More guns the answer???

Originally posted by no1marauder
It's not "speculative" that high capacity mags are designed to increase the firepower of the person wielding it. It is not "speculative" that such mags are very often used in this type of mass slaughter. It is not "speculative" to observe that there are very few, if any instances, where a citizen needed to fire more than 10 shots in rapid fashion in an incident of legitimate self-defense.

It is speculative that minus that weapon, another would not be substituted.

It is speculative that more than 10 rounds is never needed. You have a 20 gallon tank in your car. How often do you burn all 20 gallons before refilling?

Cops very rarely empty a magazine. Ask them why a smaller magazine isn't preferable? You don't ask cause you don't want to hear the answer.

I think the answer is more guns for ME.

Originally posted by no1marauder
How's this for an idea: take all the police presently employed in the foolish "War on Drugs" and use them to enhance security at schools and other places where large groups of children are present.

It's not a bad idea. But before we do that, please read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/opinion/our-failed-approach-to-schizophrenia.html

"Schizophrenia generally rears its head between the ages of 15 and 24, with a slightly later age for females. Early signs may include being a quirky loner — often mistaken for Asperger’s syndrome — but acute signs and symptoms do not appear until adolescence or young adulthood.

People with schizophrenia are unaware of how strange their thinking is and do not seek out treatment. At Virginia Tech, where Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people in a rampage shooting in 2007, professors knew something was terribly wrong, but he was not hospitalized for long enough to get well. The parents and community-college classmates of Jared L. Loughner, who killed 6 people and shot and injured 13 others (including a member of Congress) in 2011, did not know where to turn. We may never know with certainty what demons tormented Adam Lanza, who slaughtered 26 people at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14, though his acts strongly suggest undiagnosed schizophrenia.

I write this despite the so-called Goldwater Rule, an ethical standard the American Psychiatric Association adopted in the 1970s that directs psychiatrists not to comment on someone’s mental state if they have not examined him and gotten permission to discuss his case. It has had a chilling effect. After mass murders, our airwaves are filled with unfounded speculations about video games, our culture of hedonism and our loss of religious faith, while psychiatrists, the ones who know the most about severe mental illness, are largely marginalized.

Severely ill people like Mr. Lanza fall through the cracks, in part because school counselors are more familiar with anxiety and depression than with psychosis. Hospitalizations for acute onset of schizophrenia have been shortened to the point of absurdity. Insurance companies and families try to get patients out of hospitals as quickly as possible because of the prohibitively high cost of care."

===

It's astonishing how hard it is to get treatment for the mentally ill because the condition has been stigmatized so strongly in a society where everyone is supposed to be chipper, doing Pilates, and sending out a newsy Christmas letter every year.

We have a national campaign to recognize warning signs of stroke and what to do about it -- but zero to recognize mental imbalance.

Without even trying, I can think of 4 people -- colleagues, friends of friends, even family -- who had frank mental conditions I suspect ranged from depression to bipolar. Only the one who was bipolar was treated -- but with the wrong drugs for most of his adult life.

Such people aren't that hard to recognize, if we only will.

We have to step up.

Originally posted by no1marauder
How's this for an idea: take all the police presently employed in the foolish "War on Drugs" and use them to enhance security at schools and other places where large groups of children are present.

Well said.

Originally posted by no1marauder
A lot of ifs and speculation. I find it absurd that you think you can read the mind of every potential mass murderer and then ascribe to them perfect information as regards to where and when armed guards are posted. I find it humorous that you automatically assume that every such shooter just decides to kill as many people as possible and then goes down ...[text shortened]... ply picked another target; it's quite possible they may have been deterred completely.

"A lot of ifs and speculation."

... followed by...

"... there's little reason to believe the shooters would have simply picked another target; it's quite possible they may have been deterred completely."

Ever notice how the possibilities mentioned are so often those that favor the position of the person who mentions them? I speculate that pro-gun people do this more. It is quite possible, right?

Originally posted by shiloh
I think the answer is more guns for ME.

I already have more than enough. But more power to those that think they want or need more.

Originally posted by JS357
"A lot of ifs and speculation."

... followed by...

"... there's little reason to believe the shooters would have simply picked another target; it's quite possible they may have been deterred completely."

Ever notice how the possibilities mentioned are so often those that favor the position of the person who mentions them? I speculate that pro-gun people do this more. It is quite possible, right?

Selective quotation is fun, isn't it? In fact, I gave a very good reason to support my statement:

most school shootings have been done by people who had a direct connection with the school involved and there's little reason to believe the shooters would have simply picked another target; it's quite possible they may have been deterred completely.


Of course, omitting relevant portions of a poster's arguments is a disingenuous and dishonest tactic but one that seems to be par for the course here.

Originally posted by normbenign
It is speculative that minus that weapon, another would not be substituted.

It is speculative that more than 10 rounds is never needed. You have a 20 gallon tank in your car. How often do you burn all 20 gallons before refilling?

Cops very rarely empty a magazine. Ask them why a smaller magazine isn't preferable? You don't ask cause you don't want to hear the answer.

Actually it's speculative that one would be unless you have invented your own definition for the word "speculative".

If you can find any incident where civilians used high capacity mags to fire more than 10 rounds in a legitimate act of necessary self-defense, please do. Until you can, it is speculative that they would be "necessary".

Originally posted by no1marauder
Actually it's speculative that one would be unless you have invented your own definition for the word "speculative".

If you can find any incident where civilians used high capacity mags to fire more than 10 rounds in a legitimate act of necessary self-defense, please do. Until you can, it is speculative that they would be "necessary".

Ask a cop. Most cops haven't taken the gun out of their holster during their career, but they carry a Glcck with 17 in the magazine, and three spare magazines on their belt. Why?