NEW LAW NEEDED NOW

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

length of legal knives. The blades should be 1/4" max, I suppose:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/09/17673057-at-least-11-hurt-in-stabbing-on-texas-college-campus-authorities-say?lite


Texas deputies confirm one suspect is in custody in connection with multiple stabbings at Lone Star Community College in Houston. MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell reports.
By Erin McClam, Staff Writer, NBC News

At least 14 people were hurt Tuesday in a stabbing spree at a Texas community college, authorities said. Sheriff’s officials said a suspect was in custody.

It was not immediately clear how severe the injuries were. The stabbing happened at the CyFair campus of Lone Star College, in the Houston suburb of Cypress.

A spokeswoman for North Cypress Medical Center outside Houston said the hospital had taken six stabbing victims who were in stable condition. The Harris County Sheriff’s Office said at least four people who were taken to hospitals in helicopters.

KPRC

A person is taken to a helicopter near the scene of reported multiple stabbings at Lone Star College in Texas.

The school closed for the day and ordered students to find shelter somewhere safe. Campus police caught the suspect, sheriff’s officials said.

The stabbing happened at 11:20 a.m., Lone Star College said in a statement. The school had warned students that a second suspect might be at large, but sheriff’s officials said later that they believed they had the only suspect in custody.

In January, three people were shot at a separate campus of the same college. A federal official said that those shootings appeared to be gang-related. A 22-year-old man was charged with aggravated assault.

This is a breaking news story. Check back for updates.

This story was originally published on Tue Apr 9, 2013 1:19 PM EDT

[Midtowner]

Imagine if that crazy SOB had a gun with a 30 round magazine.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Imagine what further restrictions are coming down the pike!

Contemplate the power of the Federal Government!

[MR2-Sooner86]

Imagine if students were allowed to defend themselves on campus.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Imagine if students were allowed to defend themselves on campus.they wouldn't need to defend themselves against a 1/4" blade. Just a good supply of bandages.

[KABOOKIE]

Imagine if that crazy SOB had a gun with a 30 round magazine.

The same thing if they had 3 10 round magazines?

[Tiptonsooner]

If one of the injured could have carried, well...common sense would have prevailed...

[diverdog]

The same thing if they had 3 10 round magazines?

Not sure if that would be true. The more times you reload the more times you have a chance to jam your weapon. And it is my experience folks are not good a clearing jammed semi autos.

[cleller]

Imagine there's no people. Its easy if you try.

[SCOUT]

Not sure if that would be true. The more times you reload the more times you have a chance to jam your weapon. And it is my experience folks are not good a clearing jammed semi autos.

Isn't it equally true that the larger the magazine the less likely the spring is going to be strong enough to feed the full capacity without a jam?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

But...but, the perps in Texas couldn't have effectively stabbed all those folks if they were limited to knife blades 1/4" long.

Will they turn to screw drivers, maybe bows and arrows, or hammers? Frightening weapons of destruction, all.

[sappstuf]

Not sure if that would be true. The more times you reload the more times you have a chance to jam your weapon. And it is my experience folks are not good a clearing jammed semi autos.

Adam Lanza changed magazines 6 times in 5 minutes shooting off 150+ rounds. Half the time he left 10+ rounds in the magazine when he swapped it out.

It didn't seem to slow him down much....

On a side note, it really hasn't been reported much, but apparently he played a lot of military type games. And if you have ever played a game like Battlefield 3 or Modern Warfare, you learn quickly the absolute importance of changing your magazine when there is a break in the action.

Lanza had obviously learned that lesson and with the lesson learned, I'm fairly certain he practiced reloading his magazines and clearing jams well before he ever went to the school.

In that respect, I could fairly easily make the case that the video gaming was a more important factor in the efficiency of the killings and not the high capacity magazines.

[diverdog]

Adam Lanza changed magazines 6 times in 5 minutes shooting off 150+ rounds. Half the time he left 10+ rounds in the magazine when he swapped it out.

It didn't seem to slow him down much....

On a side note, it really hasn't been reported much, but apparently he played a lot of military type games. And if you have ever played a game like Battlefield 3 or Modern Warfare, you learn quickly the absolute importance of changing your magazine when there is a break in the action.

Lanza had obviously learned that lesson and with the lesson learned, I'm fairly certain he practiced reloading his magazines and clearing jams well before he ever went to the school.

In that respect, I could fairly easily make the case that the video gaming was a more important factor in the efficiency of the killings and not the high capacity magazines.

So with a ten round magazine he would have had to swap at least 15 mags...right? That takes more planning.

All I am saying is a lower capacity magazine can make a difference. Albeit a small difference.

[sappstuf]

So with a ten round magazine he would have had to swap at least 15 mags...right? That takes more planning.

All I am saying is a lower capacity magazine can make a difference. Albeit a small difference.

I guess that is true if you live in a fantasy world where 30 round magazines would magically disappear if banned... In the real world a ban makes no difference.

Unless of course, you believe, like this Dem that magazines can only be used once....

_xm4xJktTAc&

[diverdog]

I guess that is true if you live in a fantasy world where 30 round magazines would magically disappear if banned... In the real world a ban makes no difference.

Unless of course, you believe, like this Dem that magazines can only be used once....

_xm4xJktTAc&

I agree with you. That cat is already out of the bag.

[cleller]

Lordy, that Diana Degette congresswoman is one dumb, lazy idiot. Too arrogant to even research the material she's publicly debating. And she's one of the people our voters have chosen to handle these matters.

[jkjsooner]

But...but, the perps in Texas couldn't have effectively stabbed all those folks if they were limited to knife blades 1/4" long.

Will they turn to screw drivers, maybe bows and arrows, or hammers? Frightening weapons of destruction, all.

This is a straw man. Nobody is arguing for the banning of knives. Nobody is saying that people can't find something to harm others with. The argument is that there's a line you draw that says, if this tool allows you to easily kill 20-30 or more people it should not be allowed.

You may draw that line at a different place than I do but almost all of us (except for extreme liberterians) will draw that line somewhere. Most of us would draw the line somewhere well after knives and before weapons that can't effectively target individuals (RPG's, howitzers, etc.).

[SoonerBBall]

Imagine if that crazy SOB had a gun with a 30 round magazine.

I love this quote, but not because it is a bullsh*t plea to emotion. I love it because there is no reasoning with crazy. You will never be able to rationalize the actions of someone who is disturbed in that manner. Why didn't he have a gun? If his intent was only to hurt people, it definitely would have made more sense. But that is the key, it doesn't make any sense. Some people go crazy and beat someone to death with a bat, some grab a knife and stab people, some get a gun and shoot up a school, and some make intricate plans to blow up a building. Crazy is crazy and trying to legislate against the tools they use is ridiculous. Especially ridiculous magazine limits that won't do a damn thing to stop 99.9% of the problem.

[jkjsooner]

I love this quote, but not because it is a bullsh*t plea to emotion. I love it because there is no reasoning with crazy. You will never be able to rationalize the actions of someone who is disturbed in that manner. Why didn't he have a gun? If his intent was only to hurt people, it definitely would have made more sense. But that is the key, it doesn't make any sense. Some people go crazy and beat someone to death with a bat, some grab a knife and stab people, some get a gun and shoot up a school, and some make intricate plans to blow up a building. Crazy is crazy and trying to legislate against the tools they use is ridiculous. Especially ridiculous magazine limits that won't do a damn thing to stop 99.9% of the problem.

How is that just a plea for emotion? The fact is that history has shown that these events are much more deadly when a gun is used than when a knife is used. You can spin it however you like but those are the facts.

I don't know why this guy didn't use a gun. I'm sure you're right. He's crazy. Nevertheless, had Adam Lanza only had knives the death toll would have been significantly less. I don't like it when one or two kids die but it's sure better than 20.

You say we shouldn't "legislate against the tools they use" but I'd bet almost anything that there are some tools of destruction that you believe we should legislate against.

[sappstuf]

This is a straw man. Nobody is arguing for the banning of knives. Nobody is saying that people can't find something to harm others with. The argument is that there's a line you draw that says, if this tool allows you to easily kill 20-30 or more people it should not be allowed.

You may draw that line at a different place than I do but almost all of us (except for extreme liberterians) will draw that line somewhere. Most of us would draw the line somewhere well after knives and before weapons that can't effectively target individuals (RPG's, howitzers, etc.).

I am certain that if I wanted to, I could get a big vehicle and ram it into 20-30 unsuspecting people walking together after a sporting event.. Should we ban bigger vehicles?

[jkjsooner]

Imagine if students were allowed to defend themselves on campus.

This argument can only be made because this is a public institution. On private property you are at the mercy of the owner of that property. This is true for the first amendment (the owner of this board can restrict speech) as well as the second amendment.

[jkjsooner]

I am certain that if I wanted to, I could get a bigger vehicle and ram it into 20-30 unsuspecting people walking together after a sporting event.. Should we ban bigger vehicles?

That takes a lot of planning and luck to pull it off. When people have tried this the death toll has been remarkably low. Here's one I remember.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-03-pedestrians-struck-dc_N.htm

Considering the part you bolded from my quote, are you saying that no tool of mass destruction should be made illegal?

[SoonerBBall]

How is that just a plea for emotion? The fact is that history has shown that these events are much more deadly when a gun is used than when a knife is used. You can spin it however you like but those are the facts.

I don't know why this guy didn't use a gun. I'm sure you're right. He's crazy. Nevertheless, had Adam Lanza only had knives the death toll would have been significantly less. I don't like it when one or two kids die but it's sure better than 20.

You say we shouldn't "legislate against the tools they use" but I'd bet almost anything that there are some tools of destruction that you believe we should legislate against.

How so? It is merely using emotionally, politically charged phrases like "30 round magazine" in place of rational arguments.

Looking at the situation logically shows that none of the new legislation presented would have prevented anything that Lanza did from happening. Additionally, none of it will prevent the vast, overwhelming amount of gun violence that currently occurs in the country.

Additionally, I don't think we should legislate a ban on any weapon that an individual can use. I am not against licensing for more destructive weapons (rocket launchers, grenade launchers, etc), but the 2nd amendment clearly states an unlimited right for individuals to own and use arms to ensure against an oppressive government.

[sappstuf]

That takes a lot of planning and luck to pull it off. When people have tried this the death toll has been remarkably low. Here's one I remember.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-03-pedestrians-struck-dc_N.htm

That was a car.. I said a big vehicle.

Adam Lanza's didn't take a lot of planning and luck? He changed magazines 6 times.. He obviously planned for it. He also made sure luck was on his side by targeting a "gun-free zone".

How do we know the shooting at Pearl High School wouldn't have been worse if not for a principle with a gun and a little luck?

[jkjsooner]

Looking at the situation logically shows that none of the new legislation presented would have prevented anything that Lanza did from happening. Additionally, none of it will prevent the vast, overwhelming amount of gun violence that currently occurs in the country.


I don't really want to get into a debate about the size of magazines. It's not my issue. It is true that most of the laws (other than possibly the magazine limitation) would not have prevented Sand Hook. Even the parents admit that. They're not under the impression that they can stop all acts such as this but they do want to reduce the probability and reduce the carnage when they do happen.

A lot of this debate really ignores the real problem - the more typical gun violence that makes up the majority of deaths.

My issue is registration. All guns should be tracked. All transactions should be registered. If a gun is used in a crime and the transaction was not properly registered or theft not properly reported in a timely manner, then the last known owner should face serious punishment. That would end the straw purchases right there. It's just common sense.

We'd still have an issue with the millions of guns that are already in circulation but over time this would have a positive impact.

I know there are tin foil hat wearing folks who think that tracking weapons will lead to confiscation but that's the price we pay for living in a civilized society.

There are others who think registration and tracking infringes upon their rights to bear arms. I think this is an overly broad interpretation.

[sappstuf]

I don't really want to get into a debate about the size of magazines. It's not my issue. It is true that most of the laws (other than possibly the magazine limitation) would not have prevented Sand Hook. Even the parents admit that. They're not under the impression that they can stop all acts such as this but they do want to reduce the probability and reduce the carnage when they do happen.

A lot of this debate really ignores the real problem - the more typical gun violence that makes up the majority of deaths.

My issue is registration. All guns should be tracked. All transactions should be registered. If a gun is used in a crime and the transaction was not properly registered or theft not properly reported in a timely manner, then the last known owner should face serious punishment. That would end the straw purchases right there. It's just common sense.

We'd still have an issue with the millions of guns that are already in circulation but over time this would have a positive impact.

I know there are tin foil hat wearing folks who think that tracking weapons will lead to confiscation but that's the price we pay for living in a civilized society.

There are others who think registration and tracking infringes upon their rights to bear arms. I think this is an overly broad interpretation.

So if a grandfather gives his 9 year old grandson a gun as a gift and 10 years later that grandson uses it in a crime, you think the grandfather should face "serious punishment" because he was a "straw purchaser"?

[Soonerjeepman]

How so? It is merely using emotionally, politically charged phrases like "30 round magazine" in place of rational arguments.

Looking at the situation logically shows that none of the new legislation presented would have prevented anything that Lanza did from happening. Additionally, none of it will prevent the vast, overwhelming amount of gun violence that currently occurs in the country.

Additionally, I don't think we should legislate a ban on any weapon that an individual can use. I am not against licensing for more destructive weapons (rocket launchers, grenade launchers, etc), but the 2nd amendment clearly states an unlimited right for individuals to own and use arms to ensure against an oppressive government.

the TRUTH about the 2nd amendment. The libs don't think the gov will ever be oppressive, raise taxes without consent, decide who does and doesn't live...etc.

[Curly Bill]

the TRUTH about the 2nd amendment. The libs don't think the gov will ever be oppressive, raise taxes without consent, decide who does and doesn't live...etc.

You could have stopped with this!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

...I don't think we should legislate a ban on any weapon that an individual can use... the 2nd amendment clearly states an unlimited right for individuals to own and use arms to ensure against an OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT.THAT is the real issue. One of the reasons we have the second amendment is to protect against excesses from one of the possible perpetrators of excessive and unlawful power.

[MR2-Sooner86]

I don't really want to get into a debate about the size of magazines. It's not my issue. It is true that most of the laws (other than possibly the magazine limitation) would not have prevented Sand Hook. Even the parents admit that. They're not under the impression that they can stop all acts such as this but they do want to reduce the probability and reduce the carnage when they do happen.

A lot of this debate really ignores the real problem - the more typical gun violence that makes up the majority of deaths.

My issue is registration. All guns should be tracked. All transactions should be registered. If a gun is used in a crime and the transaction was not properly registered or theft not properly reported in a timely manner, then the last known owner should face serious punishment. That would end the straw purchases right there. It's just common sense.

We'd still have an issue with the millions of guns that are already in circulation but over time this would have a positive impact.

I know there are tin foil hat wearing folks who think that tracking weapons will lead to confiscation but that's the price we pay for living in a civilized society.

There are others who think registration and tracking infringes upon their rights to bear arms. I think this is an overly broad interpretation.

The ACLU thinks you're wrong.

Of course you're the one who said Obama should be able to drone anybody on American soil so it's no surprise you're running to some false security blanket that'll do nothing.

Fun fact, a majority of homicides happen from three gunshot wounds. The fact you think magazine bans would help clearly shows you're fearful, illogical and appealing to emotion while ignoring all the facts that say you're wrong.

[jkjsooner]

So if a grandfather gives his 9 year old grandson a gun as a gift and 10 years later that grandson uses it in a crime, you think the grandfather should face "serious punishment" because he was a "straw purchaser"?

Did he report the transfer of the gun? If so then there's no issue.

[jkjsooner]

The ACLU thinks you're wrong.

Of course you're the one who said Obama should be able to drone anybody on American soil so it's no surprise you're running to some false security blanket that'll do nothing.

Fun fact, a majority of homicides happen from three gunshot wounds. The fact you think magazine bans would help clearly shows you're fearful, illogical and appealing to emotion while ignoring all the facts that say you're wrong.

Good god. I never said Obama should be able to drone "anybody on American soil." I never said anything close to that.

Are you seriously bringing that back up? Here is what happened. Paul asked Holder if there is any possible circumstance where it would be legal to use a drone against a US citizen. Holder answered honestly - yes. Paul had a hissy fit. In the end Paul was forced to ask the question with a qualification of "not under a direct attack." At that point Holder said no it would not be legal. Paul's concerns dissipated.

My entire argument was that Paul asked an extremely leading and open ended question. Holder should never have answered but he did give the correct answer. In the end the nature Paul's fishing expedition was revealed when he asked a much more direct and relevant question.

You can make up lies about what I said all you want but it doesn't make it true and it just makes you a liar.

What makes you think I care what the ACLU thinks?

[MR2-Sooner86]

Good god. I never said Obama should be able to drone "anybody on American soil." I never said anything close to that.

Are you seriously bringing that back up? Here is what happened. Paul asked Holder if there is any possible circumstance where it would be legal to use a drone against a US citizen. Holder answered honestly - yes. Paul had a hissy fit. In the end Paul was forced to ask the question with a qualification of "not under a direct attack." At that point Holder said no it would not be legal. Paul's concerns dissipated.

My entire argument was that Paul asked an extremely leading and open ended question. Holder should never have answered but he did give the correct answer. In the end the nature Paul's fishing expedition was revealed when he asked a much more direct and relevant question.

You can make up lies about what I said all you want but it doesn't make it true and it just makes you a liar.

What makes you think I care what the ACLU thinks?

Paul want this (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BEuiQ1YCYAEv_nT.jpg:large) answered. He was standing up for something you're against: civil liberties. And yes you are against civil liberties because...

"What makes you think I care what the ACLU thinks?"

An organization that looks out for civil liberties and you're opposed to it. Makes sense when you think about it.

I also find it ironic you ignored me addressing the magazine caps. Of course you have to ignore facts or else you won't have an argument. Look, I know you hate the second amendment, civil liberties and many thing this country was founded upon but your goofy statist utopia of chipping gun owners and keeping a microscope on them would do nothing. It'd be nothing more than the TSA, expensive political theater that does nothing but give the illusion of security.

[jkjsooner]

Paul want this (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BEuiQ1YCYAEv_nT.jpg:large) answered.

That is not the question he posed to Holder. And by the way, in the end they all agreed. Once he asked Holder a clear and concise question he got a satisfactory answer.

This was a manafactured controversy. After it all played out that was clear to almost everyone.

We can agree to disagree about what exactly happened in this conversation between Holder and Paul. But that is beside the point. You claim I'm for drone strikes to target Amercian citizens. All I ever said was that I am not for that, Holder is not for that, and that a drone strike would only be used in a situation where we're under attack such as a 9/11 situation. (Think we have a plane flying toward a building and a drone is the only line of defense.)

I just don't understand why you repeatedly misrepesent what I've said on this matter.


He was standing up for something you're against: civil liberties. And yes you are against civil liberties because...

"What makes you think I care what the ACLU thinks?"

An organization that looks out for civil liberties and you're opposed to it. Makes sense when you think about it.

I also find it ironic you ignored me addressing the magazine caps. Of course you have to ignore facts or else you won't have an argument. Look, I know you hate the second amendment, civil liberties and many thing this country was founded upon but your goofy statist utopia of chipping gun owners and keeping a microscope on them would do nothing. It'd be nothing more than the TSA, expensive political theater that does nothing but give the illusion of security.

Sorry, the ACLU does not have a monopoly on defining civil liberties. Just because someone disagrees with some of their stances does not mean he is against civil liberties.

There are things the ACLU does that I agree with and some that I disagree with. I don't hold them as the authority on civil liberties.

I may be wrong because I don't know you but I have the feeling that you disagree with much of what the ACLU says or does. I would never imply that that is evidence in and of itself that you are against civil liberties because that would be just plain stupid.

[MR2-Sooner86]

I just don't understand why you repeatedly misrepesent what I've said on this matter.

Because you're for droning American citizens not engaged in combat. You never condemned Obama's use of a drone on Anwar al-Aulaqi, which was unconstitutional and illegal, and all Rand wanted to know is if he'd do the same over here. That's a very good concern. Of course I remember you also saying things like the war on terror was a legally declared war. You love yourself some authoritarianism that's for sure.


Sorry, the ACLU does not have a monopoly on defining civil liberties. Just because someone disagrees with some of their stances does not mean he is against civil liberties.

There are things the ACLU does that I agree with and some that I disagree with. I don't hold them as the authority on civil liberties.

I may be wrong because I don't know you but I have the feeling that you disagree with much of what the ACLU says or does. I would never imply that that is evidence in and of itself that you are against civil liberties because that would be just plain stupid.

Hmmm

jkj - Wants to tag gun owners like cattle, keep a big brother watch on them at all times and ban things that would make no difference because he thinks it's scary looking.
ACLU - Says the Constitution and that whole "right to privacy" keeps the government from doing that.

Winner: ACLU

jkj - Hates guns because they give him a fright so he has the legal authority to spy on you.
ACLU - Has legal scholars saying that's unconstitutional.

Winner: ACLU

jkj - Drones on Americans are good.
ACLU - Drones on Americans are bad.

Winner: ACLU

jkj - Is an Internet gun loathing bed wetter who wants totalitarianism in the privacy of your home so he can feel better.
ACLU - Makes questionable cases regarding religion and the first amendment but in the end don't affect your privacy in your home.

Winner: ACLU

So at the end of the match we have jkj at 0 and the ACLU at 4, winning the game and showing jkj how asinine his "solutions" are. Stay tuned for a special hour block of Mama's Family.

[jkjsooner]

Because you're for droning American citizens not engaged in combat. You never condemned Obama's use of a drone on Anwar al-Aulaqi, which was unconstitutional and illegal

I don't know all the details about that specific case but if an American citizen joins our enemy overseas he is fair game for military strikes. We don't tip toe around because one of the enemy might be an American citizen.

Your original comment above left an impression that we were talking about in the US. When you expressed what I believed you conveniently left out the key details so that it would leave everyone with the impression that I am for using drone strikes in the US while not under attack.

If you're going to restate what I've said at least tell the full story.


That's a very good concern. Of course I remember you also saying things like the war on terror was a legally declared war.

I said it was a war and that it was a legal action. I did not say it was a declared war. Those are very different things.

Take Vietnam. Congress gave the President the ability to engage in actions necessary overseas. It was entirely legal. Vietnam was also a war. However, Vietnam was not a "declared war".

While in the US only congress can declare war, the US constution isn't the only authoratative definition of the term "war".

Only an idiot would try to say that Vietnam wasn't a war or that the term "war" is synonymous with a declared war.




ACLU - Says the Constitution and that whole "right to privacy" keeps the government from doing that.

I disagree. The government knows what cars you have, how much you make, how many children you have, etc. Not many have claimed that that is an invasion of your privacy.


jkj - Hates guns because they give him a fright so he has the legal authority to spy on you.

I didn't say anything about spying on anyone. Again putting words in my mouth.



jkj - Drones on Americans are good.


Again telling only a fraction of the story. You seem to be the king at twisting what others say in misleading ways.

Drones on an American who has joined the enemy overseas - legal. I'll leave "good" or "bad" to others.

Drones on an American in a 9/11 type attack against us on American soil - legal. We were damn close to doing this on 9/11 and there were about 100 innocents who would have been caught up in it. If you're asking me if I'd be okay to use a drone to shoot down an American piloted plane with no innocents on board that is flying towards a major skyscraper then yes I'd agree.


And please tell me what's the difference between a drone (with all weapons under human control) and a manned aircraft? This whole drone controversy is a joke. There's nothing we can do with a drone that we can't do with a manned aircraft - other than it being a little more challenging for a manned aircraft. Overseas it's just safer to not put a pilot at risk.

Sounds like you're a little bed wetter who's scared of a plane that has no pilot.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

So with a ten round magazine he would have had to swap at least 15 mags...right? That takes more planning.

All I am saying is a lower capacity magazine can make a difference. Albeit a small difference.
Bull**** left progressive argument...Fail!

[MR2-Sooner86]

I don't know

Thank you! We could've saved so much time if you would've just started out with this.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Imagine if that crazy SOB had a gun with a 30 round magazine.
imagine if conceal carry were permitted at institutions of higher learnings.