PDA

View Full Version : Mass shooting/killing at Connecticut elementary school



Darrell KSR
12-14-2012, 11:37 AM
Gunman is reported dead.

Darrell KSR
12-14-2012, 11:41 AM
ABC news saying 12 dead; one gunman still at large.

Darrell KSR
12-14-2012, 11:44 AM
Now saying 27 dead, at least 14 children.

Catonahottinroof
12-14-2012, 01:34 PM
Lack of concern for human life. Sad and shameless.

CitizenBBN
12-14-2012, 01:43 PM
There's no words to describe that kind of pure evil.

dan_bgblue
12-14-2012, 03:06 PM
As long as I live, I will never understand what motivates anyone to harm, much less kill, an innocent child. I guess I do not completely fathom the depths and motivations of evil incarnate.

My heart goes out to the families of those innocent victims.

DanISSELisdaman
12-14-2012, 03:54 PM
Dan harming an innocent child is the most evil and senseless act that could be committed. There's no reason whatsoever for something like this to ever happen.

CitizenBBN
12-14-2012, 04:12 PM
It's so evil even many criminal organizations won't do it. You just don't.

truecatsfan
12-14-2012, 04:12 PM
20 kids dead, how on earth can someone just kill a punch of kids. My heart is breaking for these families.

CitizenBBN
12-14-2012, 04:18 PM
20 kids dead, how on earth can someone just kill a punch of kids. My heart is breaking for these families.

The son of their very teacher no less. I have no way to describe any part of this madness.

Badinage
12-14-2012, 04:38 PM
Hopefully we can discuss gun laws without people being called idiots. The goal is to minimize events like we saw today and last week. All ideas that lead toward that goal should be discussed.

CattyWampus
12-14-2012, 04:51 PM
Hopefully we can discuss gun laws without people being called idiots. The goal is to minimize events like we saw today and last week. All ideas that lead toward that goal should be discussed.

It depends on how people want to discuss gun laws. If you think that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens is the solution, you might be an ......... If you think that gun-free zones save lives, you might be an ........ If you think a semi-automatic weapon is an assault weapon, you might be an ....... If you think guns are the cause of evil people doing evil things, you might be an ............ If you think banning guns will keep evil people from killing others, you might be an ..........

The left turned this tragedy into just another reason to demand gun bans. Instead of praying for the families of those affected by this tragedy, they spent their day telling everyone who would listen just how evil gun owners are.

"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military."

- William Burroughs

CitizenBBN
12-14-2012, 04:52 PM
Hopefully we can discuss gun laws without people being called idiots. The goal is to minimize events like we saw today and last week. All ideas that lead toward that goal should be discussed.

No they shouldn't. Should shooting anyone diagnosed with certain mental conditions be discussed? No? OK, so we can eliminiate "all ideas" from that statement.

Nor is "the goal" to minimize these events. It is "a goal" and a very important one, but not the only goal. Another goal is to make sure people can protect themselves and their children in home invasions or protect them when they are with them in public. There are lots of them.

I'm not trying to be a smarta$$ by engaging in taking things to absurd conclusions, but your statement beings with a false implication that our laws should be tailored to these events to the exclusion of other threats.

I've never called anyone an idiot when discussing gun laws. I've called them wrong, but I can't help that b/c they are wrong. They react to horrible acts of evil a) on the assumption that evil can be combated by reducing its options for committing evil rather than eliminating the evil, and b) by emotional overreaction that doesn't lead to good objective policies and thus end up hurting our overall safety rather than insuring it.

I can't help that the conclusions people will draw about what is the threat and what to do about it are wrong. They're not idiots, they just aren't working through the nature of human incentives at a detailed enough level.

that's how we end up with all of our mass shootings happening in "gun free zones". We pass a law based on an emotional desire and not what it means in terms of individual actions and results, and end up shocked when it fails miserably. If people thought through it they'd realize people who will go kill school children won't care about the "gun free zone" sign and thus that entire approach is a failure and a false sense of action that only takes away from better possible solutions.

Same will happen here. People will call for bans on "assault weapons" while 99% of the gun deaths in this country come from other kinds of guns. I'd laugh if it weren't so sad and in the end futile at protecting our children and citizens.

CitizenBBN
12-14-2012, 04:54 PM
Wampus -- that's the best part. They'll pass laws that won't do a thing to change the outcome of these events, and when those fail their solution will be even more such laws. it's true in social welfare policy, gun laws, all policies. Eventually saying "hey this direction isn't working, let's look at it from a different angle" is apparently not an option.

Every law now being proposed we already had for 10 years. It did nothing, but hey let's try it again.

CattyWampus
12-14-2012, 05:04 PM
Whenever I run into someone online who argues for banning guns, I send them here:

http://www.americanrifleman.org/BlogList.aspx?cid=25&id=21

Darrell KSR
12-14-2012, 05:33 PM
They should prohibit people who want to use them illegally from owning them.

Problem solved.

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

DanISSELisdaman
12-14-2012, 05:38 PM
Would banning guns keep something like this from happening?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html?hpt=wo_c2

Or this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/world/asia/30china.html?_r=0

or this?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/05/08/china.stabbing/index.html

My point is, if guns are banned, it still wont keep these criminals from killing people. Actually it only makes it easier. They don't have to worry about someone blowing their worthless guts out.

Lfbj00
12-14-2012, 05:54 PM
20 kids ages 5 to 10 years old.....10 days before Christmas. I've got an 11 year old son and a 6 year old daughter. Like most with kids of that age, we've got "Santa's" gifts hidden, ready for Christmas Eve. How in God's name do you deal with that as a parent?? I've got tears in my eyes as I type this....I just cannot imagine this kind of pain.

God Bless these families, and hold them close!!!!

Badinage
12-14-2012, 06:02 PM
I cannot help but laugh. A lot of pro gun advocacy, but no one offering solutions. Glad none of you who think this way are elected officials.

Badinage
12-14-2012, 06:05 PM
No they shouldn't. Should shooting anyone diagnosed with certain mental conditions be discussed? No? OK, so we can eliminiate "all ideas" from that statement.

Nor is "the goal" to minimize these events. It is "a goal" and a very important one, but not the only goal. Another goal is to make sure people can protect themselves and their children in home invasions or protect them when they are with them in public. There are lots of them.

I'm not trying to be a smarta$$ by engaging in taking things to absurd conclusions, but your statement beings with a false implication that our laws should be tailored to these events to the exclusion of other threats.

I've never called anyone an idiot when discussing gun laws. I've called them wrong, but I can't help that b/c they are wrong. They react to horrible acts of evil a) on the assumption that evil can be combated by reducing its options for committing evil rather than eliminating the evil, and b) by emotional overreaction that doesn't lead to good objective policies and thus end up hurting our overall safety rather than insuring it.

I can't help that the conclusions people will draw about what is the threat and what to do about it are wrong. They're not idiots, they just aren't working through the nature of human incentives at a detailed enough level.

that's how we end up with all of our mass shootings happening in "gun free zones". We pass a law based on an emotional desire and not what it means in terms of individual actions and results, and end up shocked when it fails miserably. If people thought through it they'd realize people who will go kill school children won't care about the "gun free zone" sign and thus that entire approach is a failure and a false sense of action that only takes away from better possible solutions.

Same will happen here. People will call for bans on "assault weapons" while 99% of the gun deaths in this country come from other kinds of guns. I'd laugh if it weren't so sad and in the end futile at protecting our children and citizens.

For someone who is not trying to be a smarta$$ ...

Your passion for your gun makes you incapable of having an actual discussion. I know you have a 100 comebacks, but no solutions or real suggestions. We get it. You love your guns.

truecatsfan
12-14-2012, 06:07 PM
I cannot help but laugh. A lot of pro gun advocacy, but no one offering solutions. Glad none of you who think this way are elected officials.

I take this, that you dont hunt.

Badinage
12-14-2012, 06:18 PM
I take this, that you dont hunt.

Why? What in my comment has anything to do with hunting? Man, that is a real headshaker.

CattyWampus
12-14-2012, 06:19 PM
I cannot help but laugh. A lot of pro gun advocacy, but no one offering solutions. Glad none of you who think this way are elected officials.

You want solutions? First, enforce the laws that are already on the books. Second, do away with this gun-free zone crap. Third, allow law-abiding citizens to own/carry handguns (yeah, I'm talking to you Chicago, NY City, Washington D.C. Your gun bans work really well, don't they?). There are three solutions for starters. What are yours?

Do you really think banning guns will stop a crazy person who wants to kill a bunch of people? Gun control is just another example of Liberals having no understanding of cause and effect.

Badinage
12-14-2012, 06:22 PM
You want solutions? First, enforce the laws that are already on the books. Second, do away with this gun-free zone crap. Third, allow law-abiding citizens to own/carry handguns (yeah, I'm talking to you Chicago, NY City, Washington D.C. Your gun bans work really well, don't they?). There are three solutions for starters. What are yours?

Do you really think banning guns will stop a crazy person who wants to kill a bunch of people?

I have worked with ATF and local law enforcement. What unenforced laws are you suggesting would stop this chaos?

And, catch your assumptions, it reveals your biases. When did I ay anything about banning guns? This discussion is very revealing.

CattyWampus
12-14-2012, 06:26 PM
1355

Badinage
12-14-2012, 06:33 PM
1354

Invalid link. Why not just explain what laws should be enforced to stop these violent acts?

CattyWampus
12-14-2012, 06:59 PM
I have worked with ATF and local law enforcement. What unenforced laws are you suggesting would stop this chaos?

And, catch your assumptions, it reveals your biases. When did I ay anything about banning guns? This discussion is very revealing.

You complain up-thread that no one was discussing solutions. Now you tell me that my assumptions show a bias. Huh? What exactly is it you want to discuss?

In regard to enforcement, my answer is simple. Felons possessing/using firearms should be charged and sentenced according to the laws on the books, rather than being turned into snitches or giving them a slap on the wrist. As far as gun laws, whether enforced or not, preventing the "chaos" like today, they won't. Neither will restricting gun rights of law abiding citizens.

Badinage
12-14-2012, 07:10 PM
You complain up-thread that no one was discussing solutions. Now you tell me that my assumptions show a bias. Huh? What exactly is it you want to discuss?

In regard to enforcement, my answer is simple. Felons possessing/using firearms should be charged and sentenced according to the laws on the books, rather than being turned into snitches or giving them a slap on the wrist. As far as gun laws, whether enforced or not, preventing the "chaos" like today, they won't. Neither will restricting gun rights of law abiding citizens.

Your assumption that I was suggesting a gun ban demonstrated your bias. I want to know if there is a way to reduce the incidence of violent gun attacks that we have witnessed over the past few years. But, it appears there is a myopic obsession here.

And, my answer to your second paragraph is that I have seen it happen. I have seen federal prosecutors take cases from state prosecutors to enforce the guns with crimes laws and used their influence to get tougher sentences at the state court level. I have also seen felon in possession sentencing enhancements and charges at the federal level, and witnessed prosecutors attempting to enforce laws when felons attempt to lie to purchase guns. So, (1) I am not familiar with your claim and (2) I am not sure how those laws prevent what we witnessed this past week or so, and beyond.

If you are throwing your hands in the air, I get it, but do not accept. I will look to people with answers.

Badinage
12-14-2012, 07:14 PM
1355

We can send this to the parents of the dead kids. That will surely help the situation.

dan_bgblue
12-14-2012, 07:20 PM
I cannot help but laugh. A lot of pro gun advocacy, but no one offering solutions. Glad none of you who think this way are elected officials.

If you would not mind, I would be very interested to read your possible solutions and then we can all build from there.

jazyd
12-14-2012, 07:27 PM
[gladyou are not an elected official as your option is to take away my right to defend myself

Now will you take away fertilizer, ok bombing
How about box cutters, 9-11
Knives, I understand over 20 children slashed to death in China this week
How about cars, 2 white young men from Pearl, Ms ran over a black man last year on purpose
So how do you deal with evil?
He had a entail illness, like the movie killer, used 2 pistols stolen from his mom which were legal

You haven't solution, just take away my right to defend against evil such as this


QUOTE=Badinage;38084]I cannot help but laugh. A lot of pro gun advocacy, but no one offering solutions. Glad none of you who think this way are elected officials.[/QUOTE]

BigBluePappy
12-14-2012, 08:27 PM
I pray for those affected by this tragedy.
Just learned of it and I called my grandkids to tell them Pap loves them very much.
I know they should be in bed (the younger ones) but hey, the parents will get over it.

Father touch these families and comfort them, only as you can.

CitizenBBN
12-14-2012, 09:16 PM
I cannot help but laugh. A lot of pro gun advocacy, but no one offering solutions. Glad none of you who think this way are elected officials.

Pot meet kettle.

What is your solution? Can't wait to hear it.

CitizenBBN
12-14-2012, 09:25 PM
For someone who is not trying to be a smarta$$ ...

Your passion for your gun makes you incapable of having an actual discussion. I know you have a 100 comebacks, but no solutions or real suggestions. We get it. You love your guns.

You'd get laughs from my friends. I'm 44 years old, I hadn't touched a gun from age 16 till about a year and a half ago other than plinking maybe 2-3 times with 22s. Didn't own a handgun.

Yes I got into the business, but honestly that has nothing to do with it. I took these same positions when I hadn't picked up a gun in years.

My analysis is simply objective. I refuse to respond emotionally to single events and make policy action. I feel very strongly about that, not about guns in particular. It's my response to gun laws but also global warming legislation, labor laws, environmental regulation, you name it.

Legislation must have both a) a constitutional basis for authority, and b) a level of effectiveness that justifies action.

I got this from debate. Basic policy making theory: to support an action for change a proposal should meet basic policy reqirements. They include:

1) A "harm": something bad is happening
2) Significance. That harm is severe enough to have risen to a level requiring action a the given level (in this case Federal)
3) Causality. The harm is caused by the area the policy addresses (HUGE on the gun issue)
4) Inherency. the problem should be an inherent situation that will not resolve itself without this action
5) Solvency. The proposed solution must significantly solve the described harm.

My advocacy is for that structure and it applies to guns or whatever.

I'd gladly give up my guns and revoke the 2nd amendment if you present a policy that will workably protect people from criminals and lunatics and the power of the government.

The problem is no one can to date, so I support the solution that is the worse one possible other than the alternatives.

CitizenBBN
12-14-2012, 09:44 PM
If you would not mind, I would be very interested to read your possible solutions and then we can all build from there.

This will be the 2nd time I've asked for that, and I doubt I'll get an answer.

The reason isn't an attack on him, it's that there isn't one short of "banning guns", something he has said he isn't proposing.

"Ban Assault rifles". OK, let's say we can agree on what that is (is the M2 Carbine, a WWII collectible, an "assault rifle"? It could be.)

So we magically define the law so that it captures the guns that could do this but only those guns and doesn't miss any. Yeah, dream on, but let's just say.

OK, there are MILLIONS of these guns in circulation. So are we banning their importation and manufacture? That leaves millions of options for these guys so that won't make a difference. Do we ban their resale? OK, that leaves them in the hands of millions of people any one of whom may snap and go on a rampage.

So the only option to really prevent the next such horror is to round them all up. Otherwise you're closing the barn door after 20 million horses got out. Outright prevent their ownership and have them turned in.

Think that's going to happen? Think the laws will be passed and that millions of unregistered guns will get turned in?

Nope, so why pass a useless "ban" that isn't a ban? That's the #1 proposal to stop this and it's beyond laughable. It's not even a "ban", so why restrict ownership of a gun when it has zero chance of keeping such guns out of the hands of a lunatic?

Magazine ban? That's even funnier. Even more of those, even easier to exchange. Feinstein's proposal "fixes" a "loophole" in the Clinton ban if you read carefully which seems to prohibit their transfer.

Yeah, but a) how do you enforce that one, and b) what happens if the lunatic already has them? Again, there is a 100% chance that upon passage of that law we will see another horrible tragedy like this one. Guaranteed. So why are we passing a law that restricts the pursuit of happiness and liberty and goes against the Bill of Rights for a ZERO chance of preventing another incident?


I'm dying to hear the "solution", but what we'll get is some version of "we have to try", as if flailing about with laws is OK and even desirable even though we know it won't solve the problem that has outraged us.

As I said, I'll listen to workable solutions. Have yet to hear one for preventing evil through legislation.

Badinage
12-14-2012, 09:59 PM
When did I say I have a solution? I said the discussion was needed and then posters started posting their pro-gun, anti-gun regulation posts and claiming that gun laws are not the answer and wildly suggesting I wanted to ban guns. The answer may not be in gun laws, or it may. I am open. But, I am willing to suggest not all are. And, I find that selfish and sad.

Badinage
12-14-2012, 10:02 PM
Pot meet kettle.

What is your solution? Can't wait to hear it.

"Pot calling kettle" - most trite used rebuttal on message boards. Your only position is what you adamantly claim will not work, not what you claim will. I do not think you are a good judge, because you care too damn much about your guns. That is your passion.

Badinage
12-14-2012, 10:03 PM
This will be the 2nd time I've asked for that, and I doubt I'll get an answer.

The reason isn't an attack on him, it's that there isn't one short of "banning guns", something he has said he isn't proposing.

"Ban Assault rifles". OK, let's say we can agree on what that is (is the M2 Carbine, a WWII collectible, an "assault rifle"? It could be.)

So we magically define the law so that it captures the guns that could do this but only those guns and doesn't miss any. Yeah, dream on, but let's just say.

OK, there are MILLIONS of these guns in circulation. So are we banning their importation and manufacture? That leaves millions of options for these guys so that won't make a difference. Do we ban their resale? OK, that leaves them in the hands of millions of people any one of whom may snap and go on a rampage.

So the only option to really prevent the next such horror is to round them all up. Otherwise you're closing the barn door after 20 million horses got out. Outright prevent their ownership and have them turned in.

Think that's going to happen? Think the laws will be passed and that millions of unregistered guns will get turned in?

Nope, so why pass a useless "ban" that isn't a ban? That's the #1 proposal to stop this and it's beyond laughable. It's not even a "ban", so why restrict ownership of a gun when it has zero chance of keeping such guns out of the hands of a lunatic?

Magazine ban? That's even funnier. Even more of those, even easier to exchange. Feinstein's proposal "fixes" a "loophole" in the Clinton ban if you read carefully which seems to prohibit their transfer.

Yeah, but a) how do you enforce that one, and b) what happens if the lunatic already has them? Again, there is a 100% chance that upon passage of that law we will see another horrible tragedy like this one. Guaranteed. So why are we passing a law that restricts the pursuit of happiness and liberty and goes against the Bill of Rights for a ZERO chance of preventing another incident?


I'm dying to hear the "solution", but what we'll get is some version of "we have to try", as if flailing about with laws is OK and even desirable even though we know it won't solve the problem that has outraged us.

As I said, I'll listen to workable solutions. Have yet to hear one for preventing evil through legislation.

You are the wordiest poster when it comes to guns.

CitizenBBN
12-14-2012, 10:15 PM
I have worked with ATF and local law enforcement. What unenforced laws are you suggesting would stop this chaos?


For purposes of disclosure my data below came from the chief liaison of the FBI NICS background check system to the dealer industry and 3 senior ATF agents now consulting for the NSSF. The data is sound.

1) Eliminate the location restriction on Federal Firearms license to allow FFLs to transact in any location as long as the process is correctly followed re NICS checks and 4473 compliance.

The complaint is many guns are sold without background checks. those are private transactions between non-dealers. We want more checks done yet we put the one group who does background checks at a disadvantage to those who don't do them.

Instead of seeing dealers as the enemy, encourage them to take a bigger percentage of the total gun transactions since they perform background checks.

It took years to even allow dealers to be at gun shows. Huh? Completely backward thinking.

2) Tell the ATF to do their job.

a) Move to the 21st century.

I was told by a senior ATF official that when we send in the multiple handgun forms via fax and it doesn't go through it's b/c the fax is out of paper. I s*** you not. The ATF doesn't have e-fax for processing 1,000s of forms that come in daily. You wonder why they may miss stuff?

b) Focus on felons.

When you buy a gun from a dealer you fill out the form 4473. It has a list of questions like "are you a felon" and you sign the document. Falsifying info on it is a felony.

Yet people do still try it, and the ATF has almost immediate notice of suspects b/c the dealer won't submit a NICS background check unless the form shows they are eligible (i.e. not a felon) yet they get back denials and you know some of them are kicking back b/c they are felons, etc.

so we KNOW for sure those people have just committed a felony trying to obtain a firearm and lying on the 4473.

How many of those people did the ATF even investigate for 4473 falsifications last year? 400.

How many dealers did they review and audit? Thousands.

Do your job: investigate and prosecute the criminals instead of worrying about every detail of every gun recorded by every dealer. First arrest the felons, then worry about the record keeping.

c) clarify rules regarding who is "in the business" of firearms dealing. There is no dollar limit or quantity limit that clarifies who must have a dealer's license versus who is a private citizen just selling his guns. Guys buy guns all the time knowing they will probably resell them but they aren't dealers.

The area is totally gray, based on whether they bought with intent to sell. Try proving that in court. Set a limit. Guns must be owned for x months before transacting again by a non-dealer, or it can't be more than x guns a year or y dollars or you have to at least file something to explain why you did it and the serials of the guns.

See, I'm not just against regulations. I'm just for regulations that work.

d) Allow dealers to move to computer record keeping instead of paper without having to risk losing your license.

The ATF refuses to certify software as "compliant" with their directive that you can use software instead of paper if you meet a series of requirements. There is industry software but technically you're still at risk, and keeping it otherwise is a risk. Yet the ATF when doing a trace woudl benefit greatly from dealers who didn't have to hand research through 4473 forms and stacks of bound books.


3) Reform the NICS system by giving the FBI authority to gather state level information.

Right now the FBI uses 3 basic databases to research a background check request through "NICS", the background check system operated by the FBI.

The dealer calls or submits via web the info and the NICS system issues an "approve" or "deny" or "delay". Delay is b/c they need further human research on the issue. Often just a similar name, those things can be fixed by better database work.

However the problem isn't the FBI. To comply with federal laws they have to gather state judicial record data. You're convicted of a felony at the state level, they then have to compile all that data.

It's further complicated by things like domestic violence provisions in the Gun Control Act as amended. Not all states clearly define that a conviction was related to domestic violence, so they then have to try to contact that state, often at the county level, and ask for details of the case.

So it's massive database undertaking that is largely non-automated and they have to rely on local people to provide missing info, a task they are not required to do at all and which is last on their list as it's not a priority for them and they are already short staffed in most cases.

The FBI liaison said in one case they were told the records were stored in a building out back and it had bees and they weren't going into it. Seriously.


One dealer was told flat out that in a Louisville district the clerks are instructed to do FBI NICS research dead last b/c they have other things they need more urgently.

This makes it very difficult for the NICS check system to not miss things. Change the domestic violence provision to line up with state laws (really does it matter who they beat when it comes time to let them have a gun? Really?), give the FBI more priority by law for compliance, apply the resources to further hone the database to prevent confusion in identities.



THere are a bunch more. I'll do some more later. You'll notice not ONE of these simple, often costless, and effective improvements is on any proposed legislation I've seen.

See that requires understanding by the politicians of what is really going on and their desire to fix things rather than to grandstand with a public not privy to the details of how things work.


Now your turn. What do you suggest?

CitizenBBN
12-14-2012, 10:18 PM
"Pot calling kettle" - most trite used rebuttal on message boards. Your only position is what you adamantly claim will not work, not what you claim will. I do not think you are a good judge, because you care too damn much about your guns. That is your passion.

It's not my passion. I've been posting on these boards for more than a decade. I'm passionate about individual liberty. Ask anyone here.

I'm also wordy on every topic. Can't help it, I am a stickler for precise explanations and I type more than 100 words a minute. Bad combination for length. Again that's not about guns. Ask folks here who I email how bad I am about everything.

Now have the decency to answer the question presented to you: what are your solutions to this problem? This isn't the first time you've been asked and your only answer so far is "your'e in love with your guns" and "maybe now we can talk about solutions" yet you present none.

So let's hear it. I've laid out a cogent and detailed case for what will and will not work. Your response is just "you love your guns too much".

It is the most obvious case of an ad hominem logical fallacy I've seen in some time.

dethbylt
12-14-2012, 10:26 PM
Sadly, I think that gun control as an argument is moot. The bigger problem is the overall decline of society in America. We treat actors like heros. Prison is no longer a deterrent - it is no longer scary. Parents no longer parent, they let TV and schools do it for them. Government is bloated and far too slow to be effective. I fear for the future of the country if a strong, positive leader doesnt steer us back in the right direction.

CitizenBBN
12-14-2012, 10:27 PM
When did I say I have a solution? I said the discussion was needed and then posters started posting their pro-gun, anti-gun regulation posts and claiming that gun laws are not the answer and wildly suggesting I wanted to ban guns. The answer may not be in gun laws, or it may. I am open. But, I am willing to suggest not all are. And, I find that selfish and sad.


I'm open and I'm having a discussion of what we can and can't do to address the problem. Where's your side of that discussion? You don't address anyone's actual points at all, you just say "you love your guns".

is my analysis of how an "assault weapons ban" fails both in definition and in implementation a function of my "loving my guns" or is it simply a matter of obvious policy flaws?

I've presented all kinds of suggestions and debunked popular misconceptions and meaningless policy posturing.

Your contribution has been "we need a discussion" without any suggestions or engagement on the options and then to attack poster's motives who are trying to actually contribute to the world of ideas as to how to respond to this problem.

Selfish? Aren't you the same person who decried those who wanted a discussion as idiots? Yet you now make broad assumptions about motives and attack posters as selfish?

Your point isnt' even that you have a point, just that some aren't open? How are you open? I have yet to see you suggest anything at all other than that those who are suggesting things are not open.

So you have no point other than to discuss, you have no contribution to the discussion of policy options, and then you get off telling me how I feel about guns knowing nothing about me at all?

Does your hubris have any bounds? You know nothing about me at all or why I am passionate about such issues. As I said I'd turn in the few guns I own tomorrow, even though they are family heirlooms, if it was part of a solution that would protect me from crime, protect the People from the State and actually prevent these tragedies.

The reason you get such a stonewalled appearance in responses is it's from those who have thought out their positions and know them and are willing to defend them. That's not being close minded, that's just having a viewpoint. It could be knee jerk or it could be based on a consideration of the data and their experiences.

CitizenBBN
12-14-2012, 10:32 PM
Sadly, I think that gun control as an argument is moot. The bigger problem is the overall decline of society in America. We treat actors like heros. Prison is no longer a deterrent - it is no longer scary. Parents no longer parent, they let TV and schools do it for them. Government is bloated and far too slow to be effective. I fear for the future of the country if a strong, positive leader doesnt steer us back in the right direction.

Agreed 100%. if there is an increase in these incidents adjusting for population size etc. the problem is a disturbing trend in our culture IMO. Parents who hand off the raising of their children to government institutions and TV. A culture that embraces the "victim society" that only encourages people to feel they have a right to take what isn't theirs or to feel repressed rather than to look at their own actions and choices.

Also the growing nature of our post-industrial society and how we are building a system of interaction antithetical to our evolution. We evolved in small groups where we knew everyone and were aware of problems. Now we have neighbors we never meet, we move far from our families and friends with regularity, and a society of information overload that bombards us and leads us to edit things as background noise and further isolate us.

I'm not suggesting we all need to move back to our small towns and be happy, but I am suggesting society is changing faster than we can genetically or sociologically evolve to it, and it is creating great strain.

CitizenBBN
12-14-2012, 10:35 PM
BTW, I have apologized for my long winded posts many times. But hey, I am equal opportunity. Guns, the welfare state, Libertarianism, whatever. These things require several steps to lay out a position fully. Otherwise we're just repeating slogans to each other.

Darrell KSR
12-14-2012, 10:47 PM
I do not think you are a good judge, because you care too damn much about your guns. That is your passion.

How cute.

That is the second time I have seen you attack others by claiming their opinion was biased. The first time, your opinion was one of the most poorly prepared, illogically based, thinly disguised attacks on Larry Vaught.

This time? I thought you might be making a point in this thread, and I was anxious to see it, but instead, it appears your motive was otherwise.

Really, that's enough. If your intent is to pretend to be intellectually superior and play "gotcha," stop now.

If it is engage in meaningful dialogue and discussion, wonderful. Just improve on it.

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

Badinage
12-14-2012, 11:25 PM
I'm open and I'm having a discussion of what we can and can't do to address the problem. Where's your side of that discussion? You don't address anyone's actual points at all, you just say "you love your guns".

is my analysis of how an "assault weapons ban" fails both in definition and in implementation a function of my "loving my guns" or is it simply a matter of obvious policy flaws?

I've presented all kinds of suggestions and debunked popular misconceptions and meaningless policy posturing.

Your contribution has been "we need a discussion" without any suggestions or engagement on the options and then to attack poster's motives who are trying to actually contribute to the world of ideas as to how to respond to this problem.

Selfish? Aren't you the same person who decried those who wanted a discussion as idiots? Yet you now make broad assumptions about motives and attack posters as selfish?

Your point isnt' even that you have a point, just that some aren't open? How are you open? I have yet to see you suggest anything at all other than that those who are suggesting things are not open.

So you have no point other than to discuss, you have no contribution to the discussion of policy options, and then you get off telling me how I feel about guns knowing nothing about me at all?

Does your hubris have any bounds? You know nothing about me at all or why I am passionate about such issues. As I said I'd turn in the few guns I own tomorrow, even though they are family heirlooms, if it was part of a solution that would protect me from crime, protect the People from the State and actually prevent these tragedies.

The reason you get such a stonewalled appearance in responses is it's from those who have thought out their positions and know them and are willing to defend them. That's not being close minded, that's just having a viewpoint. It could be knee jerk or it could be based on a consideration of the data and their experiences.

You are all about the battle. Rotely so. You say you are about liberty, but you seem to be more about regurgitation. Absent the sycophants, you seem to see nothing but fighting the good fight. That is disturbing. Especially when you finish and then say, "now show me yours." But, I do not think you see it. Your string is pulled and you roar out your show.

I never said I have answers, but you have inspired me to pull together my connections at ATF and other agencies to begin a discussion. I would be all for reasonable minded FFLs coming to that table, but not those who do not want a discussion, but just want to ram their agenda down the throats of others. The Second Amendment does not preclude gun regulation. I agree with Scalia on that point.

Thanks for the inspiration.

Badinage
12-14-2012, 11:36 PM
How cute.

That is the second time I have seen you attack others by claiming their opinion was biased. The first time, your opinion was one of the most poorly prepared, illogically based, thinly disguised attacks on Larry Vaught.

This time? I thought you might be making a point in this thread, and I was anxious to see it, but instead, it appears your motive was otherwise.

Really, that's enough. If your intent is to pretend to be intellectually superior and play "gotcha," stop now.

If it is engage in meaningful dialogue and discussion, wonderful. Just improve on it.

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

I am confident you know that claiming someone has a bias is not an attack (maybe not, as this seems to be a theme here). Surely, you know that. Right? As a gun owner, I would hope you can discern attacks from facts and opinions.

And, as to Larry, I said my point. Not sure what was thinly disguised about it. I tried to state my opinion about him hiding behind supposed anonymous contributors. You can explain how it was illogical and all the other silly crap you claim, but only if you can learn how to write concisely.

And, I think the opinions of those anonymous contributors were shown to be foolish. Not good journalism. But, then Larry works for a small paper and but for the Internet and a rabid fan base, we would not know who he is. I am sure he is a good guy, but his writing on the coaching search was often crap. That is an opinion, not an attack.

Badinage
12-14-2012, 11:49 PM
You'd get laughs from my friends. I'm 44 years old, I hadn't touched a gun from age 16 till about a year and a half ago other than plinking maybe 2-3 times with 22s. Didn't own a handgun.

Yes I got into the business, but honestly that has nothing to do with it. I took these same positions when I hadn't picked up a gun in years.

My analysis is simply objective. I refuse to respond emotionally to single events and make policy action. I feel very strongly about that, not about guns in particular. It's my response to gun laws but also global warming legislation, labor laws, environmental regulation, you name it.

Legislation must have both a) a constitutional basis for authority, and b) a level of effectiveness that justifies action.

I got this from debate. Basic policy making theory: to support an action for change a proposal should meet basic policy reqirements. They include:

1) A "harm": something bad is happening
2) Significance. That harm is severe enough to have risen to a level requiring action a the given level (in this case Federal)
3) Causality. The harm is caused by the area the policy addresses (HUGE on the gun issue)
4) Inherency. the problem should be an inherent situation that will not resolve itself without this action
5) Solvency. The proposed solution must significantly solve the described harm.

My advocacy is for that structure and it applies to guns or whatever.

I'd gladly give up my guns and revoke the 2nd amendment if you present a policy that will workably protect people from criminals and lunatics and the power of the government.

The problem is no one can to date, so I support the solution that is the worse one possible other than the alternatives.

"Single events" that kill 20 little kids and 7 others, one week after a "single event" that killed 2 and injured others, thanks to a jammed gun, a few months after a "single event" that killed ...

Thankfully, we do not have to respond to "single events," but can recognize we have a problem in this country and that problem involves guns. So, I hope people smarter than us can get to real solutions, without the fear of venturing into gun regulation, if the evidence leads such laws.

CitizenBBN
12-15-2012, 12:19 AM
I am confident you know that claiming someone has a bias is not an attack (maybe not, as this seems to be a theme here). Surely, you know that. Right? As a gun owner, I would hope you can discern attacks from facts and opinions.

And, as to Larry, I said my point. Not sure what was thinly disguised about it. I tried to state my opinion about him hiding behind supposed anonymous contributors. You can explain how it was illogical and all the other silly crap you claim, but only if you can learn how to write concisely.

And, I think the opinions of those anonymous contributors were shown to be foolish. Not good journalism. But, then Larry works for a small paper and but for the Internet and a rabid fan base, we would not know who he is. I am sure he is a good guy, but his writing on the coaching search was often crap. That is an opinion, not an attack.

I can take the attacks on me, I could care less what you or anyone things, but the 7 time Ky Sportswriter of the Year?

Nope, that's too far. I won't tolerate insulting his status, and I'm tired of your complete lack of knowledge of much of anything including the reputation Larry built nationally before there were even sports message boards.

No doubt you'll see this as a "gun thing" and "biased" b/c in the end that's all you have is to claim people are biased, but I don't really care about that either.

I can handle stupidity, I can handle the inability to engage in a properly reasoned discussion, I can even handle your wild claims about me and my motives despite not having a clue, but I will not tolerate insults and disrespect of people who have earned respect in their professions.

You are the weakest link. Goodbye.

Darrell KSR
12-15-2012, 12:38 AM
What an arrogant know it all. My grandmother used to say that she wished she could buy some people for what they were worth and sell them for what they thought they were worth. In this case, she would have made a fortune.

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

CitizenBBN
12-15-2012, 12:47 AM
What an arrogant know it all. My grandmother used to say that she wished she could buy some people for what they were worth and sell them for what they thought they were worth. In this case, she would have made a fortune.

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

He's a know it all who manages to couch it by only attacking other's views without having to have any ideas or contributions of his own. He should run for office. Sadly, he has a good chance of winning.

that's a brilliant turn of phrase by your grandmother. Hope you don't mind if I borrow that from time to time. I love when a whole pound of wisdom is tied up in a neat little sentence.

CattyWampus
12-15-2012, 05:21 AM
What an arrogant know it all. My grandmother used to say that she wished she could buy some people for what they were worth and sell them for what they thought they were worth. In this case, she would have made a fortune.

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

I hope you don't mind me responding to this comment. I lurked on this board for at least two years before I decided to start posting myself. You are one of a number of posters here who seem to always be in control of your emotions when it comes to your comments and I don't remember very many times that you have been the least bit confrontational. This post is the exception, and rightly so. I think it takes a lot to "push your button" and obviously this poster accomplished that. Good on ya, mate.

CattyWampus
12-15-2012, 05:53 AM
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

- Rahm Emanuel, 2/9/2009

As a country we have been through this too many times, whether it’s been an elementary school in Newtown, a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago, these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods and these children are our children. We’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.-

- Barack Obama, 12/14/2012

This terrible tragedy for twenty-seven families, their friends and extended families, the kids and parents of the kids who attend Sandy Hook, as well as the community of Newtown, CT, will be used as a bludgeon by the liberals to bolster their argument against the 2nd Amendment rights of all law-abiding citizens. The blood from these precious children had not even become tacky by the time the liberal media launched their assault. The lefties in Congress and Mike Bloomberg quickly joined the chorus.

This tragedy has accomplished what Obama and the media have been trying to do and have mostly succeeded in doing. They want to push serious issues off the table and this tragedy accomplishes that for them. Fast & Furious? History. Benghazi? Never heard of it. Health insurance costs sky-rocketing? Oh, did we say your rates would go down? We meant "go up necessarily". No federal budget for three years? Mere technicality. Fiscal Cliff? Pfft! All attention for the media and the politicians will go to solving what they think caused this problem- my guns, your guns, your neighbor's guns. You better hang on. You better get locked and loaded. This time, they're coming after your guns and anyone who thinks otherwise isn't paying attention.

bubbleup
12-15-2012, 06:18 AM
I'm really one of those somewhere in the middle on this issue. I have two brothers who both have concealed carry permits but I don't own a gun. It's complicated and I can't claim to be an expert but I can't for the life of me see what's wrong with this proposal http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-frank-lautenberg/post_1905_b_845590.html

badrose
12-15-2012, 07:33 AM
I'm really one of those somewhere in the middle on this issue. I have two brothers who both have concealed carry permits but I don't own a gun. It's complicated and I can't claim to be an expert but I can't for the life of me see what's wrong with this proposal http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-frank-lautenberg/post_1905_b_845590.html

Guns with high capacity magazines can be replaced with more lower capacity guns. A little more cumbersome, but the argument remains...a criminal doesn't care if high capacity guns are banned. If they're banned, then if anyone has them it will be criminals and law-abiding citizens will have inferior weaponry to defend themselves. You could call "timeout" but I'd hate to have to depend on that.

CattyWampus
12-15-2012, 07:39 AM
I'm really one of those somewhere in the middle on this issue. I have two brothers who both have concealed carry permits but I don't own a gun. It's complicated and I can't claim to be an expert but I can't for the life of me see what's wrong with this proposal http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-frank-lautenberg/post_1905_b_845590.html

I suspect this article from Lautenberg and McCarthy, written in 2011, was actually composed by the Brady Campaign. It's just another example of selective outrage, using only data that supports its campaign to ban guns.

A skilled gunman can eject an empty clip, insert a full clip, and advance a round into the chamber of a pistol in three seconds or less. In the case of what happened yesterday, it sounds like the shooter was pretty deliberate in his shooting. It doesn't sound like he was firing as fast as the gun's mechanism would allow. Otherwise, there would have been many more non-fatal injuries than there were. Regardless of what you see on TV, most shots from a shooter firing in haste are not kill-shots. If a shooter in a closed room took careful aim at each one of his victims, he could use one pistol with two clips and kill 15-20 people inside of a minute. Outlawing high-capacity clips won't change that. This shooter had two pistols, according to the media reports. If he had expended a standard clip in each of the two guns, the difference in casualties wouldn't be much different.

I own more than a half dozen pistols. I do not own a high-capacity clip. If I didn't much care about obeying laws and decided I wanted high-capacity clips, I could buy them even if they were "illegal". If they were illegal, I wouldn't buy one because I believe in obeying laws, even those I disagree with. People who want to do others harm, don't obey laws. That will never change. Ban guns, the lawbreakers will own them. Ban high-capacity clips, the lawbreakers will get them. Ban marshmallows, and every person who wants to do others harm via marshmallows will have a stash of marshmallows hidden on the top shelf of their cupboard.

Banning anything doesn't result in stopping those who ignore the laws. Never has, never will.

badrose
12-15-2012, 07:47 AM
FWIW every cop I've ever talked to said they wish every law-abiding citizen had guns. They simply can't protect us all. We have to protect ourselves.

CattyWampus
12-15-2012, 07:56 AM
I'm really one of those somewhere in the middle on this issue. I have two brothers who both have concealed carry permits but I don't own a gun. It's complicated and I can't claim to be an expert but I can't for the life of me see what's wrong with this proposal http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-frank-lautenberg/post_1905_b_845590.html

It's not the guns. It's not "high-capacity magazines". It's the people. (http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2012/12/15/rampage-shootings-its-the-moral-decay-of-society-not-guns-n1467549)

Darrell KSR
12-15-2012, 08:22 AM
I hope you don't mind me responding to this comment. I lurked on this board for at least two years before I decided to start posting myself. You are one of a number of posters here who seem to always be in control of your emotions when it comes to your comments and I don't remember very many times that you have been the least bit confrontational. This post is the exception, and rightly so. I think it takes a lot to "push your button" and obviously this poster accomplished that. Good on ya, mate.

I'm not real proud of the product of my frustration.

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

CattyWampus
12-15-2012, 08:29 AM
Can we learn from the Swiss (http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html)?

fta:

Of course the more that U.S. governments can do to make gun use in America even more responsible, the better. Switzerland shows how successful governments can be in promoting responsible gun use.

Elementary schools in America should have gun safety classes which teach children never to touch a gun unless a parent is present, and they should be taught to tell an adult if they see an unattended gun. The NRA actively promotes this idea, and the National Association of Chiefs of Police endorses it. But Handgun Control opposes this reasonable, sensible safety measure. Has HCI gone off the deep end?

High schools and colleges wishing to offer target shooting as a sport should be allowed to do so. Unlike football or swimming, scholastic target shooting has never resulted in a fatality. The anti-gun groups oppose the sensible step of allowing the schools to offer students the safest sport ever invented. Have they gone off the deep end'? Finally, local governments should enact reasonable zoning laws, which allow the construction of indoor shooting ranges (properly ventilated and sound insulated) in urban areas. In some cases, governments should subsidise the building of ranges. At target ranges, Americans can take lessons in gun responsibility, and practice safe gun handling skills. As you might expect, the anti-gunners oppose this simple safety measure too. They've gone off the deep end.

What have we learned from Switzerland?' Guns in themselves are not a cause of gun crime; if they were, everyone in Switzerland would long ago have been shot in a domestic quarrel.

Cultural conditions, not gun laws, are the most important factors in a nation's crime rate. Young adults in Washington, D.C., are subject to strict gun control, but no social control, and they commit a staggering amount of armed crime. Young adults in Zurich are subject to minimal gun control, but strict social control, and they commit almost no crime.

America-with its traditions of individual liberty-cannot import Switzerland's culture of social control. Teenagers, women, and almost everyone else have more freedom in America than in Switzerland.

What America can learn from Switzerland is that the best way to reduce gun misuse is to promote responsible gun ownership. While America cannot adopt the Swiss model, America can foster responsible gun ownership along more individualistic, American lines. Firearms safety classes in elementary schools, optional marksmanship classes in high schools and colleges, and the widespread availability of adult safety training at licensed shooting ranges are some of the ways that America can make its tradition of responsible gun use even stronger.

badrose
12-15-2012, 08:29 AM
It's not the guns. It's not "high-capacity magazines". It's the people. (http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2012/12/15/rampage-shootings-its-the-moral-decay-of-society-not-guns-n1467549)

Awesome read! It deserves its own thread if you'd like to start it.

bigsky
12-15-2012, 08:56 AM
Yes, it's a bit of a rant.

All we are missing from the left's frenzy to score anti gun political points is some internet rabble on HuffPo blaming Sarah Palin's bulls-eye advertisements. I've already been asked to ban "semi automatic rifles" in Bozeman. Yeah, the guy left the rifle in the car, so how is it relevant? Stifle your urge to hate the Constitution. Express sympathy and sorrow, and community. call on your deity you have one, and... then shut up.

PS, the sniper in the water tower in Texas happened before the hommasekshuls got so uppity, so, right wing frenzy, you take a deep breath too. The second amendment is just one of many individual rights governments are supposed to protect.

There is no policy discussion to be found regarding evil and insanity. There is only sorrow, sympathy, community, our commonalities as humans bringing us together. We should not be emphasizing our differences and picking fights at every sorrow.

dan_bgblue
12-15-2012, 09:30 AM
It seems that my suggestion was completely ignored. Must have been a bad suggestion. Badinage, you keep asking others to offer ideas and enter into discussion on how to go forward with preventing such events in the future, yet you are unwilling to offer any ideas of your own, and it is obvious you have given this matter much thought. Why is that?

bigsky
12-15-2012, 09:38 AM
We seek to make sense of the senseless and policy to punish the many for the evils of a few. All those attempts do is make it all worse.

bigsky
12-15-2012, 09:39 AM
I cannot help but laugh. A lot of pro gun advocacy, but no one offering solutions. Glad none of you who think this way are elected officials.

Wrong again

lymand
12-15-2012, 09:59 AM
Guns are not the problem. Society and the evil in it is. There is no instrument that I know of that harms someone without another human being using it. Anyone who wants to do evil acts will find a tool to do them, whether its a gun, bomb, car, knife, or brick. I'm afraid we will never rid ourselves of the evil that leads to such deeds.

I am all for gun laws to prevent the wrong folks from being able to purchase a gun. But get rid of law abiding citizens rights to own a gun to protect themselves and it puts us at the mercy of the folks that just committed the evil we just saw.

Darrell KSR
12-15-2012, 10:10 AM
Wrong again

:sFl_america2:

BigBluePappy
12-15-2012, 05:20 PM
Sir, I will second this man's statement that you, do not let your emotions overtake you, very often.
On this board, it can be a challenge.

Kudos to you, Mr. Cartwright.


I'm not real proud of the product of my frustration.

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

dan_bgblue
12-15-2012, 05:46 PM
It's not the guns. It's not "high-capacity magazines". It's the people. (http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2012/12/15/rampage-shootings-its-the-moral-decay-of-society-not-guns-n1467549)

I think there are plenty of ideas in that article to stimulate reasonable discussion. Thanks for the link.

CitizenBBN
12-15-2012, 06:54 PM
I'm really one of those somewhere in the middle on this issue. I have two brothers who both have concealed carry permits but I don't own a gun. It's complicated and I can't claim to be an expert but I can't for the life of me see what's wrong with this proposal http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-frank-lautenberg/post_1905_b_845590.html

High cap magazine ban is one of the few proposals I respect in that it's an attempt to address a particular problem without overly limiting gun ownership or self protection.

However, I still reject it as a good overall policy for these basic reasons:

1) Effectiveness, it simply won't prevent future incidents like this one

2) That lack of effectiveness will be used to justify further measures rather than the re-evaluation we need of how to address the issue

3) it detracts from things that might actually help, and frames the discussion in terms of control instead of things like regulatory reform.

4) There is still a component of the need to possess guns that is a defense against the power of the government, and this proposal could be seen as limiting that ability. Further it gets us into the "not needed for hunting" thinking which is dangerous for gun rights but for all rights in general.


Effectiveness is obviously the major problem. It simply wont work. Here's why:

1) As Catty Wampus said, the high cap magazines aren't really important in these situations. These guys may often use them but they could be just as effective with 10 round magazines. Moreso in fact as in Aurora the guy got a 100 round drum mag for an AR-15, which is notorious for jamming. IMO had he worked on using standard straight mags he'd have gotten off a lot more rounds.

The SKS comes with a built in 10 round mag and you can reload it with stripper clips about as fast as changing mags. People get focuses on the appearance of the big magazines b/c they are used in AKs but those are full auto weapons that will spray a lot more ammo.

That doesn't even include just having more guns. It also doesn't include just using a shotgun.

It's cold as hell, but in truth someone could kill just as many as were killed in Connecticut with 10 round magazines or with shotguns or even tube fed rifles that hold 6-7 rounds.

It simply won't prevent the next outrage even if no one had access to them.


2) Really "banning" them is nearly impossible.

There are millions of these magazines in circulation. Maybe 10s of millions. Banning the selling of new ones is pointless. Utterly useless at preventing their use by the next lunatic.

The latest proposal I've seen is to ban their sale, even between individuals. Good luck enforcing that one.

So the only other option to actually "ban" them is to round them up. Think a ban on sales is useless, try rounding up millions of magazines without any record of who owns what.

So a "ban on high cap magazines" doesn't even exist in the currently proposed forms nor is any other form going to be politically or logistically feasible. Theyr'e calling for something that doesn't exist nor can really exist. You're implementing a law that is wholly meaningless in its effect.



Next is what happens when this law is completely ineffective and another tragedy happens, whether with high cap mags or not:

It will justify the next stage of "common sense" gun control. Then it will be "banning" assault rifles. Of course they wont' round them up, so inevitably with millions of them in circulation there will be another incident using them. Then the call will be to round them up. Or the lunatic will use pistols and the call will be to ban some form of those.

We already see this happening. The Illinois Governor wants to ban all "semi automatic" guns. Depending on your definition that's the vast majority of all guns in the country from 22 plinkers to carry guns to shotguns and rifles for hunting and sporting and even including revolvers within the "one round for one trigger pull" definition.

So we'll "ban" the mags, that will fail, and that failure will be used to lobby for the next and more restrictive round of laws. It will never end as none of these laws will stop these things, and we'll be right back at this point but one step deeper into gun ownership restrictions.


3) It diverts from the need to politically push for things that will in fact help.

I laid it out elsewhere but there are things that can potentially help. Many of those things involve something counter intuitive to the gun control crowd: HELPING dealers instead of constraining them.

Dealers have to meet strict record keeping requirements and they have to run background checks. Private sales do not. Wouldn't we rather help dealers expand their percentage of gun transactions? It would only help to catch some of these guys who might get through otherwise (mostly criminals and not lunatics, but it still reduces gun violence).

There are a bunch of other things, but what we need first is "common sense regulatory reform" and not common sense gun control. B/c those things really can get done and really do help and really are common sense.

Work WITH the NSSF and NRA and the dealers, not against them.

Seriously, you know who in the world MOST wants to stop these things? Gun owners. We cringe like you cannot believe when these things happen. We'd love to stop them. \


4) The biggest reason the Founders put in the 2nd Amendment was to prevent governments from having enough force of arms to enforce a tyranny. If we're all armed they have a problem.

The mag ban is framed in terms of "no hunting purpose", and that is the most dangerous thinking of all. The 2nd Amendment wasn't in place so we could hunt, it was for 3 reasons

a) To stand against tyranny of the state
b) to let us defend ourselves
c) as a natural part of the basic pursuit of happiness and liberty. You don't ban anything anyone wants without strong justification.

Even going down the road of banning high cap mags b/c "they aren't needed" is very very dangerous. If you get into that mode of thinking then when the ban fails you can keep on justifying more and more restrictions without having to consider that there is a right to bear arms that has nothing to do with hunting.

The most dangerous thinking of all is "well we have to try something". Restricting people's rights and choices on such a basis is incredibly dangerous and goes against the fundamental founding of the nation's principles. There must be more than even speculative evidence to restrict the rights of the People, much less the "well there's none but maybe it'll be help" justification.

This was exactly the ruling of the 7th Circuit this past week ruling the Illinois conceal carry ban unconstitutional. The decision was rooted in the basis that you cannot restrict People's rights with some basis that it actually is necessary or improves the public safety. It cannot be "well it makes sense to me."

So "common sense" isn't a justification for this action. It must be based in some kind of proof of an improvement in public safety, and there isn't one.






So I respect the attempt, I really do, but when we analyze the proposal it simply fails on too many levels to make sense or to be the right policy. It sounds good, but when we look at what it will do both good and bad and how people will respond and generate the real outcomes (laws don't happen in vacuums, people adapt and it's what's left after that adaptation that really is the measure of the law) it fails to be good policy.

CitizenBBN
12-15-2012, 06:56 PM
We seek to make sense of the senseless and policy to punish the many for the evils of a few. All those attempts do is make it all worse.

This. Took me 2,000 words to say that. lol.

CitizenBBN
12-15-2012, 07:03 PM
I'm really one of those somewhere in the middle on this issue. I have two brothers who both have concealed carry permits but I don't own a gun. It's complicated and I can't claim to be an expert but I can't for the life of me see what's wrong with this proposal http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-frank-lautenberg/post_1905_b_845590.html

I also want to say I hope you stay in the discussion. Good discussion can happen on this topic if we all are respectful and considered in our posts and you have generated some good discussion.

bubbleup
12-16-2012, 06:37 AM
I also want to say I hope you stay in the discussion. Good discussion can happen on this topic if we all are respectful and considered in our posts and you have generated some good discussion.

I've read the links and your 2000 word treatise ;) in repsonse to my suggestion. As I said initially, it's a very complicated issue and I'm no expert. Somewhere between a musket in every cabin and an AK-47 in every home is a level of gun rights/gun control that might make it more difficult for these mentally ill (potential) killers to try to top this most recent killer. At the risk of oversimplifying the issue(s), I'm afraid that if the NRA and it's supporters don't want to come to the table and participate in the conversation, the "other side" will begin to build momentum for something more drastic...and as I said intially I'm somewhere in the middle. I've taken my 17 year-old daughter over to my brother's in the past 6 weeks to shoot, both a pistol and a 22. I'm not in favor of taking guns away but something has to change and Friday's events have changed a lot of attitudes.

badrose
12-16-2012, 09:05 AM
Here's one mother's story about her mentally ill son that may shed some light on what happened in Connecticut.

http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html?m=1

badrose
12-16-2012, 09:13 AM
School adviser: Gunman a loner who felt no pain


http://news.yahoo.com/school-adviser-gunman-loner-felt-no-pain-235416864.html;_ylt=A2KJ3CcE4s1QKj4A0YfQtDMD

badrose
12-16-2012, 09:30 AM
A broader perspective:

http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2012/12/15/rampage-shootings-its-the-moral-decay-of-society-not-guns-n1467549

bigsky
12-16-2012, 11:14 AM
What's "chilling", but "affirming of what I always suspected" is the "if our government were only more like China" sentiment so freely expressed on Facebook and by the HuffPo meme repeaters these last two days ("see, look at the knife attack, no kids died"). Take away the Bill of Rights, control what the media covers and the ability of the populace to defend themselves, and those who've longingly lauded China's totalitarian socialism/communism will be halfway towards their goals. Freedom does have it's costs; freedom allows failure, it allows people to make evil choices. But repressing the rights of all to cure the evil of a few is exactly the opposite of our American ideal.

CitizenBBN
12-16-2012, 12:20 PM
School adviser: Gunman a loner who felt no pain


http://news.yahoo.com/school-adviser-gunman-loner-felt-no-pain-235416864.html;_ylt=A2KJ3CcE4s1QKj4A0YfQtDMD

"Have you found his best friend? Have you found a friend?" Novia asked. "You're not going to. He was a loner."

If you look at my post on this thread on the premy board I specifically said what will come out is just like the hold SNL skit on the shooting of Buckwheat, where when asked everyone will say "he was a quiet boy, a loner." Then they ask "do you think he shot Buckwheat"? "Oh yes, that's all he ever talked about was killing Buckwheat."

This kid was mentally ill and was apparently never treated, but we have to restrict the rights of all Americans rather than try to deal with mental illness in this country?

Catonahottinroof
12-16-2012, 12:28 PM
[I]

This kid was mentally ill and was apparently never treated, but we have to restrict the rights of all Americans rather than try to deal with mental illness in this country?


Winner winner chicken dinner!

CitizenBBN
12-16-2012, 12:33 PM
I've read the links and your 2000 word treatise ;) in repsonse to my suggestion. As I said initially, it's a very complicated issue and I'm no expert. Somewhere between a musket in every cabin and an AK-47 in every home is a level of gun rights/gun control that might make it more difficult for these mentally ill (potential) killers to try to top this most recent killer.

You read that? Man, I didn't and I wrote it. lol. ;)

I think your statement goes to my main frustration, and the frustration of the NRA and other groups. That whole discussion will focus on how to limit the ability of the mentally ill to do damage, as if a) that's going to make it OK, and b) we should start there rather than asking why the mentally ill who are capable of this walk among us.

That's the "slippery slope" I talk about. We ban high cap mags and somehow collect them all and the next incident only kills 10 children using "hunting purpose" guns. Do we then turn our focus to how a diagnosed mentally ill person wasn't seen as a threat or do we call for limiting guns again? We all know which will happen.

Heck I can prove it. Today on Fox I caught 10 minutes of a show that happened to be on when I turned on the TV, and it was talking about banning ALL semi-auto weapons, showing pictures of the Glock and Sig he apparently used, saying they were designed for military use. No they weren't, I carry a semi-auto made by a company that has never sold to the military.

So they're already calling for a level of overkill beyond all scope or reason. That's what terrifies the NRA and keeps them from wanting to compromise at all. They know this will be death by 1,000 cuts, each such incident adding another restriction b/c the last restriction won't stop the next tragedy. It's b/c they know it won't work and what will result when it fails that keeps them from wanting to bend.

This boy was troubled for YEARS. His mother had to be repeatedly called to school to address the situation. At least one adviser knew he was a risk to himself and others and was assigned specifically to watch him. It was known he didn't feel physical or psychological pain, and our national discussion today on the talk shows centers on which guns he chose? Really?

As I posted elsewhere, we're talking about a person so cold, so ill, he could stand there one after another and kill 20 children, with blood and screaming and a scene that would make you or I puke all around him, and we're hoping to limit his options so as to keep him from killing 20 kids to maybe only 10?

Given the response time, which was as quick as the police could get there, fwiw he'd have had time to kill all those kids with far less firepower. He could have killed a LOT more kids but clearly was targeting his mother's class.

So NO restriction including banning all semi-auto weapons was going to prevent those kids from dying, but that's still a better discussion than saying we need to forget his choice of method and focus on why a person capable of such things was allowed to wander among us for years?

We want to be safe, OK, let's be safe. Allow the 10s of millions who rely on guns for self defense to continue to defend themselves, and when "loners" who show no psychological pain show up in our school system their threat is taken seriously and their individual rights are questioned versus those of the 10s of millions who are no threat to anyone.

We can even tie that to guns. Allow the system to rule people a threat without huge hurdles and then they wont' pass the background check to buy a gun from a dealer. That's a reform the NRA and gun owners would support in a heartbeat: restricting gun access to the people who specifically shouldn't have access without just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

CitizenBBN
12-16-2012, 12:45 PM
I want to hit that one again. Federal law prevents those adjudicated as mentally incompetent from buying or owning a firearm.

that law exists.

This kid was troubled for years, was mentally ill with a long history of issues at school, but he was never deemed "incompetent" in order to prevent him from owning a firearm. Nor does the ATF investigate people who commit a felony by lying when they try to buy one.

Here's a scenario that would have worked and not limited everyone's rights:

1) this young man is ruled some status of incompetent or mentally ill.

2) that level is legally a disqualification to own a firearm and hopefully a host of other things like holding jobs in and around children, etc.

3) When he goes to buy a gun he's turned down.

4) If he does try to buy one at a store he'd have lied on the form for it to get to the background check point. If he fails that the ATF/FBI know immediately he 99% likely committed a felony, and a person deemed mentally ill -- with his name,, address, social sec number, everything you need - is trying to buy a gun.

So now we not only limit him legally from owning a gun, we have a fair chance of identifying that he's become a GRAVE threat as he's trying to arm himself and we have a felony to prosecute to get him out of society.

Which is more likely to stop the next lunatic? A system that tries to identify and track them, esp. their actions to arm themselves with ANY firearm or one that just wholesale tries to limit what any person can buy in a store in hopes it slows him down?

Yes there are things we can do, there are discussions we can have, but let's walk through the process and have a discussion focused on what we can do to stop lunatics, not what we can do to have lunatics kill 10 people instead of 20.

CitizenBBN
12-16-2012, 12:48 PM
Seriously, I know I'm rambling, but can anyone explain to me why the reaction is "let's limit these dangerous guns" instead of "let's limit these dangerous people"? Why we focus on the symptoms instead of the disease?

CitizenBBN
12-16-2012, 12:53 PM
What's "chilling", but "affirming of what I always suspected" is the "if our government were only more like China" sentiment so freely expressed on Facebook and by the HuffPo meme repeaters these last two days ("see, look at the knife attack, no kids died").

When you have a Supreme Court justice say if she were founding the nation today she wouldn't look to the Constitution as a guide, you know your "suspicions" are cold hard facts.

A lot of people don't trust liberty. It can't be defined, controlled, planned. If you think you know what is best for others that's the last structure you want for a nation. You want one where you can make them do what is best for themselves whether they agree or not b/c you know you're right and they just don't understand what is best for them.

jazyd
12-16-2012, 01:01 PM
Here is one of the biggest problems as I see it with what you said about the NRA coming to the table. They ahve come to the table in the past. But they know as do many of hte members that those on the left will not meet half way on anything, even though they will propose that it won't happen, they are democrats I remind you, and what they do is pretend they will meet at the half way point...taxes and cuts...but then screw you once you give in. IF the pendulum would stop at the half way point, fine, but it wont. The NRA knows it and so they fight for every point they want and even some they could give up.

Again I say, what does high mags have to do with the guy who slashed 21 kids in China this week, the young man in Pearl who purposely ran over a black man with his truck to kill him, the Ok city bombing and fertilizer, the boxcutters and 9-11.

The vast majority of people who use high mags are those who enjoy shooting for pleasure. So we take away their freedom to hopefully stop a nutcase which in reality won't stop him.

The left has DONE NOTHING about Fast and Furious and putting high capacity assault weapons in the hands of CRIMINALS but want more gun laws that will not stop nutcases. They do NOTHING to help the mental cases out there, cutting funding at state levels, because Govs must balance their budgets and with the Feds and the democrats demanding more to be spent on medicaid and foodstamps, those that are in need of being helped go w/o the resources that the states need.

So the democrats want to spend more on medicaid...in Miss they propose raising the number here to 1/3 of our population...foodstamps, illegals but neglect those that desparately need help. That is your Democrat party and the ultra liberals.



I've read the links and your 2000 word treatise ;) in repsonse to my suggestion. As I said initially, it's a very complicated issue and I'm no expert. Somewhere between a musket in every cabin and an AK-47 in every home is a level of gun rights/gun control that might make it more difficult for these mentally ill (potential) killers to try to top this most recent killer. At the risk of oversimplifying the issue(s), I'm afraid that if the NRA and it's supporters don't want to come to the table and participate in the conversation, the "other side" will begin to build momentum for something more drastic...and as I said intially I'm somewhere in the middle. I've taken my 17 year-old daughter over to my brother's in the past 6 weeks to shoot, both a pistol and a 22. I'm not in favor of taking guns away but something has to change and Friday's events have changed a lot of attitudes.

Lfbj00
12-16-2012, 01:01 PM
This boy was troubled for YEARS. His mother had to be repeatedly called to school to address the situation. At least one adviser knew he was a risk to himself and others and was assigned specifically to watch him. It was known he didn't feel physical or psychological pain, and our national discussion today on the talk shows centers on which guns he chose? Really? [/B]

So NO restriction including banning all semi-auto weapons was going to prevent those kids from dying, but that's still a better discussion than saying we need to forget his choice of method and focus on why a person capable of such things was allowed to wander among us for years?.

I think this statement is the tell-all of this particular incident. The young man was known to have mental problems, yet the Mother stocked the house with 4 weapons and ammo. I have absolutely NO problem with ANY person wanting to own, or carry, a weapon. I think alot of times it is more preventive of chaos than people want to believe. I am very much in favor of a person's right to bear arms, and as soon as this happened, I turned right to my wife and said, 'This is going to bring the gun control people out of the woodwork." But why in God's name did THIS woman think it was good idea to own them? Gun ownership comes with a responsibility, and clearly this wasn't very responsible on her part.

The article in today's Courier Journal here in Louisville stated that the young man had a somewhat fascination with realistic killing type video games. The investigators said after piecing together the events that took place, that he did what he did with precision, meaning there weren't alot of wasted shots. When asked if the children would have suffered, the answer was, "If so, not for long." Every person was shot at least twice. What was this woman thinking by having weapons in her home with this young man around? A gun control law shouldn't have had to keep her from owning a gun, common sense should have.

CitizenBBN
12-16-2012, 01:06 PM
lfbj --- I hadn't read up today but you mean she OWNED these guns with a mentally ill son? Were they just left laying around, not even in a locked safe to which he didn't have the combination?

My God, why are we having a discussion about which guns/mags should be legal when she was arming a lunatic?

Again, pass a law that says those adjudicated mentally ill can't have a gun in the home. They already can't own one, but I'm fine with that law, or that they must be locked and the person not have any direct access. Something.

That would get NRA support b/c it would actually help.

Instead of "common sense gun control", how about some just plain common sense? No, we'd rather see what he could have done if she'd only had pump shotguns on hand. Jeez.

Lfbj00
12-16-2012, 01:10 PM
lfbj --- I hadn't read up today but you mean she OWNED these guns with a mentally ill son? Were they just left laying around, not even in a locked safe to which he didn't have the combination?

My God, why are we having a discussion about which guns/mags should be legal when she was arming a lunatic?

Again, pass a law that says those adjudicated mentally ill can't have a gun in the home. They already can't own one, but I'm fine with that law, or that they must be locked and the person not have any direct access. Something.

That would get NRA support b/c it would actually help.

Instead of "common sense gun control", how about some just plain common sense? No, we'd rather see what he could have done if she'd only had pump shotguns on hand. Jeez.

According to the reports i have seen in the newspapers and on the TV, she legally purchased and registered all the guns in her name. So he only had to go into the next room for his weapon of choice, which as it turned out, was all of them.

CitizenBBN
12-16-2012, 01:16 PM
According to the reports i have seen in the newspapers and on the TV, she legally purchased and registered all the guns in her name. So he only had to go into the next room for his weapon of choice, which as it turned out, was all of them.

Thanks. Jeez.

You've spend years dealing with a deeply troubled son, the prototypical lunatic shooter (white, middle class, loner, psychological disconnect with emotional pain and the pain of others) since the US was founded, and you buy guns he can directly access.

If this pans out as it is currently reported we had TWO lunatics in this mess, one of which was teaching those kids on a daily basis.

Darrell KSR
12-16-2012, 01:58 PM
Yes. No law could prevent what happened, absent one that removes all guns from citizens.

She owned the guns, he didn't.
They were registered to her, not him.

In effect, this was like a criminal stealing guns to use in a crime. I know this is a slightly different thing, but I think the analogy works.

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

CattyWampus
12-16-2012, 02:49 PM
1370

CitizenBBN
12-16-2012, 03:09 PM
Yes. No law could prevent what happened, absent one that removes all guns from citizens.

She owned the guns, he didn't.
They were registered to her, not him.

In effect, this was like a criminal stealing guns to use in a crime. I know this is a slightly different thing, but I think the analogy works.

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

Very good point, well structured as always.

Were the guns secured though, or just in a closet? . When I teach the conceal carry class a big chunk of it from the state is on simple safety and not even carry, like safety in the home and how to balance storing guns with access to them for defense.

With an obviously troubled son in the home it would be irresponsible to not have them secured IMO, at least guns not used for crisis home defense. Even I was under that restriction as a child. This would limit his ability to defend himself but there's a balance between individual rights and public safety and this question is a lot closer to favoring public safety than a law imposed every American. I'm at least fine to have that debate.

Doc and I had this discussion about a boy who killed a friend with a gun. I don't want to spin off into that debate in this thread and the difference I see between a mentally troubled person and just any child but it seems even that debate may be more on point than general gun control laws. At least it focuses on individual situations and not just all guns and all Americans.

Regardless it paints a picture of a tragedy a result of a series of failed decisions and actions that have nothing to do with which guns are legal or illegal for purchase and ownership.

Personally if my child were that disturbed the only gun not locked in a safe would be the one on me at the time. No doubt though as a parent you never think your child capable of such things. So that's easily said.

CattyWampus
12-16-2012, 03:25 PM
Thanks. Jeez.

If this pans out as it is currently reported we had TWO lunatics in this mess, one of which was teaching those kids on a daily basis.

The latest report is that she did not teach at the school. She was unemployed, receiving $240,000/yr from her ex-husband. http://www.heavy.com/news/2012/12/nancy-lanza-adams-mother-and-first-victim-top-10-facts-you-need-to-know/

CitizenBBN
12-16-2012, 05:43 PM
The latest report is that she did not teach at the school. She was unemployed, receiving $240,000/yr from her ex-husband. http://www.heavy.com/news/2012/12/nancy-lanza-adams-mother-and-first-victim-top-10-facts-you-need-to-know/

I guess you never bet on media reporting accuracy, and the more serious the subject the worse the reporting.

Connecticut is one of the most strict states in the nation when it comes to gun control, and Nancy Lanza bought her guns legally and registered them.

A point lost on many, one I made to someone Friday. Also goes to my point that banning further production/sale of high cap mags etc. is useless. None of those laws would have kept him from having access to them.


Nancy Lanza's arsenal consisted of two powerful handguns, two hunting rifles and a semiautomatic rifle like the ones used by the military. Adam took the handguns and rifle to the school.

I don't know where to begin with all the lies in that statement. It wasn't an "arsenal", it was 5 guns. I inherited 4 guns, hardly an arsenal.

"two powerful handguns", as opposed to those that can't hurt you? More people are killed with 25 cal street guns than these Glocks and Sigs by a wide margin.

"semiautomatic rifle like used in the military". Uh, the military doesn't use semiautomatic guns, nor is that unusual at all for rifles of any design. The latest untruth is to associate "semiautomatic" with "military rifle" which has been associated with "machine gun" when they are utterly different things. 80% or more of all guns in the US are "semi-automatic", i.e. one trigger pull fires one round and the next trigger pull fires the next one.

5 rounds a second? Saw on that fox show too where he said that AR could get off 5 rounds a second. That's BS, utter BS. Is the gun theoretically capable of it? Possible, but can someone pull and cycle a trigger in 1/20th of a second five times in a row? No. They want to make it sound like any semi-auto gun is just spraying rounds and far more than what anyone needs.

I can get off 5 rounds in 3-4 seconds with a Kel Tec in point and spray mode, which is still a lot of rounds down range, but they spin it as bad as possible at every turn.


Anyway, thanks for the link. She isn't even a teacher. Wow.

Guarantee there's even more to this story and his situation.

CattyWampus
12-16-2012, 07:03 PM
I guess you never bet on media reporting accuracy, and the more serious the subject the worse the reporting.

Connecticut is one of the most strict states in the nation when it comes to gun control, and Nancy Lanza bought her guns legally and registered them.

A point lost on many, one I made to someone Friday. Also goes to my point that banning further production/sale of high cap mags etc. is useless. None of those laws would have kept him from having access to them.


Nancy Lanza's arsenal consisted of two powerful handguns, two hunting rifles and a semiautomatic rifle like the ones used by the military. Adam took the handguns and rifle to the school.

I don't know where to begin with all the lies in that statement. It wasn't an "arsenal", it was 5 guns. I inherited 4 guns, hardly an arsenal.

"two powerful handguns", as opposed to those that can't hurt you? More people are killed with 25 cal street guns than these Glocks and Sigs by a wide margin.

"semiautomatic rifle like used in the military". Uh, the military doesn't use semiautomatic guns, nor is that unusual at all for rifles of any design. The latest untruth is to associate "semiautomatic" with "military rifle" which has been associated with "machine gun" when they are utterly different things. 80% or more of all guns in the US are "semi-automatic", i.e. one trigger pull fires one round and the next trigger pull fires the next one.

5 rounds a second? Saw on that fox show too where he said that AR could get off 5 rounds a second. That's BS, utter BS. Is the gun theoretically capable of it? Possible, but can someone pull and cycle a trigger in 1/20th of a second five times in a row? No. They want to make it sound like any semi-auto gun is just spraying rounds and far more than what anyone needs.

I can get off 5 rounds in 3-4 seconds with a Kel Tec in point and spray mode, which is still a lot of rounds down range, but they spin it as bad as possible at every turn.


Anyway, thanks for the link. She isn't even a teacher. Wow.

Guarantee there's even more to this story and his situation.

I'm glad you addressed the inaccurate info about the weapons. I expected that you would and your analysis would be far more knowledgeable than what I could have added. You didn't disappoint.

CitizenBBN
12-16-2012, 07:28 PM
An undeserved compliment, but I'll take it. :)

I had a conversation today that really struck me how little some people know about guns and therefore how easy it is to convince them of the need for this or that law when they'd never support it if they hadn't been lied to about the guns themselves.

I was discussing the high cap mags and saying there are millions of them out there so banning new ones was meaningless, and she asked "and they can be refilled right?" She thought so but wasn't certain that once you fired off the rounds in a magazine you didn't just throw it away, which of course would mean that a ban would slowly be more and more effective.

This was not some dumb lady, this was a very smart person, a senior partner at a professional firm in Lexington, just not exposed to guns in any detail.

No wonder they can tell these outright lies and they work.

If you define semi-auto as I did above, the technical definition, it would include all "pistols", all revolvers, a HUGE percentage of all 22 rifles and a big chunk of all rifles, and even a lot of shotguns (they come in semi-auto).

All that would be left are bolt action and level action rifles, breech shotguns (double and single barrel), pump shotguns, single shot derringers and muskets. Other than pump shotguns the ability to defend oneself would be effectively eliminated.

I've sold many 100s of handguns at auction, I can think of 2 that wouldn't meet that definition, and even if we limited it to 5 rounds or more as well it would be maybe 15 of say 800.

banning "semi autos" is effectively a handgun ban, which is EXACTLY what they want and they have just found a way of saying it in an obfuscated manner that can get support b/c if they said "ban handguns" the vast majority of Americans would be against it.

One irony? JFK was killed with a bolt action Curcano rifle, and he got off 3 shots in under 5 seconds. Reagan was shot (and Brady shot) with a cheapo 6 shot 22 revolver.

Could confiscate them all and he still could have accumulated enough firepower to do what he did. Anyone seen Mad Max and what a double barrel shotgun can do and how easy it is to carry when you cut it down with a hacksaw?

Catonahottinroof
12-17-2012, 11:45 AM
Timothy McVeigh killed 19 kids with fertilzer and racing fuel, along with 149 others. Evil people will find the means to do what it is they are going to do. It's the risk of living in a free society.

Bad cases make for bad law. This shooting, and the prior few are on the way to creating bad law, and eroded rights for all Americans.

dan_bgblue
12-17-2012, 12:02 PM
Could confiscate them all and he still could have accumulated enough firepower to do what he did. Anyone seen Mad Max and what a double barrel shotgun can do and how easy it is to carry when you cut it down with a hacksaw?

Yeah but you told me it was illegal to do that and I could get in real trouble if I did.:outtahere:

Doc
12-17-2012, 02:09 PM
I think there are plenty of ideas in that article to stimulate reasonable discussion. Thanks for the link.

Like suggesting somebody could or would put forth the idea of shooting mentally retarded folks. That's always a good way to foster intelligent discussion. Present the absurd then try suggest that is what somebody else could or would claim.

I didn't pipe earlier because I thought in extremely poor taste to do so earlier, plus I wanted to avoid knee jerk type of over-reaction.

First off there is no law that could ever be passed or approved that would prevent such a tragedy. Folks who are intent on killing will find a way. The only thing that would stop this type of thing would be a 100% ban across the nation of any fire arm and even that would not stop it. It might decrease it but when there is a will there is a way. And just for clarification, I'm not suggesting that is a good idea, a plausible idea or a reasonable idea so while some might like to suggest any person who supports gun regulation is also for banning them...think again.

Second, as for "biased" individuals, isn't that what we base our opinions on? I'll confess my biases. I have two kids who I would do anything to insure they are safe. As some might recall my son who at the time was 11 was shot by another 11 year old. Fortunately nothing severe but certainly enough that it helped to form those so called bias. As many recall, one of my son's lacrosse teammates accidentily blew his head off with his gun. Nothing like the funeral for a 13 year old kid to help form a bias. My daughter attends college that recently made national news due to a gunman being reported on campus. Again, another factor in my bias. Additionally I attended an inner city/urban high school (Central for those in the Louisville area) where while not an everyday occurrence, it was not uncommon to encounter "guns". In fact on "Sr cut day" one of my buddies had his class ring stolen at gunpoint on campus property. Since the last gun thread my home situation has changed. We now have a tenant who resides in our guest room who owns a gun (my daughters boyfriend who's family moved north so he moved in with us to attend school). He owns a pistol (no idea make or model) but it is registered and he is licensed. When Tommy moved in he was told to keep it in a safe since we have a 14 year old in the house. He has been "slow" to take care of that so for Xmas he is getting a gun safe. If I had a gun issue or wanted a gun ban, I would kick him out of my home. Additionally my daughter also has a concealed carry weapons permit although she does not own a gun. I have no problem with any 21 year old owning a gun.

What can actually be done to minimize such event? Above it was suggested that we eliminate "gun free zones". Yeah because the idea that people in elementary, middle and high schools need to be armed is a good one :533: Personally I agree with a zero tolerance policy (note: my son was expelled 2 years ago for having a knife at school. School didn't hear a peep from me about how he should not be punished even though it was just a pocket knife. Knife, gun, etc... any weapon should not be allowed on a school campus, period.). To me the best solution would be an armed LEO in every school, not some security guy who is a wanna be police man but a real honest to goodness trained law enforcement officer assigned to the school whenever the doors are opened. At my kids elementary school they had an officer there most days but I'm talking 100% of the time. Consider that number of people confined into the area, is there a better use of resources? Imagine if an armed police officer had been in the school at that time, would it have made a difference? I believe so.

Others have suggested enforcing the laws on the books. No law on the books prevents a loon from entering a school (or theater or mall) and taking target practice. This is one of the more popular deflections by gun advocates. The other is getting rid of gun laws since with law "only criminals have guns". Huge straw man since that argument could be used for any crime. The laws allow for punishment when the law is violated. That is one of the purposes of laws.

Back on page 1, it was asked for suggestions. Some of these I have presented in the past but will do again:

1) See above...armed law enforcement officer in every school any time the doors are unlocked.
2) Personally I believe any individual convicted of any crime that involves a weapon be forever prohibited from owning a weapon. Would that stop all of these type of incidents? Nope but IMO gun ownership should be for responsible people and it might prevent some.
3) Additionally I believe gun ownership and usage should be confined only to people of responsible age. We have determined that one must be 16 to drive an automobile, that one must be 21 to use alcohol, that one must be 18 to smoke (I think that is the age) legally yet pappa can legally put a 22 in the hands of a 5 yr old kid. These examples are analogies and so we can be clear, an analogy isn't exactly the same but rather a similarity. Despite what some want to believe, a gun is a dangerous instrument, just like a car in the hands of a 14 year old, or alcohol in the hands of a 17 year old or smokes on a 12 year old.
4) I believe if one elects to own a gun, then they bear responsibility when that gun does damage regardless of the circumstances. As an analogy, (an analogy isn't exactly the same but rather a similarity) I'd offer ownership of an aggressive dog. If I elect to own a pit bull and that dog gets out of my yard and maims or kills somebody, I'm going to be held responsible even if I didn't intentionally "sick" the dog on that person. I believe gun owners should bear the same standard. They have elected to own something "dangerous" and therefore are responsible for the damage that comes from its use, even when that use isn't of their doing.
5) Finally, I don't really see much benefit by limiting what is owned. A pistol will kill somebody just as dead as an assault rifle. A clip that holds 20 will kill you just as dead as a clip that holds 40. The problem isn't the size of the magazine but rather the individual that holds the gun. I do believe that if one elects to own an assault rifle they should be able to however IMO "special permits" and oversight should be enforce. IE required storage etc.... Again, as an analogy (similarity, not exact comparison), I'm required to store certain drugs in a very specific manner with records to account for that and allow federal or state inspectors to examine those at any time during business hours. Its not for all drugs, just "controlled" drugs. I certainly would not have an issue with a private individual being able to own assault, automatics, etc in a similar manner.

Most of my gun concerns are not towards this type of tragedy but rather the accidental shootings that occur but there is an attempt to look at some aspect logically.

Doc
12-17-2012, 02:24 PM
Several posts have discussed others desire to ban weapons but I've not run across to many of those folks in real life. Are there some ideologues that would want to do that? Sure but I think that is the vast minority. Not every person who sees problems with how our gun laws are today is for a "gun ban". Likewise, I try not see or imply every gun advocate as some type of Root'em, shoot'em vigilante. Most folks are reasonable.

Others have brought in other methods in which folks have committed mass murder to somehow justify not looking at gun regulation in support of their argument. When box cutters or fertilizer are used time and time again to commit mass murder then likely laws will be enacted to monitor its use. Its happened in a reasonable manner in the past where harmful material were monitored. Best analogy I can come up with (see post above for definition of analogy) would be the sale of ephedrine. Its not an all or none proposition for most.

dan_bgblue
12-17-2012, 02:37 PM
Doc, I used to be in the AG retail business back before idiots were using ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel to blow up occupied buildings. I was in a retail ag store a few months ago and they were advertising ammonium nitrate for sale in 50 lb bags. I asked the lady at the counter if I could buy some and she said you sure can. I asked how much I could buy and she said all you want. I asked if there was any waiting period and she just gave me a funny look. I asked if I had to fill out any forms and she said I just had to sign a form indicating I was going to use it to fertilize my farm or yard and that I was not a convicted felon.

That is all there was to it. The authorities could trace the purchase I made to make a legal case AFTER I blew up the building I was mad at, but there really was no preventative to me doing as I wished, if blowing up buildings was what I wanted to do.

Doc
12-17-2012, 05:27 PM
Wow, just got a bit of bad news. One of my clients dropped off their two dogs this AM for an unscheduled boarding. Seems their niece was one of the victims of the shooting.

Darrell KSR
12-17-2012, 06:45 PM
Wow, just got a bit of bad news. One of my clients dropped off their two dogs this AM for an unscheduled boarding. Seems their niece was one of the victims of the shooting.

Awful. Brings it real to you, for sure. These are real people, real kids. Affects everyone at some level, others even more.

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

Darrell KSR
12-17-2012, 06:48 PM
Like suggesting somebody could or would put forth the idea of shooting mentally retarded folks. That's always a good way to foster intelligent discussion. Present the absurd then try suggest that is what somebody else could or would claim.

I didn't pipe earlier because I thought in extremely poor taste to do so earlier, plus I wanted to avoid knee jerk type of over-reaction.

First off there is no law that could ever be passed or approved that would prevent such a tragedy. Folks who are intent on killing will find a way. The only thing that would stop this type of thing would be a 100% ban across the nation of any fire arm and even that would not stop it. It might decrease it but when there is a will there is a way. And just for clarification, I'm not suggesting that is a good idea, a plausible idea or a reasonable idea so while some might like to suggest any person who supports gun regulation is also for banning them...think again.

Second, as for "biased" individuals, isn't that what we base our opinions on? I'll confess my biases. I have two kids who I would do anything to insure they are safe. As some might recall my son who at the time was 11 was shot by another 11 year old. Fortunately nothing severe but certainly enough that it helped to form those so called bias. As many recall, one of my son's lacrosse teammates accidentily blew his head off with his gun. Nothing like the funeral for a 13 year old kid to help form a bias. My daughter attends college that recently made national news due to a gunman being reported on campus. Again, another factor in my bias. Additionally I attended an inner city/urban high school (Central for those in the Louisville area) where while not an everyday occurrence, it was not uncommon to encounter "guns". In fact on "Sr cut day" one of my buddies had his class ring stolen at gunpoint on campus property. Since the last gun thread my home situation has changed. We now have a tenant who resides in our guest room who owns a gun (my daughters boyfriend who's family moved north so he moved in with us to attend school). He owns a pistol (no idea make or model) but it is registered and he is licensed. When Tommy moved in he was told to keep it in a safe since we have a 14 year old in the house. He has been "slow" to take care of that so for Xmas he is getting a gun safe. If I had a gun issue or wanted a gun ban, I would kick him out of my home. Additionally my daughter also has a concealed carry weapons permit although she does not own a gun. I have no problem with any 21 year old owning a gun.

What can actually be done to minimize such event? Above it was suggested that we eliminate "gun free zones". Yeah because the idea that people in elementary, middle and high schools need to be armed is a good one :533: Personally I agree with a zero tolerance policy (note: my son was expelled 2 years ago for having a knife at school. School didn't hear a peep from me about how he should not be punished even though it was just a pocket knife. Knife, gun, etc... any weapon should not be allowed on a school campus, period.). To me the best solution would be an armed LEO in every school, not some security guy who is a wanna be police man but a real honest to goodness trained law enforcement officer assigned to the school whenever the doors are opened. At my kids elementary school they had an officer there most days but I'm talking 100% of the time. Consider that number of people confined into the area, is there a better use of resources? Imagine if an armed police officer had been in the school at that time, would it have made a difference? I believe so.

Others have suggested enforcing the laws on the books. No law on the books prevents a loon from entering a school (or theater or mall) and taking target practice. This is one of the more popular deflections by gun advocates. The other is getting rid of gun laws since with law "only criminals have guns". Huge straw man since that argument could be used for any crime. The laws allow for punishment when the law is violated. That is one of the purposes of laws.

Back on page 1, it was asked for suggestions. Some of these I have presented in the past but will do again:

1) See above...armed law enforcement officer in every school any time the doors are unlocked.
2) Personally I believe any individual convicted of any crime that involves a weapon be forever prohibited from owning a weapon. Would that stop all of these type of incidents? Nope but IMO gun ownership should be for responsible people and it might prevent some.
3) Additionally I believe gun ownership and usage should be confined only to people of responsible age. We have determined that one must be 16 to drive an automobile, that one must be 21 to use alcohol, that one must be 18 to smoke (I think that is the age) legally yet pappa can legally put a 22 in the hands of a 5 yr old kid. These examples are analogies and so we can be clear, an analogy isn't exactly the same but rather a similarity. Despite what some want to believe, a gun is a dangerous instrument, just like a car in the hands of a 14 year old, or alcohol in the hands of a 17 year old or smokes on a 12 year old.
4) I believe if one elects to own a gun, then they bear responsibility when that gun does damage regardless of the circumstances. As an analogy, (an analogy isn't exactly the same but rather a similarity) I'd offer ownership of an aggressive dog. If I elect to own a pit bull and that dog gets out of my yard and maims or kills somebody, I'm going to be held responsible even if I didn't intentionally "sick" the dog on that person. I believe gun owners should bear the same standard. They have elected to own something "dangerous" and therefore are responsible for the damage that comes from its use, even when that use isn't of their doing.
5) Finally, I don't really see much benefit by limiting what is owned. A pistol will kill somebody just as dead as an assault rifle. A clip that holds 20 will kill you just as dead as a clip that holds 40. The problem isn't the size of the magazine but rather the individual that holds the gun. I do believe that if one elects to own an assault rifle they should be able to however IMO "special permits" and oversight should be enforce. IE required storage etc.... Again, as an analogy (similarity, not exact comparison), I'm required to store certain drugs in a very specific manner with records to account for that and allow federal or state inspectors to examine those at any time during business hours. Its not for all drugs, just "controlled" drugs. I certainly would not have an issue with a private individual being able to own assault, automatics, etc in a similar manner.

Most of my gun concerns are not towards this type of tragedy but rather the accidental shootings that occur but there is an attempt to look at some aspect logically.

Long, but very good read.

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

CitizenBBN
12-17-2012, 08:42 PM
Wow, just got a bit of bad news. One of my clients dropped off their two dogs this AM for an unscheduled boarding. Seems their niece was one of the victims of the shooting.

Wow Doc.


What can actually be done to minimize such event? Above it was suggested that we eliminate "gun free zones". Yeah because the idea that people in elementary, middle and high schools need to be armed is a good one

I just think they're useless at best and a signal to wackos where to strike at the worst. I don't think getting rid of them solves this problem, I just think it's dumb to have them.

I agree 100% that schools are a much more gray case. I think they should be gone for malls and movie theaters and "normal" places, but schools is a toughie b/c you have a lot of kids and more of a chance of a gun getting in the hands of a kid.

I don't have a good answer for schools re the "gun free zone" thing. Agree more than I could express with the idea of an armed security officer in every school, maybe 1 per X number of kids.

The police responded immediately and professionally and did everything right from what I've seen, but as the adage goes when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

That's one other thing people have taken away from this. My next concealed carry class may have to turn people away for the next one. People aren't stupid, they know a) no law will prevent this, and b) the police can't be everywhere at once.

CitizenBBN
12-17-2012, 08:58 PM
Timothy McVeigh killed 19 kids with fertilzer and racing fuel, along with 149 others. Evil people will find the means to do what it is they are going to do. It's the risk of living in a free society.

Bad cases make for bad law. This shooting, and the prior few are on the way to creating bad law, and eroded rights for all Americans.

there's a basic aspect of these tragedies, all of them from natural disasters to shootings to the girl that fell down the well: they grab all the attention legislatively and otherwise while even bigger tragedies go unreported and unaddressed.

I use Chicago as an example b/c they have by far the most draconian gun laws in the country. Before SCOTUS it was illegal to have a handgun in the city, period. There is no concealed carry whatsoever. Yet they are the gun violence capital of the country. They've disarmed their citizens, leaving them to the criminals.

Think about this: as of June this year, Chicago with the toughest gun laws in the nation had more deaths by gun than troops killed in Afghanistan.

This weekend alone 2 were killed, 16 wounded in Chicago. They had a weekend this summer with 8 dead and 46 wounded. These aren't outliers, it's just a normal weekend in the city that has effectively banned guns. Those are statistics out of a US city, not Iraq or Afghanistan. 46 wounded in 48 hours? I don't know if we had that bad a weekend in either of those places.

One person wounded every hour in Chicago that weekend. One every 3 hours this past weekend.

Same thing with the girl down the well. How many kids were abducted, killed, horribly abused during that same time span but the nation locks in on a single story. I guess I just don't get that in the big picture. The horror of this incident will stick with people, the 700+ murdered in Chicago this year will be white noise that doesn't register.

I don't mean to be cold, I just want us to make sound decisions. The goal isn't to prevent this from ever happening again, it's to prevent as many children from being innocently murdered everywhere in this country. Those two may be separate, but they may not be at all. How many kids will be killed b/c their parents couldn't protect them?

CitizenBBN
12-17-2012, 09:07 PM
Doc -- glad you posted on this thread. We may disagree on some things but I have great respect for your views and the thinking behind them.

Doc
12-17-2012, 09:31 PM
I tried to be logical but not wordy. Definitely failed on one, some might say both!

CitizenBBN
12-17-2012, 09:35 PM
I tried to be logical but not wordy. Definitely failed on one, some might say both!

You did good on both. I am the definition of "wordy". Starting to be like the Trek species the Sheliak.

uklandrn
12-20-2012, 06:52 AM
One day I hope to be half as eloquent as any of you on this board. Excellent points (for the most part - not including our banned friend).

kritikalcat
12-21-2012, 08:39 PM
This still has me upset, I think more so than any such incident, particularly because of the way innocent young children were targeted and methodically killed. Short of episodes of children being targeted during genocide such as the Holocaust I can't think of something so purely horrifying. (If I remember correctly, I don't think McVeigh blew up the Murragh building with the intention of killing kids; and Klebold and Harris were targeting peers with whom they had some perceived grudge. This was an "adult" shooting his way into a school with apparent intent to murder 6 year olds.)

This is first time in a week I've felt like discussing guns. Just a few comments for now. First regarding the media. A few definitions. An arsenal is more then 1 gun (OK, definitely more then 2 or 3). Heavily armed means anyone with more than 1 weapon on their person. i.e. someone with a .22 pistol and a pocket knife is "heavily armed." High power means anything larger than .22 LR and/or anything with more than a 2 round capacity.

These noted, semi-automatic military weapon is not a complete misnomer. 1. most modern infantry rifles are selective fire, capable of switching between a combination of semi-automatic, 2-3 shot burst, and full automatic modes. 2. many modern sniper systems are semi-automatic. I've heard the term "assault weapon" used by knowledgeable military personnel as opposed to the more traditional "assault rifle" so it's definitely made it's way into military parlance.

Doc
12-22-2012, 07:55 AM
Part that bothers me the most the mother knew he son was nuts yet she elected to keep guns in the house, where he could have access to them. To me that's like keeping dynamite at the Zippo factory! Were I a gun advocate, I'd be pissed. What she did was irresponsible and exactly the type of decision that paints responsible gun owners as bad people. Personally I hold her somewhat responsible for this as well. He son didn't know better, she should have

I should note the above is based on media reports. If it turns out inaccurate fine. I don't normally take media reports without a suspecious eye, and do here as well.

Doc
12-22-2012, 08:22 AM
These noted, semi-automatic military weapon is not a complete misnomer. 1. most modern infantry rifles are selective fire, capable of switching between a combination of semi-automatic, 2-3 shot burst, and full automatic modes. 2. many modern sniper systems are semi-automatic. I've heard the term "assault weapon" used by knowledgeable military personnel as opposed to the more traditional "assault rifle" so it's definitely made it's way into military parlance.

Ask me, this is one of the classic deflection techniques used on both sides. Some feel you need to know the difference between semi-auto, auto, assault to have an intelligent conversation or hold a valid opinion on gun regulation. Nothing could be farther from the truth but it makes some feel better if they can show how uninformed the other side is on a topic. By showing the other side as lacking the knowledge, they somehow feel that diminishes the value of their opinion. I mean its like how can you discuss something like gun control if you can't pick out the assault rifle? Really? That is the standard? Likewise, the gun regulations folks what to use a blanket terms like assault rifle because its a scary term. Oh, ASSAULT :533: IMO an assault weapons ban did little because its a term of convenience. To me, both sides use this assault rifle argument to diminish the real conversation. Was what Adam Lanza used an automatic, a semi-automatic, an assault weapon, a sniper rifle?? I don't know nor do I care. DOES IT MATTER??? What I do know is that he was a psychopath who had access to a gun and that gun was used to kill innocent children. To me the real conversation should be how to keep weapons (IE guns of any type) out of the hands of the irresponsible. I mean since "guns don't kill people, people kill people" why the focus on the type of gun? Why the need to show that those who can't classify a gun as a certain type are not informed and thus their opinion is less valid? I understand the anti-gun regulation crowd as using that point because its one that gun regulation advocates use however its not what should be the focus of the discussion.

And to reiterate, I think both side use this false argument.

CitizenBBN
12-22-2012, 12:32 PM
By showing the other side as lacking the knowledge, they somehow feel that diminishes the value of their opinion. I mean its like how can you discuss something like gun control if you can't pick out the assault rifle? Really? That is the standard? Likewise, the gun regulations folks what to use a blanket terms like assault rifle because its a scary term. Oh, ASSAULT :533: IMO an assault weapons ban did little because its a term of convenience. To me, both sides use this assault rifle argument to diminish the real conversation. Was what Adam Lanza used an automatic, a semi-automatic, an assault weapon, a sniper rifle?? I don't know nor do I care. DOES IT MATTER??? What I do know is that he was a psychopath who had access to a gun and that gun was used to kill innocent children. To me the real conversation should be how to keep weapons (IE guns of any type) out of the hands of the irresponsible. I mean since "guns don't kill people, people kill people" why the focus on the type of gun? Why the need to show that those who can't classify a gun as a certain type are not informed and thus their opinion is less valid? I understand the anti-gun regulation crowd as using that point because its one that gun regulation advocates use however its not what should be the focus of the discussion.

And to reiterate, I think both side use this false argument.

Doc those of us pointing out the details of the guns are doing so b/c we agree with you -- it's not the type of gun that matters but access to it and focusing on preventing ANY gun or bomb or car or anything from being so used.

We're forced into that not b/c a) we want people to feel ill informed or b) we even care to try to explain it (I sure don't, it's tedious and loses persuasive value). We do it b/c the calls are to BAN certain types of gun, calls from people who largely wouldn't know one from the other or which end to point where.

so when they call for a ban on "assault weapons" yes we have to discuss what that means and doesn't mean and what they are so we can try to explain how such a ban won't work and is thus not a good solution. I don't know how else to show such a law to be useless at preventing the next such tragedy if I can't get someone to see that what they are calling for is a ban on a specific type of gun when that type of gun isn't the problem. I have to define what type we're talking about and hopefully get them to see how it is not somehow the source of the problem.

In fact such guns account for less than one half of one percent of the gun deaths in this country. We want to go through this political hell and deny millions of their choice of what to use to defend themselves b/c of such a miniscule risk to society in general, a law that is absolutely useless in protecting school children?

to get people to see that I must define the guns. That's not my choice, that's just responding to this particular policy proposal.

Like the NRA and many others I'd far rather focus at the level you are focused, which is simply preventing this from happening again without focusing on the nasty looking rifle. That focus is not only on guns but on security and culture.

FWIW I agree 100% plus more about how she kept these weapons. One law I would support is that such things be locked up and not in a glass case, or that they be locked up under certain conditions like having a child in your home so messed up you were trying to have him institutionalized.

Absolutely she's in part responsible. She gave access to guns, any guns, to a person she and others knew was unstable and bordline in need of being institutionalized. Damn right that makes her responsible. As you said, she's every gun owner's nightmare, someone with guns and no idea how to handle them responsibly.

CitizenBBN
12-22-2012, 01:05 PM
Doc, just thought of a good analogy.

Say I was calling for a ban on diesel engines b/c they're bad for the environment and more damaging than gas engines. All engines are bad but diesel is the worst, we have to stop them more than any others.

I base this on the smelly buses in town and the fumes from the big trucks I see.

To have that discussion wouldn't we have to discuss the differences between the two engine types, details like CO2 but also CO and other emissions as there are several factors to "polluting" from both engines? Break down whether the production of diesel fuel is maybe more efficient so it offsets the engine burning the fuel?

We couldn't just say "engines are bad so let's ban diesel and see how it goes", we'd have to discuss whether diesel is in fact worse and in what ways and how much and what impact that would have on the economy and what to do with all the diesel engines in use.

LIkewise calling for a ban on a specific type of gun necessarily means discussing what type we're talking about, if it is in fact more dangerous, what impact such a law would have given the number of them out there, etc.

It's not to obfuscate the issue, it's to clarify it and more bluntly to clarify that "ban assault weapons" is about as simplistic as "ban diesel engines b/c they smell bad". Feinstien defines as dangerous pistol grips and barrel shrouds, things that have nothing to do with the rate of fire of the gun and is about intellectually on par with "when I get behind the bus it smells bad, we need to make them all use gas engines".

Not our fault some are calling for a policy that doesn't make sense once you know the facts of the situation and we thus have to try to explain those facts,whether it be guns or diesel engines.

dan_bgblue
12-22-2012, 02:43 PM
Adam Lanza would likely have gotten off one shot with a black powder muzzle loader, maybe two before he was subdued. It is a deadly weapon for sure but will never be confused with any description of an assault weapon. When the government is discussing gun regulations/laws I do think it is important to understand the definitions of what they are talking about.