. You'll need to increase the nation's police manpower a good
> 500%, and spend hundreds of billions of dollars, but if your brain is
> the size of pea, it still makes perfect sense!
>
> Of course, you *could* just employ common sense measures to help keep
> guns out of the hands of idiots and the mentally ill, but that would be
> too easy! Failing that, there's always the Sturdivant Doctrine.

Explain how even though millions and millions of so called "assault
rifles" have been sold in recent years, yet murder rates are at 50
year lows. Actually they are less than HALF what they were 50 years
ago. How is that possible?

[Alim Nassor]

On Dec 21, 5:36 pm, "O-PGManager" <ad63...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> On Dec 21 2012 4:39 PM, risky biz wrote:
>
> > On Dec 21 2012 2:24 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 21 2012 4:09 PM, risky biz wrote:
>
> > > > Why hasn't this been done years ago?
>
> > > A total police state?  We're getting there, be patient.
>
> > > Opie G. Manager
> > > Rec.Gambling.Poker
> > > Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)
>
> > I don't see a police officer stationed in a school for protection against
> > violent attacks at the school as being unreasonable.
>

> No individual police state measure ever seems unreasonable in isolation.
> Lets look at this proposal.... it would cost towns about 100k a year to
> post one cop.  All to address a .0000001% chance of an attack, an attack
> that if it occurred like the last one, where 100+ shots was fired in
> minutes, the cop likely wouldn't have been around to intercede.  Of course
> having 1 cop would do nothing, so it won't seem unreasonable to add more,
> and more, and more.

That's about the cost of one head football coach.

[Alim Nassor]

On Dec 21, 8:31 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> risky biz wrote:
> > On Dec 21 2012 2:24 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
>
> >> On Dec 21 2012 4:09 PM, risky biz wrote:
>
> >>> Why hasn't this been done years ago?
>
> >> A total police state?  We're getting there, be patient.
>
> >> Opie G. Manager
> >> Rec.Gambling.Poker
> >> Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)
>
> > I don't see a police officer stationed in a school for protection against
> > violent attacks at the school as being unreasonable.
>

> Really? That's a lot of cops. Then what about movie theaters, malls,
> churches, concerts, sporting events or just about anywhere else people
> gather? As long as these deadly weapons are out there unbalanced people
> will get their hands on them and find innocent people to slaughter.

Millions and millions of them have been sold in recent years. Explain
how muder rates are at 50 year lows, less than half the rate from 50
years ago.

[Alim Nassor]

On Dec 21, 8:34 pm, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
> On 21/12/2012 5:14 PM, BillB wrote:
>
> >>> By John Lott   LOL!
>
> >> A peer reviewed paper published by the University of Chicago Law School.
>
> > Peer reviewed??? Oh wow, why didn't you say so! That changes
> > EVERYTHING!!!  lolol
>
> > You don't understand that John Lott is a gun lobbyist?
>
> Here you go. A NEWER, PEER REVIEWED paper from *Stanford Law*.
>
> "Our effort to find the statistically most appropriate model with which
> to assess the impact of shall-issue laws  on crime has involved an
> extended odyssey as our testing, on a more comprehensive county dataset,
> has constantly pushed us towards more disaggregated and less restrictive
> models than the more aggregated and highly constrained models employed
> by Lott and Mustard.  The lesson has been a sobering one in that the
> facially plausible models relied upon by Lott and Mustard that we
> present in Table 10 could well encourage a researcher or policymaker to
> believe that shall-issue laws reduce crime.  Yet when we reached the end
> of the journey with our more complete data, the use of a statistically

> superior modelóone that estimates jurisdiction-

> specific effects while estimating both main and trend effects (our

> ìhybridî) and controlling for state fixed effectsóreduces the initial

> conclusion to ashes.  The  best, albeit admittedly imperfect, evidence
> suggests that, for the majority of states, shall-issue laws are
> associated with higher levels of crime."
>
> So I guess that settles it, right? PEER REVIEWED, and from a better law
> school!!!!!
>
> lol...what a fuckin' simpleton.

I can shoot that one down easily. Since concealed carry states went
from 9 in 1986 to 41 in 2011, murder rates are at 50 year lows and
violent crime is way down across the board.

[Alim Nassor]

Your idea of what proof is, is even more stupid than you are.

[Alim Nassor]

Jerry, I've answered it several times. You ignore it each time. Why
dont you answer a question?

With millions and millions of "assault" type weapons being sold in
recent years, how come murder rates are at 50 year lows? less than
half what they were 50 years ago?

[Alim Nassor]

Someone doesn't know what a square mile is.

[Alim Nassor]

Really? I've lived in small rural school districts my whole life and
I can think of a single one that has even 1 square mile of fields and
campuses. Do you have any idea what a square mile is? It's 640 acres
numbnuts.

[~M~]

"Dutch" wrote in message news:kb5cut$gf5$1...@dont-email.me...

>> It's a reasonable conclusion.
>
>The shooter was spraying bullets at a rate of 4-6/sec, it's at least as

No he wasn't, and he certainly wasn't while he was breaking the glass and
reaching around or doing whatever he had to do to get into the school.
A security guard, positioned at the main entrance of the school, (the most
reasonable place) would have had that idiot lined up before he got in the
building. He did the bullet spraying only after he encountered no competent
resistance to his entry.

>>reasonable to conclude that a lone security guard would have been cut down
>>without getting a shot off.

I guess anything is possible for someone that can spray bullets at a rate of
4-6/second with a semi-automatic rifle and hit things.

>>> Except nobody has proposed disarming law abiding citizens. Disarming
>>> implies leaving you unarmed and defenseless and that has not been
>>> proposed, nor would it be.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>I've yet to hear anyone propose disarming law abiding citizens in the
>context of the current or recent events.

You mean besides you and Jerry?

>Have you?

Yes, you and Jerry have both advocated complete surrender of all firearms.

>Under discussion I hear mainly assault rifles,

What is the definition of an assault rifle? What will it be a year from now?

>expanded ammunition clips,

How many rounds is too many?

>loose registration requirements,

How much tighter would you have to make registration requirements to stop
the shooting in Newtown?

>and lack of response to those with mental problems.

Seriously? No one ever sold a gun to that kid. "Mental problems" is also a
very loose description of a category of people that you wish to strip a
basic human right from.

>I would add to the latter, especially when those with mental problems live
>in a house with firearms.

So, you not only want to strip the basic human right away from a
vaguely-defined group of people, but from anyone that lives in a house with
them. Sure, no one is talking about taking away peoples' right to
self-defense.

>The underground gun trade is another issue that should receive more
>attention.

This event and the government reaction to it are making it expand
exponentially. Nice work.

[ChrisRobin]

On Dec 22 2012 5:27 PM, Dutch wrote:

> Repatriate all armed forces overseas and activate all reserves and
> National Guard to be posted at schools. That makes at least as much
> sense as hiring and training hundreds of thousands of new police officers.

It does make more sense, but it's still a ridiculous overreaction.

[Dutch]

~M~ wrote:
> "Dutch" wrote in message news:kb5cut$gf5$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>>> It's a reasonable conclusion.
>>
>> The shooter was spraying bullets at a rate of 4-6/sec, it's at least as
>
> No he wasn't,

Oh, you were there?

> and he certainly wasn't while he was breaking the glass
> and reaching around or doing whatever he had to do to get into the school.
> A security guard, positioned at the main entrance of the school, (the
> most reasonable place) would have had that idiot lined up before he got
> in the building. He did the bullet spraying only after he encountered no
> competent resistance to his entry.

You are assuming that guard was positioned and ready to shoot as if he
knew in advance that this was going to happen. I've got news for you,
this is an elementary school, not an outpost in Afghanistan, and this
guy would likely be sitting in an office, maybe near the front,
unsuspecting, never having fired his gun except at the range in his
entire life. By the time he realized what was happening he would
probably have been dead.

There was an armed guard in Littleton, he couldn't stop anything.

>>> reasonable to conclude that a lone security guard would have been cut
>>> down without getting a shot off.
>
> I guess anything is possible for someone that can spray bullets at a
> rate of 4-6/second with a semi-automatic rifle and hit things.

It would not be that hard to hit a human at that range with that many shots.

>>>> Except nobody has proposed disarming law abiding citizens. Disarming
>>>> implies leaving you unarmed and defenseless and that has not been
>>>> proposed, nor would it be.
>>>
>>> Really?
>>>
>> I've yet to hear anyone propose disarming law abiding citizens in the
>> context of the current or recent events.
>
> You mean besides you and Jerry?

I mean the people who matter, lawmakers and policy makers.

>> Have you?
>
> Yes, you and Jerry have both advocated complete surrender of all firearms.

I don't consider that a serious option, and neither does anyone involved
in the decision making process. It is an extreme reaction that deserves
about about as much serious consideration as putting police officers in
every school.

>> Under discussion I hear mainly assault rifles,
>
> What is the definition of an assault rifle? What will it be a year from
> now?

To be clearly defined, I don't know the technical details.

>> expanded ammunition clips,
>
> How many rounds is too many?

See above.

>> loose registration requirements,
>
> How much tighter would you have to make registration requirements to
> stop the shooting in Newtown?

There is no way to determine exactly what caused or what might avert any
specific incident, and no action can stop them all. This is a watershed
event, but it is possible that nothing could have prevented it, nobody
knows. He may have known a dealer in illicit guns, he may not. I doubt it.

>> and lack of response to those with mental problems.
>
> Seriously? No one ever sold a gun to that kid. "Mental problems" is also
> a very loose description of a category of people that you wish to strip
> a basic human right from.

Fuck you and your basic human right, man was not born with the right to
own a gun.

>
>> I would add to the latter, especially when those with mental problems
>> live in a house with firearms.
>
> So, you not only want to strip the basic human right away from a
> vaguely-defined group of people, but from anyone that lives in a house
> with them. Sure, no one is talking about taking away peoples' right to
> self-defense.

A lot of people who should not have access to guns, for the safety of
those around them. That can be defined and likely will. You oppose any
sanity requirement?

>> The underground gun trade is another issue that should receive more
>> attention.
>
> This event and the government reaction to it are making it expand
> exponentially. Nice work.

So lets not restrict anything no matter how dangerous, because some
people will decide to act criminally anyway. Good thinking.

[Dutch]

Maybe if they started it the GOP would wake up.

[Alim Nassor]

On Dec 22, 4:39 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> ~M~ wrote:

> > "Dutch"  wrote in messagenews:kb5519$vme$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> >>> In this case, the attack could have been stopped by an armed guard when
> >>> the killer broke his way in. The only casualty would have been the
> >>> attacker.
>
> >> Maybe, you don't know that.
> > It's a reasonable conclusion.
>
> The shooter was spraying bullets at a rate of 4-6/sec, it's at least as
> reasonable to conclude that a lone security guard would have been cut
> down without getting a shot off.

You're insane. Why don't you see how many times you can pull a
trigger per second. Idiot.

[Dutch]

Alim Nassor wrote:
>> >The shooter was spraying bullets at a rate of 4-6/sec, it's at least as
>> >reasonable to conclude that a lone security guard would have been cut
>> >down without getting a shot off.
> You're insane. Why don't you see how many times you can pull a
> trigger per second. Idiot.
>

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/defensive-rifles-shotgun-discussion/124660-convert-your-ar-15-full-auto-legally.html

Convert your AR-15 to full auto, legally

Actually it's NOT full auto but you'd never know it. It's a new, easy to
install, butt-stock called 'SlideFire' for Ar-15 that does controlled
bump firing. (around $350) It's apparently declared legal by the ATF.
Since the trigger needs to be pulled each time by the user it
technically is not full auto. However, it will empty a 30 round mag in
about 3 or 4 seconds. Look at the videos you'll be amazed how it fires
just like a fully auto machine gun. Gunblast does a positive review and
shows how it works.

I can't help but wonder how firing range management will react when you
light this thing up. You might want to warn them first as it will
quickly attract a crowd.

Check it out..

http://www.gunblast.com/SlideFire.htm

[Alim Nassor]

On Dec 23, 12:37 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> Alim Nassor wrote:
> >> >The shooter was spraying bullets at a rate of 4-6/sec, it's at least as
> >> >reasonable to conclude that a lone security guard would have been cut
> >> >down without getting a shot off.
> > You're insane.  Why don't you see how many times you can pull a
> > trigger per second.  Idiot.
>

> http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/defensive-rifles-shotgun-discussi...

>
> Convert your AR-15 to full auto, legally
>
> Actually it's NOT full auto but you'd never know it. It's a new, easy to
> install, butt-stock called 'SlideFire' for Ar-15 that does controlled
> bump firing. (around $350) It's apparently declared legal by the ATF.
> Since the trigger needs to be pulled each time by the user it
> technically is not full auto. However, it will empty a 30 round mag in
> about 3 or 4 seconds. Look at the videos you'll be amazed how it fires
> just like a fully auto machine gun. Gunblast does a positive review and
> shows how it works.
>
> I can't help but wonder how firing range management will react when you
> light this thing up. You might want to warn them first as it will
> quickly attract a crowd.
>
> Check it out..
>
> http://www.gunblast.com/SlideFire.htm

I already have one. it's not full auto. So show me where this
nutball had one.

BTW, I'm ordering another one in the morning.

[bub]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 19:49:17 -0800 (PST), Alim Nassor
<alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Oh, you were there?

and you were?

>You're insane. Why don't you see how many times you can pull a
>trigger per second. Idiot.

say he had a 30round clip...using his 4-5 a second his shooting
would have lasted 6-7 seconds

this is the same idiot who said people asked to pay for their own
pensions was the same as a woman being raped over and over

[brattt]

On Dec 22 2012 9:16 PM, Dutch wrote:


> There was an armed guard in Littleton, he couldn't stop anything.

I have been reading this a lot lately. I didn't remember there being an
armed guard to I looked around and couldn't find anything from that time
period. Only recent claims. If this is true, where was he during the
massacre?

One thing I did find and forgotten is that President Clinton proposed
armed guards for schools because of Columbine, much as the NRA LaPierre
said now.

"Clinton also unveiled the $60-million fifth round of funding for "COPS in
School," a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing
police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and
teachers. The money will be used to provide 452 officers in schools in
more than 220 communities."

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2012/12/pres-bill-clinton-wanted-cops-in.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FNWlS+%28YID+With+LID%29



---------------------------------------------------------
Jerry's litigate that Walmart employees did not strike Walmart

LABOR BOARD CALLS WALMART STRIKE DECISION 'COMPLEX'

On Nov. 29, Jerry n'Vegas wrote
Walmart employees did not strike Walmart.

http://tinyurl.com/cmskadk

[VegasJerry]

On Saturday, December 22, 2012 3:02:57 PM UTC-8, Alim Nassor wrote:
> On Dec 21, 4:31 pm, VegasJerry <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
> > WHA! HA! HA! "You need more assault weapons in the schools so your shootouts with other assault weapons will be an even fight and perhaps fewer kids will die." Except the shooter knows the cop is there and takes him out first. The ONLY answer is to get assault weapon off the market. The only answer. Neither you, nor the NRA, nor the wing-nut Republicans have been able to answer the question: "Why are you still protecting the Gun Show Loop Hole and the purchase of assault weapons with large clips and armor-piercing bullets?" Why are you not insisting that 50 caliber automatic machine guns be on the market? Why are you not insisting RGP's be on the market? Because YOU CAN'T JUSTIFY ASSAULT WEAPONS AND 30 BULLET MAGAZINES. "Why are you still protecting the Gun Show Loop Hole and the purchase of assault weapons with large clips and armor-piercing bullets?" Why do you keep dodging this question and blabber about anything but that? (Watch how the reply dodges this question).
> >
> > Jerry 'n Vegas

.> Hey Jerry, you stupid bitch, there is no "gun show loophole",

HA! In the words of Arnold, "Fuck you, asshole." You've embarrasses yourself once again. Better go check with the NRA for you latest update.

> You still don't know the difference in a clip and a magazine,

You're fuck up here, too. The words were interchangeable - and stated so but the FBI - when I took my instructions AND STILL ARE.

> and you are still completely full of shit about armor piercing ammo.

Three for three on your stupidity.
(I love embarrassing you).

> A magazine doesn't hold bullets you fucking fool.

WHA! HA~HA! 4 for 4!

You should start giving FBI shooting classes, just for laughs!

> Hey Jerry, if assault weapons are the cause of all these murders, how
> come, even though million and millions of them have been sold in
> recent years, why are murder rates at all time lows? HMMMM?

Five for 5 for our local idiot!

It's about assault weapons, you stupid motherfucker. If all this guy could have obtained was a bolt action rifle with a 3-bullet clip; far fewer children would have been killed by the time the police arrived and the killer stopped killing kids and killed himself. Same with the shooter of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords; he stopped to reload and was prevented from killing more. If this was all any future nut was able to obtain; far fewer lives could be lost in the future.

Quit dodging and address that, you ignorant fuck.


Jerry (LOL) 'n Vegas

On Nov. 29, Jerry n'Vegas wrote
Walmart employees did not strike Walmart.

-- Stupid Susan (SS) (not knowing Walmart employees did not strike)

"I am a racist. I hate niggers and spics and slants."
-- Stupid Susan (SS) (11-21-12)

[VegasJerry]

On Saturday, December 22, 2012 3:05:27 PM UTC-8, Alim Nassor wrote:
> On Dec 21, 4:43 pm, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
> > On 21/12/2012 2:31 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> >
> > >Except the shooter knows the cop is there and takes him out first.
> >
> > The obvious scenario, and, I can almost guarantee you, one that never
> > even crossed Risky's two dimensional 60 IQ brain.

.> That would be obvious to Jerry, who probably thinks all cops are

> oblivious donut eaters like he was.

LOL at Alim. All he has left is dodging to his MO of making up positons for others when he's cornored.

Jerry (lol) 'n Vegas

[VegasJerry]

.> Your idea of what proof is, is even more stupid than you are.

Is this a tag team match? Bill and I take turns kicking your scrawny little as all over RGP and you come back for more?

**NEXT**

Jerry 'n Vegas

[VegasJerry]

.> I already have one. it's not full auto. So show me where this

> nutball had one.
>
> BTW, I'm ordering another one in the morning.

WHA! HA~HA! Priceless! The admitted gun nut needs TWO.

This is truly fun. Keep digging, we love watching the dirt fly.

Jerry

[brattt]

On Dec 21 2012 3:09 PM, risky biz wrote:

> Why hasn't this been done years ago?

Bill Clinton wanted to.

"Clinton also unveiled the $60-million fifth round of funding for "COPS in
School," a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing
police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and
teachers. The money will be used to provide 452 officers in schools in
more than 220 communities."

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2012/12/pres-bill-clinton-wanted-cop...

---------------------------------------------------------
Jerry's litigate that Walmart employees did not strike Walmart

LABOR BOARD CALLS WALMART STRIKE DECISION 'COMPLEX'

On Nov. 29, Jerry n'Vegas wrote
Walmart employees did not strike Walmart.

http://tinyurl.com/cmskadk

[~M~]

"Dutch" wrote in message news:kb5t7e$1au$1...@dont-email.me...

>>> The shooter was spraying bullets at a rate of 4-6/sec, it's at least as
>>
>> No he wasn't,
>>
>Oh, you were there?

No one like me, with the ability to stop him, was there. That's one of the
reasons he went there. But I am familiar with the AR-15 platform, and,
having fired my own thousands of times, I know that spraying bullets at
4-6/second is an ineffective way to use one.

>You are assuming that guard was positioned and ready to shoot as if he knew
>in advance that this was going to happen.

He would not need to know what was coming, or be any more ready to shoot
than to be carrying a loaded gun. You are assuming he would be asleep or
using the restroom. I think he would have been at least as close to the
point of entry as the principal was, and that would have allowed him to
intercede, with better chances of success, than the unarmed, untrained,
administrator.

>I've got news for you, this is an elementary school, not an outpost in
>Afghanistan, and this guy would likely be sitting in an office, maybe near
>the front,

Correct.

>unsuspecting, never having fired his gun except at the range in his entire
>life.

Which would not put him at a disadvantage against a 90 pound kid how also
had never fired his gun except at a range in his entire life, fighting his
way through a locked door.

>By the time he realized what was happening he would probably have been
>dead.
>
>There was an armed guard in Littleton, he couldn't stop anything.

Actually, according to the account I read, he called for backup, drew fire
from Harris until Harris's gun jammed, engaged the killers again with his
backup, and helped evacuate students. He probably saved quite a few lives.

>> I guess anything is possible for someone that can spray bullets at a
>> rate of 4-6/second with a semi-automatic rifle and hit things.
>
>It would not be that hard to hit a human at that range with that many
>shots.

Yes it would.

>>> I've yet to hear anyone propose disarming law abiding citizens in the
>>> context of the current or recent events.
>>
>> You mean besides you and Jerry?
>
>I mean the people who matter, lawmakers and policy makers.

I'm sure that there are plenty of lawmakers that would gladly implement the
full measures you have proposed, and if they get enough feedback from people
like you, they will try.

>>> Have you?
>>
>> Yes, you and Jerry have both advocated complete surrender of all
>> firearms.
>
>I don't consider that a serious option, and neither does anyone involved in
>the decision making process. It is an extreme reaction that deserves about
>about as much serious consideration as putting police officers in every
>school.

There are plenty of schools that already have police officers, and there are
plenty of reasons to have police officers present in a school besides the
miniscule chance that an armed psycho will try to kill a bunch of kids.

>>> Under discussion I hear mainly assault rifles,
>>
>> What is the definition of an assault rifle? What will it be a year from
>> now?
>
>To be clearly defined, I don't know the technical details.

Yet, it seems you are in full support, despite not knowing what is to be
banned.

>>> expanded ammunition clips,
>>
>> How many rounds is too many?
>
>See above.

Yes, see above.

>>> loose registration requirements,
>>
>> How much tighter would you have to make registration requirements to
>> stop the shooting in Newtown?
>
>There is no way to determine exactly what caused or what might avert any
>specific incident, and no action can stop them all. This is a watershed
>event, but it is possible that nothing could have prevented it, nobody
>knows. He may have known a dealer in illicit guns, he may not. I doubt it.

So, you don't know what additional restrictions will be effective, or what
ones were ignored, but you know the answer, nonetheless, is to increase
restrictions with each incident until you get to your goal.

>>> and lack of response to those with mental problems.
>>
>> Seriously? No one ever sold a gun to that kid. "Mental problems" is also
>> a very loose description of a category of people that you wish to strip
>> a basic human right from.
>
>Fuck you and your basic human right, man was not born with the right to own
>a gun.

Of course every man is. The right to defend oneself by the most effective
means is no less basic than the right to eat the food most suitable for
healthy living.

>>> I would add to the latter, especially when those with mental problems
>>> live in a house with firearms.
>>
>> So, you not only want to strip the basic human right away from a
>> vaguely-defined group of people, but from anyone that lives in a house
>> with them. Sure, no one is talking about taking away peoples' right to
>> self-defense.
>
>A lot of people who should not have access to guns, for the safety of those
>around them. That can be defined and likely will. You oppose any sanity
>requirement?

No, I do not. I fully support any sanity requirement, or any other
requirement, on gun ownership that is placed on the right to vote, or the
right to speak and petition the government, or the right to privacy, or any
other right that is natural and unalienable.

>>> The underground gun trade is another issue that should receive more
>>> attention.
>>
>> This event and the government reaction to it are making it expand
>> exponentially. Nice work.
>
>So lets not restrict anything no matter how dangerous, because some people
>will decide to act criminally anyway. Good thinking.

Gun ownership is highly regulated. It's over-regulated. And the likelihood
of increased regulation has caused people to buy more guns, ammunition, and
accessories like magazines at unprecedented rates. Quite honestly, people
like you should go on a list so all the gun manufacturers can send you thank
you cards.

[Dutch]

I'm sensing you may have missed the point of that analogy.

[Dutch]

~M~ wrote:
>> A lot of people who should not have access to guns, for the safety of
>> those around them. That can be defined and likely will. You oppose any
>> sanity requirement?
>
> No, I do not. I fully support any sanity requirement, or any other
> requirement, on gun ownership that is placed on the right to vote, or
> the right to speak and petition the government, or the right to privacy,
> or any other right that is natural and unalienable.

This pretty much sums up the depth of your insanity. To people like you
the right to carry firearms is indistinguishable from freedom of speech.
You can't comprehend that worst case scenario freedom of speech acted
out by a deranged person is just annoying, while freedom to possess
firearms acted out by a deranged person is Newtown. Your head is full of
false equivalencies. I have no vote in this matter, I am only a
bystander, but I hope that saner heads will ultimately prevail this time
over people like you, or else we are destined to watch this kind of
tragedy repeat itself over and over.

[Alim Nassor]

On Dec 23, 10:16 am, VegasJerry <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Saturday, December 22, 2012 3:02:57 PM UTC-8, Alim Nassor wrote:
> > On Dec 21, 4:31 pm, VegasJerry <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > WHA! HA! HA! "You need more assault weapons in the schools so your shootouts with other assault weapons will be an even fight and perhaps fewer kids will die." Except the shooter knows the cop is there and takes him out first. The ONLY answer is to get assault weapon off the market. The only answer. Neither you, nor the NRA, nor the wing-nut Republicans have been able to answer the question: "Why are you still protecting the Gun Show Loop Hole and the purchase of assault weapons with large clips and armor-piercing bullets?" Why are you not insisting that 50 caliber automatic machine guns be on the market? Why are you not insisting RGP's be on the market? Because YOU CAN'T JUSTIFY ASSAULT WEAPONS AND 30 BULLET MAGAZINES. "Why are you still protecting the Gun Show Loop Hole and the purchase of assault weapons with large clips and armor-piercing bullets?" Why do you keep dodging this question and blabber about anything but that? (Watch how the reply dodges this question).
>
> > > Jerry 'n Vegas
>
> .> Hey Jerry, you stupid bitch, there is no "gun show loophole",
>
> HA! In the words of Arnold, "Fuck you, asshole." You've embarrasses yourself once again. Better go check with the NRA for you latest update.

Fuck you cocksucker. There is no loophole. I gave you the definition
of "loophole" and this doesn't apply. What you are talking about,
which is not a loophole, applies to ANY gun purchase between private
citizens. No gun show necessary, you clueless fuck.

>
> > You still don't know the difference in a clip and a magazine,
>
> You're fuck up here, too. The words were interchangeable - and stated so  but the FBI - when I took my instructions AND STILL ARE.

No they are not. You must have had a clueless FBI instructor. A
clip and a magazine are not the same fucking thing you stupid fuck. I
gave you those definitions too, but you are far too stupid to
understand them

>
> > and you are still completely full of shit about armor piercing ammo.
>
> Three for three on your stupidity.
> (I love embarrassing you).

You stupid fuck. Any round I shoot in my .270 will blow right through
both sides aof any Kevlar vest on the market, So called armor
piercing handgun ammo was outlawed years ago,

>
> > A magazine doesn't hold bullets you fucking fool.
>
> WHA! HA~HA! 4 for 4!

WHA! HA~HA You stupid fuck. A magazine hold loaded cartridges. A
loaded cartridge is not the same thing as a bullet you embarrassingly
stupid fuck.

>
> You should start giving FBI shooting classes, just for laughs!

I could sure as shit teach them a few things if they actually believe
any of the stupidity you just spouted.

>
> > Hey Jerry,  if assault weapons are the cause of all these murders, how
> > come, even though million and millions of them have been sold in
> > recent years, why are murder rates at all time lows?  HMMMM?
>
> Five for 5 for our local idiot!

Murder rates are at 50 year lows you moron. Millions and millions of
AR type weapons have been sold in recent years. How do you explain
this?

>
> It's about assault weapons, you stupid motherfucker. If all this guy could have obtained was a bolt action rifle with a 3-bullet clip; far fewer children would have been killed by the time the police arrived and the killer stopped killing kids and killed himself. Same with the shooter of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords; he stopped to reload and was prevented from killing more. If this was all any future nut was able to obtain; far fewer lives could be lost in the future.

One more time you stupid fuck Clips don't hold bullets. Clips are
not the same thing as magazines. You're too stupid to even post an
opinion.
You've shown over and over you have no concept of what proof is. You
used the Giffords shooting as "proof" that lives could be saved with
smaller capacity weapons. That's not proof you fucking moron. No one
know what might have happened. With your stupid 3 round capacity
idiocy, you've just banned 90% of all guns out there, including every
revolver on the market and a majority of bolt action rifles, not to
mention those menacing lever actions and pump guns.

You're a fucking loon.

>
> Quit dodging and address that, you ignorant fuck.
>

Murder rates are at 50 year lows you moron. Millions and millions of
AR type weapons have been sold in recent years. How do you explain
this? Quit dodging it and address it Jerry, you fucking moron.

[Alim Nassor]

I've not dodged anything Jerry, I've addressed every point you've
tried to make.

You on the other hand wont even attempt to address this one simple
point.

Murder rates are at 50 year lows. Millions and millions of AR type

[Alim Nassor]

LOL, you cant remember the last time you kicked anyones ass, unless
they were handcuffed first.

[Alim Nassor]

I don't NEED any you fucking moron. The 2nd amendment doesn't say a
fucking thing about NEED>

[Dutch]

Alim Nassor wrote:
> There is no loophole. I gave you the definition
> of "loophole" and this doesn't apply. What you are talking about,
> which is not a loophole, applies to ANY gun purchase between private
> citizens. No gun show necessary,

The charge is that a lot of these so-called private sales are actually
fronted by gun dealers, the "private citizen" sellers are shills. I've
seen documentation that this takes place, a lot, and yes it happens
outside shows, but shows provide an opportunity. I don't expect you to
admit it though, scumbag that you are.

[Clave]

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:toUBs.19242$qb3....@newsfe25.iad...

There's nothing to prevent it. A state of things gunloons are desperate to
preserve.

Background checks are not infringement.

Jim

[Dutch]

Alim Nassor wrote:
> Murder rates are at 50 year lows. Millions and millions of AR type
> weapons have been sold in recent years. How do you explain this?

Murder rates in the US, particularly with guns, are at ridiculously high
levels, they have been for a very long time. And people are fed up with
these copycat massacres, which seem to be on the rise. The American
people are saying enough is enough. Look at the rates of gun violence
around the developed world, not at your shameful record.

[Dutch]

Alim Nassor wrote:
The 2nd amendment doesn't say a
> fucking thing about NEED>

It doesn't mention AR-15s either but you seem to think it gives you the
right to own them.

[Dutch]

I suppose the right to sell a gun to a terrorist is a fundamental one.

[risky biz]

On Dec 22 2012 7:52 AM, VegasJerry wrote:

> > It wouldn't be that expensive to monitor approaches to the facility with
> > cameras. A very large school might require two police officers.
>
> YOU ARE STILL A FUCKING IDIOT!
>
> This is not about gun control, it is about assault weapon control.
>
> ANSWER THE QUESTION: "Why are you still protecting the Gun Show Loop Hole

and the purchase of
> assault weapons with large clips and armor-piercing bullets?"

Why are you still asking STUPID questions?

[risky biz]

On Dec 22 2012 2:39 PM, Dutch wrote:

> I've yet to hear anyone propose disarming law abiding citizens in the

> context of the current or recent events. Have you? Under discussion I
> hear mainly assault rifles, expanded ammunition clips, loose

> registration requirements, and lack of response to those with mental
> problems. I would add to the latter, especially when those with mental
> problems live in a house with firearms. The underground gun trade is

> another issue that should receive more attention.

He just quoted you proposing it yourself you freaking liar.

[risky biz]

Yeah, it only mentions 'arms", moron, without listing all the future
serial numbers.

You and the other anti-gun nuts here argue your viewpoints so extremely
poorly (and dishonestly) that I can't believe you are not converting those
who were previously indifferent into advocates of Second Amendment rights.

[risky biz]

On Dec 22 2012 1:34 AM, Dutch wrote:

> risky biz wrote:

> > On Dec 22 2012 12:45 AM, Dutch wrote:
> >
> >> risky biz wrote:

> >>> On Dec 21 2012 7:31 PM, Dutch wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> risky biz wrote:

> >>>>> On Dec 21 2012 2:24 PM, O-PGManager wrote:

> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Dec 21 2012 4:09 PM, risky biz wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Why hasn't this been done years ago?
> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> A total police state? We're getting there, be patient.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Opie G. Manager
> >>>>>> Rec.Gambling.Poker
> >>>>>> Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't see a police officer stationed in a school for protection
against
> >>>>> violent attacks at the school as being unreasonable.
> >>>>
> >>>> Really? That's a lot of cops. Then what about movie theaters, malls,
> >>>> churches, concerts, sporting events or just about anywhere else people
> >>>> gather? As long as these deadly weapons are out there unbalanced people
> >>>> will get their hands on them and find innocent people to slaughter.
> >>>
> >>> Don't you have the first clue that when the general populace is deprived
> >>> of weapons criminals will make a fortune smuggling weapons to other
> >>> criminals? Try thinking.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Do you always just change the subject when you're losing an argument?
> >
> > That isn't changing the subject when you say: "As long as these deadly
> > weapons are out there unbalanced people will get their hands on them and
> > find innocent people to slaughter." Your clear implication is expropriate
> > everyone's guns".
>
> No it isn't.

You damned liar:

"I never thought I'd come to this, but no private citizen should own a
gun. You have one month to turn them all in or face a prison sentence."

- Dutch 12/15/2012

> > Now read this again: "Don't you have the first clue that when the general
> > populace is deprived of weapons criminals will make a fortune smuggling
> > weapons to other criminals?"
> >
> > Get it this time?
> >
> > I'm losing an argument?
> >
>
> I realize you love to trot out your standard talking points but the
> subject here is the absolutely ridiculous NRA proposal to place armed
> police in all schools, not the black market in guns. Please try to keep
> on track.

You're the one who's been changing the subject but why not LIE about that,
too?

> But to your point,

Oh, OK, so you do want to stay off track. Makes sense because you're the
one who turned it off-track.

> the perpetrators of these heinous crimes
> are generally not "criminals" per se, as in thieves, murderers or gang
> members, before they commit their horrible crimes. They may not have
> easy access to the underworld of gun trafficking. They are disturbed
> individuals who gain access to the weapons through normal channels,
> which means from gun shops or gun shows, or family.

Criminals in England have no problem purchasing illegal guns. You're too
dull to acknowledge that.

> It would be pretty
> straightforward to make it much more difficult, and less deadly if there
> was universal background checks and none of these monster weapons that
> cause so much bloodshed. Too bad if you think you need to be able to
> resist an army brigade, just too fucking bad.

What's too bad is that you're a ninny who ignores all the overwhelming
evidence posted right in the newsgroup that background checks and
dictatorial gun control don't accomplish any purpose other than the
advancement of totalitarian government.

> Your hero. the sleazeball president of the NRA, is quoted as saying that
> Obama winning re-election would be worse than the losses in any battle
> in any war in American history. What a lowlife bullshit disrespectful
> thing to say. Like Romney, the guy evaded serving in Vietnam. Real bunch
> of tough guys when other people's lives are on the line.

Going off-track again, ninny?

[risky biz]

On Dec 22 2012 8:21 AM, VegasJerry wrote:

> > Now read this again: "Don't you have the first clue that when the general
> > populace is deprived of weapons criminals will make a fortune smuggling
> > weapons to other criminals?"
> >
> > Get it this time?
>

> ..> I'm losing an argument?
>
> YES! You STILL refuse to address that is about assault weapon control, not
gun control. You are
> STILL unable to engage in the argument:

>
> "Why are you still protecting the Gun Show Loop Hole and the purchase of
assault weapons with large
> clips and armor-piercing bullets?"
>

> Jerry 'n Vegas

Why don't you try contributing at least one intelligent post in every
thread you post in? Can you answer that question?

[risky biz]

On Dec 22 2012 8:18 AM, VegasJerry wrote:

> On Friday, December 21, 2012 10:36:53 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> > On Dec 21 2012 7:31 PM, Dutch wrote:
> >
> > > risky biz wrote:
> > > > On Dec 21 2012 2:24 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Dec 21 2012 4:09 PM, risky biz wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Why hasn't this been done years ago?
> > > >>
> > > >> A total police state? We're getting there, be patient.
> > > >>
> > > >> Opie G. Manager
> > > >> Rec.Gambling.Poker
> > > >> Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)
> > > >
> > > > I don't see a police officer stationed in a school for protection
against
> > > > violent attacks at the school as being unreasonable.
> > >
> > > Really? That's a lot of cops. Then what about movie theaters, malls,
> > > churches, concerts, sporting events or just about anywhere else people
> > > gather? As long as these deadly weapons are out there unbalanced people
> > > will get their hands on them and find innocent people to slaughter.
>

> ..> Don't you have the first clue that when the general
> > populace is deprived of weapons.
>
> THIS IS NOT ABOUT GUN CONTROL; IT IS ABOUT ASSAULT WEAPON CONTROL!
>
> Jerry

Time to end the Second Amendment VegasJerry Dec 17 2012 6:57 AM

". . . rescind the Second Amendment to our Constitution.

It's time to pick them all up. All of them. I'm willing to allow police to
be the only people allowed to be armed and give them the power to stop and
search anybody at any time; and to get warrants to search any home. I want
the penalty of owning or carrying a weapon to be life in prison. And I
don't want any further discussion on that. The time has come."

You freaking LIAR!

[risky biz]

They have been looked at, extensively, and it has been concluded that your
arguments and viewpoints are completely devoid of any logical basis.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf