Gun Control.....

Does anyone feel better about the murders in NYC that killed a mother and her four children that was committed with a meat cleaver rather than an assault rifle?....Guess there will be registration of cleavers in NYC soon....Too bad they didn't take out the pos responsible...think it was a brother-in-law...

nochain wrote:

     Had this been with any firearm there would have been comments...This is right in Bloomberg's anti-gun environment...Too bad someone didn't have a gun to stop the pos....can you imagine that if that were the case they may have been charged in Bloomberg's City....

mediawatcher wrote:

     Does anyone feel better about the murders in NYC that killed a mother and her four children that was committed with a meat cleaver rather than an assault rifle?....Guess there will be registration of cleavers in NYC soon....Too bad they didn't take out the pos responsible...think it was a brother-in-law...

No, because an assault rifle could have taken out a lot more people a lot more quickly. Just because someone uses a knife or a meat cleaver to kill doesn't justify armor piercing bullets being available to kill policemen with, or twenty shot clips that someone says they need to go hunt a deer with. If you can't shoot the deer with 9 bullets then you'd better stay the heck out of the woods.
And if you think your house is going to be invaded by over 4 or 5 burglars at a time- you don't need a larger clip, you need some psychiatric help for your serious paranoia.

My goodness, I'm enjoying this. I think everyone on this forum disagrees with me about nearly everything. It's fantastic!!!!!!

Otter wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

     Does anyone feel better about the murders in NYC that killed a mother and her four children that was committed with a meat cleaver rather than an assault rifle?....Guess there will be registration of cleavers in NYC soon....Too bad they didn't take out the pos responsible...think it was a brother-in-law...

No, because an assault rifle could have taken out a lot more people a lot more quickly.  Just because someone uses a knife or a meat cleaver to kill doesn't justify armor piercing bullets being available to kill policemen with, or twenty shot clips that someone says they need to go hunt a deer with.  If  you can't shoot the deer with 9 bullets then you'd better stay the heck out of the woods.
And if you think your house is going to be invaded by over 4 or 5 burglars at a time- you don't need a larger clip, you need some psychiatric help for your serious paranoia.

Tell the mother and four children that an assault rifle COULD have been worse....oh yeah you can't...they were brutally HACKED to death....Here's the bottom line to gun control...You chose not to own and that's your choice but quit trying to inflict your choice on others that are legal in their actions...

mediawatcher wrote:

Otter wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

     Does anyone feel better about the murders in NYC that killed a mother and her four children that was committed with a meat cleaver rather than an assault rifle?....Guess there will be registration of cleavers in NYC soon....Too bad they didn't take out the pos responsible...think it was a brother-in-law...

No, because an assault rifle could have taken out a lot more people a lot more quickly.  Just because someone uses a knife or a meat cleaver to kill doesn't justify armor piercing bullets being available to kill policemen with, or twenty shot clips that someone says they need to go hunt a deer with.  If  you can't shoot the deer with 9 bullets then you'd better stay the heck out of the woods.
And if you think your house is going to be invaded by over 4 or 5 burglars at a time- you don't need a larger clip, you need some psychiatric help for your serious paranoia.

    Tell the mother and four children that an assault rifle COULD have been worse....oh yeah you can't...they were brutally HACKED to death....Here's the bottom line to gun control...You chose not to own and that's your choice but quit trying to inflict your choice on others that are legal in their actions...

I don't choose not to own a gun. I have a gun, thanks. It has a small clip that only holds five rounds.
If 6 people ever decide to invade my house, I'm dead meat. I seriously doubt that will ever happen.
I'm not paranoid about the government coming to confiscate it either. It's well hidden and well secured, out of reach of children who might find it and accidentally shoot someone.
I don't know why so many gun owners are paranoid. As for the mother and four children, they have nothing to do with whether Americans should own armor piercing ammo or 19 shot clips.
Ask the people at the movie theater in Colorado or the teachers at Columbine what they think of assault weapons. They weren't killed with meat cleavers or knives.

[quote="Otter"]

mediawatcher wrote:

Otter wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

    .

N

they have nothing to do with whether Americans should own armor piercing ammo or 19 shot clips.
.

Been quite a while since "armor piercing ammo" has been available to citizens.

"Federal law prohibits the manufacture, importation, sale or delivery of armor-piercing ammunition, with very limited exceptions.10 In particular, specific exceptions exist for armor-piercing ammunition that is manufactured for certain federal and state government divisions, exportation, or testing.11 The Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) may also exempt certain armor-piercing ammunition primarily intended for sporting or industrial purposes.12
Licensed dealers are prohibited from “willfully” transferring armor-piercing ammunition. An exception exists for ammunition that was received and maintained by the dealer as business inventory prior to August 28, 1986, which may be transferred to federal, state or local law enforcement.13 Federally licensed dealers, to the extent they can transfer armor-piercing ammunition, must keep a record of any transfer.14"

Ask the mother of the 3 kids killed by a drunk driver after drinking at a party what she thinks of alcohol..

It's NOT the gun that causes the killings, it's the people pulling the trigger...

nochain wrote:

Otter wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

Otter wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

    .

N

they have nothing to do with whether Americans should own armor piercing ammo or 19 shot clips.
.

Been quite a while since "armor piercing ammo" has been available to citizens.

"Federal law prohibits the manufacture, importation, sale or delivery of armor-piercing ammunition, with very limited exceptions.10 In particular, specific exceptions exist for armor-piercing ammunition that is manufactured for certain federal and state government divisions, exportation, or testing.11 The Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) may also exempt certain armor-piercing ammunition primarily intended for sporting or industrial purposes.12
Licensed dealers are prohibited from “willfully” transferring armor-piercing ammunition. An exception exists for ammunition that was received and maintained by the dealer as business inventory prior to August 28, 1986, which may be transferred to federal, state or local law enforcement.13 Federally licensed dealers, to the extent they can transfer armor-piercing ammunition, must keep a record of any transfer.14"

I'm glad to know that. I guess I'm not up on all the laws. I still don't know why anyone needs a clip that fires 19 or 20 shots though, unless he's a cop or in the military. He'd have to be a poor shot to need that kind of weaponry for sport shooting.
There are just things that make sense to me and things that don't. I am absolutely not opposed to firearms for personal protection or hunting, but I don't see a need for heavy arms to protect us from our government or from home invaders. Some weapons are made primarily for killing other human beings, and those should belong to our military forces and our police officers. I don't see any reason for the average person to need them.