Jim Boeheim used the pulpit to speak out against automatic weapons and in favor of gun contr

[husky99]

900 wins

http://zagsblog.com/articles/jim-boeheim-speaks-out-on-gun-control-after-900th-win/

 

[OkaForPrez]

Thank you coach B.

 

[TexanMark]

Jim is a Republic..but assualt weapons ban appeals to most.

 

[TheChamps990411]

Yes because a ban assault weapons will stop this type of tragedy from happening in the future.
virginia tech had 32 casualties and the shooter used two pistols one of which was a 22 caliber which is the smallest caliber.

 

[UConnDan97]

Everything Jim Boeheim said was right on...

 

[TheChamps990411]

Everything Jim Boeheim said was right on...

ok. so he says he doesnt understand why someone needs an ar with a 30 round magazine. but he is ok with rifles and i assume handguns as he is talking about banning assault rifles. ok so lets just say the gunman at sandy hook didnt have the ar15 and only had the glock and sig saur with 10 round magazines. do you expect me to believe the tragedy would never have happened? oh wait i get it. he means that only a few people would have died. i get it now 10 people dying is alot more acceptable than 26. boehiem is an unimformed idiot just like most of the anti gun establishment that SIMPLY DONT GET IT!

People love to mention how England has banned guns and has virtually no gun deaths. the part people dont tell you is that since the gun ban violent crime has risen steadily every single year. what people also never mention and purpously gets very little coverage from the media is how armed responsible citizens have prevented and deterred crimes and even mass killings with their own firearms.

After these laws get passed we will still have mass killings as there were when the first ban was in place. Just adding more gun laws is not the answer. there are other causes to why mass killings are rampant and those issues must also be taken into account along with looking at our laws regarding gun ownership which im in favor of. But to make legal responsible gun owners bear the brunt of the repercussions from these shootings is just wrong.

 

[orangehomer]

Yes because a ban assault weapons will stop this type of tragedy from happening in the future.
virginia tech had 32 casualties and the shooter used two pistols one of which was a 22 caliber which is the smallest caliber.

some people think less guns are better, some people think more guns are better. one type of person might say that the absence of assault-style weapons may have reduced or prevented this tragedy. another type of person thinks that arming the teachers may have prevented it. put me firmly in the camp that less guns are always better.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

some people think less guns are better, some people think more guns are better. one type of person might say that the absence of assault-style weapons may have reduced or prevented this tragedy. another type of person thinks that arming the teachers may have prevented it. put me firmly in the camp that less guns are always better.

Yeah but the thing is people get paid to study these things so it's not just "you say x" ... "i say y" everyone's opinion is right.

The post that precedes yours is grotesque.

 

[Kitaman]

This discussion is happening all over the country. People with a platform are using it for their opinions. Many Americans want something done. The noise starts as a whisper, gets louder and then goes non-stop. The whispering phase ended on Friday, and now its getting louder.

JB right or wrong chooses not to whisper. There is a shift as others, with a platform, are not whispering. In fact even the Boneyard is getting louder. There are no fools but hurt and affected people expressing their views to anyone that will listen. JB and others have an audience and want something done.

To me it means a change is about to happen. Which is better than doing nothing or doing the same thing and expecting different results. Its not about guns per-se, its about doing something. For me that alone makes a difference, because we tried and perhaps failed.

 

[TheChamps990411]

some people think less guns are better, some people think more guns are better. one type of person might say that the absence of assault-style weapons may have reduced or prevented this tragedy. another type of person thinks that arming the teachers may have prevented it. put me firmly in the camp that less guns are always better.

Put me in that camp too. yes im a gun owner but we dont need more guns. just look at somalia. thats a perfect example of what a society with more guns looks like. my point is people need to stop believing that more laws are going to protect them and dont take away my right to defend myself and other innocent people from harm.
I disagree with arming teachers. all you need is a couple of well trained armed security and a secure building (reinforced doors,wired windows) and that will keep kids as safe as possible. in public places like malls,workplaces,theaters etc. its more difficult but thats where responsible armed well trained citizens come in.
You hear a lot of people demonizing guns and gun owners but ill tell you this. if your at a mall and the shooting starts you would change your mind pretty quickly if your life were saved by the actions of an armed citizen. My saying has for a long time been "Better to have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have it".
It also cracks me up with all the hipocracy in whashington especially from the president. he has always been very anti gun but yet he roles around with a motorcade armed to the teeth with secret service who arent carrying water pistols im sure.

 

[Gurleyman]

If he could have gotten off less rounds less quickly, a) he might have taken longer to shoot his way into the building, giving more kids time to find safety and b) the kids might have taken fewer bullets and some of them could have maybe survived. No kids who were shot lived (two adults shot in the leg did). Tough for a six-year-old to take 3-11 bullets.

Would 10 kids dead and 10 in the hospital be a horrible tragedy? Of course. But 10 more kids would be alive. I don't see why this is a controversial position to take. If the VT shooter had higher-caliber weapons, maybe he would have killed 100. The fact he killed some people with other weapons doesn't make the ones used in Newtown somehow less deadly.

More bullets = more damage. If you want to debate that point, feel free.

Now that doesn't mean this solves all our problems - we can also do things for mental health, as I posted in another thead, but it'll require some public-sector spending. We are also having issues getting our veterans back to work - hiring them for school security isn't a bad idea (maybe with periodic psychiatric evaluation to make sure they aren't going to snap from PTSD). That'll also take some tax dollars, but it would serve two great functions - getting veterans employed and making schools secure. I'd have my taxes go up for that.

But making the weapons our psychos use less deadly means less dead.

 

[TheChamps990411]

Yeah but the thing is people get paid to study these things so it's not just "you say x" ... "i say y" everyone's opinion is right.

The post that precedes yours is grotesque.

Grotesque? really? how so? Is it because i call call out the flawed thinking of the anti gun supporters?

 

[orangehomer]

Grotesque? really? how so? Is it because i call call out the flawed thinking of the anti gun supporters?

no, it's grotesque because it highlights the flaws in your own thinking, which is that the weapon of choice has no influence on the outcome of the crime. could a guy with a crossbow do as much damage as a guy with an assault rifle? your message is old and tired. i have still not seen one "gun-supporter" explain the need for semi-auto assault style weapons for the average citizen. full-auto weapons are illegal, there is no reason the same can't be done for other assault-style weapons.

 

[TheChamps990411]

If he could have gotten off less rounds less quickly, a) he might have taken longer to shoot his way into the building, giving more kids time to find safety and b) the kids might have taken fewer bullets and some of them could have maybe survived. No kids who were shot lived (two adults shot in the leg did). Tough for a six-year-old to take 3-11 bullets.

Would 10 kids dead and 10 in the hospital be a horrible tragedy? Of course. But 10 more kids would be alive. I don't see why this is a controversial position to take. If the VT shooter had higher-caliber weapons, maybe he would have killed 100. The fact he killed some people with other weapons doesn't make the ones used in Newtown somehow less deadly.

More bullets = more damage. If you want to debate that point, feel free.

Now that doesn't mean this solves all our problems - we can also do things for mental health, as I posted in another thead, but it'll require some public-sector spending. We are also having issues getting our veterans back to work - hiring them for school security isn't a bad idea (maybe with periodic psychiatric evaluation to make sure they aren't going to snap from PTSD). That'll also take some tax dollars, but it would serve two great functions - getting veterans employed and making schools secure. I'd have my taxes go up for that.

But making the weapons our psychos use less deadly means less dead.

I understand your point but people being killed is people being killed. the number becomes irrelevent when you talk to those individual families.

Your first paragraph is hypothetical and is more wishful thinking then reality. Im not going to get into a detailed discussion on ballistics and the human body as it would be just vulger and incensitive to get into such a discussion at this time and has nothing to do with my point.

Again my point is that security measures in combination with looking at what existing gun laws we have and making some changes is our best option. blaming guns and banning them is reactionary and asinine and WILL NOT prevent tragedies like this from happening i promise you. If i thought banning guns tommorow would stop this madness id give mine up gleefully. But thats not the world we live in and the solution to this problem is not as easy as many appear to think it is.

 

[TheChamps990411]

no, it's grotesque because it highlights the flaws in your own thinking, which is that the weapon of choice has no influence on the outcome of the crime. could a guy with a crossbow do as much damage as a guy with an assault rifle? your message is old and tired. i have still not seen one "gun-supporter" explain the need for semi-auto assault style weapons for the average citizen. full-auto weapons are illegal, there is no reason the same can't be done for other assault-style weapons.

"it highlights the flaws in your own thinking which is that the weapon of choice has no influence on the outcome of the crime"

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

You did not understand my point at all. my point is the number is irrelevent people were killed PERIOD! i would not feel better if he went into the school with a muskett and killed two people. but thats somehow better than 20 to people and i dont understand that logic. how can you put a number on life? i say talk to each individual family and theyll tell you otherwise.

 

[TheChamps990411]

no, it's grotesque because it highlights the flaws in your own thinking, which is that the weapon of choice has no influence on the outcome of the crime. could a guy with a crossbow do as much damage as a guy with an assault rifle? your message is old and tired. i have still not seen one "gun-supporter" explain the need for semi-auto assault style weapons for the average citizen. full-auto weapons are illegal, there is no reason the same can't be done for other assault-style weapons.

And to answer your question about semi-auto rifles for average citizens heres your answer. Some people enjoy sport shooting. shooting in a responsible safe environment is fun. now i know that may be taboo or not pc to say today but its true. people have hobbies like restoring classic cars,mountain climbing,fishing etc. well some people enjoy shooting different types guns/rifles/shotguns and it has nothing to do with some sort of death wish or fantasy about shooting people. its just about having fun and sometimes competing with other people that share that same enthusiasm.
Extended magazines come into play because youd rather spend more time sending rounds down range at a target rather than spending most of your time reloading magazines till your thumbs turn purple. adding different attachments is comparable to getting parts for a car your restoring. attachments improved the rifles performance in different weather conditions and over distances that you may want to experiment with while at the range.

 

[Gurleyman]

Same way you could talk to each individual family who's kid survived and they would be grateful that the gunman didn't have more firepower.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth - you want more people packing in public to limit the damage from potential crazy gunmen, yet if less weaponry in the hands of the crazy gunman could also limit the damage, you say that doesn't matter.

 

[orangehomer]

"it highlights the flaws in your own thinking which is that the weapon of choice has no influence on the outcome of the crime"

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

You did not understand my point at all. my point is the number is irrelevent people were killed PERIOD! i would not feel better if he went into the school with a muskett and killed two people. but thats somehow better than 20 to people and i dont understand that logic. how can you put a number on life? i say talk to each individual family and theyll tell you otherwise.

i honestly can't believe that you just typed that the number of people killed is irrelevant. my mind is officially blown. 2 is not different than 20 according to you.

 

[TheChamps990411]

Same way you could talk to each individual family who's kid survived and they would be grateful that the gunman didn't have more firepower.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth - you want more people packing in public to limit the damage from potential crazy gunmen, yet if less weaponry in the hands of the crazy gunman could also limit the damage, you say that doesn't matter.

More responsible packing citizens means the greater chance one of them could be present at an incident and possibly save lives.

As far as less weaponry not mattering thats not what i said but i see how you could have come to that conclusion. let me clarify.

What i said is people being killed is people being killed it doesnt matter if its 10 or 20 once its already happened. you cannot assume less deaths because a shooter has less fire power. look at vt. killed the most people but used pistols one of which has been labled a "pee shooter". i believe security measures in combination with looking at our current gun laws and keeping what works and making changes to what doesnt work will be far more productive than just banning assault weapons.
An assault weapons ban will do nothing to keep these hands out of individuals who want to do harm. would a ban have prevented this tragedy? highly doubtful. of course youll counter with less lives and we`ll just be going in circles.

 

[TheChamps990411]

i honestly can't believe that you just typed that the number of people killed is irrelevant. my mind is officially blown. 2 is not different than 20 according to you.

to those two families no its not. lets agree to disagree.

 

[jleves]

do you expect me to believe the tragedy would never have happened? oh wait i get it. he means that only a few people would have died. i get it now 10 people dying is alot more acceptable than 26.

I haven't seen anyone else address this part of your post - I skimmed. But are you trying to say that 26 people getting killed is the same as 10? To answer your question, yes, 10 people getting killed by a madman because he didn't have semi automatic weapons is way more acceptable than 26 getting killed.

Are you trying to argue that 10 or 26 doesn't matter? That's not an argument you are going to win very often. Particularly when 20 of them were 6 years old.

 

[UConnDan97]

i honestly can't believe that you just typed that the number of people killed is irrelevant. my mind is officially blown. 2 is not different than 20 according to you.

And now you know why I haven't responded to that poster. Posts like his are the type of thing that I have had to read many times in the aftermath of this horrific trajedy. This is the type of idiotic ideology that prevents meaningful change from happening...

 

[OkaForPrez]

to those two families no its not. lets agree to disagree.

Champs I'm very anti gun personally but I've started to see the merrit in a lot of the pro gun arguments while researching over the last few days, especially when it comes to realizing how much damage can be done with the most minimally capable handguns. However the 2 vs 20 argument is discrediting every other point you are trying to make in my eyes. If there were a cure for cancer that saved 90% of those diagnosed would you not use it because it brought no solace to the 10%? Maybe it's not a perfect analogy but it's not far from what you are trying to say where I sit.


I'm not sure what the solution is at this point but what I feel strongly is that the fact we are all talking about it is good. Let's all practice patience and tolerance for each others views, layout the full optionset of actions that will bring positive change be it access to guns, regulation and registration, mental health and community. Let's reverse engineer all of these incidents over the last few years and put a plan together. Let's agree to reject the polarizing rhetoric that oversimplifies things to either extreme to sell tv and radio and print. This is not a one side will win out issue, we can only fix this through compromise.

My thoughts fwiw

 

[Gurleyman]

And to answer your question about semi-auto rifles for average citizens heres your answer. Some people enjoy sport shooting. shooting in a responsible safe environment is fun. now i know that may be taboo or not pc to say today but its true. people have hobbies like restoring classic cars,mountain climbing,fishing etc. well some people enjoy shooting different types guns/rifles/shotguns and it has nothing to do with some sort of death wish or fantasy about shooting people. its just about having fun and sometimes competing with other people that share that same enthusiasm.
Extended magazines come into play because youd rather spend more time sending rounds down range at a target rather than spending most of your time reloading magazines till your thumbs turn purple. adding different attachments is comparable to getting parts for a car your restoring. attachments improved the rifles performance in different weather conditions and over distances that you may want to experiment with while at the range.

I'm reminded of a saying: the things that matter most should never come at the expense of things that matter least.

 

[huskyharry]

If he could have gotten off less rounds less quickly, a) he might have taken longer to shoot his way into the building, giving more kids time to find safety and b) the kids might have taken fewer bullets and some of them could have maybe survived. No kids who were shot lived (two adults shot in the leg did). Tough for a six-year-old to take 3-11 bullets.

Would 10 kids dead and 10 in the hospital be a horrible tragedy? Of course. But 10 more kids would be alive. I don't see why this is a controversial position to take. If the VT shooter had higher-caliber weapons, maybe he would have killed 100. The fact he killed some people with other weapons doesn't make the ones used in Newtown somehow less deadly.

More bullets = more damage. If you want to debate that point, feel free.

Now that doesn't mean this solves all our problems - we can also do things for mental health, as I posted in another thead, but it'll require some public-sector spending. We are also having issues getting our veterans back to work - hiring them for school security isn't a bad idea (maybe with periodic psychiatric evaluation to make sure they aren't going to snap from PTSD). That'll also take some tax dollars, but it would serve two great functions - getting veterans employed and making schools secure. I'd have my taxes go up for that.

But making the weapons our psychos use less deadly means less dead.

Good point but how to implement an effective program and whether such a program would have made a difference in this case are valid points.

I carried a weapon for all of my waking hours except when taking a shower or going to the gym during a total of 18 months in Afghanistan. Although, I'm a physician, I did learn to really enjoy becoming proficient with the M4 rifle and M9 pistol, and I understand Mrs. Lanza's interest in target shooting. It was In hindsight clearly an awful mistake to try reach our to her troubled son by teaching him about weapons as well, but I can understand what she was trying to do. People who enjoy target shooting are not horrible people. She clearly underestimated the degree of evil within her son, which is likely a common trait within other mothers of monsters.

So, how could an "assault rifle" ban be implemented? Which weapons fall in the category and which do not could certainly become an issue of serious litigation. Many jobs in the arms manufacturing area could be at jeopardy. There are much more dangerous rifles and weapons than the AR15 used in this case. But what about the AR7 survival rifle that shoots a 22 caliber, only takes 7 rounds in the magazine and is designed to be disassembled and put into the water-tight buttstock...it is really not a dangerous weapon that would be misused like this case. Some pistols are just as dangerous as assault rifles. Nidal Hassan, the jerk who was the year behind me in med school, used such a pistol, which fired high-velocity rifle ammunition in his dastardly work at Fort Hood.

So, even if you come up with a fair definition and ban the production and sale of assault rifles, there will still be millions of Americans with such weapons in their homes. Many of my fellow military members in Afghanistan own personal weapons, and many had several thousand dollars invested in them. Voluntary buy-back programs at $200 or less in general, collect weapons worth less than $200. Outlawing the ownership of such weapons would never fly without reimbursement. However,banning new production and sale of the most dangerous weapons (rifles and pistols) and limiting magazine size to say 7 rounds and allowing no one to carry more than two magazines might fly.

Regrettably, this wouldn't have helped in this case, as he killed his mother and stole her weapons. (BTW I own no personal firearms)