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

[Dann]

i bet bernie has a load of guns in his basement

 

[champs99and04]

I've read a lot of the back and fourth on this topic over the last few days, and I think both sides raise some legitimate points, but champs has either completely gone of the rail, had a little too much to drink tonight, or is just not thinking logically. This country has a gun crisis right now, and at the very least our gun laws need some fine-tuning. If champs' primary arguments regarding pro-assault rifles is that the number of lives lost is irrelevent, and that some people enjoy using them for fun, then I'm just staggered. Champs, I'm not trying to call your out, your argument is just one of the most non-sensical I've ever read on here, to the point I wonder if the events of Friday have fully registered with you. I think if you go back and read what you have written, even you might begin to see how ridiculous your posts come off.

"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."

Yes, this was actually something that was written by an otherwise rationally thinking member. These two sentences, more than any other I can find, represents the saturation this country has with guns, and why these sort of discussions are often an uphill climb for those of us proposing some changes. Do you think 9/11 would have been less tragic if those planes had crashed into dairy farms and killed ten people instead of thousands? Thank God the folks on flight 93 weren't thinking, "You kow what, lives lost are lives lost. It doesn't matter if it's 100 or 1,000, let's just sit back and enjoy the ride." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I'm just not understanding your point.

And if you really believe the good fun of a few gun-maniacs who like to go out target practicing once in a while is grounds for continuing to allow these type of weapons to be sold, then you've really lost it.

 

[nomar]

"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.

Wow. Yeah, 18 dead kids is the same as 8 dead kids. 20 parents would disagree with you as strongly as anyone can disagree with anyone.

Your post pretty much ensures nobody is going to take you seriously on this issue. I'm all for a policy debate, but Jesus.

 

[Gurleyman]

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)

Those are all good questions and difficult to answer. The actual implementation and enforcement is tougher than the bumper sticker.

In a vague sense, you'd like to be able to limit the number of bullets in a magazine, the speed in which they can be discharged, and the damage that each bullet can cause. But where the lines are - would take a lot of haggling amongst the experts.

And gun control isn't the cure-all. There are other directions to approach the problem - mental health, security, etc.

I could go for a hard-to-obtain permit - with training - that would allow civilians to carry concealed weapons in public places like malls, theaters, sporting events. But that training wouldn't just be target practice at the range - it would be getting them used to quick reactions/judgment under stress. Everyone else can have their hunting rifles, bedside handguns, shooting ranges, but packing in public should be a high standard. Otherwise, we'll have every John Wayne wannabe taking out innocent people when the hits the fan and he finds his accuracy isn't what it was when he was aiming at tin cans.

 

[huskyharry]

You are right that more than target practice is required. In preparing for Afghanistan we all went through training scenarios (using blanks of course) where as part of a four man team you learn how to systematically take control of rooms ( sort of like Hollywood but more precise), we also had reflexive fire drills with pop up targets and a drill where we had to fire with the rifle then sling it and draw and fire your pistol. I also practiced drawing under different situations and mentally prepared for potential ambushes in mutal situations.

I think part of the solution may be to have school wardens, similar to air wardens who are not obviously security (a 65 y.o. Barney Fife wannabe rent-a cop out front of the school would have been the first casualty) but are skilled at weapons handling and present intermittently in schools on a rotating basis.

 

[TheChamps990411]

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

Well said. Its typical of this board to focus in on the one thing that many may not agree with and completely ignore any other valid point i tried to make. i couldnt care less if my posts are ignored or looked down upon. its my opinion and i stand by what i said.

Your cancer analogy doesnt really apply but i give you credit for trying lol! Im just of the belief that 1 death is just too many nevermind 20 or 30. i think we can all agree its horrific and my biggest beef is only that people are hell bent on gun bans when i know for a fact and if you do the research youll see that banning assault rifles will do little to stop these massacres from happening.

ive given my ideas on how to prevent these types of tragedies from happening again and im sticking to it as i think its the best we can do given the circumstances.