It's just so very sad

[8893]

And there you have it. Proof that they can't be reasoned with.

I think there are enough others who can be now though.

 

[minidarren]

And there you have it. Proof that they can't be reasoned with.

I think there are enough others who can be now though.

Very compelling argument. I recommend that the "others" that you speak of don't choose you as their spokes person.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[8893]

Very compelling argument. I recommend that the "others" that you speak of don't choose you as their spokes person.

I and many others here and elsewhere have made several very compelling arguments. You won't listen to them and never will, because you simply believe that the comfort that your mass assault weapons give you is worth more than the lives of innocent children. That is your choice. My point is to give up on people like you and realize that you are in the minority. Most thinking people on the planet--including this country--would make a different choice.

I am not one of the others; I've never seen the logic in allowing private citizens to own mass assault weapons and ammunition like this.

 

[minidarren]

The issue is you have no idea what you are talking about. What is a "mass assault rifle?" Here's some food for thought...

"Yet, statistics show, unlike handguns or shotguns, rifles account for only a fraction of homicides in the United States. Of 12,664 murder victims last year, only 323 were killed with rifles, according to the FBI.

Both the Paducah, Ky., and Columbine, Colo., mass school killings occurred during the 10-year ban. In Paducah, the killer used a .22 caliber long rifle, 12 gauge pump-action shotgun and a Ruger MK II .22-caliber pistol.

In Columbine, the shooters used 99 explosive devices, a 12 gauge pump action shotgun. Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9 mm carbine, a 9 mm Intratec TEC-9 semi-automatic handgun, and a 12-gauge Stevens 311D double-barreled sawed-off shotgun.

In 2007, the Virginia Tech shooter used a Glock and Walther handgun to kill 32 and wounded 17.

More recently, AR-15s were used in the Colorado movie theater shooting, one last week in a Portland, Ore. mall and in the Newton elementary massacre."

Gun Sales Surge After Massacre, http://fxn.ws/UxbPZS - Sent via the FOX News Android App.

8% of homicides with a gun occur from the use of an assault rifle.

Just under 50% the deaths above occurred from the use of a rifle. And that number is assuming that every death came from the use of an assault rifle. Each individual carried multiple weapons.

The point being is that an assault rifle ban will NOT stop an incident like this from occurring. The worst school shooting in history, Virginia Tech, did not involve one assault rifle. A ban on assault weapons would have done nothing to save those 32 lives. And IMO an assault weapon would have done nothing to save the 27 souls that were lost Friday.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[minidarren]

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

 

[SubbaBub]

The AR was apparently bought legally by his mother and used by her unstable son to kill her, 20 small children and 6 other adults.

If assault weapons were illegal or if high capacity magazines were illegal, do you think a single mom in the burbs would own either?

If junior, had access to only handguns and hunting rifles do you think all these people are dead today?

Maybe one of the two administrators gets to him and takes him to the ground without the AR and 24 other people are saved.

Personal enjoyment, personal protection and home defense are poor arguments to make in this case and do not justify killing capacity of this magnitude being available to the general public. You may think your AR is protecting you. More likely, it's the law of large numbers pulling most of the weight.

If you're a hunter you need at most a mag capacity of three. Anything more is a waste.

I believe these high powered weapons are the modern equivalent to leisure suits, IROC cameros and gold neck chains. Status symbols for undersexed creeps.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[The Funster]

There is simply no credible rationale for long barreled, high capacity assault rifles to be available to the general citizenry. NONE.

 

[minidarren]

The AR was apparently bought legally by his mother and used by her unstable son to kill her, 20 small children and 6 other adults.

If assault weapons were illegal or if high capacity magazines were illegal, do you think a single mom in the burbs would own either?

If junior, had access to only handguns and hunting rifles do you think all these people are dead today?

Maybe one of the two administrators gets to him and takes him to the ground without the AR and 24 other people are saved.

Personal enjoyment, personal protection and home defense are poor arguments to make in this case and do not justify killing capacity of this magnitude being available to the general public. You may think your AR is protecting you. More likely, it's the law of large numbers pulling most of the weight.

If you're a hunter you need at most a mag capacity of three. Anything more is a waste.

I believe these high powered weapons are the modern equivalent to leisure suits, IROC cameros and gold neck chains. Status symbols for undersexed creeps.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

To answer your question...

Yes I do think it still happens. The AR becomes a shot gun. The death toll is actually higher because of the round a shot gun can shoot. I proved to you that it doesn't matter what gun is used.

There are hunting rifles more powerful than these ARs. I believe that the magazine size is irrelevant as they can be changed in a second. He would have 10 three round magazines. You'd probably be upset to know that he could have had two 100 round drums.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[tzznandrew]

To answer your question...

Yes I do think it still happens.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

The fact that you think he could have done the same exact amount of damage, just as easily, with a handgun with a small magazine as with an assault weapon with a large magazine, means we're at an impasse.

You clearly cannot be convinced otherwise--even if it means taking a position 99% of the country would find absurd--and you aren't going to convince me or others that assault weapons, or gun clips aren't at least part of the problem, and that banning them would help minimize these.

I'd like to do what they did in Australia. Ban assault weapons (and we can talk about how we define these--I'm open to that) and then pay people who have them to turn them in. Make it illegal to own, but give people a year to turn in. I'd also ban large clips.

It's work out just fine in Australia. People have lived there without assault bans, and they haven't all killed each other and started eating human flesh. Neither has the government come after them. (To be clear, I'm not saying that you, personally, are suggesting either of these: but some people have.) They haven't had a mass shooting in years since the Port Arthur massacre that made them change their law.

I'm okay with that.

 

[cohenzone]

The illogical spouting of stats about other things that wind up "killing" people as a defense to sane weapons control is mind-boggling. You can name cars, poisons. swimming pools, airplanes, even knives, and in addition to bombs, guns are the only one of them meant to create violence no matter how you slice it. That is their only real purpose, not so for knives, and target shooting is only a way to refine the violence skill. They were invented to cause rapid and fatal damage without having to be standing next to someone.

Golda Meir once said that Israel would have peace with Palestinians when they decided they love their children more than they hate us. The point of that in this discussion is that way too many people love their guns way too much because of one sentence in a 250 year old document.

 

[8893]

Minidarren, please keep posting your defense of private ownership of these weapons. The more people see how people like you have controlled this issue with lunacy, the more chance there is that the lunatic fringe like you will no longer be able to control it.

 

[tykurez]

Australia's 1996 Gun Reform: a Decade Without Mass Shootings

Frankly, I don't give a about your paper targets or the head hanging on your wall. This isn't the 1845 American frontier.

 

[Excalibur]

To answer your question...

Yes I do think it still happens. The AR becomes a shot gun. The death toll is actually higher because of the round a shot gun can shoot. I proved to you that it doesn't matter what gun is used.

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

 

[minidarren]

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

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[homunculus]

The AR was apparently bought legally by his mother and used by her unstable son to kill her, 20 small children and 6 other adults.

If assault weapons were illegal or if high capacity magazines were illegal, do you think a single mom in the burbs would own either?

If junior, had access to only handguns and hunting rifles do you think all these people are dead today?

Maybe one of the two administrators gets to him and takes him to the ground without the AR and 24 other people are saved.

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.

 

[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]