TexasCHLforum.com

Today's meet the press was one big gun control tirade.

I really wish that it had not gone unopposed. I wish the NRA would have gotten a spokesperson to contradict what was said on the show.

ABC network George Stphanopolis or whatever was pro-gun control at that time too ... I turned it off

Instead, they need to keep a better eye on Democrats or hopolophobes with mental issues like Cho, Laughner and Holmes and ... any raised as hopolophobes (all 3 "recently" bought" )

Laughner's "lucid dreaming" and James Holmes "Temporal Illusions"
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3936448&page=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/abc-news-air ... ence-camp/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AND, as I flipped by Fox same story.... After about a minute of a monolog about how there is no need for these types of weapons and that automatic weapons were outlawed, I changed to the Cartoon network so some intelligent viewing.

I watched MTP this morning too, and I was actually surprised by that one security guy (don't remember his name) because he said flat out that gun control wasn't the answer...and the other guy was saying that gun control was a "dead issue" in that the argument was pretty much resolved (the public has spoken). The only one that was stupid was the (very biased) lady representative...who's husband was murdered by a crazy gunman. The security guy even hit the nail on the head when he said "even if he couldn't have gotten the guns, he had an apartment full of explosives he would have used. You kitchen has all the ingredients to build explosives...gun control is not the answer."

I was actually kind of impressed with MTP that they allowed two of their guests to be pro-gun like they were, their "panel" was decent on the subject too...then I switched to ABC and yes, the first thing I heard was limiting to 10 round "clips"

jframe.38 wrote:Today's meet the press was one big gun control tirade.

I really wish that it had not gone unopposed. I wish the NRA would have gotten a spokesperson to contradict what was said on the show.

Meet the press is not going to invite any articulate speaker that opposses their bias.

The NRA and those who support the NRA may be doing something wrong, and let me explain. Anytime the Sunday funnies are on and the NRA representative appears, a lot of folks just turn it off and refuse to listen because after all, it's the NRA and they are biased and slanted, right? Some group needs to be formed, composed of statisticians primarily, who could point out the facts in stark black and white. This would do a couple things-take the heat off the NRA and possibly speak to a wider audience. Could be something like the Acme Research Institute, where it is noted that screwballs will use whatever means available to them to pull off mass killings. Guns held by law abiding citizens are rarely the problem. Work toward identifying the screwballs before they buy the ax at True Value. What the general public does not get is that in the wrong hands, virtually anything can be the tool of a mass killing.

I perceive a mass ignorance on the part of many that there is somehow a direct relationship between the purchase and ownership of guns on the part of law abiding citizens and the use of guns by criminals.

Superman wrote:I was actually kind of impressed with MTP that they allowed two of their guests to be pro-gun like they were, their "panel" was decent on the subject too...then I switched to ABC and yes, the first thing I heard was limiting to 10 round "clips"

Can anyone point to good statistical data from California that proves that limiting magazine capacity reduces the lethality of weapons when used by criminals in the commission of a crime? Probably a trick question.

gdanaher wrote:

Superman wrote:I was actually kind of impressed with MTP that they allowed two of their guests to be pro-gun like they were, their "panel" was decent on the subject too...then I switched to ABC and yes, the first thing I heard was limiting to 10 round "clips"

Can anyone point to good statistical data from California that proves that limiting magazine capacity reduces the lethality of weapons when used by criminals in the commission of a crime? Probably a trick question.

It's not from CA per se, but I'm pretty sure I read that the Clinton-era AWB didn't affect crime rates.

If the constitution banned all handguns, and nobody had any access whatsoever to guns, the kid in Colorado could have used a sling shot and ball bearings, and sadly would have killed a bunch of innocent people. The sad truth is that regardless what society does to prevent it, there are going to be creative types out there, hell bent on human destruction, who are going to find ingenious ways to kill. And in a free and open society, there is no way to predict with accuracy who will snap and act out their fantasies.

My earlier question regarding magazine size really gets down to this. If someone is planning on firing 100 rounds into a filled room and the mag capacity is 10 instead of 14 or 40, they are just going to get more mags. What the AWB attempted to do was to regulate people's behavior by regulating the size of their tools. It didn't work.

Dave2 wrote:

gdanaher wrote:

Superman wrote:I was actually kind of impressed with MTP that they allowed two of their guests to be pro-gun like they were, their "panel" was decent on the subject too...then I switched to ABC and yes, the first thing I heard was limiting to 10 round "clips"

Can anyone point to good statistical data from California that proves that limiting magazine capacity reduces the lethality of weapons when used by criminals in the commission of a crime? Probably a trick question.

It's not from CA per se, but I'm pretty sure I read that the Clinton-era AWB didn't affect crime rates.

That is an accurate statement. I once read some stats put together by John Lott that support that statement. The violent crime rates IN GENERAL have been falling for a LONG time...multiple items are most likely at work, including an aging population (younger people commit more crimes), but there is more to it than that, I just can't remember all of what was stated. In fact, though I know this might sound callous, its BECAUSE OF the falling violent crime rates, coupled with the mass media and social networking coverage, that makes already tragic events like this one seem even worse. Don't get me wrong, violent crime is UP in some places: Chicago is a prime example. But OVERALL, across the nation, its DOWN...including gun-related crimes. But that wouldn't do for the antis to admit that, it would ruin their narrative, especially when so much of the nation is "emotionally vulnerable" right after such a horrible event...they have to strike while the iron is hot, like Saul Alinsky told them to...