GUN CONTROL Petition for Rhode Islanders

[BTA88]

Originally Posted by QuilterChick

Whaaat ? "by a person who should never have had a gun". ? It was not HIS gun, he lifted it from the holster of the female police officer. Jones took the opportunity to use a gun that was "handy".


From the article: "There, during the normal course of processing a suspect, according to Earle, Jones’ handcuffs were removed. At that time, he attacked Officer Burns, hit her on the head and was able to remove her service weapon from her holster, according to Earle. Thyne and Garber overheard the struggle and “proceeded to her aid.” Jones opened fire at the officers, who then returned fire, shooting Jones multiple times. He was pronounced dead at the scene. According to the chief, it is common for officers to remove handcuffs during certain points of processing suspects, including fingerprinting. However, he declined to say when in the process Jones managed to overpower the officer, stating the case is still under investigation."


The best part is the dude was put down by the cops ... like a rabid animal. Which is what he was. Some bedwetting liberal lawyer must be really disappointed now.

Not to mention, the only person who was killed during this fiasco was the gunman. I don't think it actually read the article.

The results are pretty clear. Don't start shooting at a group of gun carriers or risk getting put down with minimal impact. Rampage in "Gun Free Zones" for best results.

[QuilterChick]

Well I can definitely celebrate the death penalty that this creep got.

Sorry for "pulling the trigger" on the NJ article too quickly, 'eh.

Same type of hysterical knee jerk reaction to gun "control".

g'nite now y'all.

[rosco917]

QC forget about it....Your dealing with people that don't dream... and your dealing with people that don't have an imagination... and finally they don't have the fortitude, the balls if you will, to carry out the details, should they ever get... "any of the above"
Their afraid most of the time.

We're all different ...have fun


(I case you haven't noticed fans, this post is about much more than "gun control")

[Rnrboy]

Originally Posted by rosco917

QC forget about it....Your dealing with people that don't dream... and your dealing with people that don't have an imagination... and finally they don't have the fortitude, the balls if you will, to carry out the details, should they ever get... "any of the above"
There afraid most of the time.

We're all different ...have fun


(I case you haven't noticed fans, this post is about much more than "gun control")

Costco, she can't even listen to people who successfully disagree with her. She blocked me because she hated logic. 'Nuff said. So let's not pretend either of you actually take facts into consideration before posting your garbage, because we both know that's not true. Everything both of you say is so consistently inaccurate that most people would be embarrassed.

In a perfect World, we'd all listen to Holly...

[QuilterChick]

Originally Posted by rosco917

QC forget about it....Your dealing with people that don't dream... and your dealing with people that don't have an imagination... and finally they don't have the fortitude, the balls if you will, to carry out the details, should they ever get... "any of the above"
Their afraid most of the time.

We're all different ...have fun


(I case you haven't noticed fans, this post is about much more than "gun control")

Amen ! might as well talk to the potted plants.

[sandsonik]

Originally Posted by Rakin

First... all weapons are "Military Style"... which is a false description. Just like my handgun that's been carried by the Military for the last 98 years. Or my deer rifle that was used during WW2.

Second... He fired off a Rifle that was able to fire off 1 shot at a time for 30 times not 30 bullets at a time. You make it sound like he had some type of automatic weapon. If you limit the magazine to say 10. It might take about 3 seconds more to swap out 3 ten round magazines verses a 30 round magazine. Limiting the amount of bullets a gun holds would not be a factor to a crazed man in a defenseless school.

So it's not worth even trying to give defenseless people better odds?

The Tucson shooter was stopped by a woman who jumped him when he had to re-load. No one using a weapon for sport or target practice (or home defense) needs 30 rounds. The only person who needs that much capacity is a crazed mass murderer or a soldier.

Most NRA members agree, by the way, even if the NRA top brass doesn't. Responsible gun owners don't have a problem with limiting high capacity clips for the protection of society at large.

Personally, I think there should be some kind of database and a limit on the number of bullets or weapons you can buy annually. Or maybe you'd have to turn in an empty magazine to get a new magazine, so you couldn't go anywhere with 200 bullets? I don't have the answers, but I think it's way past time for us to start coming up with some.

I agree with you on one thing, the continued insistence by the media of using the phrase "semi-automatic" as if it means "machine gun" just shows their ignorance.

[sandsonik]

Originally Posted by BTA88

Hey look, a gunman opened fire in the midst of a group of armed people. 3 people wounded, only person killed as the gunman. Now imagine if he'd done that in the midst of an anti-gun rally. How many dead then?

Additional details in Gloucester Township police shooting | NJ.com

How many would be dead if he was at an anti-gun rally? NONE.

Because he took the gun off a policeman.

If there was nobody there with a gun, he wouldn't have had a gun.

You're kind of proving the opposite point, that people think they're getting guns to protect themselves, but it makes them much, much more likely to be a victim of gun violence than a non gun owner. All these illegal street guns come from legal homes, usually. I know someone who had 17 guns stolen from her in a house break-in

Am I supposed to feel safer because she had guns? Nope, now I have to worry that every petty thief is now armed and dangerous - and the guns didn't do a damn bit of good in protecting her property. Lose/Lose.

I'm glad they're prosecuting the woman who provided a gun to the wacko that ambushed the firemen. I wouldn't have a problem if they prosecuted my neighbor with negligience for not locking her guns in a gun safe, if that was the case.

[Rnrboy]

I blame the individual for the first ten bullets, I blame the LAW for the next 21 bullets


Meltdown: MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell goes into attack mode with Arizona GOP congressman - YouTube

[sandsonik]

Originally Posted by BTA88

People are being tricked under the guise of "safety" or "security".

I could say the same who were tricked into buying guns under the guise of safety or security, when gun ownership only makes them more liable to be shot by a gun.

You're suspicious of the government's agenda, but not the NRA's or the gun manufacturers? Nah, they couldn't have any reason to play upon your fears...could they?

[BTA88]

Originally Posted by sandsonik

I could say the same who were tricked into buying guns under the guise of safety or security, when gun ownership only makes them more liable to be shot by a gun.

You're suspicious of the government's agenda, but not the NRA's or the gun manufacturers? Nah, they couldn't have any reason to play upon your fears...could they?

The difference being, I can choose which gun manufacturers to support, or which gun lobbys to support. And I can cut off my support of them at any time. I'm never forced at gunpoint to obey them.

Also, for all your claims of gun ownership increases your likelihood of being shot, have you ever stopped to consider whether or not thugs/gangbangers/whatever you want to call the street scum are removed from the results? Because most of them are illegal gun owners and play a very dangerous game with a high risk of getting killed.

I hope you guys keep bumping this thread though, we've got more than twice as many posts in this thread as the petition on the first page has signatures. Keep up the good work, my freedom fearing kin.