***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (2 Viewers)

[top dog]

Just for the record.. Using name calling and insults is a terrible debate skill.

 

[jonessed]

Just for the record.. Using name calling and insults is a terrible debate skill.

You are assuming the goal in these cases is to debate. Some people just get off on name calling and insulting.

 

[BigJohn]

Just for the record.. Using name calling and insults is a terrible debate skill.

Otis would be surprised how many people agree with him. He just doesn't need to be a gigantic **** about it.

 

[Otis]

Here are facts.

I urge the gun nerds to read and consider them carefully. I'd then be curious to hear an intelligent and informed argument detailing any cost-benefit analysis that in the end comes to the conclusion that legalized guns are worthwhile.

 

[Otis]

Just for the record.. Using name calling and insults is a terrible debate skill.

Otis would be surprised how many people agree with him. He just doesn't need to be a gigantic **** about it.

How many do you have?

 

[Gigantomachia]

Just for the record.. Using name calling and insults is a terrible debate skill.

That's a stupid argument.

 

[Otis]

Just for the record.. Using name calling and insults is a terrible debate skill.

I haven't called anyone in this thread a name. If anyone has felt insulted by my comments because they self associate as hillbilliies, hicks, or morons, sorry to have offended, and how many guns do you have.

 

[Otis]

Here's a picture for the lazy.

 

[Ilov80s]

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation will have full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future!" Adolph Hitler - 1935

No thanks.

Fake Hitler quote, no proof or documentation that he ever said that. http://www.straightd...n-gun-ownership

The quote you are talking about is something along the lines of the following:

This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!

The reference is usually given as a speech by Adolf Hitler--alternatively, some say it was in Mein Kampf, but that is easily checkable and proven false--with citation information as follows (all parenthetical material in the original):

"Abschied vom Hessenland!" ["Farewell to Hessia!"], ['Berlin Daily' (Loose English Translation)], April 15th, 1935, Page 3 Article 2, Einleitung Von Eberhard Beckmann [introduction by Eberhard Beckmann].

I've seen this quote pop up many times, from political discussions to gun shows, where a friend told me he'd found it emblazoned on signs. I don't think anybody knows the origin of it, but several have tracked it back and found it to be completely false. The talk.politics.guns FAQ (http://rkba.org/research/rkba.faq), which is pro-gun, includes a number of such false quotes in its "Pious Frauds" section and, to its credit, refutes them. The discussion there is based in large part on research done by Clayton Cramer for his book, Firing Back (currently out of print). Cramer is also a gun supporter, making his work in this area highly credible--and creditable.

The FAQ entry, which is duplicated in the archive of urbanlegends.com (http://www.urbanlegends. com/politics/hitler_gun_control.html), notes the main problems with the supposed quote. First, the quote itself has changed over the years. Some versions start by saying, "This year will go down in history!" Others say, "1935 will go down in history!" (The former still has a 1935 date attached as a supposed reference.) That, in and of itself, doesn't prove anything, but it's a warning sign.

Another warning sign is the way the citation is generally messed up. The reference date isn't even close to a major public speech by Hitler. Furthermore, the texts of Hitler's various speeches have been checked, and no sign of this quote can be found.

Not to mention that even if he did say it, that is not reflective of he actual gun laws the NAZI party implemented.

 

[Gigantomachia]

I love the idea that a ban on assault rifles will punish 99.9% of gun owners as I didn't realize all gun owners own them.

So 99.9% of gun owners own assault rifles?

I didnt say that.. you did

Argument

way to bring something to the table

my pleasure

 

[BigJohn]

Just for the record.. Using name calling and insults is a terrible debate skill.

Otis would be surprised how many people agree with him. He just doesn't need to be a gigantic **** about it.

How many do you have?

None. Never have, never will.

 

[BigJohn]

Here's a picture for the lazy.

What category would yesterday fall into?

 

[Sweet Feet]

Here are facts.

I urge the gun nerds to read and consider them carefully. I'd then be curious to hear an intelligent and informed argument detailing any cost-benefit analysis that in the end comes to the conclusion that legalized guns are worthwhile.

Let me know how your letters to your local congressman work out since you seem so pro active. Im curious to what that person has to say.

 

[Rayderr]

But let's ban the assault rifles (they're called "assault" rifles, a step removed from "high efficiency people killers") and the hand guns that are usually used for mass murder, and let's call it a day. See we can be reasonable.

Assault rifles are already banned.

 

[Genedoc]

But let's ban the assault rifles (they're called "assault" rifles, a step removed from "high efficiency people killers") and the hand guns that are usually used for mass murder, and let's call it a day. See we can be reasonable.

Assault rifles are already banned.

Link? The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004 and hasn't been renewed.

 

[moleculo]

So, still no good reasons from the gun crowd, yes?

I'd like to hear an argument for the effectiveness of your proposed ban before we consider dramatically altering the Constitution and impinging on our God given rights.

LoL- not "dramatically altering the constitution"- not impinging on "god given rights" and more than on your god given right to test nukes in your yardYou people crack me up.

sure, there's some hyperbole there. - An outright ban on all guns, as many are calling for, would require a constitutional ammendment...something that has only been done a handful of times. That counts a a significant alteration.- LoL at your false equivalency.

- The 2nd amendment was about militias, not about some teacher in Connecticut stockpiling arms in her shoe closet. It was also created hundreds of years ago at a time when the technology didn't allow for such fast and efficient mass murder. - It's not a "false equivalency." My point is that there is no "god given right" to own a gun any more than there is a god given right to drive a humvee with a rocket launcher down the streets of manhattan.

- that may have been what the 2nd was about hundreds of years ago, but it still stands. You want to ban all guns, you are going to have to do it via constitutional amendment. Are'n lawyers supposed to be on top of things like this?- driving a humbvee with a rocket launcher in Manhattan <> target practice at the local range. HTH.

- so you agree the 2nd amendment was intended to cover a different purpose. Isn't that reason enough to reconsider it?- Of course those aren't the same thing. My point is that you have a god given right to neither. Just like you have no god given right to drive a car or fly an airplane.

- sure. I'm actually not necessarily against doing this, if it is the proper course of action. What I am against is rash decisions to significantly effect the Law of the Land, in ways that may not have the effect desired and may in fact make things worse. I find it compelling that the only amendment to the US Constitution that limited freedoms was repealed a short time later. Makes me think that restricting other rights we have held tightly for the past 200+ years is something that should not be taken lightly.- What would you say our God given rights are? Per the Declaration of Independance, the framers found Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness to be granted by our Creator. I believe that gun ownership falls under the Life and Liberty umbrellas, but I could entertain an argument against that.

 

[Rayderr]

But let's ban the assault rifles (they're called "assault" rifles, a step removed from "high efficiency people killers") and the hand guns that are usually used for mass murder, and let's call it a day. See we can be reasonable.

Assault rifles are already banned.

Link? The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004 and hasn't been renewed.

Assault weapon <> assault rifle. 2 totally different things.

 

[jonessed]

But let's ban the assault rifles (they're called "assault" rifles, a step removed from "high efficiency people killers") and the hand guns that are usually used for mass murder, and let's call it a day. See we can be reasonable.

Assault rifles are already banned.

Link? The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004 and hasn't been renewed.

They are banned in Connecticut.

 

[TPW]

If you guys really want to start a Second American Civil War, then just try to confiscate firearms under threat of force from the federal government. It is a fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution and people are not going to give them up without a fight. You think 20 children in one school is bad? How about tens of thousands of deaths nationwide in running battles between millions of law abiding citizens and those trying to strip them of their rights and long held possessions? Is this why DHS purchased all that ammo earlier this year?

Nations like Israel and Switzerland have wide ranging gun carry laws and you never see these types of things happening there? Why? Guns have been around for decades in their current form (semi auto handguns) but the rash of school shootings in America is a fairly recent phenomenon. Meanwhile, as a society we have turned our back on God, divorce rates have skyrocketed and the nuclear family is disintegrating, record numbers of people are on government assistance and a lot of families still hanging on need two incomes to survive, and we are constantly bombarded with violence and perversity from the entertainment industry. It's also interesting to note that these massacres frequently occur in "blue" states where gun regulations are more strict and at locations such as schools and government facilities where firearms are outlawed. Coincidence? I think not. It's modern culture which is the problem, not the instruments through which the extents of its dysfunction are ultimately materialized.

There are literally hundreds of millions of firearms all around the United States and an all-out ban simply isn't feasible. I suspect what will happen is that an attempt will be made to tax guns and ammunition to the point that they are prohibitively expensive for almost anyone to purchase while technically remaining legal. There will also be an attempt to ban certain calibers of ammunition, clip sizes, and various types of semi-automatic firearms. This is clearly unconstitutional, but doing an end around the letter of the law has never been a problem for the progressive left. As always, the ends justify the means.

Instead of putting into place sensible precautions, teaching people how to handle firearms responsibly, and giving the mentally ill the proper care they deserve, we are becoming a nation of helpless sheep where the government must protect us from all the world's evils. This will not end well.

 

[General Tso]

Fwiw, reports LIKE THIS ONE are fairly common over in China.. not every day occurrences, but certainly a few times a year. Chinese press never reports it, but word gets out to the public via the innerwebs. So in the U.S. they use guns to kill kids. In China, they use knives or machetes.

14 December 2012

Last updated at 06:29 ET

China school knife attack in Henan injures 22 children

A man with a knife has wounded 22 children - at least two of them seriously - and an adult at a primary school in central China.

The attack happened at the gate of a school in Chenpeng village in Henan province.

This proves the point perfectly. Nobody is saying that banning guns will bring around world peace. And nobody is saying kids will never be attacked again. What we're saying is that if you make it hard to get guns, things would be different. If this kid didn't have an arsenal in his mom's closet, maybe he does take a knife to the school and do what the attacker in your article above did. The result? Only two children "seriously" wounded. That's a lot different from the result in Connecticut.I'm just astonished that the pro gun crowd is still fighting this.

The pro gun crowd will NEVER relent on this issue. Events like yesterday only reinforce their position in their own minds. Don't even argue with them anymore. Public opinion is overwhelmingly on the side of common sense gun control. The real battleground now is taking to task the spineless politicians who've been scared to piss off the NRA. Write letters, stage protests, and be just as relentless as the NRA has.Things WILL change as a rest of this. In every tragedy there is the search for someone/something to blame. With the killer apparently being mentally ill, the clear demon here is going to be automatic weapons capable of inflicting mass casualties quickly and easily. So pro gun folks, better enjoy your Bushwhacker for the next few months. Take it to the range, clean it, maybe even sleep with it a few nights. It's going bye bye.

 

[Rayderr]

But let's ban the assault rifles (they're called "assault" rifles, a step removed from "high efficiency people killers") and the hand guns that are usually used for mass murder, and let's call it a day. See we can be reasonable.

Assault rifles are already banned.

Link? The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004 and hasn't been renewed.

They are banned in Connecticut.

And in the US. No civilian Assault rifle has been produced since 1986. Some states have allowed owners to keep their if they had one prior to the ban. But they were tightly regulated by the ATF even before 1986, so there just aren't many out there.Just to help you all out:

An assault rifle is a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It is not to be confused with assault weapons.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Assault rifles are categorized in between light machine guns, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge.

 

[Rayderr]

Things WILL change as a rest of this. In every tragedy there is the search for someone/something to blame. With the killer apparently being mentally ill, the clear demon here is going to be automatic weapons capable of inflicting mass casualties quickly and easily. So pro gun folks, better enjoy your Bushwhacker for the next few months. Take it to the range, clean it, maybe even sleep with it a few nights. It's going bye bye.

I know CNN.com is kinda slow in updating, but in their coverage, there's this sentence.

Three weapons were recovered from the school: a semi-automatic .223 Bushmaster found in a car in the school parking lot, and a Glock and a Sig Sauer found with Lanza's body, a law enforcement official familiar with the investigation said. The weapons were legally purchased by Lanza's mother, the official said.

Now, I suppose it's possible he took the rifle into the gun, used up all the ammo, went back out to his car and put it away and then went back in with just the handguns. But that's seems rather improbable. Sounds like the .223 wasn't used.Again, maybe there's a more recent story out there that CNN hasn't posted yet about the .223 gun being used.

 

[Genedoc]

But let's ban the assault rifles (they're called "assault" rifles, a step removed from "high efficiency people killers") and the hand guns that are usually used for mass murder, and let's call it a day. See we can be reasonable.

Assault rifles are already banned.

Link? The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004 and hasn't been renewed.

Assault weapon <> assault rifle. 2 totally different things.

They're not "totally different things." One is a subset of the other. The .223 Bushmaster rifle that has been discussed - is it legal? Is it an assault rifle?

 

[Rayderr]

But let's ban the assault rifles (they're called "assault" rifles, a step removed from "high efficiency people killers") and the hand guns that are usually used for mass murder, and let's call it a day. See we can be reasonable.

Assault rifles are already banned.

Link? The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004 and hasn't been renewed.

Assault weapon <> assault rifle. 2 totally different things.

They're not "totally different things." One is a subset of the other. The .223 Bushmaster rifle that has been discussed - is it legal? Is it an assault rifle?

An assault rifle is a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It is not to be confused with assault weapons.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Assault rifles are categorized in between light machine guns, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge.

 

[top dog]

Just for the record.. Using name calling and insults is a terrible debate skill.

That's a stupid argument.

That wasn't presented as an argument

Just for the record.. Using name calling and insults is a terrible debate skill.

I haven't called anyone in this thread a name. If anyone has felt insulted by my comments because they self associate as hillbilliies, hicks, or morons, sorry to have offended, and how many guns do you have.

I'm pretty sure insinuating that people who own guns are "hillbillies, hicks, or morons" somehow counts as insulting and name calling."How many guns do you have" - not sure how that somehow allows for insulting language or childish name calling. Are you suggesting that referring to people as morons is only insulting to gun owners?

 

[Rayderr]

United States

Civilian ownership of assault rifles or any other full-automatic firearm is tightly regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives under the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. In addition, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 halted the manufacture of assault rifles for the civilian market and currently limits legal civilian ownership to units produced and properly registered with the BATFE before May 1986. Some states have enacted laws against civilian possession of automatic weapons that override NFA clearance; Kansas, on the other hand, repealed its own state law against civilian ownership of assault rifles in July 2008.[24] Civilians may purchase semi-automatic versions of such firearms without requiring NFA clearance, although some states (including California and New Jersey) enforce their own restrictions and/or prohibitions on such weapons.

 

[squistion]

Fwiw, reports LIKE THIS ONE are fairly common over in China.. not every day occurrences, but certainly a few times a year. Chinese press never reports it, but word gets out to the public via the innerwebs. So in the U.S. they use guns to kill kids. In China, they use knives or machetes.

14 December 2012

Last updated at 06:29 ET

China school knife attack in Henan injures 22 children

A man with a knife has wounded 22 children - at least two of them seriously - and an adult at a primary school in central China.

The attack happened at the gate of a school in Chenpeng village in Henan province.

Police arrested a 36-year-old local man at the scene.

Security at China's schools has been increased in recent years following a spate of similar knife attacks in which nearly 20 children have been killed.

The BBC's John Sudworth in Shanghai says many of the attackers have been mentally disturbed men, prompting a debate about the effects of China's recent, rapid social change and the inability of an antiquated hospital system to cope with rising levels of mental illness.

The Associated Press news agency quotes a police officer as saying that this latest attack happened as pupils were arriving for classes.

The agency also quotes a county hospital administrator as saying that the man first attacked an elderly woman, then the children, before being overpowered by security guards.

He added that two of the injured pupils had been transferred to better-equipped hospitals outside the county.

And how many kids were killed in the attack in China versus how many killed in CT yesterday?

 

[General Tso]

So, still no good reasons from the gun crowd, yes?

I'd like to hear an argument for the effectiveness of your proposed ban before we consider dramatically altering the Constitution and impinging on our God given rights.

LoL- not "dramatically altering the constitution"- not impinging on "god given rights" and more than on your god given right to test nukes in your yardYou people crack me up.

sure, there's some hyperbole there. - An outright ban on all guns, as many are calling for, would require a constitutional ammendment...something that has only been done a handful of times. That counts a a significant alteration.- LoL at your false equivalency.

- The 2nd amendment was about militias, not about some teacher in Connecticut stockpiling arms in her shoe closet. It was also created hundreds of years ago at a time when the technology didn't allow for such fast and efficient mass murder. - It's not a "false equivalency." My point is that there is no "god given right" to own a gun any more than there is a god given right to drive a humvee with a rocket launcher down the streets of manhattan.

- that may have been what the 2nd was about hundreds of years ago, but it still stands. You want to ban all guns, you are going to have to do it via constitutional amendment. Are'n lawyers supposed to be on top of things like this?- driving a humbvee with a rocket launcher in Manhattan <> target practice at the local range. HTH.

- so you agree the 2nd amendment was intended to cover a different purpose. Isn't that reason enough to reconsider it?- Of course those aren't the same thing. My point is that you have a god given right to neither. Just like you have no god given right to drive a car or fly an airplane.

- sure. I'm actually not necessarily against doing this, if it is the proper course of action. What I am against is rash decisions to significantly effect the Law of the Land, in ways that may not have the effect desired and may in fact make things worse. I find it compelling that the only amendment to the US Constitution that limited freedoms was repealed a short time later. Makes me think that restricting other rights we have held tightly for the past 200+ years is something that should not be taken lightly.- What would you say our God given rights are? Per the Declaration of Independance, the framers found Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness to be granted by our Creator. I believe that gun ownership falls under the Life and Liberty umbrellas, but I could entertain an argument against that.

" I believe that gun ownership falls under the Life and Liberty umbrellas, but I could entertain an argument against that."Not for 20 kids in CT yesterday.

 

[johnnycakes]

Then there was the guy in Norway who shot up a summer camp in 2011. Later found to have narcissistic personality disorder or something.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

 

[Neovivo]

29 years old and still waiting for someone to give me a good reason why a civilian needs to own a gun.

Meat for my freezer.

No grocery stores where you live?

Not any that carry free range pheasant, quail, duck, dove, venison, etc.

http://www.dartagnan.com/51192/565680/Pheasant/Whole-Pheasant.htmlhttp://www.mcmurrayhatchery.com/partridge_quail.htmlhttp://www.culverduck.com/cart/http://www.brokenarrowranch.com/Articles/exotic-meat-for-sale.htmhttp://www.elkusa.com/deer_meat.htmany other meat that you can't get from your grocer?

I doubt most of that is free range.Regardless, any of you who partake in alcohol have no standing to take this position.

Nope I don't drink. Also, wtf is free range anyway other than an open door on a barn. If that is the only reason you hold on to your guns it is pretty lame.

 

[Courtjester]

First off, I don't own a gun. I would consider buying one (say a shotgun) just for home protection, but it is really not high on my to-do list.

Second, there is really no way any form of gun-control measure passes. It will be debated and debated, but the end result will be what we have now. Short of a complete ban on every gun (which is not going to happen), there just simply are too many guns on the streets right now and it is just too easy get one. Even if you put in intensive background checks or waiting periods, a crime like yesterday wouldn't have been prevented.

Finally, and this is the hardest one for me to articulate without coming off as harsh or uncaring, but we, as Americans, tend to think our problems and lives are so much more valuable than others. Now before I get blasted for that statement, I have two young daughters and my wife teaches K-3 special ed, so we cried and felt terrible for every one of those lives lost yesterday. But when we examine the world as a whole, is this country so violent? I mean 27 people die in Conn. and we are crushed as a nation, but how many stories do we hear out of the Middle East of "50 people killed (including children) by a car bomb"? The next day it is page 3 news and that tends to occurs a heck of a lot more often than a mass shooting here. Even when there is a huge natural disaster which takes the lives of thousands say in Thailand, it is a top story for one news day in the US and then forgotten. So while what happened yesterday is terrible and I can't tell you how much my wife and I have thought about it over the last 24 hours, is the United States truly a violent and scary places to live or do we just have isolated incidents that we tend to focus more on?

I don't know just something I was thinking about.

 

[Phil4]

Too late America, you already blow it. You are damn good to prevent outside terrorist but it's a huge fail when you talk about '' inside terrorism''.

 

[Genedoc]

But let's ban the assault rifles (they're called "assault" rifles, a step removed from "high efficiency people killers") and the hand guns that are usually used for mass murder, and let's call it a day. See we can be reasonable.

Assault rifles are already banned.

Link? The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004 and hasn't been renewed.

Assault weapon <> assault rifle. 2 totally different things.

They're not "totally different things." One is a subset of the other. The .223 Bushmaster rifle that has been discussed - is it legal? Is it an assault rifle?

An assault rifle is a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It is not to be confused with assault weapons.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Assault rifles are categorized in between light machine guns, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge.

The .223 Bushmaster rifle that has been discussed - is it legal? Is it an assault rifle?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

#deflection

You need to stop this and just accept you're wrong.

Until pro guns give a good reason instead of changing the subject, no.

Hunting. And now you'll deflect by saying I can buy meat from a grocer.

How about let's not deflect and address the heart of your issue:OK, you can have your hunting rifles so you can be macho and shoot bunnies.

But let's ban the assault rifles (they're called "assault" rifles, a step removed from "high efficiency people killers") and the hand guns that are usually used for mass murder, and let's call it a day.

See we can be reasonable.

I have nothing against banning of assault rifles. Handguns are a different story.

Here's a picture for the lazy.

I'm guessing the 'illegal' columns would fit the last two shooters who stole guns that were obtained legally by the owners. The original owners are idiots are should be punished severely. It is the gun owners responsibility to secure their guns using trigger locks and safes; two things that should be mandatory (trigger locks are mandatory in Canada).

 

[top dog]

But let's ban the assault rifles (they're called "assault" rifles, a step removed from "high efficiency people killers") and the hand guns that are usually used for mass murder, and let's call it a day. See we can be reasonable.

Assault rifles are already banned.

Link? The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004 and hasn't been renewed.

Assault weapon <> assault rifle. 2 totally different things.

They're not "totally different things." One is a subset of the other. The .223 Bushmaster rifle that has been discussed - is it legal? Is it an assault rifle?

An assault rifle is a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It is not to be confused with assault weapons.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Assault rifles are categorized in between light machine guns, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge.

The .223 Bushmaster rifle that has been discussed - is it legal? Is it an assault rifle?

It is an Assault Weapon not an Assault Rifle. Not really sure how that is relevant other than semantics though.

 

[jonessed]

Fwiw, reports LIKE THIS ONE are fairly common over in China.. not every day occurrences, but certainly a few times a year. Chinese press never reports it, but word gets out to the public via the innerwebs. So in the U.S. they use guns to kill kids. In China, they use knives or machetes.

14 December 2012

Last updated at 06:29 ET

China school knife attack in Henan injures 22 children

A man with a knife has wounded 22 children - at least two of them seriously - and an adult at a primary school in central China.

The attack happened at the gate of a school in Chenpeng village in Henan province.

This proves the point perfectly. Nobody is saying that banning guns will bring around world peace. And nobody is saying kids will never be attacked again. What we're saying is that if you make it hard to get guns, things would be different. If this kid didn't have an arsenal in his mom's closet, maybe he does take a knife to the school and do what the attacker in your article above did. The result? Only two children "seriously" wounded. That's a lot different from the result in Connecticut.I'm just astonished that the pro gun crowd is still fighting this.

Public opinion is overwhelmingly on the side of common sense gun control.

Politicians havent taken up gun control because public opinion hasn't supported more gun control laws for years (especially in battleground states).I imagine public opinion will spike temporarily, but what's the most that will come of it? An assault weapon ban? We technically already have that, but if it makes people feel better to make it more forceful so be it. It would have had zero impact on this tragedy.

For better or worse, this incident won't change much. The Columbine gun control bounce lasted about a year, trailing off the entire time. We are going to spend at least the next several months on the deficit. Maybe something happens after that. I doubt it though.

 

[Rayderr]

But let's ban the assault rifles (they're called "assault" rifles, a step removed from "high efficiency people killers") and the hand guns that are usually used for mass murder, and let's call it a day. See we can be reasonable.

Assault rifles are already banned.

Link? The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004 and hasn't been renewed.

Assault weapon <> assault rifle. 2 totally different things.

They're not "totally different things." One is a subset of the other. The .223 Bushmaster rifle that has been discussed - is it legal? Is it an assault rifle?

An assault rifle is a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It is not to be confused with assault weapons.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Assault rifles are categorized in between light machine guns, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge.

The .223 Bushmaster rifle that has been discussed - is it legal? Is it an assault rifle?

It is a legal semi-automatic rifle. It is not an assault rifle. Not sure why this has to be pointed out multiple times.

 

[packseasontix]

... I seriously considered getting one for my home as protection after I had my daughter. In the end the risks just outweighed the benefits. It just wasn't worth it.So I'd ban handguns too....

so you did some soul-searching, a cost/benefit analysis, and decided it wasn't worth having a gun in your house, and are willing to cite that as appropriate for the rest of the US population?

No. I was confessing that despite how strongly I feel about the gun issues now, I myself even considered buying one. My analysis has nothing to do with the rest of the country. 20 dead 5 year olds should be enough for the rest of the country. And yet people are relentless. That's why I'm seething about this.

You don't understand someone like this, wanting to go in and shoot up a school, could still get the gun/ammo and anything else they want.1. There will be a local black market for guns2. People just won't turn in guns3. People will just kill a police officer or someone else that would have a gun for it and then go out and shoot everyone up4. People can in most parts of the country take a 1 day road trip out of the country to get a gunI get so frustrated people most of the anti-gun people seem to try and latch onto events like this.... Events like this still would happen, maybe we would just see someone bring in a knife, or possibly they build bombs.In the end when did we become a nanny state? It seems like the government wants to control my life in every aspect, telling me what I can eat, what I can drink, what I can purchase....

 

[Rayderr]

But let's ban the assault rifles (they're called "assault" rifles, a step removed from "high efficiency people killers") and the hand guns that are usually used for mass murder, and let's call it a day. See we can be reasonable.

Assault rifles are already banned.

Link? The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004 and hasn't been renewed.

Assault weapon <> assault rifle. 2 totally different things.

They're not "totally different things." One is a subset of the other. The .223 Bushmaster rifle that has been discussed - is it legal? Is it an assault rifle?

An assault rifle is a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It is not to be confused with assault weapons.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Assault rifles are categorized in between light machine guns, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge.

The .223 Bushmaster rifle that has been discussed - is it legal? Is it an assault rifle?

It is an Assault Weapon not an Assault Rifle. Not really sure how that is relevant other than semantics though.

The term "assault weapon" was used by the gun control groups to get the public to confuse certain weapons with automatic rifles in order to make it easier to get them banned. Lots of people are picturing the bushmaster, or other rifles in other incidents as being just hold down the trigger and let the bullets fly, when in reality, that not how it works. Semi-automatic guns and rifles, like the bushmaster do require a pull of the trigger for each bullet.

 

[Glass Joe]

If you guys really want to start a Second American Civil War, then just try to confiscate firearms under threat of force from the federal government. It is a fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution and people are not going to give them up without a fight. You think 20 children in one school is bad? How about tens of thousands of deaths nationwide in running battles between millions of law abiding citizens and those trying to strip them of their rights and long held possessions? Is this why DHS purchased all that ammo earlier this year?

A change to the constitution to remove the right to own guns is needed. Threats of armed resistance by gun nuts is not a valid reason to not continue in moving towards an outright ban. In fact, if there are people who would choose to violently resist the governments enforcement of laws, I'm willing to entertain the discussion on how to best deal with them. But never part of that discussion would be to yield to paranoid gun nuts.

Nations like Israel and Switzerland have wide ranging gun carry laws and you never see these types of things happening there? Why? Guns have been around for decades in their current form (semi auto handguns) but the rash of school shootings in America is a fairly recent phenomenon. Meanwhile, as a society we have turned our back on God, divorce rates have skyrocketed and the nuclear family is disintegrating, record numbers of people are on government assistance and a lot of families still hanging on need two incomes to survive, and we are constantly bombarded with violence and perversity from the entertainment industry. It's also interesting to note that these massacres frequently occur in "blue" states where gun regulations are more strict and at locations such as schools and government facilities where firearms are outlawed. Coincidence? I think not. It's modern culture which is the problem, not the instruments through which the extents of its dysfunction are ultimately materialized.

There's no doubt that American society has seen an alarming loss of morality. I don't see the necessity of having religion to have morality, though I certainly recognize a correlation. The rest of your paragraph is trite bs - government assistance is the cause of societal decay? What a load of crap. Lack of personal responsibility is a symptom of many things, not the cause.

And by the way - massacres occurring in blue states are probably more strongly with a larger population than anything.

There are literally hundreds of millions of firearms all around the United States and an all-out ban simply isn't feasible. I suspect what will happen is that an attempt will be made to tax guns and ammunition to the point that they are prohibitively expensive for almost anyone to purchase while technically remaining legal. There will also be an attempt to ban certain calibers of ammunition, clip sizes, and various types of semi-automatic firearms. This is clearly unconstitutional, but doing an end around the letter of the law has never been a problem for the progressive left. As always, the ends justify the means.

In the absence of an all-out ban on guns, I would certainly think of a ban on bullets. The constitution currently protects the right to own a gun, not to arm it. Yes, that's an end run, but it's not a trait that's unique to the progressive left - you've already suggested doing the same type of end-run through threats of armed resistance, and as far as I've seen you're a pretty hardcore right wing nut.

Instead of putting into place sensible precautions, teaching people how to handle firearms responsibly, and giving the mentally ill the proper care they deserve, we are becoming a nation of helpless sheep where the government must protect us from all the world's evils. This will not end well.

There will be an adjustment period. You'll survive.

 

[eoMMan]

Much like the pitbull thread, there will be no way of convincing the anti-gun people. They are so obsessed in their thinking that nothing will change their mind. They are so focused on the weapon (guns) and don't care about the actual problem (####ed up whackos).

For those trying to convince them otherwise, you are wasting your time. I suggest you do something better with your time.

Good day.

 

[Rayderr]

Can we get past the semi-automatic vs fully automatic weapon semantic BS?

can we get people to properly refer to the type of weapon?

 

[Runningman]

This country is woefully incapable of enforcing any sort of Prohibition or law that a large part of the population despises or does not support. See the war on drugs, Illegal Immigration, yada yada yada on down to speed limiits. Any ban on guns is going to go down the same road as the ban on drugs has. It is awesome when I hear people who say we have to leaglize marijuana, and coke but we need to ban guns. And by that I mean awesomely stupid. My own life experience tells me that drugs and guns have a lot of similar properties, used rationally they can be quite useful and a whole hell of a lot of fun. But they both have the potential to #### up your life and those around you whole hell of a lot too.

In regards to mass shootings what we need to do as a society to stop or limit the number that happens is a lot more hard. The Aurora gun man is alive and will have a trial. Follow the trail and find out how much smoke there was before the fire. Prevention of these tragedies starts with identification of possible killers and giving law enforcement the ability to intervene before hand. Although that is going to bring up a whole differnet set of civil right issues.

 

[jonessed]

Can we get past the semi-automatic vs fully automatic weapon semantic BS?

There is a pretty clear difference between semi and fully automatic weapons. It's not semantics.

 

[tom22406]

Much like the pitbull thread, there will be no way of convincing the anti-gun people. They are so obsessed in their thinking that nothing will change their mind. They are so focused on the weapon (guns) and don't care about the actual problem (####ed up whackos).For those trying to convince them otherwise, you are wasting your time. I suggest you do something better with your time.Good day.

Was just thinking the same thing

 

[Genedoc]

Can we get past the semi-automatic vs fully automatic weapon semantic BS?

Semantics matter. Look long and hard at a picture of that .223 Bushmaster, and then try and convince a neutral observer that it's not an assault rifle. I know it's legally not, but that's the point.

 

[General Tso]

So, still no good reasons from the gun crowd, yes?

I'd like to hear an argument for the effectiveness of your proposed ban before we consider dramatically altering the Constitution and impinging on our God given rights.

LoL- not "dramatically altering the constitution"- not impinging on "god given rights" and more than on your god given right to test nukes in your yardYou people crack me up.

I'm not sure where in the bible gun ownership is mentioned, but I would be all ears to here where God gave us the right to carry AR-15's with bajillion round magazines.

What would Jesus do? Carry a gun?It always boggled my mind how many of the pro gun lobby also call themselves Christians.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Much like the pitbull thread, there will be no way of convincing the anti-gun people. They are so obsessed in their thinking that nothing will change their mind. They are so focused on the weapon (guns) and don't care about the actual problem (####ed up whackos).For those trying to convince them otherwise, you are wasting your time. I suggest you do something better with your time.Good day.

Yup. Much like the pitbull thread, anti-gun proponents refuse to look at the owners.

 

[Glass Joe]

Much like the pitbull thread, there will be no way of convincing the anti-gun people. They are so obsessed in their thinking that nothing will change their mind. They are so focused on the weapon (guns) and don't care about the actual problem (####ed up whackos).For those trying to convince them otherwise, you are wasting your time. I suggest you do something better with your time.Good day.

Call your senators, call the president. Lobby for reform. No, we're not going to change many people's minds. Easier to change the laws.

 

[jonessed]

So, still no good reasons from the gun crowd, yes?

I'd like to hear an argument for the effectiveness of your proposed ban before we consider dramatically altering the Constitution and impinging on our God given rights.

LoL- not "dramatically altering the constitution"- not impinging on "god given rights" and more than on your god given right to test nukes in your yardYou people crack me up.

I'm not sure where in the bible gun ownership is mentioned, but I would be all ears to here where God gave us the right to carry AR-15's with bajillion round magazines.

What would Jesus do? Carry a gun?It always boggled my mind how many of the pro gun lobby also call themselves Christians.

Why would a position on gun rights make some more or less of a Christian?