It's just so very sad

[SubbaBub]

I'll still have my guns. Keep on preaching about getting rid of them.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

And that gets you what, exactly?

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[minidarren]

And that gets you what, exactly?

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

It doesn't get me anything. I don't get a sense of becoming something all mighty when I hold a gun. I'm not Billie Bad@ss blasting away at Uncle Jimbobs house while posting videos on YouTube. I'm a casual target shooter. I carry my handgun semi often.

The numbers I have stated are facts. They are indisputable. What is disputable is what can be done to prevent such a thing from happening again. I have my opinions, others have theirs. What I haven't done is draw conclusions about people that I don't know on here as some have done towards me because I'm a gun owner. And to say that 99% of Americans feel that there should be a ban is unsupported.

I have a feeling that I will be more correct than those who are just saying that a ban on all weapons and hi capacity magazines needs to be in place and everything will be better. That just simply is not the case, IMO.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[minidarren]

You are vastly over-estimating the spread effect of a shotgun round. Massively, in fact. Stop holding yourself out as an expert.

Never said I was an expert. Its just common sense. A shot gun armed with buck shot in close quarters is far more destructive than a single round out of an assault rifle. There is room for accuracy error. It's really quite a simple concept.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[cohenzone]

And that gets you what, exactly?

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

I think he need a psychological evaluation. Having a true love affair with an inanimate object is kinky.

 

[tzznandrew]

99% of people would disagree with your assertion that a man with a handgun and smaller clip could do the same damage as a man with an assault weapon.

There is also broad support--somewhere around 60% at least--for assault weapon bans. So there's that.

 

[jleves]

Never said I was an expert. Its just common sense. A shot gun armed with buck shot in close quarters is far more destructive than a single round out of an assault rifle. There is room for accuracy error. It's really quite a simple concept.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

You are correct - a single round of buckshot is more destructive than a single .233 round. However, you get about 8 rounds from a shutgun and then you are reloading. Not just slipping a new clip in place. It's gonna take a bit of time. Once again, time was crucial here. So in the time you could get 8 rounds off and reload a shotgun, you could easily get 60 rounds out of the bushmaster. No contest which is worse.

 

[minidarren]

You are correct - a single round of buckshot is more destructive than a single .233 round. However, you get about 8 rounds from a shutgun and then you are reloading. Not just slipping a new clip in place. It's gonna take a bit of time. Once again, time was crucial here. So in the time you could get 8 rounds off and reload a shotgun, you could easily get 60 rounds out of the bushmaster. No contest which is worse.

I agree. My point is solely that there are weapons outside of assault rifles that can do severe damage. I'm talking about the people crying about assault rifles as they are the only thing that can do catastrophic damage.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Excalibur]

This.

This is not some underground black-market buyer, some character from a Guy Ritchie movie who's going to get access to the guns he needs however necessary. This was a suburban kid that liked video games. This happened because the guns were already there in his house. I say he's not even brave enough to walk into that school without the weapons he had available to him.

And the fact is that the harder someone like Adam Lanza has to try to acquire guns, the more likely it is that he gets caught before he can do any harm.

I'm not saying we have to take guns away, but they should be really hard to acquire. Do that, and you're more likely to put firearms in the hands of good intentioned people who are trained well enough to use them.

 

[Excalibur]

I have a feeling that I will be more correct than those who are just saying that a ban on all weapons and hi capacity magazines needs to be in place and everything will be better. That just simply is not the case, IMO.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

And your opinion seems to be that because it won't magically solve anything, we should bother trying. That's lazy, both practically and intellectually.

 

[minidarren]

And your opinion seems to be that because it won't magically solve anything, we should bother trying. That's lazy, both practically and intellectually.

Your reading comprehension shows much to be desired. When you've read all of my posts it should be clear to you that my stance has not been to do nothing. Quite frankly its been the exact opposite. I have put forth a mixture of gun control and other systems to help reduce these events from occurring.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[superjohn]

minidarren, It's a fact that you are a sissy and feel inadequate, this is the reason you clutch to your guns so tightly. Actually this is just my opinion, same as all the opinions you have made in this thread. Stop trying to play off your false arguments as if they are facts....you're entitled to your opinions just as I'm entitled to the opinion that you are a scared little wuss who feels inadequate.

 

[Deepster]

So here we are.

From the death of a classroom full of children, we're now 26 pages deep into discussion and have people gloating "Nyah, nyah....I'm keeping my guns!"

Stop the world. I want to get off.

 

[jleves]

I'll still have my guns. Keep on preaching about getting rid of them.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I was going to make another detailed post for this then decided this would be more effective.

Imagine a 6 year old child. Choose one you know. Now imagine a .223 round ripping into his or her body. Continue to do that until you get through all 11 bullets that ripped into the 6 year old that was buried yesterday.

I can't get through two shots before my brain shuts the image off. If you can actually get through all 11 in your minds eye and still argue that people should have access to bushmaster .233's than we have nothing further to talk about.

But things are changing and we will come get those guns very soon.

 

[Charlie Brown]

There are always folks who don't know squat about anything talking about anything.
The "anything" here is guns.
If you don't know the difference between a semi-automatic hunting rifle and an assault rifle, go read up.

In short, "assault" is one type of rifle. The main differences between them and what you use to shoot a deer are - lighter, shorter barrel, smaller round. That's it.

The concept of the assault rifle, relative to a hunting rifle, is that it is easier to carry because it's shorter and lighter, and the rounds are lighter.

There are plenty of hunting rifles, however, that are polymer based and very light and whose barrels could be shortened easily.

High magazine capacity is something that is associated with "assault" rifles, but a hunting rifle could easily be fitted with a large cap magazine.

In the end, a 300 dollar 30-06 with a shortened barrel and after market large-cap magazines would be every bit as effective at killing than would any off-the-shelf "assault" rifle. And probably better given the larger round size.

Don't kid yourselves. If you goal is to prevent mass shootings with rifles, you're going to need to go bolt action only or ban all rifles.

Regarding handguns, they are not nearly as effective as rifles at killing things, and that's pretty easy.

That said, at close range a six-shooter with speed loader rounds in the hands of a decently trained shooter can easily be used to kill bunches of people in a hurry in a crowded place.

Don't kid yourselves. If you want to "prevent" these things, and not just reduce the frequency, the only way to do it is to completely ban all firearms.

Except, of course, those carried by LEOs. You'll want those right?

Well. That would leave open a loose end, but you'd avoid the frequency at least.

 

[ihatepants]

 

[Husky25]

If you want to have an discussion about gun control in general, then let's have it. But this going on and on about how dangerous assault rifles are is just showing how little some may know about them and the incidents that have taken place.

The issue is in the home. Parenting and families. If Lanza's mother knew he was ill then why was he not given help? If she tried to get him help but couldn't get it, then why was it not available? If help wasn't available and she knew her son was troubled than why were there guns in the house? There in lies the issue.

Its not attacked from one side. Removing guns from the great majority of those who are law abiding citizens does not resolve the problem. Removing guns from homes with mentally ill or sick individuals does. There needs to be systems in place to get these people the help they need. I don't know what that system is. I am not a mental health professional. Nor quit frankly am I a gun toting 2nd Amendment backer who screams of the need for weapons to protect us from the government. The Abrams tank that rolls over my home will reduce the guns I own to scrap metal.

I do believe that guns themselves do not kill people. Guns in the hands of unstable people kill people. If you remove guns, you will still have unstable people.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Quite ironic that the 2nd amendment has been interpretted in such a way to provide protection against the Gov't. The Second amendment, if read in its complete context, serves to help and fight for the gov't.

The 4th Amendment guards against the gov't, not the 2nd.

 

[ihatepants]

I would like to present a some peer-reviewed studies published in notable journals dealing with gun ownership and its relationship to gun violence, specifically here in the United States. There is a strong positive correlation between murder and areas with high gun ownership, even when you remove other confounding factors such as poverty level.

analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11130511

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364/

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0277953606004898

a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=206421

 

[8893]

 

[ihatepants]

A history of gun laws and the NRA in the United States. Basically, the NRA changed in the 70s during Nixon, when conservatives realized that they could get people out to vote merely by threatening that people were going to lose their guns. I hate to quote so much, but it's a REALLY long read, and I tried to select only some of the more interesting stuff. Emphasis in bold is mine.

The National Rifle Association was founded in 1871 by two men, a lawyer and a former reporter from the New York Times. For most of its history, the N.R.A. was chiefly a sporting and hunting association. To the extent that the N.R.A. had a political arm, it opposed some gun-control measures and supported many others, lobbying for new state laws in the nineteen-twenties and thirties, which introduced waiting periods for handgun buyers and required permits for anyone wishing to carry a concealed weapon. It also supported the 1934 National Firearms Act—the first major federal gun-control legislation—and the 1938 Federal Firearms Act, which together created a licensing system for dealers and prohibitively taxed the private ownership of automatic weapons (“machine guns”). The constitutionality of the 1934 act was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939, in U.S. v. Miller, in which Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, argued that the Second Amendment is “restricted to the keeping and bearing of arms by the people collectively for their common defense and security.” Furthermore, Jackson said, the language of the amendment makes clear that the right “is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state.” The Court agreed, unanimously. In 1957, when the N.R.A. moved into new headquarters, its motto, at the building’s entrance, read, “Firearms Safety Education, Marksmanship Training, Shooting for Recreation.” It didn’t say anything about freedom, or self-defense, or rights.

...

In 1968, as Winkler relates, the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., gave the issue new urgency. A revised Gun Control Act banned mail-order sales, restricted the purchase of guns by certain high-risk people (e.g., those with criminal records), and prohibited the importation of military-surplus firearms. That law, along with a great deal of subsequent law-and-order legislation, was intended to fight crime, control riots, and solve what was called, in the age of the Moynihan report, the “Negro problem.” The regulations that are part of these laws—firearms restrictions, mandatory-sentencing guidelines, abolition of parole, and the “war on drugs”—are now generally understood to be responsible for the dramatic rise in the U.S. incarceration rate.

The N.R.A. supported the 1968 Gun Control Act, with some qualms. Orth was quoted in American Rifleman as saying that although some elements of the legislation “appear unduly restrictive and unjustified in their application to law-abiding citizens, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”

...

In the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. began advancing the argument that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to carry a gun, rather than the people’s right to form armed militias to provide for the common defense. Fights over rights are effective at getting out the vote. Describing gun-safety legislation as an attack on a constitutional right gave conservatives a power at the polls that, at the time, the movement lacked. Opposing gun control was also consistent with a larger anti-regulation, libertarian, and anti-government conservative agenda. In 1975, the N.R.A. created a lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, headed by Harlon Bronson Carter, an award-winning marksman and a former chief of the U.S. Border Control. But then the N.R.A.’s leadership decided to back out of politics and move the organization’s headquarters to Colorado Springs, where a new recreational-shooting facility was to be built. Eighty members of the N.R.A.’s staff, including Carter, were ousted. In 1977, the N.R.A.’s annual meeting, usually held in Washington, was moved to Cincinnati, in protest of the city’s recent gun-control laws. Conservatives within the organization, led by Carter, staged what has come to be called the Cincinnati Revolt. The bylaws were rewritten and the old guard was pushed out. Instead of moving to Colorado, the N.R.A. stayed in D.C., where a new motto was displayed: “The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.”
...

In 1986, the N.R.A.’s interpretation of the Second Amendment achieved new legal authority with the passage of the Firearms Owners Protection Act, which repealed parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act by invoking “the rights of citizens . . . to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.” This interpretation was supported by a growing body of scholarship, much of it funded by the N.R.A. According to the constitutional-law scholar Carl Bogus, at least sixteen of the twenty-seven law-review articles published between 1970 and 1989 that were favorable to the N.R.A.’s interpretation of the Second Amendment were “written by lawyers who had been directly employed by or represented the N.R.A. or other gun-rights organizations.” In an interview, former Chief Justice Warren Burger said that the new interpretation of the Second Amendment was “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

...

“If you had asked, in 1968, will we have the right to do with guns in 2012 what we can do now, no one, on either side, would have believed you,” David Keene said.

Between 1968 and 2012, the idea that owning and carrying a gun is both a fundamental American freedom and an act of citizenship gained wide acceptance and, along with it, the principle that this right is absolute and cannot be compromised; gun-control legislation was diluted, defeated, overturned, or allowed to expire; the right to carry a concealed handgun became nearly ubiquitous; Stand Your Ground legislation passed in half the states; and, in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled, in a 5–4 decision, that the District’s 1975 Firearms Control Regulations Act was unconstitutional. Justice Scalia wrote, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.” Two years later, in another 5–4 ruling, McDonald v. Chicago, the Court extended Heller to the states.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/23/120423fa_fact_lepore?currentPage=all

It's a really long article, but a very very interesting read.

 

[tykurez]

"I am certainly not an advocate for for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Thomas Jefferson

 

[minidarren]

minidarren, It's a fact that you are a sissy and feel inadequate, this is the reason you clutch to your guns so tightly. Actually this is just my opinion, same as all the opinions you have made in this thread. Stop trying to play off your false arguments as if they are facts....you're entitled to your opinions just as I'm entitled to the opinion that you are a scared little wuss who feels inadequate.

Thanks for contributing.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[tzznandrew]

There are always folks who don't know squat about anything talking about anything.
The "anything" here is guns.
If you don't know the difference between a semi-automatic hunting rifle and an assault rifle, go read up.

In short, "assault" is one type of rifle. The main differences between them and what you use to shoot a deer are - lighter, shorter barrel, smaller round. That's it.

The concept of the assault rifle, relative to a hunting rifle, is that it is easier to carry because it's shorter and lighter, and the rounds are lighter.

There are plenty of hunting rifles, however, that are polymer based and very light and whose barrels could be shortened easily.

High magazine capacity is something that is associated with "assault" rifles, but a hunting rifle could easily be fitted with a large cap magazine.

In the end, a 300 dollar 30-06 with a shortened barrel and after market large-cap magazines would be every bit as effective at killing than would any off-the-shelf "assault" rifle. And probably better given the larger round size.

Don't kid yourselves. If you goal is to prevent mass shootings with rifles, you're going to need to go bolt action only or ban all rifles.

Regarding handguns, they are not nearly as effective as rifles at killing things, and that's pretty easy.

That said, at close range a six-shooter with speed loader rounds in the hands of a decently trained shooter can easily be used to kill bunches of people in a hurry in a crowded place.

Don't kid yourselves. If you want to "prevent" these things, and not just reduce the frequency, the only way to do it is to completely ban all firearms.

Except, of course, those carried by LEOs. You'll want those right?

Well. That would leave open a loose end, but you'd avoid the frequency at least.

I guess I just don't buy that these guys were all that smart or adept or knowledgable about guns that they would do any of these things.

The only evidence we have is that they bought or stole legally purchased weapons. And the logic, seems to me, was: let me get a gun that allows me to shoot as fast as possible.

With that in mind, I wonder if their ideas wouldn't have been derailed after not having easy access.

 

[minidarren]

With that in mind, I wonder if their ideas wouldn't have been derailed after not having easy access.

I believe that some of this is the issue. The guns were taken or stolen from legal owners. Legislation in CT does not exist in regards to the storage of weapons unless when dealing with a minor (<16 yoa). Make legal owners responsible for the weapons that the own. Make legislation that states these rifles must be disassembled or stored in a gun safe. They are not practical for home defense or self defense as I have said previously.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Carl Spackler]

There are always folks who don't know squat about anything talking about anything.
The "anything" here is guns.
If you don't know the difference between a semi-automatic hunting rifle and an assault rifle, go read up.

In short, "assault" is one type of rifle. The main differences between them and what you use to shoot a deer are - lighter, shorter barrel, smaller round. That's it.

The concept of the assault rifle, relative to a hunting rifle, is that it is easier to carry because it's shorter and lighter, and the rounds are lighter.

There are plenty of hunting rifles, however, that are polymer based and very light and whose barrels could be shortened easily.

High magazine capacity is something that is associated with "assault" rifles, but a hunting rifle could easily be fitted with a large cap magazine.

In the end, a 300 dollar 30-06 with a shortened barrel and after market large-cap magazines would be every bit as effective at killing than would any off-the-shelf "assault" rifle. And probably better given the larger round size.

Don't kid yourselves. If you goal is to prevent mass shootings with rifles, you're going to need to go bolt action only or ban all rifles.

Regarding handguns, they are not nearly as effective as rifles at killing things, and that's pretty easy.

That said, at close range a six-shooter with speed loader rounds in the hands of a decently trained shooter can easily be used to kill bunches of people in a hurry in a crowded place.

Don't kid yourselves. If you want to "prevent" these things, and not just reduce the frequency, the only way to do it is to completely ban all firearms.

Except, of course, those carried by LEOs. You'll want those right?

Well. That would leave open a loose end, but you'd avoid the frequency at least.

Nice breakdown on hand held weapons Charlie.

I have a simple point to make, that I can't hold in any longer.

An unloaded firearm, isn't much more dangerous than a baseball bat or golf club, or brass knuckles.

This horror, was closer to home to me, than, well too close. The details will be out from the professionals as soon as everything is complete. Right now, over the next few days, the focus is on burying the remains of TWENTY six year olds, and six adults charged with their care, that stepped in harms way for those children.

What the information will show, is that this maniac was armed with enough high velocity ammunition,on his person, unused at the time his body was identified, to do a hell of a lot more killing, than what was actually done. What was discharged, is slightly over 30 full magazines of that american made copy of an AK-47, were emptied at close range, most at point blank, in approximately 12-15 minutes, before the psychopath went to a handgun for his own head. Forensics people have been tracing every single round. Bullets fired from inside that school, for example, that went through, wood, glass, metal and have been pulled out of the cars in the parking lots, trees surrounding the school. Thankfully, none of those babies suffered. It was over fast.

Better mental health diagnosis and treatment will not prevent the existence of psychopaths, who choose to do murder. Stricter gun control laws, will not prevent people who want guns, from getting them. I believe in a person's right to arm themselves, for defensive purposes. Small calibre, single shot weapons. Hunting weapons. I do not believe that a civilian has the right to own weapons, like a Bushmaster, which are clearly for military and enforcment purposes. There is no need for a civilian to own weapons that are designed by military for efficient, large scale killing.

Ammunition though. Tracking, controlling ammunition is the key. Laws governing discharge of firearms, and tracking ammunition is the key. There needs to be a system in place, to prevent people from stockpiling what this maniac was able to stockpile, for his mother's weapons. Laws to govern tracking of all discharges of weapons, from licensed weapons owners, and purchases of ammunition, tracked to all licensed weapons owners. Starting with the ammunition manufactures, and ammunition importers.

 

[minidarren]

Nice breakdown on hand held weapons Charlie.

I have a simple point to make, that I can't hold in any longer.

An unloaded firearm, isn't much more dangerous than a baseball bat or golf club, or brass knuckles.

This horror, was closer to home to me, than, well too close. The details will be out from the professionals as soon as everything is complete. Right now, over the next few days, the focus is on burying the remains of TWENTY six year olds, and six adults charged with their care, that stepped in harms way for those children.

What the information will show, is that this maniac was armed with enough high velocity ammunition,on his person, unused at the time his body was identified, to do a hell of a lot more killing, than what was actually done. What was discharged, is slightly over 30 full magazines of that american made copy of an AK-47, were emptied at close range, most at point blank, in approximately 12-15 minutes, before the psychopath went to a handgun for his own head. Forensics people have been tracing every single round. Bullets fired from inside that school, for example, that went through, wood, glass, metal and have been pulled out of the cars in the parking lots, trees surrounding the school. Thankfully, none of those babies suffered. It was over fast.

Better mental health diagnosis and treatment will not prevent the existence of psychopaths, who choose to do murder. Stricter gun control laws, will not prevent people who want guns, from getting them. I believe in a person's right to arm themselves, for defensive purposes. Small calibre, single shot weapons. Hunting weapons. I do not believe that a civilian has the right to own weapons, like a Bushmaster, which are clearly for military and enforcment purposes. There is no need for a civilian to own weapons that are designed by military for efficient, large scale killing.

Ammunition though. Tracking, controlling ammunition is the key. Laws governing discharge of firearms, and tracking ammunition is the key. There needs to be a system in place, to prevent people from stockpiling what this maniac was able to stockpile, for his mother's weapons. Laws to govern tracking of all discharges of weapons, from licensed weapons owners, and purchases of ammunition, tracked to all licensed weapons owners. Starting with the ammunition manufactures, and ammunition importers.

I think this is well written. However more needs to be done to fix our violent society. You remove the violence and the guns stop killing. I have no idea how, but someone has made these people think its okay for them to chose who lives and who dies.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2