Thread: Europe is Blaming Charlton Heston

The campus at the school where the killings took place has ordinances regarding fire arms on campus.
The killer wasn't supposed to have the guns on campus to begin with.
Neither was anyone else. All of the law abiding students did not have their guns with them.
If they had perhaps some of this tragedy could have been averted.
This man broke the gun ordinance at the school. He killed people.
That's two laws broken.
If it were illegal for him to even own a gun then that would be three laws broken.
It still doesn't bring those 30+ people back to life.

If the second amendment were enforced the way the first amendment is then everyone of us would be REQUIRED to carry a gun. Think about it.
If he knew that potentially everyone on campus were carrying a fire arm would he have been as keen to do what he did? I think not.

And as far as Europe blaming Charlton Heston goes; Why not blame Moses for the Holocaust.

CG wrote:

As you well know, William, ANY hunting rifle is more deadly (accurate and possessing vastly longer range) than ANY handgun. Furthermore, this crime could have been committed with ANY defensive handgun.

Yes, the crime could have been committed with a shotgun, rifle, or revolver, but in this situation the gunman had 30 uninterrupted rounds at his disposal (something he wouldn't have had with a rifle, shotgun, or revolver). I believe his weapons of choice were the most efficient for killing numbers of people. You're right though, he could have killed a lot of people regardless of his weapon choice (just not sure he would have killed 33) - it's just unfortunate that he chose two 15 round semi-automatic handguns. This event was well planned out and the killer knew exactly what he was doing.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater … confidence than an armed man." –Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment (1764).

The only thing the gun did in this case was make it easier for this guy to kill more people more efficiently. He could have done the same with a sword or Molotov cocktails, a chainsaw, or a bow and arrow.

Actually, it could have been much more devastating had he been a suicide bomber or used similar devices that are being used by the enemies we are currently fighting.

But the powers that be would take these American deaths and twist them for their own political & idiological benefit.

Can people not think critically anymore????

Originally Posted by MW

CG wrote:

As you well know, William, ANY hunting rifle is more deadly (accurate and possessing vastly longer range) than ANY handgun. Furthermore, this crime could have been committed with ANY defensive handgun.

Yes, the crime could have been committed with a shotgun, rifle, or revolver, but in this situation the gunman had 30 uninterrupted rounds at his disposal (something he wouldn't have had with a rifle, shotgun, or revolver). I believe his weapons of choice were the most efficient for killing numbers of people. You're right though, he could have killed a lot of people regardless of his weapon choice (just not sure he would have killed 33) - it's just unfortunate that he chose two 15 round semi-automatic handguns. This event was well planned out and the killer knew exactly what he was doing.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater … confidence than an armed man." –Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment (1764).

MW, I can change magazines in a .45 so fast that you would think that I was firing a continuous string. Capacity wasn't an issue so long as the guy had multiple mags. The same is true to a lesser degree with speedloaders for a revolver or shotgun.

What it comes down to is that any gun that is going to serve as an adequate self-defense weapon can also be readily used as an ewfficient tool of murder. Moreover, any weapon that can serve as an adequate deterrent to tyranny can cause serious destruction IN THE WRONG HANDS.

The same is true to a lesser degree with speedloaders for a revolver or shotgun.

I just got one of these recently, Crocket.
Still clumsy with it though

CG wrote:

MW, I can change magazines in a .45 so fast that you would think that I was firing a continuous string.

A semi-auto .45 is similar in action to a 9mm Glock.

Capacity wasn't an issue so long as the guy had multiple mags.

I never said it wasn't when considering the similarities between semi-automatic handguns, but it is when when considering the difference between a semi-automatic handgun and shotgun/revolver, especially in the absence of a speed loading device. Your post had no mention of a speed loading device.

What it comes down to is that any gun that is going to serve as an adequate self-defense weapon can also be readily used as an ewfficient tool of murder. Moreover, any weapon that can serve as an adequate deterrent to tyranny can cause serious destruction IN THE WRONG HANDS.

I don't disagree, but two semi-auto 9mm handguns in a murderers hands definitely gives the killer more potential for increased kills a close range when compared to a shotgun, revlover, or hunting rifle (absent speed loading devices). Furthermore, a shotgun and rifle are more cumbersome to use at close range (definitely wouldn't be my weapon of choice).

He did NOT have 2 9mm.

He had one 9mm and one 22.

Either way, the kid was experienced. He was an Alien. He had PREMEDITATED this entire murder spree AND he chained the doors to boot.

If he had strapped on a massive bomb, firearms wouldn't even be discussed. Then the press would be talking about outlawing nails and cell phones.

Had one of the teachers been armed instead of being brainwashed into 'we are the world', this murderer might have been taken down quickly. Instead, it's the goal of the powers that be to FRIGHTEN American citizens into hating the 2nd Amendment.

2ndamendsis wrote:

He did NOT have 2 9mm.

He had one 9mm and one 22.

My mistake, thought I'd heard he had two 9mm pistols. Was the 22 caliber handgun also a semi-auto? Thanks.

Originally Posted by MW

2ndamendsis wrote:

He did NOT have 2 9mm.

He had one 9mm and one 22.

My mistake, thought I'd heard he had two 9mm pistols. Was the 22 caliber handgun also a semi-auto? Thanks.

With all the disinformation and determination to make this into a gun ban issue, it was difficult to sort out the facts, MW.

I don't know yet about the 22. Perhaps someone else has that info.

We also don't know if he had multiple mags but I'm assuming he did. He must have had.
I could envision him popping in new mags while people hid, too frightened to move.

The press is going after the 9mm but damn, if one is a good shot, a 22 is just as deadly.

Originally Posted by MW

CG wrote:

MW, I can change magazines in a .45 so fast that you would think that I was firing a continuous string.

A semi-auto .45 is similar in action to a 9mm Glock.

[quote:4cymxzf0]Capacity wasn't an issue so long as the guy had multiple mags.

I never said it wasn't when considering the similarities between semi-automatic handguns, but it is when when considering the difference between a semi-automatic handgun and shotgun/revolver, especially in the absence of a speed loading device. Your post had no mention of a speed loading device.

What it comes down to is that any gun that is going to serve as an adequate self-defense weapon can also be readily used as an ewfficient tool of murder. Moreover, any weapon that can serve as an adequate deterrent to tyranny can cause serious destruction IN THE WRONG HANDS.

I don't disagree, but two semi-auto 9mm handguns in a murderers hands definitely gives the killer more potential for increased kills a close range when compared to a shotgun, revlover, or hunting rifle (absent speed loading devices). Furthermore, a shotgun and rifle are more cumbersome to use at close range (definitely wouldn't be my weapon of choice).[/quote:4cymxzf0]

The general problem I have with your comments is that there is no "better or worse" weapon for murder. All one must do is tailor his tactics to his weapon. I would argue that a shotgun loaded with buckshot or something nasty like flechettes is the must deadly weapon in a crowd. If I had to defend myself in a riot, it would definitely be the first thing I would reach for. Handguns of various description have the benefit of concealability. Rifles have long range and accuracy that cannot be matched, as was demonstrated from the tower at UT. Each weapon has its upside and its drawbacks.

This killer happened to have have chosen two handguns.

The simple fact is that the anti-gun press would be denouncing WHATEVER weapon the lunatic chose as the most deadly and most seriously in need of further restrictions. That's the way it works. Hell, the damned press managed to convert the weapons in this case into a "machine gun" in one article and an assault rifle in another. They're attacking guns that played no part in this crime, but the hoplophobe Leftists writing this pap can't be bothered with pesky facts when there is an agenda to be served. They won't be happy until the rabble (that's you and me) are reduced to defending themselves and their liberties with rocks and sticks, and they'll probably get around to calling for the registration and licensing of rocks before all is said and done.