Another shooting....

[DrMoab]

Agreed. If the kid had used a car and drive through a crosswalk he could have just as easily killed just as many or maybe even more.

 

[urban yan]

How do you figure? I love when the anti-gun people get upset about various comparisons and say "oh, well that's different so it doesn't apply". If it's someone who opposes the gun-control faction, suddenly any arguments they make are invalidated. But every argument used to support banning guns is perfectly valid. You can't have it both ways, guys.

Fine, if you want to compare guns to cars than consider that car policies see continual reform... that's why you can walk away from more car accidents with modern safety systems (even pedestrians in many cases), that's why most new cars reward you with better fuel economy than their predecessors. Speed limits change, stop signs are placed at dangerous intersections, police set-up stop checks to curb drinking and driving, etc., etc., etc... So where's the gun reform?

If we knew the ford pinto was a death trap, we'd stop buying said pinto; if we're told assault rifles, and high capacity clips are the vehicles of choice for mass shooters.... well, we blame cars, video games, old movies, kitchen sinks, etc...

If guns are your hobby than stand up and take some goddamn responsibility for your hobby rather than blame everyone and everything else.

 

[kastein]

Please explain how "assault rifles" and "high capacity clips" are responsible for this.

Last I checked, things in the assault weapons ban were used in approximately TWO PERCENT of violent crimes. The rest were, you know, ordinary firearms that any reasonable citizen can legally own for a variety of reasonable purposes.

https://kontradictions.wordpress.co...ew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

The most important question, of course, is: “What exactly is an assault weapon?”
The term was specifically designed to conjure images of military machine guns, but for those totally unfamiliar with firearms, it should be made clear that automatic weapons (those that fire more than one bullet with each pull of the trigger) are already illegal for the average citizen to own. They are heavily regulated by the federal government, registered with the ATF and very difficult to obtain licenses for. Almost no crime is ever committed with them.
So in 1994, legislators were forced to ask themselves, “What exactly will this ban do away with?” The category of “assault weapon” didn’t actually exist, and this was an opportunity for gun control advocates to create it, to say exactly what they wanted off the streets.
As it turns out, they were mostly opposed to things they saw in movies. Which is to say that most of the features that now defined “assault weapons” had to do with form and not function, totally sidestepping the issue of violent crime altogether.

These are some examples of what the ban in question covered. Perhaps most tellingly, semi-automatic (legal) versions of automatic firearms were banned just because they looked like illegal guns.
When the category of “assault weapon” had finally been conjured into being, all of its included firearms together accounted for less than 2% of violent crime.[6] None of them had any more functionality than a hunting rifle. It couldn’t have been clearer that this was a war founded on image rather than reality.
The foreshadowing of just how much it wouldn’t accomplish was clear. Years later, a study of the ban’s effectiveness by the National Institute of Justice seemed to scratch its head out loud that “[a]lthough the weapons banned by this legislation were used only rarely in gun crimes before the ban, supporters felt that these weapons posed a threat to public safety…”
There was only one banned feature that had anything to do with practical function.
“High Capacity” Magazines
The ban on “large capacity ammunition feeding devices” was the most far reaching aspect of the legislation, as it applied to magazines for all guns, not just guns that were illegal due to other cosmetic features. Again, the question became: “What exactly is a high capacity magazine?” No such thing had been defined, and an arbitrary number of rounds would have to be selected.
Legislators settled on the number 10 for rifles and pistols, while 5 shells would be the maximum for a shotgun.
The strongest focus by gun control advocates in the wake of various shootings has been a return to these limits on magazine size.[7] (During Carol McCarthy’s question-avoidance in the above video, notice that her stump speech is an assertion of the importance of banning high capacity magazines. This has been duplicated on countless news and talk programs, blogs and websites, especially those that lean politically to the Left[8].) The idea is that if mass shooters have larger magazines, they will be able to kill more people before police or an armed citizen can intervene.
Keeping in mind the statistical rarity and relatively tiny death toll of mass shootings to begin with, is this true? Will high capacity bans lower the number of people killed in mass shootings? All we have to do is look at one of the deadliest shootings in the world: the Virginia Tech massacre.
With one pistol of 10-round capacity and one pistol of 15-round capacity, Cho killed more people than anyone has ever killed in a single U.S. shooting incident. He didn’t need any massive magazines or custom weapons. The embarrassingly simple reason that magazine size restrictions can’t lessen the lethality of mass shooters is that it doesn’t matter how many rounds fit in a magazine if a shooter has multiple magazines. When one runs out, they can simply drop it and pop another in, a process which takes five seconds at most. (Less than half a second, if you happen to be this guy.) Cho was able to carry out this massacre because he carried a backpack containing 19 magazines, a fact not well-publicized.
Of course, most semiautomatic pistols hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. In preparation for this article I asked a gun dealer to guess what percentage of new pistols came standard with magazines of more than 10 round capacity. His estimate was 70-75%, and he took model after model out of the display case to illustrate. The most popular (best selling) handgun in the world, the Glock 17, holds 17 rounds of 9mm ammunition. In fact, after looking at all available Glock models, I found that less than half them even had magazines smaller than 10 rounds available at all.

Keep beating that "Assault Weapons" and "High Capacity Clips" drum, though. I'll just sit here and wonder why I bother reading what you have to say.

Maybe you could use a refresher on what clips and mags are and what the differences are, too.

As for blaming everyone and everything else - I think I'll keep blaming the guy with his finger on the trigger, not the tool he's using.

 

[Demonoid369]

Just going to add this stuff here

Like to see someone on the other side counter those?

 

[urban yan]

Keep beating that "Assault Weapons" and "High Capacity Clips" drum, though. I'll just sit here and wonder why I bother reading what you have to say.

Maybe you could use a refresher on what clips and mags are and what the differences are, too.

As for blaming everyone and everything else - I think I'll keep blaming the guy with his finger on the trigger, not the tool he's using.

I keep beating that drum because your “statistical rarity” resulted in 20 tiny slaughtered bodies along with 6 teachers, and those high capacity clips played a key roll in Gabby Gifford’s shooting – that’s why.
Also, I never said those types of bans were the end-all solution; in fact, I alluded to tightening registries rather than banning those weapons.

Let me be clear, my harshest criticism didn’t fall on the US constitution or gun ownership in any way shape or form, but rather my distain towards those that horde guns out of paranoia, and those with regurgitated “kitchen sink” arguments towards a conversation that must be had (and that includes both sides of the spectrum). Now if you have a problem with me – someone whose taken the center of this debate/ with nothing to gain since I’m a canuck – than you’re going to need a stiff drink when you see the latest polls on the matter. Tighter gun controls may lag behind putting more police at schools or increasing spending on mental health, but the later two proposals don’t come cheap, and they won’t reduce the size of government (something most folks here want).

 

[WB9YZU]

I'm not arguing for or against large cap mags.
I do think this logic you use is flawed. You can't make laws based on exceptions, no matter how horrific the exception is.

I keep beating that drum because your “statistical rarity” resulted in 20 tiny slaughtered bodies along with 6 teachers, and those high capacity clips played a key roll in Gabby Gifford’s shooting – that’s why.

By this logic, we should have banned airliners after 9/11.
After all, only a small number of airliners that are out there were used in the 9/11 activities, but in the hands of the criminally insane, killed not 20, but Thousands. Yes, I know that an Agency was created after 9/11; just see what kind of fiasco that's turned into.

The manufacture of Fertilizer an Kerosene should have be outlawed after the OK Bombings.
After all, that your argument that even though only a small amount of what Farmers regularly use of these Chemicals was used in the Bombings by one seriously messed up ex Vet, anyone at any time could repeat the scenario.

We'd probably also want to outlaw Veterans.
They are trained to kill. And every once and again, one goes off the reservation and kills innocent people; but the Potential is there for something bad to happen. Should all live in FEAR of our Uncles, Parents, Brothers and Sisters? I think not.

Hell man, let's outlaw all pointy objects of any kind. After all Millions of kids a year are cut or poked with a pointy object like pencils, pens, paper, compass, and scissors. It's a sad affair, but you know, as responsible Adults, we gotta do this to protect our kids.

Just exactly how far down this rabbit hole you want to go? It's a very very deep hole.

As far as outlawing a flavor of gun, or the capacity of the magazines, this is something that you need to get gun owners to buy into. You can't just shove it down their throat; gun owners are like Jeepers- very independent. As you said, 'If this is your hobby- regulate it'. Allow them time to come to the conclusion that if they want their hobby to continue, they need to occasionally work with the Government, not work against it all the time.

-Ron

 

[DrMoab]

Yan, why the distain for people hoarding weapons? There are millions of us with lots and lots of guns. We aren't killing people and the vast majority of those who do keep them safely locked up. People who put a crap load of their hard earned money into a investment like that tend to realize its value and keep them locked down. Why do you see people like that as a problem?

 

[Gonepostal]

If guns are your hobby than stand up and take some goddamn responsibility for your hobby rather than blame everyone and everything else.

I seriously doubt anything I can say will change the liberal mind on the issue but here goes.
This is liberal tripe! First off what do you think responsible gun owners are doing here and everywhere when we fight this level of misdirection and deceit? Every shooting in the last few years has been in a “gun free zone”, just another of many feel good liberal ideas that has done absolutely NOTHING to safe guard anyone.
We have somewhere in the neighborhood of 20,000 gun laws on the books. I can’t say how many automobile laws we have but if cars are regulated to this level than I am surprised we are allowed insert the key in the ignition.

The fact is legal gun owners are not the problem. The hysteria produced by idiot left wing news agencies and dork politicians combined with a society that is willing to mass produce and accept violence for entertainment at every level is taking us down the rabbit hole. If you want to blame gun proliferation on anyone it should be our current Whitehouse one week wonder and his cronies. Every time he opens his mouth gun sales skyrocket. Hell he’s the best gun salesman this country has seen in the past 100 years.

It comes down to this; you could confiscate every legal gun owner’s guns. A criminal will still acquire the means to accomplish their goal. A recent killing on the Casper College campus just south of me was done using a compound bow. The killer here was also a teacher’s son. He had tried to acquire a gun but did not want to wait for the paperwork to clear, so he used a compound bow. I guess he did adhere to the “gun free zone policy”.

http://trib.com/casper-killings/collection_6cfd039e-3d73-11e2-87c9-001a4bcf887a.html

Thugs and others that intend to kill don’t care about laws and never will. Taking out your anguish and using the public’s emotions to punish people like me will only make it easier for these people to accomplish their goals.

 

[87manche]

I have posted very specific questions in this thread at least twice, maybe three times.

none of the "ban them" crowd has bothered to even attempt and answer.

and there's the problem. You don't want a rational conversation, you want gun owners to do what you say because you feel that you are in a morally superior position, owing to the death of innocents.

it is despicable, capitalizing on tragedy to further an agenda that you've been stonewalled on for the last 10 years.
let's get this straight, that's exactly what the left is doing. The gun control agenda has existed for a long time, what they want is what they've always wanted, only now you have a horrible incident to use to further it.

shame on you for capitalizing on the deaths of children for political gains.

that said, I don't care that it was children. A death is a death, why should these be treated differently? "because their innocents!!!!" is what the left says with so much zeal.
What about the thousands of innocents that die in Africa every day? I'd bet most of those that are crying about the Sandy Hook event don't lose a wink of sleep about those innocents. Step down off your pedestal, you've not earned it.

 

[DrMoab]

that said, I don't care that it was children. A death is a death, why should these be treated differently? .

Obviously, you and I are on the same side of this issue but I think I can answer this question.

Technically you are correct, a death is a death and it shouldn't matter. I don't know if you have kids or not but to a lot of us, especially with kids it makes a difference. I was listening to a news station on the radio when the first reports started coming in with this shooting and long long before the media started going nuts about it, gun control and all the other crap I had tears in my eyes listening to the story. I've never had that reaction to one of these stories. There was just something about thinking about the little kids, first graders or kids in kindergarten that does make a difference with most peoples emotional response.

Now, as far as the issue of what to do about this situation or how to fix it. The fact it was mostly little kids shouldn't even be brought into it.

 

[87manche]

Obviously, you and I are on the same side of this issue but I think I can answer this question.
.

I'm wired differently that most.

I lack empathy.
I also have no children.

If you just treat me like Spock then you'll understand my lack of emotion.

 

[DrMoab]

I get it but...you just said it. You are wired differently. You asked why it mattered and I think that's it.

BTW I was just like you till I had kids. Something in you changes when you do. Don't know why or what but it happens.

 

[87manche]

I get it but...you just said it. You are wired differently. You asked why it mattered and I think that's it.

BTW I was just like you till I had kids. Something in you changes when you do. Don't know why or what but it happens.

You're right.

I've long held the belief that emotion does not belong in government.

It's how bad legislation happens.

I believe that our founding fathers also held the same belief. It becomes apparent when you start reading the federalist or anti federalist papers.

sadly the progressive movement is based almost entirely on emotion, look where it's gotten us.
A gajillion dollar deficit, entitlements for everyone, the war on drugs and the loss of freedoms, all so some people can feel good themselves.

I don't need the government to make me feel good about myself, sadly there are those that do, and the manner in which they accomplish that is through controlling others.

 

[Gonepostal]

I'm wired differently that most.

I lack empathy.
I also have no children.

If you just treat me like Spock then you'll understand my lack of emotion.

I want to cry every time I look at my son and imagine the anguish of the parents in this shooting.

I used to have the same basic mind set. Having my son has changed many things including my gun ownership. Now mine are locked up. Not so much to protect him but his little buddies whose parents have never taken the time to teach them about gun safety and ownership. My kid regularly goes to the range and knows what guns are for and never offers to even look at his BB gun without asking first.

Liberals never will take the legal gun owner on in a serious discussion without first labeling us kooks. They are nothing less than hypocrites and liars in this argument. They along with their useful idiots in the media cherry pick sound bites and single out any nut they can find daily rather than allow real discussion and factual reporting. They will never admit that due their ignorant judgment and “woe is me” attitude towards criminals our court system is hog tied and not allowed administer any meaningful punishment. Liberals are more the problem than any legal gun owner ever will be.

 

[87manche]

I used to have the same basic mind set. Having my son has changed many things including my gun ownership. Now mine are locked up. Not so much to protect him but his little buddies whose parents have never taken the time to teach them about gun safety and ownership. My kid regularly goes to the range and knows what guns are for and never offers to even look at his BB gun without asking first.

according to the media it's impossible that you act in a responsible manner.

you're also training a killer by taking your son to the range.

 

[Gonepostal]

according to the media it's impossible that you act in a responsible manner.

you're also training a killer by taking your son to the range.

Yup isn't that laughable at best.

I am sure he will be killing Elk, Deer, and Buffalo with precision soon.

 

[87manche]

I am sure he will be killing Elk, Deer, and Buffalo with precision soon.

:cheers:

 

[kastein]

NRA Blames Films, Media, Video, Unarmed Schools for Massacres
http://www.thewrap.com/tv/column-po...er-banner-nra-killing-our-kids-70476?page=0,0


The people that fullfill those duties chose those freely, and they train with firearms continually; you can't expect an academic to have the same skillset (even with training).



Most states can't afford to pay their teachers ta fair wage, so I'd like to see how this idea's plausible .




Ah yes, the 'Kitchen Sink Argument'. I, honestly, expected more from these guys. It's their job to protect the rights of responsible gun owners.... not blame everyone and everything else.

Does anybody find it ironic that the left wing medial is feeding the fire on the ban guns movement and they are doing so from behind armed guards?

I caught the tail end of an interview with an anti-gun crazy lady commenting on Wayne LaPierre’s comments, it is hard to debate when people are that stupid;

Wayne – we need armed guards in schools
Crazy lady – do we want the NRA in our schools advertising to our kids

That is not even clever at pushing an agenda, that is just stupidity on an expert level.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/12/21/Flashback-Clinton-Cops-in-Schools

Did you like this idea when Clinton had it?

 

[urban yan]

I'm not arguing for or against large cap mags.
I do think this logic you use is flawed. You can't make laws based on exceptions, no matter how horrific the exception is.

I must admit, that's a tough thought for me to process.

By this logic, we should have banned airliners after 9/11.
After all, only a small number of airliners that are out there were used in the 9/11 activities, but in the hands of the criminally insane, killed not 20, but Thousands. Yes, I know that an Agency was created after 9/11; just see what kind of fiasco that's turned into.

The manufacture of Fertilizer an Kerosene should have be outlawed after the OK Bombings.
After all, that your argument that even though only a small amount of what Farmers regularly use of these Chemicals was used in the Bombings by one seriously messed up ex Vet, anyone at any time could repeat the scenario.

We'd probably also want to outlaw Veterans.
They are trained to kill. And every once and again, one goes off the reservation and kills innocent people; but the Potential is there for something bad to happen. Should all live in FEAR of our Uncles, Parents, Brothers and Sisters? I think not.

Hell man, let's outlaw all pointy objects of any kind. After all Millions of kids a year are cut or poked with a pointy object like pencils, pens, paper, compass, and scissors. It's a sad affair, but you know, as responsible Adults, we gotta do this to protect our kids.

Just exactly how far down this rabbit hole you want to go? It's a very very deep hole.

Again, that's-that "kitchen sink" argument I loathe. It's implicitly designed to sway attention from the subject at hand.

As far as outlawing a flavor of gun, or the capacity of the magazines, this is something that you need to get gun owners to buy into. You can't just shove it down their throat; gun owners are like Jeepers- very independent. As you said, 'If this is your hobby- regulate it'. Allow them time to come to the conclusion that if they want their hobby to continue, they need to occasionally work with the Government, not work against it all the time.

Again, I'd feel allot better if people didn't line up at gun shops after these types of mass shootings.

Yan, why the distain for people hoarding weapons? There are millions of us with lots and lots of guns. We aren't killing people and the vast majority of those who do keep them safely locked up. People who put a crap load of their hard earned money into a investment like that tend to realize its value and keep them locked down. Why do you see people like that as a problem?

To me, at least, hoarding guns (after these types of mass shootings) just feels like people don't trust each other... which is a real downer. You don't shop for groceries on an empty stomach; you don't shop for guns when you're emotionally compromised.

I seriously doubt anything I can say will change the liberal mind on the issue but here goes.
This is liberal tripe! First off what do you think responsible gun owners are doing here and everywhere when we fight this level of misdirection and deceit? Every shooting in the last few years has been in a “gun free zone”, just another of many feel good liberal ideas that has done absolutely NOTHING to safe guard anyone.

I'm not arguing "gun free zones", but you make it sound like everyone with a gun is a responsible gun owner. If everyone was responsible than none of these guns would land themselves in the wrong hands. Clearly, there's a significant amount of people that don't tend to their weapons properly (they don't lock them up, buy weapons for the wrong reasons, etc..).

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/12/21/Flashback-Clinton-Cops-in-Schools
Did you like this idea when Clinton had it?

I don't think armed guards are a bad idea; in fact, they had guards (don't know if they were armed) back in Poland when my mother attended elementary school. My only issue's money - where do you get it?

 

[DrMoab]

To me, at least, hoarding guns (after these types of mass shootings) just feels like people don't trust each other... which is a real downer. You don't shop for groceries on an empty stomach; you don't shop for guns when you're emotionally compromised.

But you do shop for groceries when you know a hurricane is about to hit and you might not be able to eat for a week. It's not emotional, it's logical.

This run on guns isn't about emotion. It's the simple fact that we like these types of guns and we know they will be more expensive in the next year. The time to buy is now.