It's just so very sad

[Gurleyman]

So you are against assault rifles due to the magazine size, but you have no issue with 16 round handgun magazines? Are handguns with hi-cap magazines assault rifles? Your definition makes no sense.

I had an argument with my girlfriends sister yesterday. She kept asking why people needed automatic assault rifles. I corrected her by saying that the rifle used was not automatic and was semi-automatic. The misconception is very apparent. Ill continue to say that the problem that needs to be addressed is the individuals how have these tendencies, not the weapons themselves. I do agree that if the guns didn't exist then the problem would go away. However, there will always be a black market for this type of thing and they will never be completely removed from our society.

Obviously, I'm responding emotionally whereas you are already into detached clinical evaluation where you care about specific definitions. At the moment, what makes no sense to me is getting bogged down in semantics in the wake of an incident when there were 20 kids with an average of six holes in them apiece and nobody who was shot survived (other than an adult hit in the leg) - and everything was legal. I'll also fully agree that legislation should be done from a period of less emotion - where clinical evaluation is required.

Any gun without ammo is just a paperweight or a decoration. The idea is to make them a little less deadly when put to the sole function they are designed for. There are certain automatic weapons that exist entirely to inflict mass carnage quickly. There are some guns where the high-speed magazine or bullet (ie cop killers) make them far more deadly, in which case an argument could be made that the magazine or bullet is all that should be made illegal - that's harder to legislate and/or confiscate the illegal ammo already out here, but at least a step in the right direction. Just make it harder. Five dead kids and 15 wounded would be a horrific tragedy, but 15 more would be alive.

No legislation will solve everything or prevent crazy people from doing crazy things. I'm not anti-gun at all - I'm all for the people who want to keep a handgun in the bedside table for peace of mind, hunting guns, collectors, shooting ranges, etc. The parent in this case also seems to deserve a lot of the posthumous blame for keeping heavy artillery near an unstable family member, but we don't know all the facts yet (maybe he stole a key to get to them).

 

[minidarren]

I knew you were building this strawman from the getgo. As soon as anybody puts up any definition, you can hare your counter argument but you completely missed the point of his definition. Guns like the one the shooter used are ridiculous in a modern civilized (sorta) society.

Let me return a question to you. What need or needs do you have to possess a rifle like a Bushmaster .233 with a 30 round magazine?

As for the definition of what is an assault rifle, I'll leave you with this:

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. [Emphasis added.]
—Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964), regarding possible obscenity in The Lovers.

It has nothing to do with wanting to have an argument with someone, or preparing to have a counter argument. The question was simple and was for people to respond to at their willingness. If no one wanted to respond, there would have never been a counter. There is often a misconception of what is and what is not an assault rifle. The fixation on such a weapon and how it relates to the military is often incorrect. The military has automatic weapons, civilians do not (without dishing out tons of money). An assault rifle with full auto or 3 round burst are significantly different that what was used in this instance, and what most civilians use/have.

Why are guns like an AR-15 ridiculous? If 2 million AR-15 owners never commit a crime in their lives with their weapon but go to the shooting range for sport, but 23 commit crimes every year, does that make it ridiculous? I'm just throwing out numbers here, no factual information. I believe that the actions of a few do not support the removal for all. Are stronger restrictions needed on the individuals who obtain weapons, sure. Should there be some kind of psychological evaluation, sure.

I use my Stag Arms AR-15 for sport. Target shooting at the range. I have multiple 30 round magazines. You ask why? Because time at the range is limited and loading rounds takes time. I don't hunt. I don't like the idea of killing innocent animals when you get can plenty of food at the grocery store. I don't like fishing either, for the same reason.

 

[8893]

 

[Gurleyman]

I use my Stag Arms AR-15 for sport. Target shooting at the range. I have multiple 30 round magazines. You ask why? Because time at the range is limited and loading rounds takes time.

Which also makes smaller magazines inconvenient for people like the Sandy Hook shooter. You just made the other side's point. You wouldn't trade a few less shots at the range for a few more kids alive today?

 

[minidarren]

Obviously, I'm responding emotionally whereas you are already into detached clinical evaluation where you care about specific definitions. At the moment, what makes no sense to me is getting bogged down in semantics in the wake of an incident when there were 20 kids with an average of six holes in them apiece and nobody who was shot survived (other than an adult hit in the leg) - and everything was legal. I'll also fully agree that legislation should be done from a period of less emotion - where clinical evaluation is required.

Any gun without ammo is just a paperweight or a decoration. The idea is to make them a little less deadly when put to the sole function they are designed for. There are certain automatic weapons that exist entirely to inflict mass carnage quickly. There are some guns where the high-speed magazine or bullet (ie cop killers) make them far more deadly, in which case an argument could be made that the magazine or bullet is all that should be made illegal - that's harder to legislate and/or confiscate the illegal ammo already out here, but at least a step in the right direction. Just make it harder. Five dead kids and 15 wounded would be a horrific tragedy, but 15 more would be alive.

No legislation will solve everything or prevent crazy people from doing crazy things. I'm not anti-gun at all - I'm all for the people who want to keep a handgun in the bedside table for peace of mind, hunting guns, collectors, shooting ranges, etc. The parent in this case also seems to deserve a lot of the posthumous blame for keeping heavy artillery near an unstable family member, but we don't know all the facts yet (maybe he stole a key to get to them).

How do you know what my emotional stance is on this event? Not quite sure on how you are prepared to make any evaluation of where I am in the process of dealing with this tragedy. Everyone deals, copes, and heals at different speeds and with different processes (observations from 11 years in the fire service). I didn't comment on how you are coping.

Using terms such as heavy artillery are improper descriptions of what these weapons are. Such as automatic vs. semi-automatic. But, lets not involved with definitions and just continue to spit out data that is not factual.

This situation is tragic, but nothing is going to happen in terms of gun control. I'm not a 2nd Amendment lover nor a member of the NRA.

 

[metsfan2323]

agree with the beginning of your post, but all the assault weapon ban will do is take it out of the hands of law abiding citizens

The lunatic's mom was a law abiding citizen, if laws had kept the assault rifles and large clip hand guns out of her house more kids might be alive today.

 

[minidarren]

Which also makes smaller magazines inconvenient for people like the Sandy Hook shooter. You just made the other side's point. You wouldn't trade a few less shots at the range for a few more kids alive today?

Without a doubt I would give them up. No questions asked. I would also give up my guns to ensure that another child never lost their lives to the hand of a gunman. But that promise will never be able to be made.

 

[8893]

Which also makes smaller magazines inconvenient for people like the Sandy Hook shooter. You just made the other side's point. You wouldn't trade a few less shots at the range for a few more kids alive today?

Bingo. Make no mistake, that is the choice. And that is the choice that we have allowed to be made by letting these people control the discussion. Let's at least not be complicit in that choice by allowing it all the fallacies, paranoia and fear-mongering be used to obscure it. Let's call it what it is, and call out those who continue to deny it.

 

[Huskymaniac]

I spent a few minutes imagining what an "organized militia" with assault rifles can do. The only thing I could come up with is kill a lot of people before being killed themselves. That's about it.

Yep, and many of those people would be within the three branches of government. That threat is enough to keep them from trying to gain absolute power. At this point, there is no need for this and, hopefully, there never will be. As of right now, the fat cats at the top have too much to lose and not much to gain. There is no guarantee it will stay that way. Every empire/primary world power including Egypt, Greece and Rome has fallen and the fall was ugly. People are too quick to assume humanity evolves at some sort of incredible rate. 250 years is a blink of the eye compared to the length of time man has roamed the earth. From day 1, he has been guilty of unthinkable atrocities. There isn't much difference between people today and people in the dark ages aside from not having bulging eyeballs.

Someone said earlier that using a car for mass murder wouldn't be effective. Stop. Take away all guns and it is only a matter of time before somone with a Hummer or some other large vehicle drives into a crowd of people and kills many more than 20 of them. Once that happens, it will become the glorified technique of choice of every nutjob out there. Eventually it will happen on a school playground during recess. And don't discount the same types of bombs used in terrorist acts around the world. It requires skill, planning and time to build and detonate one but some of the crazies are capable of doing it if they have no other way to carry out their rage.

 

[Dogbreath2U]

Without a doubt I would give them up. No questions asked. I would also give up my guns to ensure that another child never lost their lives to the hand of a gunman. But that promise will never be able to be made.

How about the increased likelihood of less of these atrocities occurring? Saying that if there cannot be 100% guarantee that a restriction would eliminate the loss of life to innocents, then I will not give up my right to shoot a semi-automatic gun for fun is an example of how dear we hold our pleasures. Change is going to cost other "innocents" in various ways, but I believe that we need to be willing to TRY different approaches with no assurance of success. We need to do other things to help the "outsiders" find a place in our world. We may need to look hard at some other things like violent fantasy role-playing or shooter internet games that can be really dangerous for a small percentage of vulnerable young people. We assumed that such things cannot be really harmful...just make-believe, right? I have come to change my opinion on this and have real questions about the impact of hours of simulated violence on children and adolescents minds, especially those with "wiring problems." We need to dial back some freedoms in limited areas to keep as many of our children healthy and functional as we can.

 

[Gurleyman]

How do you know what my emotional stance is on this event? Not quite sure on how you are prepared to make any evaluation of where I am in the process of dealing with this tragedy. Everyone deals, copes, and heals at different speeds and with different processes (observations from 11 years in the fire service). I didn't comment on how you are coping.

Using terms such as heavy artillery are improper descriptions of what these weapons are. Such as automatic vs. semi-automatic. But, lets not involved with definitions and just continue to spit out data that is not factual.

This situation is tragic, but nothing is going to happen in terms of gun control. I'm not a 2nd Amendment lover nor a member of the NRA.

I was clearly being emotional - here on this board - when I defined an assault weapon as one that "puts too many bullets in children too quickly". You were being clinical - here on this board - in how you define assault weapons. I didn't make any assertion about how you were discussing your emotions privately. I was only talking about what you posted here publicly - stuff that you voluntarily put out there for discussion. It's all the information I have.

I'm also not spitting out any data, other than 20 children with an average of six holes in them. Heavy artillery is not "data" - it is just a vague non-descriptive term which has no real value - it would be defined differently on Oak Street than it would in Afghanistan. Similarly "too many kids too quickly" is just an opinion - no scientific value at all.

Look, like many on this board, I'm not far removed from this. My immediately family has coworkers who lost their kids - my mom was a wreck just talking about it. So I admit I'm probably too emotional to have the discussion you're trying to have - and should withdraw from it so you can have the one you want. My apologies.

 

[minidarren]

I was clearly being emotional - here on this board - when I defined an assault weapon as one that "puts too many ****ing bullets in children too quickly". You were being clinical - here on this board - in how you define assault weapons. I didn't make any assertion about how you were discussing your emotions privately. I was only talking about what you posted here publicly - stuff that you voluntarily put out there for discussion. It's all the information I have.

I'm also not spitting out any data, other than 20 children with an average of six holes in them. Heavy artillery is not "data" - it is just a vague non-descriptive term which has no real value - it would be defined differently on Oak Street than it would in Afghanistan. Similarly "too many kids too quickly" is just an opinion - no scientific value at all.

Look, like many on this board, I'm not far removed from this. My immediately family has coworkers who lost their kids - my mom was a wreck just talking about it. So I admit I'm probably too emotional to have the discussion you're trying to have - and should withdraw from it so you can have the one you want. My apologies.

No need to apologize.

 

[metsfan2323]

Change can happen. 25 years ago every bar and restaurant and many office building were filled with cigarette smoke, most of that has been eradicated and smoking is no longer viewed as a cool thing to do. Guns need to be given the same treatment. If shotguns are the best way to defend ones house from an intruder why can't we ban everything except shot guns? Also somebody made a good point on TV today, the makers of shoot em up video games need to be treated as pornographers and those games re-branded as pornography. Yes kids will still play those games, but maybe just knowing that it is viewed as a despicable use of ones time will change their mindset for the better.

 

[minidarren]

How about the increased likelihood of less of these atrocities occurring? Saying that if there cannot be 100% guarantee that a restriction would eliminate the loss of life to innocents, then I will not give up my right to shoot a semi-automatic gun for fun is an example of how dear we hold our pleasures. Change is going to cost other "innocents" in various ways, but I believe that we need to be willing to TRY different approaches with no assurance of success. We need to do other things to help the "outsiders" find a place in our world. We may need to look hard at some other things like violent fantasy role-playing or shooter internet games that can be really dangerous for a small percentage of vulnerable young people. We assumed that such things cannot be really harmful...just make-believe, right? I have come to change my opinion on this and have real questions about the impact of hours of simulated violence on children and adolescents minds, especially those with "wiring problems." We need to dial back some freedoms in limited areas to keep as many of our children healthy and functional as we can.

What you have said here is what I believe is the issue.

 

[minidarren]

Change can happen. 25 years ago every bar and restaurant and many office building were filled with cigarette smoke, most of that has been eradicated and smoking is no longer viewed as a cool thing to do. Guns need to be given the same treatment. If shotguns are the best way to defend ones house from an intruder why can't we ban everything except shot guns? Also somebody made a good point on TV today. The makers of shoot em up video games need to be treated as pornographers and those games re-branded as pornography.

I understand what you are saying here. So when a lunatic walks into the next school with a shotgun full of buckshot rounds, are we going to get rid of these as well. How about addressing the damn problem and stop sugar coating . We have people in this world and more specifically this country, who are not fit to be a part of society. There are often signs of instability. I am certain that at the end of this investigation there will be signs that were displayed that this individual was becoming un-wired. We are all too busy in our lives to deal with this type of behavior. The people are brushed off as being insignificant and incapable of doing any harm until something like this occurs. They need a place to go until proven they are able to function properly and safely within our neighborhoods.

 

[metsfan2323]

I understand what you are saying here. So when a lunatic walks into the next school with a shotgun full of buckshot rounds, are we going to get rid of these as well. ]

Let me ask you a question, there are reports that there were shotguns in the kids house, he chose not to use those weapons he chose the assault rifle, why do you think he chose the assault rifle over the shotgun?

 

[Dougsts]

The lunatic's mom was a law abiding citizen, if laws had kept the assault rifles and large clip hand guns out of her house more kids might be alive today.

She was not law abiding. By CT law, gun owners are required to secure their guns.

 

[Gurleyman]

No need to apologize.

Thanks. Rationally, I know you are making some valid points. Shouting "ban assault weapons" without a grasp on exactly what you want banned and how you would do it is not how legislation works - or should work. The issue is more complex, especially since nothing we can do will solve everything.

 

[metsfan2323]

She was not law abiding. By CT law, gun owners are required to secure their guns.

Is it illegal to teach a teenager to shoot a gun at a shooting range?

 

[Gurleyman]

She was not law abiding. By CT law, gun owners are required to secure their guns.

I've been curious to find out if they were secured and he "stole" them (i.e. knew what drawer the key was in or something) or if she just had them lying around for the taking.

I had thought yesterday that maybe it would be a good idea to have a law that anyone in a household with people treated for mental illness couldn't legally purchase guns, but someone here made a good point - I don't know how that could ever work with privacy laws. And even if implemented, it might prevent people from getting their kids the help they need, for fear of being labeled in a database.

 

[8893]

Question for those who do not believe that any additional gun control measures should be implemented in this country:

Do you have young children?

Question for those who believe that "fixing the people" with a profile such as Adam Lanza--much less identifying effectively the ones likely to pose a risk like this--is remotely achievable:

Do you have any significant personal experience with children who have Asperger Syndrome, and their families?

 

[M_Funkhauser43!]

If the founding fathers were here today, they would...

...be mortified by the massacre of 20 children in a school. The founding fathers gave our society the right to bear arms in order to protect itself. It seems that our society is now abusing that right terribly. We use weapons to terrorize fellow members of our society instead of to protect ourselves. If we cannot exercise that right justly, we have to limit it.

The founding fathers may have given us the right to bear arms, but life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness came first. If it ever became apparent to the founding fathers that a law was becoming incompatible with that precept and they had to do away with one or the other, I'm pretty sure I know which one they'd choose.

 

[minidarren]

I've been curious to find out if they were secured and he "stole" them (i.e. knew what drawer the key was in or something) or if she just had them lying around for the taking.

I had thought yesterday that maybe it would be a good idea to have a law that anyone in a household with people treated for mental illness couldn't legally purchase guns, but someone here made a good point - I don't know how that could ever work with privacy laws. And even if implemented, it might prevent people from getting their kids the help they need, for fear of being labeled in a database.

The only laws regarding the storage of firearms have to do with the ability of a minor to have access to it. If someone breaks into your home and steals your weapon to use it on someone else, you are not responsible.

You are required to report the theft of a weapon within 72 hours of the theft or noticing that it has been taken.

This nut was 20 years old. The mother was abiding by the law.

 

[Dougsts]

I've been curious to find out if they were secured and he "stole" them (i.e. knew what drawer the key was in or something) or if she just had them lying around for the taking.

I had thought yesterday that maybe it would be a good idea to have a law that anyone in a household with people treated for mental illness couldn't legally purchase guns, but someone here made a good point - I don't know how that could ever work with privacy laws. And even if implemented, it might prevent people from getting their kids the help they need, for fear of being labeled in a database.

Is it illegal to teach a teenager to shoot a gun at a shooting range?

no, but the two issues are totally separate. There are many gun safety training courses for teens out there that include shooting at a range. I don't get your connection here.


That is a good question. I don't know how he got the guns. Where they just laying around? did he have access to the key if they were stored in a gun safe? All good questions. I know my guns are kept locked in a safe. My grandchildren don't even know where the safe is, let alone know how to get into it.

I own guns for two reasons, I enjoy shooting at the range and I also feel it gives my wife, yes she also has a pistol permit in CT, and myself a little added security. I travel quite a bit with work, her pistol, along with our alarm system just gives her a bit more piece of mind when I am gone. I do carry outside of the house, but not often. Typically only when going someplace like New Haven or Hartford, places with rather high crime rates.

 

[Fishy]

Someone above references the founders of this country in a weird-ish diatribe. I would actually agree that it is a good thing for a government to have some fear of its people and that was no doubt part of the intent of the founders when they gave us the right to bear arms. Our government was just being born and it wasn't to be trusted

There was also the practical matter of national security. For all they knew, at any given time, an armada from Spain or England or France was just beyond the horizon and the first line of defense was an armed population.

But times have changed and it's silly to ignore that. The Spanish armada is not off the coast of Cape Cod and the weapons of today would reduce Thomas Jefferson to a red mist before he would be able to get his first shot off. We've amended some silly s*** they thought back then and this is another area that needs to fine tuning.

I can't think of a rationale for allowing a citizen to own the combination of weaponry that was used on Friday. That is not a defensive weapon - a semi-automatic rife loaded with 30-round magazines of fragmenting military rounds is not something you would use to defend yourself unless you live in a Michael Bay movie.

If someone else can rationalize it, great, but I can't.

And, to return to the post about the founders I referenced, the founders of this country were indeed tough individuals - they were preparing for a war that they had every reason to believe that they would lose. That takes balls.

Don't confuse the person who buys a Bushmaster with the founders. They're not the same people. The person who thinks they need a military rifle with military ammunition does so because they're afraid.

Omegas, not Alphas. You notice how these people always seem to walk into schools, movie theaters and malls and not police stations? They're weak.