Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SoonerShooter08" data-source="post: 2039478" data-attributes="member: 2286"><p>Using what criminals utilize or don&#039;t utilize as their weapon or weapons of choice as an example is pointless. It doesn&#039;t make a bit of difference what Lanza had in his vehicle vs what he actually used. Criminals will use whatever they can get their hands on and it&#039;s been proven time and time again that laws don&#039;t effectively keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. What you should be talking about is how trained and certified good guys or gals could&#039;ve effectively neutralized Lanza to minimize his impact. Also, I honestly don&#039;t believe the the differentiation between assault and non-assault weapons should be a linchpin either. Last time I checked, the constitution didn&#039;t specify what type of arms. We&#039;d be better off educating and arming more good citizens then disarming them period. It has been proven by history. We could argue semantics and weapon cosmetics ad nauseum. The main thing is that an attack on the second amendment is an attack on our right to self defense and not just guns. First guns, then knives, then what?</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="SoonerShooter08, post: 2039478, member: 2286"] Using what criminals utilize or don't utilize as their weapon or weapons of choice as an example is pointless. It doesn't make a bit of difference what Lanza had in his vehicle vs what he actually used. Criminals will use whatever they can get their hands on and it's been proven time and time again that laws don't effectively keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. What you should be talking about is how trained and certified good guys or gals could've effectively neutralized Lanza to minimize his impact. Also, I honestly don't believe the the differentiation between assault and non-assault weapons should be a linchpin either. Last time I checked, the constitution didn't specify what type of arms. We'd be better off educating and arming more good citizens then disarming them period. It has been proven by history. We could argue semantics and weapon cosmetics ad nauseum. The main thing is that an attack on the second amendment is an attack on our right to self defense and not just guns. First guns, then knives, then what? [/QUOTE]

Verification