Being shot gave this columbine survivor strong vie

[GURPS]

BEING SHOT GAVE THIS COLUMBINE SURVIVOR STRONG VIEWS ON GUN CONTROL — HERE’S WHY HE OPPOSES MORE RESTRICTIONS



Todd explained that he sees increased regulation as only helping to curb guns among the law-abiding.

“It is evidently clear that gun control does not hinder the determined murderer from achieving their goals, whether that is at a school, a church or synagogue, or a movie theater,” he said in an e-mail interview with TheBlaze, going on to reference many of the murderers who have been responsible for some of the most recent and memorable acts of violence. “Thugs in Chicago do not care about the laws on the books nor did Harris, Klebold, Lanza, Dorner, Holmes, Cho, Hasan or any other of the criminals hell bent on murder.”

Rather than hampering criminals, Todd argues that new taxes, regulations and gun control measures actually do the opposite of what they intended. He believes that the law abiding suffer and are increasingly unable to protect themselves as a result of these policies.

Some may be surprised by his comments. After all, Todd is a victim of the Columbine massacre — an individual who lost numerous friends to gun violence. However, he told TheBlaze that his experience has shaped his views in support of the Second Amendment.

Todd also explained that guns had always been a part of his life — another factor that colors his views.

 

[tommyjo]

Since this is all you posted of the article...

“It is evidently clear that gun control does not hinder the determined murderer from achieving their goals, whether that is at a school, a church or synagogue, or a movie theater,” he said in an e-mail interview with TheBlaze, going on to reference many of the murderers who have been responsible for some of the most recent and memorable acts of violence. “Thugs in Chicago do not care about the laws on the books nor did Harris, Klebold, Lanza, Dorner, Holmes, Cho, Hasan or any other of the criminals hell bent on murder.”

Not much in here that is logical...but given your source is The Blaze, why would we expect that?

What types of guns were used at Columbine? It was shot guns and handguns, right? Are there any bills or proposals put forth (ones with any chance of passing that is) that will limit access to law abiding citizens access to handguns or shotguns?

What types of "gun controls" today limit access to shotguns and handguns?

So where are the facts that support Todd's "evidently clear" assertion? (there really aren't any, as there are so many holes in gun control laws that they are ineffective..the same politician who say "enforce the laws on the books" also make sure the laws are watered down to the point of uselessness.)

He uses the term "determined murderer". Very true, nothing will stop a determined murderer. A "determined thief" is going to get into your home or steal your car. Should we then repeal all laws dealing with thievery?

Because we will never stop every "determined murderer" we should just throw up our hands and do nothing?? Is that your solution?

Oh...no...that's right...your solution is to arm everyone to the teeth. Turn every school, house, public and private building into an armed encampment.

 

[Gilligan]

Oh...no...that's right...your solution is to arm everyone to the teeth. Turn every school, house, public and private building into an armed encampment.

Works for me.

 

[mamatutu]

Since this is all you posted of the article...

“It is evidently clear that gun control does not hinder the determined murderer from achieving their goals, whether that is at a school, a church or synagogue, or a movie theater,” he said in an e-mail interview with TheBlaze, going on to reference many of the murderers who have been responsible for some of the most recent and memorable acts of violence. “Thugs in Chicago do not care about the laws on the books nor did Harris, Klebold, Lanza, Dorner, Holmes, Cho, Hasan or any other of the criminals hell bent on murder.”

Not much in here that is logical...but given your source is The Blaze, why would we expect that?

What types of guns were used at Columbine? It was shot guns and handguns, right? Are there any bills or proposals put forth (ones with any chance of passing that is) that will limit access to law abiding citizens access to handguns or shotguns?

What types of "gun controls" today limit access to shotguns and handguns?

So where are the facts that support Todd's "evidently clear" assertion? (there really aren't any, as there are so many holes in gun control laws that they are ineffective..the same politician who say "enforce the laws on the books" also make sure the laws are watered down to the point of uselessness.)

He uses the term "determined murderer". Very true, nothing will stop a determined murderer. A "determined thief" is going to get into your home or steal your car. Should we then repeal all laws dealing with thievery?

Because we will never stop every "determined murderer" we should just throw up our hands and do nothing?? Is that your solution?

Oh...no...that's right...your solution is to arm everyone to the teeth. Turn every school, house, public and private building into an armed encampment.

It is not the "determined murderer/thief" that I am afraid of. The fact that our government seems "determined" to undermine the Constitution, and our right to bear arms is what I am afraid of.

 

[Lurk]

What types of guns were used at Columbine? It was shot guns and handguns, right?

Is this your answer to your question?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Since this is all you posted of the article...

“It is evidently clear that gun control does not hinder the determined murderer from achieving their goals, whether that is at a school, a church or synagogue, or a movie theater,” he said in an e-mail interview with TheBlaze, going on to reference many of the murderers who have been responsible for some of the most recent and memorable acts of violence. “Thugs in Chicago do not care about the laws on the books nor did Harris, Klebold, Lanza, Dorner, Holmes, Cho, Hasan or any other of the criminals hell bent on murder.”

Not much in here that is logical...but given your source is The Blaze, why would we expect that?

What types of guns were used at Columbine? It was shot guns and handguns, right? Are there any bills or proposals put forth (ones with any chance of passing that is) that will limit access to law abiding citizens access to handguns or shotguns?

Correct, sawed off shotguns were used. They are also illegal. One TEC-9 9mm handgun was used. That was also illegal under the AWB of 94. A Hi-Point "Assault rifle" was used. That also was illegal under the AWB of 94. They also used bombs, and you guessed it...those are illegal too.

It's worth noting that one shotgun was a double barrel (2 shots before reloading), also, a pump shotgun was used (5 rounds before reloading), and the hi-point had a 10 rd. mag.

Yet, with the limited magazine capacity, these guys were able to get off 151 rounds of 9mm, and 37 shotgun rounds. A total of 188 rounds through weapons with already limited magazine capacities.

What types of "gun controls" today limit access to shotguns and handguns?

None, why the focus on "assault rifles"? Especially, considering they are used in a very small percent of crimes.

So where are the facts that support Todd's "evidently clear" assertion? (there really aren't any, as there are so many holes in gun control laws that they are ineffective..the same politician who say "enforce the laws on the books" also make sure the laws are watered down to the point of uselessness.)

He uses the term "determined murderer". Very true, nothing will stop a determined murderer. A "determined thief" is going to get into your home or steal your car. Should we then repeal all laws dealing with thievery?

The difference being, I can use a gun to protect myself, in my house, against a robber. Why can't I have the same choice outside of my home?

Because we will never stop every "determined murderer" we should just throw up our hands and do nothing?? Is that your solution?

As opposed to what "solution" this adminstration has come up with? What do you think that will stop, outside of restricting law abiding citizens? Or maybe we should put cops everywhere, so no crime will ever happen again.

Oh...no...that's right...your solution is to arm everyone to the teeth. Turn every school, house, public and private building into an armed encampment.

I don't see why it's so hard for you to understand. No one is forcing anyone to do anything (unlike Obamacare). If you WANT to be armed, you should have that right. Gun Free zones have done nothing but stop law abiding citizens from carrying their legal weapon into those zones, while we see time, and time again that criminals don't really care about them.

You're going to need a better arguement than that.

And, don't give me the typical MSNBC response of "you don't need that".

You constantly talk about how the govt. "won't take shotguns, and handguns". Well guess what, genius, if the assault weapons ban passes, and some lunatic goes on a rampage with a shotgun, what do you think they'll be calling for next, in the name of "public safety"? OR, if the AWB passes, and the use of handgun related crime is still through the roof, what do you think they'll be asking for more restrictions on?

I don't know about you, but I have just about ZERO trust in anything my govt. does, and I sure as hell will not be treated like a sex offender for owning a weapon. So, continue to watch MSNBC, keep repeating their tired ass arguments, and keep blaming the guns instead of the people. It's been working out great so far....

 

[SamSpade]

He uses the term "determined murderer". Very true, nothing will stop a determined murderer. A "determined thief" is going to get into your home or steal your car. Should we then repeal all laws dealing with thievery?

Because we will never stop every "determined murderer" we should just throw up our hands and do nothing?? Is that your solution?

Murder - and theft - are both still against the law.

You don't outlaw a crowbar because thieves use them to get into your house.

You CAN however, deter a would-be murderer by being armed, just as you can deter a would-be thief by installing security around your home.

Oh...no...that's right...your solution is to arm everyone to the teeth. Turn every school, house, public and private building into an armed encampment.

Yeah, that's the only choice - gun control, or armed to the teeth. Or do nothing - ironically, the one solution NO ONE is proposing.

Here's the simple fact - there's hundreds of millions of guns. THAT ship has sailed. The genie is out of the bottle. It's discussing birth control after the kid has graduated from high school. You're just way too late. The only thing massive confiscation or draconian hindrances will ever do is take guns and ammo from people that have shown they're not going to use them, while leaving undisturbed those who absolutely will.

I realize there's lots of hand-wringing over what to do. But the intelligent reaction is to find solutions that have worked or ones that WILL work, rather than to do the emotional solution.

 

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

Since this is all you posted of the article...

“It is evidently clear that gun control does not hinder the determined murderer from achieving their goals, whether that is at a school, a church or synagogue, or a movie theater,” he said in an e-mail interview with TheBlaze, going on to reference many of the murderers who have been responsible for some of the most recent and memorable acts of violence. “Thugs in Chicago do not care about the laws on the books nor did Harris, Klebold, Lanza, Dorner, Holmes, Cho, Hasan or any other of the criminals hell bent on murder.”

Not much in here that is logical...but given your source is The Blaze, why would we expect that?

What types of guns were used at Columbine? It was shot guns and handguns, right? Are there any bills or proposals put forth (ones with any chance of passing that is) that will limit access to law abiding citizens access to handguns or shotguns?

Correct, sawed off shotguns were used. They are also illegal. One TEC-9 9mm handgun was used. That was also illegal under the AWB of 94. A Hi-Point "Assault rifle" was used. That also was illegal under the AWB of 94. They also used bombs, and you guessed it...those are illegal too.

It's worth noting that one shotgun was a double barrel (2 shots before reloading), also, a pump shotgun was used (5 rounds before reloading), and the hi-point had a 10 rd. mag.

Yet, with the limited magazine capacity, these guys were able to get off 151 rounds of 9mm, and 37 shotgun rounds. A total of 188 rounds through weapons with already limited magazine capacities.

What types of "gun controls" today limit access to shotguns and handguns?

None, why the focus on "assault rifles"? Especially, considering they are used in a very small percent of crimes.

So where are the facts that support Todd's "evidently clear" assertion? (there really aren't any, as there are so many holes in gun control laws that they are ineffective..the same politician who say "enforce the laws on the books" also make sure the laws are watered down to the point of uselessness.)

He uses the term "determined murderer". Very true, nothing will stop a determined murderer. A "determined thief" is going to get into your home or steal your car. Should we then repeal all laws dealing with thievery?

The difference being, I can use a gun to protect myself, in my house, against a robber. Why can't I have the same choice outside of my home?

Because we will never stop every "determined murderer" we should just throw up our hands and do nothing?? Is that your solution?

As opposed to what "solution" this adminstration has come up with? What do you think that will stop, outside of restricting law abiding citizens? Or maybe we should put cops everywhere, so no crime will ever happen again.

Oh...no...that's right...your solution is to arm everyone to the teeth. Turn every school, house, public and private building into an armed encampment.

I don't see why it's so hard for you to understand. No one is forcing anyone to do anything (unlike Obamacare). If you WANT to be armed, you should have that right. Gun Free zones have done nothing but stop law abiding citizens from carrying their legal weapon into those zones, while we see time, and time again that criminals don't really care about them.

You're going to need a better arguement than that.

And, don't give me the typical MSNBC response of "you don't need that".

You constantly talk about how the govt. "won't take shotguns, and handguns". Well guess what, genius, if the assault weapons ban passes, and some lunatic goes on a rampage with a shotgun, what do you think they'll be calling for next, in the name of "public safety"? OR, if the AWB passes, and the use of handgun related crime is still through the roof, what do you think they'll be asking for more restrictions on?

I don't know about you, but I have just about ZERO trust in anything my govt. does, and I sure as hell will not be treated like a sex offender for owning a weapon. So, continue to watch MSNBC, keep repeating their tired ass arguments, and keep blaming the guns instead of the people. It's been working out great so far....

Read SB281 a little closer, Maryland has semiauto shotguns on their AWB. Not all of them, but still, shotguns are on the list

 

[Gilligan]

Wirelessly posted



Read SB281 a little closer, Maryland has semiauto shotguns on their AWB. Not all of them, but still, shotguns are on the list

Not all of them? How about very few of them? Certainly all of the popular bird hunting semis are not included. But it still goes too far...

(VI) A SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN THAT HAS: 5
1. A FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK; AND 6
2. A PISTOL GRIP THAT PROTRUDES 7 CONSPICUOUSLY BENEATH THE ACTION OF THE WEAPON, THUMBHOLE STOCK, 8 OR VERTICAL HANDGRIP; OR

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Wirelessly posted



Read SB281 a little closer, Maryland has semiauto shotguns on their AWB. Not all of them, but still, shotguns are on the list

Dylan and Klybold (sp?) didn't use a semi-auto shotgun though.

A double barrel and pump action were used at Columbine.

 

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



Read SB281 a little closer, Maryland has semiauto shotguns on their AWB. Not all of them, but still, shotguns are on the list

Dylan and Klybold (sp?) didn't use a semi-auto shotgun though.

A double barrel and pump action were used at Columbine.

My point was only that there are proposals, with a possibility of passing, that will limit citizens access to shotguns and handguns. MD sb281 does and it has a chance of passing.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Wirelessly posted



My point was only that there are proposals, with a possibility of passing, that will limit citizens access to shotguns and handguns. MD sb281 does and it has a chance of passing.

I think the words of Joe Curran's (MD's AG 87-07) "A Farewell to Arms" rings clear. Now more than ever.

His closing statement:

Our goal, then, must be to eliminate widespread handgun ownership through
restrictive handgun licensing. This will preserve the benefits of handgun use while
finally ridding our communities of its terrible cost. Law enforcement personnel
must have handguns for use on the job. Business owners may need a licensed gun
on the premises under certain circumstances. Sports shooters will still practice
their sport. Where guns are needed to advance reasonable law enforcement purposes
or to participate in a regulated sporting activity, they will be licensed for use
in that manner. People will no longer, however, own guns without demonstrating a
compelling law enforcement or recreational reason to do so.

The presence of handguns in homes across America endangers everyone. We do
not need them, and the misguided desire people feel to own handguns for self defense
would be greatly diminished if they did not feel threatened by widespread
handgun ownership. We certainly do not need handguns badly enough to continue
numbly to accept the pain and anguish they inflict. Handguns exact too high a
price. We should pay it no longer.

 

[itsbob]

Wirelessly posted



My point was only that there are proposals, with a possibility of passing, that will limit citizens access to shotguns and handguns. MD sb281 does and it has a chance of passing.

AND it calls for confiscation, which the democrats scream from the top of the mountains that NOBODY is doing..

NOBODY is taking your guns!! (well, except MD, Washington, possibbly CA... and maybe the FEDS) NOBODY!!

A commuter in So CA is taken out of his car as others look on, he's walked across the street, put on his knees and shot in his head and back, while the helpless unarmed masses have to look on and watch, powerless to help.

IF the government insists we be unarmed victims, than they too need to give up their armed security as well as be liable for our lack of protection. EVERY single unarmed victim of any crime should be able to hold those responsible liable. If they want to take on the mantle of being big brother and the big protector of the masses, then they need to take on the responsibility for their actions.


I can't imagine the anger and disgust I'd feel if I had to watch powerless and helpless as somebody else was summarily executed in front of me.. or should I just say.. WHEW, glad that wasn't me, and continue on with my day?

 

[thatguy]

AND it calls for confiscation, which the democrats scream from the top of the mountains that NOBODY is doing..

NOBODY is taking your guns!! (well, except MD, Washington, possibbly CA... and maybe the FEDS) NOBODY!!

A commuter in So CA is taken out of his car as others look on, he's walked across the street, put on his knees and shot in his head and back, while the helpless unarmed masses have to look on and watch, powerless to help.

IF the government insists we be unarmed victims, than they too need to give up their armed security as well as be liable for our lack of protection. EVERY single unarmed victim of any crime should be able to hold those responsible liable. If they want to take on the mantle of being big brother and the big protector of the masses, then they need to take on the responsibility for their actions.


I can't imagine the anger and disgust I'd feel if I had to watch powerless and helpless as somebody else was summarily executed in front of me.. or should I just say.. WHEW, glad that wasn't me, and continue on with my day?

you are going to have to piont out where the MD bill talks about confiscation. I didn't see it, not saying its not in there, just that i didn't see it.

 

[itsbob]

you are going to have to piont out where the MD bill talks about confiscation. I didn't see it, not saying its not in there, just that i didn't see it.

Doesn't it say you are allowed to keep your banned weapons until you die, than the state will take them??

Or was that Feinsteins bill?

THAT would be confiscation.

 

[thatguy]

Doesn't it say you are allowed to keep your banned weapons until you die, than the state will take them??

Or was that Feinsteins bill?

THAT would be confiscation.

it was your assertion......


as far as i have seen only the fienstien bill

 

[GURPS]

California and Minnesota are going for out right turn in or JAIL