By 1984 the situation had changed dramatically, as told by Israeli criminologist Abraham Tennenbaum when commenting upon the July 1984 massacre at McDonald's in San Ysidro, Calif. He described an incident in Israel, some weeks before the San Ysidro massacre:
"Three terrorists who attempted to machine-gun the throng managed to kill only one victim before being shot down by handgun-carrying Israelis. Presented to the press the next day, the surviving terrorists complained that his group had not realized that Israeli civilians were armed. The terrorists had planned to machine-gun a succession of crowd spots, thinking that they would be able to escape before the police or army could arrive to deal with them."
Similarly, a 1997 school shooting spree in Pearl, Miss., was stopped by an assistant principal, who retrieved a handgun from his car. Still, anecdotal evidence cannot resolve the question of whether allowing law-abiding and trained citizens to carry concealed handguns will save or cost lives.
Recent national polls have provided the shocking realization that armed citizens do deter violent crimes upon themselves and their family members, with guns used defensively -- although rarely even fired -- somewhere between 760,000 and 3.5 million times per year, far more than criminal use of firearms.
Full article http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/10731/legalizing-concealed-weapons-could-help-prevent-violence/
shooting
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by SolaSaint, Dec 14, 2012.
Page 4 of 4
-
-
-
righteousdude2 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Thanks Ann
-
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Now that the facts are out we know this:
1. The murderer used a semi-automatic rifle to kill his victims.
2. The murderer used at least three cartridges, which hold 30 rounds each, so at least 90 bullets were fired.
Those arguing that an axe, a baseball bat, a hammer, or molotov cocktails could kill as quickly or as efficiently as 90 bullets are fooling themselves. Guns make killing efficient, that's why they were invented.
So in the interest of finding some kind of a solution to this problem how about a legal limit on the number of rounds a cartridge can carry?
I'm pro 2nd amendment but let's be practical. In what non-military, non-law enforcement setting does one need a gun that fires 30 rounds in rapid succession? For home protection wouldn't a sawed-off shotgun be most effective? -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I would characterize your example as beyond the usual.
Now, can you think of a setting where a citizen has a need to squeeze off 30 rounds in rapid succession? -
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Need aint got nothing to do with it.
-
The Purpose of the Second Amendment. I suggest everyone read it before continuing this discussion.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
Page 4 of 4