***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (3 Viewers)

[General Malaise]

For one, I would change the law about background checks.I would expand it to go beyond gun stores (which only account for an estimated 40% of gun sales).If a private individual wants to sell a gun (gun show or whatever) a back ground check must be performed. They can sell their gun, but the person buying it has to go through a background check or the person selling becomes liable. I'm not sure about the $$ required, but I don't care. Role it into the cost of selling/buying the gun but it should be done.I would also include a mental health check as part of that background.That's what I think should be done.1) Ban AR.2) Expand background checks to include private sales and mental health.

This sounds reasonable to me. What is unreasonable about it?

 

[Apple Jack]

If it hasn't been pointed out already, the shooting at Columbine in 1999 happened during the last Assault Weapons ban (94-04). What makes people think another ban is going to fix the problem?

It may not. As I pointed out earlier, this country has a systemic issue with mental health and the raising of our children. That needs to be fixed. But this should/can be done as well.

Well that and there are a lot of guns out there and it might take a little longer than a couple years for them to get weeded out. Like a generation or two.

 

[timschochet]

a disarmed country has no defense against the tyranny of govt.

As NRA publications always point out, the first thing that Stalin, Hitler, and Mao did when taking power is seizing everyone's guns.Which would be a great point if it weren't for the fact that it's a complete lie- never happened.

How many NRA publications have you read?

I used to read their main magazine all the time. My roommate subscribed. There was always this full page ad, with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and I think Khomeini, with the message "THE FIRST THING THEY DID WAS TAKE AWAY PEOPLE'S GUNS!!!!" Just complete BS.

As the New York Times always points out, Sears is having an amazing deal on refrigerators!

The ads were written by the NRA.

 

[badmojo1006]

You want more guns at school? This is what it would be like.

 

[ATC1]

You want more guns at school? This is what it would be like.

Think Progress reports that conservative advocates of looser gun restrictions have been arguing for more guns in schools to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook. Their proposals include allowing teachers to bring guns to class.

How does a 11 yr. old boy with irresponsible parents bringing a gun to school have to do with allowing teachers with the proper permit to carry?

 

[General Malaise]

You want more guns at school? This is what it would be like.

Think Progress reports that conservative advocates of looser gun restrictions have been arguing for more guns in schools to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook. Their proposals include allowing teachers to bring guns to class.

How does a 11 yr. old boy with irresponsible parents bringing a gun to school have to do with allowing teachers with the proper permit to carry?

Well then where do we stop? Do we also arm the ticket takers and ushers at movie theaters? Give a permit to the workers at Orange Julius? Give Sally the sweet stewardess of Southwest Flight 69 a pistol under her peanut tray?

 

[tommyboy]

I don't get the big push for the smaller magazine clip. This seems pretty ineffective to me.

1. It takes two seconds to switch in another clip. So, while someone in a school type situation may be slowed, it wouldn't be by much. They may also just carry more weapons.

2. I'm no master welder, but it seems to me a clip would be the easiest thing to fabricate myself if I wanted to hold more rounds. It's basically a metal case and a spring with a feeder at the top. You could slice off the bottom, add an extend piece and a bigger spring and you'd be ready to go I think.

Or is this whole thing just to get the ball rolling for greater restrictions when it inevitably fails?

Yes, we know. But that brief moment might give some people a chance to keep more six year olds from being executed. But forget that, there's a guy in Texas who thinks he needs the 30 bullet cartridge to defend his compound, so sorry six year old kid who never had a chance.And you think this kid would have gotten into welding custom clips for this gun? Please.

For the record, high capacity magazines are very unreliable and the majority of cases where you hear of a weapon "jamming" during a shooting spree is a result of this lack of reliable function. One could almost argue (with tongue at least partially in cheek) that high capacity magazines may have saved more lives than they've taken as a result of their buggy operation. Standard capacity magazines (which can be changed in less than 1 second by anyone with 30 minutes to practice), however, will almost never result in a spree-ending malfunction.

I'm not opposed to eliminating high-capacity mags... but that is some food for thought for any rational person.

But again.. making high-capacity magazines illegal will have little or no impact in stopping a motivated, law-ignoring person from procuring them, so you're really only keeping them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens for the most part.

Let's just cross our fingers and hope that a 30 round clip jams.

lets just talk facts here ok, so maybe dispense with the sarcasm and ignorance.

as a militarily trained shooter, lifelong hunter and former law enforcement officer, i can tell you that I, or someone like me doesn't really give a #### if its a 10 round clip, 30 round clip or 100 round clip. Give me ten 10 round clips,, I could walk into any situation and start laying down accurate sustained fire with only a couple of seconds 'rest' to swap magazines. I could blow through 100 rounds in a minute with a 9 magazine swaps.

but even if you guys want to outlaw "assault" weapons and 30 round clips, lets just say for sake of argument that that's ok. If I wanted to do a lot of damage and kill a lot of people in a crowded building, i'd just grab an old .22 long rifle with a tube feed like this

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/attachments/usa-nevada/457035d1248756854-winchester-190-22-semi-auto-2009_0725220002.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/usa-nevada/807093-winchester-190-22-semi-auto.html&h=600&w=800&sz=71&tbnid=yTyNEyrs4WuOqM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=120&prev=/search%3Fq%3D22%2Bwinchester%2Bsemi%2Bauto%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=22+winchester+semi+auto&usg=__sSpYSwGcKCC3G0DrVWVwqbeyE1k=&docid=TojtgzZ4WfLNgM&sa=X&ei=19HQUK37MoeGiQLnw4GYCg&ved=0CDQQ9QEwAA&dur=2863

which holds about 20 rounds of .22 long rifle, load it full of standard rounds and have a very efficient killing machine in my hands. 22's kill because the bullet bounces around inside your body and does all kinds of internal damage, since they don't have enough power to blow a hole through you. its not a very ethical way to kill people because there'll be lots of suffering but if i'm a deranged lunatic maybe that's the point. As a backup to my little .22LR, i'd probably carry a 12 guage pump action with the plug taken out, that's 6 rounds that I can fire in about 2 seconds if i need to clear a room or lay down suppression fire, or just go for maximum damage with minimal aiming required.

put a bullet proof vest on me and a willingness to take innocent life and 'voila' you have a kid killer using nothing more uncommon than the bread and butter hunting rifles most American hunters grew up with.

 

[ATC1]

For one, I would change the law about background checks.I would expand it to go beyond gun stores (which only account for an estimated 40% of gun sales).If a private individual wants to sell a gun (gun show or whatever) a back ground check must be performed. They can sell their gun, but the person buying it has to go through a background check or the person selling becomes liable. I'm not sure about the $$ required, but I don't care. Role it into the cost of selling/buying the gun but it should be done.I would also include a mental health check as part of that background.That's what I think should be done.1) Ban AR.2) Expand background checks to include private sales and mental health.

This sounds reasonable to me. What is unreasonable about it?

Nothing about it is unreasonable about #2 and I have not heard anyone hear give a solid argument as to why it shouldn't be done.

 

[rascal]

You want more guns at school? This is what it would be like.

those parents should be charged with attempted manslaughter or something similar

 

[ATC1]

You want more guns at school? This is what it would be like.

Think Progress reports that conservative advocates of looser gun restrictions have been arguing for more guns in schools to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook. Their proposals include allowing teachers to bring guns to class.

How does a 11 yr. old boy with irresponsible parents bringing a gun to school have to do with allowing teachers with the proper permit to carry?

Well then where do we stop? Do we also arm the ticket takers and ushers at movie theaters? Give a permit to the workers at Orange Julius? Give Sally the sweet stewardess of Southwest Flight 69 a pistol under her peanut tray?

You really are uninformed about this. If an individual meets the requirements of the state (some needing to be more strict IMO) to conceal carry responsibly, that individual should be able to carry at anytime. It's an individuals choice if they take the necessary steps to do so responsibly. No one should ever know who has a permit and who doesn't.

 

[Joe T]

a disarmed country has no defense against the tyranny of govt.

As NRA publications always point out, the first thing that Stalin, Hitler, and Mao did when taking power is seizing everyone's guns.Which would be a great point if it weren't for the fact that it's a complete lie- never happened.

How many NRA publications have you read?

I used to read their main magazine all the time. My roommate subscribed. There was always this full page ad, with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and I think Khomeini, with the message "THE FIRST THING THEY DID WAS TAKE AWAY PEOPLE'S GUNS!!!!" Just complete BS.

Well, they did take away the Jews guns so it's not "just complete BS."Note: It gets old correcting you all the time.

What Jews guns? The Jews of Germany, Poland and Eastern Europe (the victims of the Holocaust) were 99.9999% unarmed prior to 1939.

They made it law in 1938. HTH

 

[TobiasFunke]

You want more guns at school? This is what it would be like.

Think Progress reports that conservative advocates of looser gun restrictions have been arguing for more guns in schools to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook. Their proposals include allowing teachers to bring guns to class.

How does a 11 yr. old boy with irresponsible parents bringing a gun to school have to do with allowing teachers with the proper permit to carry?

Well then where do we stop? Do we also arm the ticket takers and ushers at movie theaters? Give a permit to the workers at Orange Julius? Give Sally the sweet stewardess of Southwest Flight 69 a pistol under her peanut tray?

You really are uninformed about this. If an individual meets the requirements of the state (some needing to be more strict IMO) to conceal carry responsibly, that individual should be able to carry at anytime. It's an individuals choice if they take the necessary steps to do so responsibly. No one should ever know who has a permit and who doesn't.

Just a point of clarification here: if you take the "no regulation, gun freedom for all" perspective, it should be the business's decision whether to allow employees or customers to carry concealed weapons, not the individual's.

 

[badmojo1006]

You want more guns at school? This is what it would be like.

Think Progress reports that conservative advocates of looser gun restrictions have been arguing for more guns in schools to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook. Their proposals include allowing teachers to bring guns to class.

How does a 11 yr. old boy with irresponsible parents bringing a gun to school have to do with allowing teachers with the proper permit to carry?

Well then where do we stop? Do we also arm the ticket takers and ushers at movie theaters? Give a permit to the workers at Orange Julius? Give Sally the sweet stewardess of Southwest Flight 69 a pistol under her peanut tray?

You really are uninformed about this. If an individual meets the requirements of the state (some needing to be more strict IMO) to conceal carry responsibly, that individual should be able to carry at anytime. It's an individuals choice if they take the necessary steps to do so responsibly. No one should ever know who has a permit and who doesn't.

Stop with the condescending attitude

 

[ATC1]

I don't get the big push for the smaller magazine clip. This seems pretty ineffective to me.

1. It takes two seconds to switch in another clip. So, while someone in a school type situation may be slowed, it wouldn't be by much. They may also just carry more weapons.

2. I'm no master welder, but it seems to me a clip would be the easiest thing to fabricate myself if I wanted to hold more rounds. It's basically a metal case and a spring with a feeder at the top. You could slice off the bottom, add an extend piece and a bigger spring and you'd be ready to go I think.

Or is this whole thing just to get the ball rolling for greater restrictions when it inevitably fails?

Yes, we know. But that brief moment might give some people a chance to keep more six year olds from being executed. But forget that, there's a guy in Texas who thinks he needs the 30 bullet cartridge to defend his compound, so sorry six year old kid who never had a chance.And you think this kid would have gotten into welding custom clips for this gun? Please.

For the record, high capacity magazines are very unreliable and the majority of cases where you hear of a weapon "jamming" during a shooting spree is a result of this lack of reliable function. One could almost argue (with tongue at least partially in cheek) that high capacity magazines may have saved more lives than they've taken as a result of their buggy operation. Standard capacity magazines (which can be changed in less than 1 second by anyone with 30 minutes to practice), however, will almost never result in a spree-ending malfunction.

I'm not opposed to eliminating high-capacity mags... but that is some food for thought for any rational person.

But again.. making high-capacity magazines illegal will have little or no impact in stopping a motivated, law-ignoring person from procuring them, so you're really only keeping them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens for the most part.

Let's just cross our fingers and hope that a 30 round clip jams.

lets just talk facts here ok, so maybe dispense with the sarcasm and ignorance.

as a militarily trained shooter, lifelong hunter and former law enforcement officer, i can tell you that I, or someone like me doesn't really give a #### if its a 10 round clip, 30 round clip or 100 round clip. Give me ten 10 round clips,, I could walk into any situation and start laying down accurate sustained fire with only a couple of seconds 'rest' to swap magazines. I could blow through 100 rounds in a minute with a 9 magazine swaps.

but even if you guys want to outlaw "assault" weapons and 30 round clips, lets just say for sake of argument that that's ok. If I wanted to do a lot of damage and kill a lot of people in a crowded building, i'd just grab an old .22 long rifle with a tube feed like this

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/attachments/usa-nevada/457035d1248756854-winchester-190-22-semi-auto-2009_0725220002.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/usa-nevada/807093-winchester-190-22-semi-auto.html&h=600&w=800&sz=71&tbnid=yTyNEyrs4WuOqM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=120&prev=/search%3Fq%3D22%2Bwinchester%2Bsemi%2Bauto%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=22+winchester+semi+auto&usg=__sSpYSwGcKCC3G0DrVWVwqbeyE1k=&docid=TojtgzZ4WfLNgM&sa=X&ei=19HQUK37MoeGiQLnw4GYCg&ved=0CDQQ9QEwAA&dur=2863

which holds about 20 rounds of .22 long rifle, load it full of standard rounds and have a very efficient killing machine in my hands. 22's kill because the bullet bounces around inside your body and does all kinds of internal damage, since they don't have enough power to blow a hole through you. its not a very ethical way to kill people because there'll be lots of suffering but if i'm a deranged lunatic maybe that's the point. As a backup to my little .22LR, i'd probably carry a 12 guage pump action with the plug taken out, that's 6 rounds that I can fire in about 2 seconds if i need to clear a room or lay down suppression fire, or just go for maximum damage with minimal aiming required.

put a bullet proof vest on me and a willingness to take innocent life and 'voila' you have a kid killer using nothing more uncommon than the bread and butter hunting rifles most American hunters grew up with.

There are half of those that would be uncomfortable coming to your house for a party and there are those that wouldn't feel safer. Keep trying to keep others informed.

 

[17seconds]

Breaking news... NRA statement echoes Obama's pledge. I'm sure they have different ideas, but made the same pledge that they want to ensure this never happens again.

 

[Joe T]

"Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.[7]"

 

[urbanhack]

I don't get the big push for the smaller magazine clip. This seems pretty ineffective to me.

1. It takes two seconds to switch in another clip. So, while someone in a school type situation may be slowed, it wouldn't be by much. They may also just carry more weapons.

2. I'm no master welder, but it seems to me a clip would be the easiest thing to fabricate myself if I wanted to hold more rounds. It's basically a metal case and a spring with a feeder at the top. You could slice off the bottom, add an extend piece and a bigger spring and you'd be ready to go I think.

Or is this whole thing just to get the ball rolling for greater restrictions when it inevitably fails?

Yes, we know. But that brief moment might give some people a chance to keep more six year olds from being executed. But forget that, there's a guy in Texas who thinks he needs the 30 bullet cartridge to defend his compound, so sorry six year old kid who never had a chance.And you think this kid would have gotten into welding custom clips for this gun? Please.

For the record, high capacity magazines are very unreliable and the majority of cases where you hear of a weapon "jamming" during a shooting spree is a result of this lack of reliable function. One could almost argue (with tongue at least partially in cheek) that high capacity magazines may have saved more lives than they've taken as a result of their buggy operation. Standard capacity magazines (which can be changed in less than 1 second by anyone with 30 minutes to practice), however, will almost never result in a spree-ending malfunction.

I'm not opposed to eliminating high-capacity mags... but that is some food for thought for any rational person.

But again.. making high-capacity magazines illegal will have little or no impact in stopping a motivated, law-ignoring person from procuring them, so you're really only keeping them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens for the most part.

Let's just cross our fingers and hope that a 30 round clip jams.

lets just talk facts here ok, so maybe dispense with the sarcasm and ignorance.

as a militarily trained shooter, lifelong hunter and former law enforcement officer, i can tell you that I, or someone like me doesn't really give a #### if its a 10 round clip, 30 round clip or 100 round clip. Give me ten 10 round clips,, I could walk into any situation and start laying down accurate sustained fire with only a couple of seconds 'rest' to swap magazines. I could blow through 100 rounds in a minute with a 9 magazine swaps.

 

[ATC1]

You want more guns at school? This is what it would be like.

Think Progress reports that conservative advocates of looser gun restrictions have been arguing for more guns in schools to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook. Their proposals include allowing teachers to bring guns to class.

How does a 11 yr. old boy with irresponsible parents bringing a gun to school have to do with allowing teachers with the proper permit to carry?

Well then where do we stop? Do we also arm the ticket takers and ushers at movie theaters? Give a permit to the workers at Orange Julius? Give Sally the sweet stewardess of Southwest Flight 69 a pistol under her peanut tray?

You really are uninformed about this. If an individual meets the requirements of the state (some needing to be more strict IMO) to conceal carry responsibly, that individual should be able to carry at anytime. It's an individuals choice if they take the necessary steps to do so responsibly. No one should ever know who has a permit and who doesn't.

Just a point of clarification here: if you take the "no regulation, gun freedom for all" perspective, it should be the business's decision whether to allow employees or customers to carry concealed weapons, not the individual's.

This is a whole other ball game. It is up to the private owner of the business, house, etc. if they allow me to carry. I might feel differently then them, but if the governing body of the school doesn't want me to have a gun there, I'll have to keep it in the car. I might write a letter saying it's not a good idea, but it is not up to the city, state or federal government to decide IMO.

 

[Brony]

I don't get the big push for the smaller magazine clip. This seems pretty ineffective to me.

1. It takes two seconds to switch in another clip. So, while someone in a school type situation may be slowed, it wouldn't be by much. They may also just carry more weapons.

2. I'm no master welder, but it seems to me a clip would be the easiest thing to fabricate myself if I wanted to hold more rounds. It's basically a metal case and a spring with a feeder at the top. You could slice off the bottom, add an extend piece and a bigger spring and you'd be ready to go I think.

Or is this whole thing just to get the ball rolling for greater restrictions when it inevitably fails?

Yes, we know. But that brief moment might give some people a chance to keep more six year olds from being executed. But forget that, there's a guy in Texas who thinks he needs the 30 bullet cartridge to defend his compound, so sorry six year old kid who never had a chance.And you think this kid would have gotten into welding custom clips for this gun? Please.

For the record, high capacity magazines are very unreliable and the majority of cases where you hear of a weapon "jamming" during a shooting spree is a result of this lack of reliable function. One could almost argue (with tongue at least partially in cheek) that high capacity magazines may have saved more lives than they've taken as a result of their buggy operation. Standard capacity magazines (which can be changed in less than 1 second by anyone with 30 minutes to practice), however, will almost never result in a spree-ending malfunction.

I'm not opposed to eliminating high-capacity mags... but that is some food for thought for any rational person.

But again.. making high-capacity magazines illegal will have little or no impact in stopping a motivated, law-ignoring person from procuring them, so you're really only keeping them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens for the most part.

Let's just cross our fingers and hope that a 30 round clip jams.

lets just talk facts here ok, so maybe dispense with the sarcasm and ignorance.

as a militarily trained shooter, lifelong hunter and former law enforcement officer, i can tell you that I, or someone like me doesn't really give a #### if its a 10 round clip, 30 round clip or 100 round clip. Give me ten 10 round clips,, I could walk into any situation and start laying down accurate sustained fire with only a couple of seconds 'rest' to swap magazines. I could blow through 100 rounds in a minute with a 9 magazine swaps.

Forget it Donny, you're out of your element.

 

[ATC1]

You want more guns at school? This is what it would be like.

Think Progress reports that conservative advocates of looser gun restrictions have been arguing for more guns in schools to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook. Their proposals include allowing teachers to bring guns to class.

How does a 11 yr. old boy with irresponsible parents bringing a gun to school have to do with allowing teachers with the proper permit to carry?

Well then where do we stop? Do we also arm the ticket takers and ushers at movie theaters? Give a permit to the workers at Orange Julius? Give Sally the sweet stewardess of Southwest Flight 69 a pistol under her peanut tray?

You really are uninformed about this. If an individual meets the requirements of the state (some needing to be more strict IMO) to conceal carry responsibly, that individual should be able to carry at anytime. It's an individuals choice if they take the necessary steps to do so responsibly. No one should ever know who has a permit and who doesn't.

Stop with the condescending attitude

You are right, you are here reading what I have to say and not just leaving LOL emoticons. I have to give you that.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Just a point of clarification here: if you take the "no regulation, gun freedom for all" perspective, it should be the business's decision whether to allow employees or customers to carry concealed weapons, not the individual's.

This is a whole other ball game. It is up to the private owner of the business, house, etc. if they allow me to carry. I might feel differently then them, but if the governing body of the school doesn't want me to have a gun there, I'll have to keep it in the car. I might write a letter saying it's not a good idea, but it is not up to the city, state or federal government to decide IMO.

Right, just clarifying what you were saying. Concealed carry should depend not only on the law, but on the agreement of whoever owns or controls the place you want to bring your weapon.

 

[Henry Ford]

If it hasn't been pointed out already, the shooting at Columbine in 1999 happened during the last Assault Weapons ban (94-04). What makes people think another ban is going to fix the problem?

...however a weapon which was banned from new sales by the Federal ban was used in the attack. I think the idea is to actually have the ban last long enough, or include a provision for removal of those weapons from private hands, to get those out of households.

 

[jafo]

Just a point of clarification here: if you take the "no regulation, gun freedom for all" perspective, it should be the business's decision whether to allow employees or customers to carry concealed weapons, not the individual's.

This is a whole other ball game. It is up to the private owner of the business, house, etc. if they allow me to carry. I might feel differently then them, but if the governing body of the school doesn't want me to have a gun there, I'll have to keep it in the car. I might write a letter saying it's not a good idea, but it is not up to the city, state or federal government to decide IMO.

Right, just clarifying what you were saying. Concealed carry should depend not only on the law, but on the agreement of whoever owns or controls the place you want to bring your weapon.

That's how it is here in Ohio.

 

[ATC1]

Just a point of clarification here: if you take the "no regulation, gun freedom for all" perspective, it should be the business's decision whether to allow employees or customers to carry concealed weapons, not the individual's.

This is a whole other ball game. It is up to the private owner of the business, house, etc. if they allow me to carry. I might feel differently then them, but if the governing body of the school doesn't want me to have a gun there, I'll have to keep it in the car. I might write a letter saying it's not a good idea, but it is not up to the city, state or federal government to decide IMO.

Right, just clarifying what you were saying. Concealed carry should depend not only on the law, but on the agreement of whoever owns or controls the place you want to bring your weapon.

The outside door needs to be marked clearly with a no gun sign. Again I will point out again that the Aurora shooter chose a further location from his house. It just happens to be the closest one with the no guns sign on the front door.

 

[jafo]

If it hasn't been pointed out already, the shooting at Columbine in 1999 happened during the last Assault Weapons ban (94-04). What makes people think another ban is going to fix the problem?

...however a weapon which was banned from new sales by the Federal ban was used in the attack. I think the idea is to actually have the ban last long enough, or include a provision for removal of those weapons from private hands, to get those out of households.

I don't expect a proposed law would remove weapons from private hands, only ban the new sale...assuming they want it have a chance to pass. The argument can definitely be made that over time less of these weapons can be available, however it would take an extremely long time for that to happen. In any case, banned or not, some psycho will find any available weapon to inflict the damage he wants.

 

[Henry Ford]

If it hasn't been pointed out already, the shooting at Columbine in 1999 happened during the last Assault Weapons ban (94-04). What makes people think another ban is going to fix the problem?

...however a weapon which was banned from new sales by the Federal ban was used in the attack. I think the idea is to actually have the ban last long enough, or include a provision for removal of those weapons from private hands, to get those out of households.

I don't expect a proposed law would remove weapons from private hands, only ban the new sale...assuming they want it have a chance to pass. The argument can definitely be made that over time less of these weapons can be available, however it would take an extremely long time for that to happen. In any case, banned or not, some psycho will find any available weapon to inflict the damage he wants.

Possibly. But they weren't able to buy any more Tec-9s, so only one of them had such a weapon. The Columbine massacre had 13 fatalities other than the killers. Over a period of about 50 minutes.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

You want more guns at school? This is what it would be like.

Think Progress reports that conservative advocates of looser gun restrictions have been arguing for more guns in schools to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook. Their proposals include allowing teachers to bring guns to class.

How does a 11 yr. old boy with irresponsible parents bringing a gun to school have to do with allowing teachers with the proper permit to carry?

Well then where do we stop? Do we also arm the ticket takers and ushers at movie theaters? Give a permit to the workers at Orange Julius? Give Sally the sweet stewardess of Southwest Flight 69 a pistol under her peanut tray?

You really are uninformed about this. If an individual meets the requirements of the state (some needing to be more strict IMO) to conceal carry responsibly, that individual should be able to carry at anytime. It's an individuals choice if they take the necessary steps to do so responsibly. No one should ever know who has a permit and who doesn't.

Stop with the condescending attitude

Why give GM a pass?

 

[General Malaise]

You want more guns at school? This is what it would be like.

Think Progress reports that conservative advocates of looser gun restrictions have been arguing for more guns in schools to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook. Their proposals include allowing teachers to bring guns to class.

How does a 11 yr. old boy with irresponsible parents bringing a gun to school have to do with allowing teachers with the proper permit to carry?

Well then where do we stop? Do we also arm the ticket takers and ushers at movie theaters? Give a permit to the workers at Orange Julius? Give Sally the sweet stewardess of Southwest Flight 69 a pistol under her peanut tray?

You really are uninformed about this. If an individual meets the requirements of the state (some needing to be more strict IMO) to conceal carry responsibly, that individual should be able to carry at anytime. It's an individuals choice if they take the necessary steps to do so responsibly. No one should ever know who has a permit and who doesn't.

Stop with the condescending attitude

Why give GM a pass?

YEAH!Oh, wait.

 

[Glass Joe]

First off I am just going to point out that you are showing a massive amount of ignorance on this subject when you try and use the estimated rate of fire as some sort of reason against anything.

I believe the rate of fire contributed to 18 dead children Friday morning. I believe that this is a reason to be against this rate of fire.

Right. So we are back to bolt-action rifles and flintlocks.

If there is no other alternative. Otherwise, 10 bullets per magazine, and I will have to hope that Schlzm is wrong and that most of these crazies are incapable of changing magazines so quickly.

It's funny you've come around to my thinking. You were naive enough to think that the gun nuts would give an inch. They give every reason why gun control won't help. Which just seems to point more towards a ban on most guns as the only solution that will do anything.

 

[Joe T]

They give every reason why gun control won't help. Which just seems to point more towards a ban on most guns as the only solution that will do anything.

 

[timschochet]

a disarmed country has no defense against the tyranny of govt.

As NRA publications always point out, the first thing that Stalin, Hitler, and Mao did when taking power is seizing everyone's guns.Which would be a great point if it weren't for the fact that it's a complete lie- never happened.

How many NRA publications have you read?

I used to read their main magazine all the time. My roommate subscribed. There was always this full page ad, with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and I think Khomeini, with the message "THE FIRST THING THEY DID WAS TAKE AWAY PEOPLE'S GUNS!!!!" Just complete BS.

Well, they did take away the Jews guns so it's not "just complete BS."Note: It gets old correcting you all the time.

What Jews guns? The Jews of Germany, Poland and Eastern Europe (the victims of the Holocaust) were 99.9999% unarmed prior to 1939.

They made it law in 1938. HTH

This is just so stupid. I used the year 1939 because that's when the war started. But I could just as easily used the year 1900. Or 1800. The Jews of Eastern Europe were NEVER armed, Whatever law you're referring to is meaningless. HTH.

 

[timschochet]

"Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.[7]"

Again, not only total crap, but a complete and utter misrepresentation of German history in order to serve your political ends. As I wrote before, it was loosening of strict gun control laws, and not the tightening, that helped Hitler achieve power in the first place, thanks to the arming of the stormtroopers. (S.A Or, from the University of Chicago:http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/67-harcourt.pdf

Unfortunately for those who would like to link Hitler and the

National Socialists with gun control, the entire premise for such an effort

is false. German Firearms legislation under Hitler, far from banning

private ownership, actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of arms by

German citizens by eliminating or ameliorating restrictive laws which had

been enacted by the government preceding his: a left-center government

which had contained a number of Jews.

. . .

When you have read [and compare the 1928 and 1938 German gun

laws], you understand that it was Hitler’s enemies, not Hitler, who should

be compared with the gun-control advocates in America today. Then as

now it was the Jews, not the National Socialists, who wanted the people’s

right of self-defense restricted. You will understand that those who

continue to make the claim that Hitler was a gun-grabber are either

ignorant or dishonest. And you will understand that it was not until 1945,

when the communist and democratic victors of the Second World War had

installed occupation governments to rule over the conquered Germans that

German citizens were finally and completely denied the right to arms.

 

[Sweet Feet]

Im fascinated that this thread is hitting 5,000 views a day for reasons unknown

 

[timschochet]

Actually, this isn't that difficult to find the truth if you want it. All you need do is read up on the American occupation of Germany, in which the first thing the G.I.s did is make every family get all of their firearms and deliver them to the town or city square, where they were stacked in large piles and confiscated. If Hitler had seized all the guns years before like the NRA claims, where the heck did these large piles of weapons come from????

And if Stalin grabbed all the guns when he took power, then how did the citizens of Leningrad and Stalingrad defend their cities with rifles? What rifles?

And if Saddam Hussein took everyone's guns away, then why did our troops again in that war confiscate as many weapons as they could find? What weapons? Why wasn't the population defenseless??

These claims are so absurd that in order to believe them, you have to be completely ignorant of history. Yet apparently many gun rights supporters are.

 

[jonessed]

First off I am just going to point out that you are showing a massive amount of ignorance on this subject when you try and use the estimated rate of fire as some sort of reason against anything.

I believe the rate of fire contributed to 18 dead children Friday morning. I believe that this is a reason to be against this rate of fire.

Right. So we are back to bolt-action rifles and flintlocks.

If there is no other alternative. Otherwise, 10 bullets per magazine, and I will have to hope that Schlzm is wrong and that most of these crazies are incapable of changing magazines so quickly.

If you think the rate of fire of semi-automatic weapons is too great then there is no other way. Just about every gun outside of a bolt-action rifles is semi-automatic. 19th century revolvers are semi-automatic. The federal government can obviously never ban semi-automatic weapons without changing the 2nd Amendment.Magazine size reduction is possible I imagine, but it's going to have little to no impact. You can change a magazine in a few seconds. Maybe that's enough time to grab a gunman if he only has the one gun. The overwhelming majority of gun deaths are via handguns though and they obviously don't have these large magazines to begin with.

 

[timschochet]

First off I am just going to point out that you are showing a massive amount of ignorance on this subject when you try and use the estimated rate of fire as some sort of reason against anything.

I believe the rate of fire contributed to 18 dead children Friday morning. I believe that this is a reason to be against this rate of fire.

Right. So we are back to bolt-action rifles and flintlocks.

If there is no other alternative. Otherwise, 10 bullets per magazine, and I will have to hope that Schlzm is wrong and that most of these crazies are incapable of changing magazines so quickly.

If you think the rate of fire of semi-automatic weapons is too great then there is no other way. Just about every gun outside of a bolt-action rifles is semi-automatic. 19th century revolvers are semi-automatic. The federal government can obviously never ban semi-automatic weapons without changing the 2nd Amendment.Magazine size reduction is possible I imagine, but it's going to have little to no impact. You can change a magazine in a few seconds. Maybe that's enough time to grab a gunman if he only has the one gun. The overwhelming majority of gun deaths are via handguns though and they obviously don't have these large magazines to begin with.

I get this. The specific purpose of limiting magazine size is to make mass shootings have less casualties. That's all, but I think it's enough. If you recall, I am also in favor of removing the private sales loophole. That should, I hope, have more of an impact on general gun violence. Of course, you may be right and neither idea will have any effect whatsoever. I think we have to try.

 

[timschochet]

well the other half of the country that does own a gun would sure appreciate it if the guys on your side of the discussion would at least learn the rudimentary facts of the matter here. I mean reading a Timsochet "analysis" on rates of fire is like watching a 3 year old trying to draw the Mona Lisa with an etch-a-sketch

What analysis? What I wrote is that if you have a weapon that is able to fire a bullet or more every second for a full minute or longer, that's too much. Nobody needs that much firepower in one weapon. The availability of such weapons are a threat to public safety. You can agree with this opinion or disagree, but what more analysis do you need?

 

[jafo]

They give every reason why gun control won't help. Which just seems to point more towards a ban on most guns as the only solution that will do anything.

How is the drug ban working? How did the ban on alcohol work out back in the 20s? Criminals will still have guns, ban or not. A ban on guns will only take them away from people that follow the law, and empower the criminals.

 

[[icon]]

The fantasy of effective vigilantes is not. It makes no sense, has no statistical support

Mass-shooting sprees 1949-2012 : Who stopped them?

9/6/1949 - Howard Barton Unruh went on a shooting rampage in Camden, New Jersey with a German Luger. He shot up a barber shop, a pharmacy and a tailor’s shop killing 13 people. He finally surrendered after a shoot-out with police.

7/18/1984 – James Oliver Huberty shot up a McDonalds in San Ysidro, California killing 21 people before police shoot and killed him.

10/16/1991 - George Hennard entered Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas and began indiscriminately shooting the patrons. He killed 23 people in all. He commit suicide after being cornered and wounded in a shootout with police.

12/7/1993 – Colin Ferguson brought a handgun into a Long Island Rail Road car and opened fire at random. He killed 6 people before passengers Michael O’Connor, Kevin Blum and Mark McEntee tackled him while reloading.

11/15/1995 – Jamie Rouse used a .22-caliber semi-automatic rifle to fire indiscriminately inside Richland High School in Lynnville, Tennessee. He killed 2 people before being tackled by a football player and a coach.

2/2/1996 - Barry Loukaitis entered Frontier Middle School in Moses Lake, Washington with a rifle and two handguns. He killed 3 people before the Gym teacher, Jon Lane grabbed the rifle and wrestled the gunman to the ground.

10/1/1997 - Luke Woodham put on a trench coat to conceal a hunting rifle and entered Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. He killed 3 students before vice principal Joel Myrick apprehended him with a Colt .45 without firing.

12/1/1997 - Michael Carneal brought a pistol, two rifles and two shotguns to his high school in Paducah, Kentucky and opened fire on a small prayer group killing 3 girls. His rampage was halted when he was tackled by another student.

4/24/1998 - Andrew Wurst attended a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania intent on killing a bully but shot wildly into the crowd. He killed 1 student. James Strand lived next door. When he heard the shots he ran over with his 12 gauge shotgun and apprehended the gunman without firing.

5/21/1998 - Kipland Kinkel entered Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon with two pistols and a semi-automatic rifle hidden under a trench coat. He opened fire killing 2 students, but while reloading a wounded student named Jacob Ryker tackled him.

4/20/1999 - Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were the killers behind the Columbine shooting in Littleton, Colorado. The two both commit suicide after police arrived, but what many people do not know is that the school’s armed security guard and the police all stood and waited outside the library while executions happed right inside. 15 people died, not including the shooters.

7/31/1999 - Mark Barton was a daytrader who went on a shooting rampage through two day trading firms in Atlanta, Georgia. He killed 12 people in all and after a police chase he was surrounded by police at a gas station where he commit suicide.

1/16/2002 – Peter Odighizuwa opened fire with a handgun at The Appalachian School in Grundy, Virginia. 3 people were killed before the shooter was apprehended by 3 students, Mikael Gross, Ted Besen, and Tracy Bridges with handguns without firing.

8/27/2003 – Salvador Tapia entered an auto parts store in Chicago, Illinois and shot and killed 6 people with a handgun. He then waged a gunbattle with police before a SWAT team fatally wounded him.

9/24/2003 – John Jason McLaughlin brought a .22-caliber pistol to Rocori High School in Cold Spring, Minnesota. He killed 2 people before PE teacher, Mark Johnson confronted him, disarmed him, and held him in the school office for police to arrive.

2/25/2005 – David Hernandez Arroyo Sr. opened fire on a public square from the steps of a courthouse in Tyler, Texas. The shooter was armed with a rifle and wearing body armor. Mark Wilson fired back with a handgun, hitting the shooter but not penetrating the armor. Mark drew the shooter’s fire, and ultimately drove him off, but was fatally wounded. Mark was the only death in this incident.

3/21/2005 – Jeff Weise was a student at Red Lake High School in Red Lake, Minnesota. He killed 7 people including a teacher and a security guard. When police cornered him inside the school, he shot and killed himself.

11/8/2005 – Kenneth Bartley, Jr. brought a .22 caliber pistol to Campbell County Comprehensive High School in Jacksboro, Tennessee and killed 1 person before being disarmed by a teacher.

9/29/2006 – Eric Hainstock brought a .22 caliber revolver and a 20-gauge shotgun into Weston High School in Cazenovia, Wisconson. He killed 1 person before staff and students apprehended him and held him until the police arrived.

4/16/2007 – Seung-Hui Cho was the shooter behind the Virgina Tech shooting in Blacksburg, Virginia. Police apprehend the wrong suspect allowing the shooter to walk across campus and open fire again in a second location. He eventually commit suicide after murdering 32 people.

12/9/2007 – Matthew J. Murray entered the Youth With A Mission training center in Arvada, Colorado and killed 2 people, then went to the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado killing 2 more. He was shot and injured by church member Jeanne Assam and commit suicide before police arrived.

9/3/2008 – Isaac Zamora went on a shooting rampage in Alger, Washington that killed 6 people, including a motorist shot during a high speed chase with police. He eventually surrendered to police.

3/29/2009 – Robert Stewart went on a killing rampage armed with a rifle, and a shotgun in a nursing home in Carthage, North Carolina. He killed 8 people and was apprehended after a shootout with police.

4/3/2009 – Jiverly Wong went on a shooting rampage at a American Civic Association immigration center in Binghamton, New York where he was enrolled in a citizenship class. 13 people were killed before the shooter killed himself. Witnesses say he turned the gun on himself as soon as he heard police sirens approaching.

11/5/2009 – Nidal Malik Hasan was the shooter behind the Fort Hood shooting at a military base just outside Killeen, Texas. The shooter entered the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, where personnel are disarmed, armed with a laser sighted pistol and a Smith & Wesson revolver. He killed 13 people before he was shot by a Civilian Police officer.

2/12/2010 – Amy Bishop went on a shooting rampage in classroom at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Alabama. She killed 3 people before the Dean of the University, Debra Moriarity pushed the her out of the room and blockaded the door. She was arrested later.

1/8/2011 – Jared Lee Loughner is charged with the shooting in Tucson, Arizona that killed 6 people, including Chief U.S. District Court Judge John Roll. He was stopped when he was tackled by two civilians.

2/27/2012 – T.J. Lane entered Chardon High School in Chardon, Ohio with a handgun and started shooting. 3 students died. The shooter was chased out of the building by a teacher and apprehended by police later.

4/22/2012 – Kiarron Parker opened fire in a church parking lot in Aurora, Colorado. The shooter killed 1 person before being shot and killed by a member of the congregation who was carrying concealed.

7/20/2012 – James Holmes went into a crowded movie theater in Aurora, Colorado and opens fire with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. 12 people were killed, before the shooter surrendered to police.

8/5/2012 – Wade Michael Page entered a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin and opened fire killing 6 people. He commit suicide after being shot by police.

12/14/12 - Adam Lanza entered Sandy Hook Elementary School with two handguns and a riffle and went room to room shooting students and staff. He killed 27 in all including 20 children, and commit suicide after police arrived.

FINAL TALLY:

With 15 incidents stopped by police with a total of 217 dead that’s an average of about 14.29 dead.

With 17 incidents stopped by civilians and 45 dead that’s an average of 2.33 dead.

When civilians wait for police to intervene, fatalities at the scene increase by nearly 700%

Two instances not included in the tally for whatever reason are:

Moldonado went on a shooting rampage in a shopping mall in Tacoma, Washington, and ultimately surrendered to police but was confronted by two legally armed civilians who interrupted his shooting. They did not fire for fear of hitting innocent bystanders.

Whitman climbed a tower at the University of Texas in Austin, Texas and began shooting at other students and faculty with a sniper rifle. The police who stopped Charles Whitman were assisted by a civilian with a more powerful rifle.

source

 

[jonessed]

First off I am just going to point out that you are showing a massive amount of ignorance on this subject when you try and use the estimated rate of fire as some sort of reason against anything.

I believe the rate of fire contributed to 18 dead children Friday morning. I believe that this is a reason to be against this rate of fire.

Right. So we are back to bolt-action rifles and flintlocks.

If there is no other alternative. Otherwise, 10 bullets per magazine, and I will have to hope that Schlzm is wrong and that most of these crazies are incapable of changing magazines so quickly.

If you think the rate of fire of semi-automatic weapons is too great then there is no other way. Just about every gun outside of a bolt-action rifles is semi-automatic. 19th century revolvers are semi-automatic. The federal government can obviously never ban semi-automatic weapons without changing the 2nd Amendment.Magazine size reduction is possible I imagine, but it's going to have little to no impact. You can change a magazine in a few seconds. Maybe that's enough time to grab a gunman if he only has the one gun. The overwhelming majority of gun deaths are via handguns though and they obviously don't have these large magazines to begin with.

I get this. The specific purpose of limiting magazine size is to make mass shootings have less casualties. That's all, but I think it's enough. If you recall, I am also in favor of removing the private sales loophole. That should, I hope, have more of an impact on general gun violence. Of course, you may be right and neither idea will have any effect whatsoever. I think we have to try.

Mass shootings account for a few hundred deaths a year out of 8,000-9,000 gun-related deaths in total. You are basically hoping for a nominal impact on a tiny portion of the problem.They are reasonable changes that I think most will agree with (and it's likely similar to what we will actually get), but it's not going to change much.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Finally some smart people:

CONNECTICUT RAMPAGE SPURS GUN BUYING BONANZAIf the desired outcome of the elementary school massacre in Newton, Connecticut this week was a demonization of guns and a ramp-up of gun control laws, the early returns aren’t looking so good – at least not in South Carolina.Saturday December 15, 2012 may have been the busiest single day for gun sales in the Palmetto State’s history, sources close to the U.S. Attorney’s office tell FITS. These sources were confirming anecdotal reports we obtained from Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents who were conducting background checks in connection with the wave of new purchases.Prominently featured among the new gun owners?Teachers …“I was just at Shooter’s Choice,” one of our sources said, referring to a gun store/ range in West Columbia, S.C. ”Four teachers from Brennan Elementary School were there and they signed up for their CWP (concealed weapons’ permit) classes while testing hand guns for purchase on the range.”Brennan is a downtown Columbia, S.C. elementary school.Good for these teachers … and good for their students. We’re not saying that teachers with firearms could have stopped the massacre in Connecticut. We are saying that if teachers want to take steps to protect themselves in their own classrooms, that’s a good thing.Currently South Carolina law prohibits teachers (or anyone except a law enforcement official) from carrying a weapon onto school property – concealed or otherwise. Well, that’s the law at government-run schools anyway.Of course many teachers don’t abide by that law – a number that could soar in the aftermath of the Newton shooting.“More teachers may start carrying illegally now,” one source told us.

 

[timschochet]

Look, I for one would never argue that vigilantism can't save lives. There are instances when it does, and good for those people- they're heroes.

But as a society I don't think we should base policy decisions on the idea that vigilantism will save us from the bad guys. That's what law enforcement is for. We should try to make their job as easy as we can.

 

[Schlzm]

First off I am just going to point out that you are showing a massive amount of ignorance on this subject when you try and use the estimated rate of fire as some sort of reason against anything.

I believe the rate of fire contributed to 18 dead children Friday morning. I believe that this is a reason to be against this rate of fire.

Right. So we are back to bolt-action rifles and flintlocks.

If there is no other alternative. Otherwise, 10 bullets per magazine, and I will have to hope that Schlzm is wrong and that most of these crazies are incapable of changing magazines so quickly.

If you think the rate of fire of semi-automatic weapons is too great then there is no other way. Just about every gun outside of a bolt-action rifles is semi-automatic. 19th century revolvers are semi-automatic. The federal government can obviously never ban semi-automatic weapons without changing the 2nd Amendment.Magazine size reduction is possible I imagine, but it's going to have little to no impact. You can change a magazine in a few seconds. Maybe that's enough time to grab a gunman if he only has the one gun. The overwhelming majority of gun deaths are via handguns though and they obviously don't have these large magazines to begin with.

Also remember that Lee Harvey Oswald supposedly was able to very accurately fire three shots in ~six seconds with a bolt action rifle manufactured in 1940.Schlzm

 

[jonessed]

Look, I for one would never argue that vigilantism can't save lives. There are instances when it does, and good for those people- they're heroes. But as a society I don't think we should base policy decisions on the idea that vigilantism will save us from the bad guys. That's what law enforcement is for. We should try to make their job as easy as we can.

Shooting someone that is in the process of shooting at you or those around you isn't vigilantism.

 

[[icon]]

It's not foolish to think gun control laws would reduce access and supply. Of course they would. Even the most ill-advised government prohibition of a vice for public policy reasons, i.e. Prohibition, reduced access to and use of alcohol. It's a simple fact. I challenge you to find any enactment of a prohibitive law that didn't reduce the supply and availability of the prohibited thing.

Yes... and the attempts to eliminate supply of something never come at collateral cost, does it?

Bump as nobody who advocates making guns illegal seemed to address this.

 

[jafo]

FINAL TALLY:

With 15 incidents stopped by police with a total of 217 dead that’s an average of about 14.29 dead.

With 17 incidents stopped by civilians and 45 dead that’s an average of 2.33 dead.

When civilians wait for police to intervene, fatalities at the scene increase by nearly 700%

Sounds like we need to teach our teachers how to tackle.

Way to dismiss some facts with an insensitive statement.

 

[Schlzm]

well the other half of the country that does own a gun would sure appreciate it if the guys on your side of the discussion would at least learn the rudimentary facts of the matter here. I mean reading a Timsochet "analysis" on rates of fire is like watching a 3 year old trying to draw the Mona Lisa with an etch-a-sketch

What analysis? What I wrote is that if you have a weapon that is able to fire a bullet or more every second for a full minute or longer, that's too much. Nobody needs that much firepower in one weapon. The availability of such weapons are a threat to public safety. You can agree with this opinion or disagree, but what more analysis do you need?

Tim my man! This is where your analysis generally falls flat because you target the weapon platform based on estimated rate of fire. Your approach on high-cap mags is where this argument would hold water. Because to maintain that level of sustained fire you need a very high capacity magazine or belt, which if memory serves, were not used in any of the recent attacks. It has also been mentioned that such very high capacity mags/drums are prone to mechanical failure basically making them a liability and less reliable than just having multiple standard cap mags. Schlzm

 

[Slingblade]

Time to give the NRA some more cash.

 

[tommyboy]

Seems obvious that most of the loudest voices in this thread have little or even zero practical knowledge of guns. I find that hilarious

Seems to me that's the case with lots of things. The prohibition of drugs is championed by people that have never tried them. The prohibition of online gambling is backed by people that have probably never made a wager in their life. I don't think there is anything "hilarious" at all about this discussion or the roots of why it's being discussed. Kids are dead because a man with mental instability had access to the type of gun I don't think you can make a cogent argument for owning using bullets I seriously doubt you can justify for private use. Those of us who are loudly asking for change don't need to have practical knowledge of these types of guns to speak out against them. Glad you find that funny. I don't think any of this is funny at all.

well lets just dissect that a bit shall we GM? the kids are dead because a boy with mental instability killed his mother and stole her weapons. That's not quite the same as "had access". As for the AR-15 that shoots the .223 round, i don't disagree with anyone that thinks this is a dangerous weapon, it is. Its the civilian version of the M-16, is basically what it is. Its definitely a "defense" weapon and not something you'd go hunting with. Do I think it should be illegal to own? No, but if others do then I can respect their opinion. The .223 bullet is ubiquitous throughout the world (NATO 5.56). Its certainly not the most high powered round a guy could use, there's far more lethal rounds available to buy. If I recall correctly the round was invented to cause injuries on the battlefield so that for every one combatant shot, 2 or 3 others would have to help clear him off the battlefield since he wasn't dead, but injured. Wouldn't bother me a bit if they outlawed 30 round clips. The AR-15 is basically a gun that people want to buy because its the M-16, same reason people want to buy AK-47's, because its cool. For me, not really a gun i'd want. But to each their own. I don't think its funny that innocent people get killed, but I do find it ridiculous listening to ignorant people ranting about things they have no clue about. For example, Rupert Murdoch owner of Fox etc....comes out the day after the attack and says the US should ban automatic weapons. No #### sherlock, we did that in 1934.

 

[timschochet]

well the other half of the country that does own a gun would sure appreciate it if the guys on your side of the discussion would at least learn the rudimentary facts of the matter here. I mean reading a Timsochet "analysis" on rates of fire is like watching a 3 year old trying to draw the Mona Lisa with an etch-a-sketch

What analysis? What I wrote is that if you have a weapon that is able to fire a bullet or more every second for a full minute or longer, that's too much. Nobody needs that much firepower in one weapon. The availability of such weapons are a threat to public safety. You can agree with this opinion or disagree, but what more analysis do you need?

Tim my man! This is where your analysis generally falls flat because you target the weapon platform based on estimated rate of fire. Your approach on high-cap mags is where this argument would hold water. Because to maintain that level of sustained fire you need a very high capacity magazine or belt, which if memory serves, were not used in any of the recent attacks. It has also been mentioned that such very high capacity mags/drums are prone to mechanical failure basically making them a liability and less reliable than just having multiple standard cap mags. Schlzm

High capacity magazines were used in every one of the most recent attacks. That's been my point all along.