Children shot and killed at Connecticut school

[Crazy Badger]

Nobody is stupid enough to think banning guns will eliminate gun crime, in the same way banning drugs doesn't stop drug use, or setting speed limits doesn't stop people driving too fast, but it will reduce the number of guns in circulation. Does a country with a population just over 3m need over 3m guns in public ownership?

If you can't accept that less guns equals less gun related incidents then you need to accept that this type of event will continue to happen on an all too frequent basis.

In the UK the most recent comparable event was in Dunblane in 1996. The result was a tightening up of gun controls and as a result only one similar event in the last 16 years.

Unless America changes something this will continue to happen, with what appear to be a frighteningly increasing frequency

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by dime21

Huh? Since when?

Not a hammer, but a knife, just last week some twisted ******* stabbed 22 school children on a stabbing rampage in China. There's a problem in China now with stabbing rampages like this where dozens are injured or killed by a mad stabber.

Virtually any tool can be a weapon. If a twisted demented person wants to kill a bunch of folks - he's going to do it. How many guns were used to kill more than 3,000 people on September 11th 2001? All it took was a few box-cutters and airplanes. Should we pass laws banning box cutters? And airplanes? Hint: The tool isn't the problem.

Lets not forget the Bath School massacre where 45 killed and 58 injured at a school in Michigan - and not a single gun was used.

Yet no child died in the China knife attack. Imagine how many would have died had the twisted ****er had a gun.

Actually, we did pass a **** load of laws following 9/11, many infringing on our first amendment freedoms. Still waiting for our well-regulated militias to stand up to our tyrannical government.

Quite frankly, your argument that people die from other objects is laughable. Other objects aren't designed for killing, that's what guns are designed for.

[Dagless]

Originally Posted by dime21

As for "fixing" the problem, good luck. Makes for hot discussion, but I don't know that there's much to be fixed. A gun is a tool. No different from a hammer, a screw driver, or a drill. There will always be sick demented *******s who deliberately use the tool for evil purposes. Short of Minority Report, it isn't possible to 100% eliminate or prevent that.


That's a bunk argument. Preventing a nation from developing a single large weapon at a single manufacturing site is a feasible goal. Eliminating the 300 million guns that are already in the US is not. To make an eco-analogy, It's like the difference between implementing pollution controls at the one powerplant in your town, vs. individually on each of the 100,000 cars in the town.

So because something is very difficult to do we should abandon all hope at trying to fix it, and go the other way and arm more people instead?

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by k995

Not as easy, its a fake argument . Knives, box cutters cars all serve a purpose, that this purpuse can be abused is a sad reality.

Assualt styled weapons in the hands of civilians like used here dont have a purpose beyond killing things as they were designed to do.

You are not going to scare away a thief more with a AR15 then with a Smith & Wesson SHIELD, hell a handgun is a lot easier to use in su!ch a case then a semi automatic assult rifle.

That is absolutely not true. That's like saying a Smart Car is faster than a Ferrari...

A hand gun is nowhere near as easy to use and not nearly as capable in ballistic terms. A semi-auto handgun is arguably less reliable than a wheel gun in such a confrontation to begin with as in stress shooting semis easily jam. This is seen time and time again and therefore the trade off of increased magazine capacity of a semi over a wheel is debatable. In such a confrontation, the SW 686+ 4 inch is probably the best single defensive pistol, or Ruger GP100 (I believe that is their 4 inch).

Further, you could shoot an assailant 5 times with a handgun to the chest and they could still return fire and kill you (this happens pretty often...look at many of the police training videos of deadly shootings where police shoot a suspect who shoots back after being shot multiple times). If you shoot someone mid-center with an AR's 5.56mm NATO, they aren't going to be returning any fire. The historic purpose of a pistol was to fight your way back to your long gun.

There are also tons of organizations dedicated to shooting ARs recreationally.


Are there issues with civilian AR-15 ownership? Absolutely. But let's debate on the facts and weigh both sides of the argument rather than paint a unilateral picture.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

If you make sure that guns are stored properly and close the gun show loophole then you will make it significantly harder for criminals to get guns.

----------

PS

Can we stop the hyperbole? The vast majority of the people here aren't asking for an outright ban - can we stop pretending that they are as that doesn't make for an interesting or worthwhile discussion.

I was responding to one person who said exactly that "hyperbole" you speak of.

And if you read my previous posts, I've advocated both things you speak of. My frustration is from unrealistic expectations as well as a lack of understanding.

Originally Posted by Crazy Badger

Nobody is stupid enough to think banning guns will eliminate gun crime, in the same way banning drugs doesn't stop drug use, or setting speed limits doesn't stop people driving too fast, but it will reduce the number of guns in circulation. Does a country with a population just over 3m need over 3m guns in public ownership?

If you can't accept that less guns equals less gun related incidents then you need to accept that this type of event will continue to happen on an all too frequent basis.

In the UK the most recent comparable event was in Dunblane in 1996. The result was a tightening up of gun controls and as a result only one similar event in the last 16 years.

Unless America changes something this will continue to happen, with what appear to be a frighteningly increasing frequency

Do you honestly think that the European model will work in the US? Everyone on this forum continually talks about how many guns are in the US. And they are right! The sheer quantity is beyond that of anywhere else...and so the sheer quantity of illegal guns are also tremendous. The European model is not going to work in the US...the public doesn't want it. There needs to be some sort of compromise, but no one can agree on what that compromise is.

And I would also argue that until mental health services change, these incidents will continue regardless of gun litigation.

[Arran]

Originally Posted by dime21

... Preventing a nation from developing a single large weapon at a single manufacturing site is a feasible goal. Eliminating the 300 million guns that are already in the US is not. To make an eco-analogy, It's like the difference between implementing pollution controls at the one powerplant in your town, vs. individually on each of the 100,000 cars in the town

Catalytic converters, low emission vehicles, unleaded gas. Heard of them? Just because something may be difficult is no excuse for not doing it. You're coming across as defeatist. Helpless, even.

Personally, I don't need or want a gun. I also don't want or expect a total ban: Guns have their uses. I would, however, like to see better regulation.

[jeremy h]

Originally Posted by Arran

I also don't want or expect a total ban: Guns have their uses. I would, however, like to see better regulation.

I previously posted a brief outline of our (British) restrictions to show how you can still have a thriving shooting community even with some of the tightest control. Nobody is expecting the US to introduce those sort of controls (especially with the greater rural need for guns than in Europe) but it should be reassurance to those who fear that any sort of further control will mean an end to all shooting sports and people's freedom to enjoy them.

[elistan]

Originally Posted by dime21

Huh? Since when?

Not a hammer, but a knife, just last week some twisted ******* stabbed 22 school children on a stabbing rampage in China. There's a problem in China now with stabbing rampages like this where dozens are injured or killed by a mad stabber.

I suppose it's not entirely impossible to commit mass murder with a hammer, but the China tragedy is not a good counter example to support your point since, so far as I know at this time, not a single person died in that attack.

[Andeavor]

Originally Posted by NickZac

People who want to ban guns outright fail every time to explain how criminals will stop using illegal firearms to commit crimes. I sometimes wonder if they are expecting a firearm ban to convince criminals to quit the deviance and get a day job

Nobody here believes criminals will stop using or buying guns but gun regulations would already diminish the number of average people without a criminal record to snap and go out to buy or steal a gun to mow down a group of people.

The whole issue about gun control is not designed to prevent petty gun crime in gas stations or disarm gang members across the board, it is designed to prevent a mass shooting like which happened last week.

None of these kids would be dead if the mother would have had her guns stored properly and out of reach of unauthorized hands.

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

The thing that irks me so much in these discussions is the use of the term "assault weapons".

I have yet to find someone (anyone... in this forum, in the media, in our pathetic political system) who can define what they mean, specifically, by the term assault weapon.

From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of ASSAULT WEAPON
: any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms; especially : assault rifle

First Known Use of ASSAULT WEAPON
1973

Translation: a gun that goes 'ra-ta-ta-ta' is designed to assault a heavily armed person or a group of persons. Those weapons are designed for the offense.

Handguns have a 50/50 purpose but they were designed to only attack one person (at the time) in both cases.

---------------------

Here in Switzerland you are required by law to store both guns and ammo in separate rooms - one in a safe specifically. Public-carry and concealed-carry are only allowed with permits and a justifiable reason and location to give to the authorities if questioned.

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by Macaroony

...From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of ASSAULT WEAPON
: any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms; especially : assault rifle

First Known Use of ASSAULT WEAPON
1973

Translation: a gun that goes 'ra-ta-ta-ta' is designed to assault a heavily armed person or a group of persons. Those weapons are designed for the offense...

Oh yeah... that really offers a specific description. I wouldn't be surprised if that becomes the actual text in Diane Feinstein's assault weapon ban.

I hope you weren't being serious to offer that in reply to my post!

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by Macaroony

Nobody here believes criminals will stop using or buying guns but gun regulations would already diminish the number of average people without a criminal record to snap and go out to buy or steal a gun to mow down a group of people.

The whole issue about gun control is not designed to prevent petty gun crime in gas stations or disarm gang members across the board, it is designed to prevent a mass shooting like which happened last week.

None of these kids would be dead if the mother would have had her guns stored properly and out of reach of unauthorized hands.

Again, that is not what everyone in this thread has said and I've personally mentioned multiple times how we need to enforce litigation that requires firearms be properly secured. We can't say for sure what would have happened if the mother locked up these firearms, but we could say the situation would probably not have occurred with the firearms that it did.

The mother's judgment and level of firearm safety knowledge should be called into judgment and this should be made a core issue of the ensuing debate. If anything good can come out of this, it will be increased awareness leading to more responsible decisions, such as keeping firearms out of the hands on unauthorized users.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by dime21

Lets not forget the Bath School massacre where 45 killed and 58 injured at a school in Michigan - and not a single gun was used.

A gun wasn't used, but wasn't dynamite?

Dynamite is illegal to purchase isn't it? Bombs can also kill 45 at one time - so can missiles and nuclear weapons and planes flown into buildings. Isn't the point that guns that are capable of doing this sort of damage are easier and legal to obtain?

If there was a rash of dynamite bombings (assuming dynamite was legal to purchase), do you think any types of changes would be made to regulate purchase of it?

[Andeavor]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

Oh yeah... that really offers a specific description. I wouldn't be surprised if that becomes the actual text in Diane Feinstein's assault weapon ban.

I hope you weren't being serious to offer that in reply to my post!

Ok, you want the specific description?

ASSAULT RIFLE noun
Military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Light and portable, yet able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern combat ranges of 1,000–1,600 ft (300–500 m), assault rifles have become the standard infantry weapon of modern armies. Their ease of handling makes them ideal for mobile assault troops crowded into personnel carriers or helicopters, as well as for guerrilla fighters engaged in jungle or urban warfare. Widely used assault rifles are the U.S. M16, the Soviet Kalashnikov (the AK-47 and modernized versions), the Belgian FAL and FNC, and the German G3.

Now tell me, what are civilians doing with a weapon like that at home?

----------

Originally Posted by NickZac

Again, that is not what everyone in this thread has said and I've personally mentioned multiple times how we need to enforce litigation that requires firearms be properly secured. We can't say for sure what would have happened if the mother locked up these firearms, but we could say the situation would probably not have occurred with the firearms that it did.

The mother's judgment and level of firearm safety knowledge should be called into judgment and this should be made a core issue of the ensuing debate. If anything good can come out of this, it will be increased awareness leading to more responsible decisions, such as keeping firearms out of the hands on unauthorized users.

We can; he wouldn't have made it to Sandy Hook with an armful of guns.

As for your second paragraph, we're on the same page.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by NickZac

Again, that is not what everyone in this thread has said and I've personally mentioned multiple times how we need to enforce litigation that requires firearms be properly secured. We can't say for sure what would have happened if the mother locked up these firearms, but we could say the situation would probably not have occurred with the firearms that it did.

The mother's judgment and level of firearm safety knowledge should be called into judgment and this should be made a core issue of the ensuing debate. If anything good can come out of this, it will be increased awareness leading to more responsible decisions, such as keeping firearms out of the hands on unauthorized users.

I agree with this completely. I understand that our constitution has given us all the right to bear arms - but frankly, it needs to come with conditions. Too many accidental deaths and suicides seems to be the result of irresponsible gun owners.

I also see the need to ensure owners are keeping the guns out of anyone else's hands - but how can that be regulated? In a perfect world, maybe an owner would have to show where they would be safely stored before purchasing a weapon (or getting a license?), but obviously that isn't realistic.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by NickZac

People who want to ban guns outright fail every time to explain how criminals will stop using illegal firearms to commit crimes. I sometimes wonder if they are expecting a firearm ban to convince criminals to quit the deviance and get a day job.

Perhaps I can help alleviate your confusion.

I would never expect all criminals to stop using guns. But, when the supply of guns is so plentiful, more criminals will use them. Reducing the number of guns isn't about stopping their use, it's about lessening their use.

And when guns are so easily available it no longer is an issue about criminals.

Just as we've seen with this latest incident ... the second worst mass shooting in U.S. history ... the perpetrator was not a "criminal". Too many shooting deaths do not occur because a criminal is looking to rob you of your wallet. They occur because people not normally considered criminals reach some mental/emotional breaking point and lash out violently. The easy availability of guns just make those violent acts more deadly.

There would be many more people alive today if all we had to worry about were the criminals.

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by Macaroony

Ok, you want the specific description?

ASSAULT RIFLE noun
Military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Light and portable, yet able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern combat ranges of 1,000–1,600 ft (300–500 m), assault rifles have become the standard infantry weapon of modern armies. Their ease of handling makes them ideal for mobile assault troops crowded into personnel carriers or helicopters, as well as for guerrilla fighters engaged in jungle or urban warfare. Widely used assault rifles are the U.S. M16, the Soviet Kalashnikov (the AK-47 and modernized versions), the Belgian FAL and FNC, and the German G3.

Now tell me, what are civilians doing with a weapon like that at home?...

Civilians are not doing anything with weapons like that at home, unless they have either (a) undergone very extensive state and Federal Class III FFL background checks, paid a hefty sum of money in fees, waited perhaps one to one and a half years, agreed to random unannounced visits from the BATF for inspections and paid somewhere north of $15,000 for the particular automatic weapon, or (b) stolen it.

You see, a weapon with the capability to switch between semi-automatic and fully automatic fire has been tightly regulated for civilian ownership since 1934.

The uninformed populace, however, buys into the media and politicians screaming about "assault weapons" and thinks that a semi-automatic only look-alike version of a real assault rifle is being used.

It's not true!

The public doesn't understand, and probably never will, just as you apparently didn't understand.

Weapons with the capability to fire multiple rounds with a single trigger pull are heavily regulated, and NOT in the hands of the general public!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: It is getting tiring to keep repeating these facts over and over, but I guess people don't read all of the posts in a thread... just jump in at any time to post something that has already been refuted.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

Civilians are not doing anything with weapons like that at home, unless they have either (a) undergone very extensive state and Federal Class III FFL background checks, paid a hefty sum of money in fees, waited perhaps one to one and a half years, agreed to random unannounced visits from the BATF for inspections and paid somewhere north of $15,000 for the particular automatic weapon, or (b) stolen it.

You see, a weapon with the capability to switch between semi-automatic and fully automatic fire has been tightly regulated for civilian ownership since 1934.

The uninformed populace, however, buys into the media and politicians screaming about "assault weapons" and thinks that a semi-automatic only look-alike version of a real assault rifle is being used.

It's not true!

The public doesn't understand, and probably never will, just as you apparently didn't understand.

Weapons with the capability to fire multiple rounds with a single trigger pull are heavily regulated, and NOT in the hands of the general public!

I'm completely not in the know about guns - and this back and forth, frankly, isn't helping me learn.

Forgive me if this question has been asked already. But are semi-automatic weapons legal (I know fully auto come with the strict regulations you mentioned) and what is the difference between a "semi-automatic" and something that isn't automatic?

----------

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

Edit: It is getting tiring to keep repeating these facts over and over, but I guess people don't read all of the posts in a thread... just jump in at any time to post something that has already been refuted.

Maybe you're not being a very good teacher.

All I've learned is that our politicians and media know nothing about guns and are the cause of mass hysteria. And that not all guns that look scary are, in fact, scary. And only gun experts are allowed to make laws and participate in a discussion regarding guns.

Did I miss anything?

[Zombie Acorn]

Originally Posted by Macaroony

Ok, you want the specific description?

ASSAULT RIFLE noun
Military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Light and portable, yet able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern combat ranges of 1,000–1,600 ft (300–500 m), assault rifles have become the standard infantry weapon of modern armies. Their ease of handling makes them ideal for mobile assault troops crowded into personnel carriers or helicopters, as well as for guerrilla fighters engaged in jungle or urban warfare. Widely used assault rifles are the U.S. M16, the Soviet Kalashnikov (the AK-47 and modernized versions), the Belgian FAL and FNC, and the German G3.

Now tell me, what are civilians doing with a weapon like that at home?

----------



We can; he wouldn't have made it to Sandy Hook with an armful of guns.

As for your second paragraph, we're on the same page.

Stop posting about guns until you have educated yourself please. The use of the terms semi-automatic and military style weaponry are so misused in this thread that it is bordering on being a joke.

None of these shootings have been done with a military style weapon. An ar-15 is the closest thing to looking like a military gun as you get and it is not a fully automatic weapon, it is semi automatic just as most every rifle you buy is except pump and bolt action rifles. Most pistols you buy today are considered semi-automatic except revolvers which technically aren't, but might a well be lumped in as well because its one shot per pull of the trigger, it just implements it differently. Im not exactly sure what non-semi automatic pistol would be on a modern gun or if they exist on the modern market (I am not a gun nut so someone else can explain that one).

As for complaints about high capacity magazines, I don't normally see rifles being sold stock with them, but it is just a sleeve of bullets with a feeding mechanism. Its not exactly impossible to design your own at home if you are crazy enough.

For those who are really looking to know what semi-auto is, its a gun with one chamber, one barrel and a mechanism to feed the next bullet without manual operation (pump lever or bolt to eject the bullet). Its not a burst round, and you can't switch to full auto at a whim like some people seem to think. This is the norm for most rifles and all pistols. Revolvers use a different mechanism (spinning wheel) with multiple chambers so are not considered semi-auto, but its still one pull of the trigger for each bullet without a manual ejection.

[quagmire]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

I'm completely not in the know about guns - and this back and forth, frankly, isn't helping me learn.

Forgive me if this question has been asked already. But are semi-automatic weapons legal (I know fully auto come with the strict regulations you mentioned) and what is the difference between a "semi-automatic" and something that isn't automatic?

Semi-auto's automatically eject the spent casing and load the next bullet to be fired from the magazine. Where non-auto guns you have to manually eject the casing. They are still one bullet= one trigger pull.

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

I'm completely not in the know about guns - and this back and forth, frankly, isn't helping me learn.

Forgive me if this question has been asked already. But are semi-automatic weapons legal (I know fully auto come with the strict regulations you mentioned) and what is the difference between a "semi-automatic" and something that isn't automatic?

There is a drastic difference in operation between a semi-automatic weapon and a fully automatic weapon.

Semi-automatic operation simply means that the energy expended by a fired cartridge is used to (1) push back the slide or bolt or whatever, depending upon the particular firearm, which (2) ejects the empty shell casing and (3) pushes the next round from the magazine into the chamber and (4) cocks the hammer or striker or whatever is used to fire the bullet. This does not mean that you can simply squeeze and hold the trigger and fire off as many rounds as the magazine holds. It simply makes the ejection of the empty cartridge and reloading of the next round "automatic".

A fully automatic weapon, on the other hand, does allow for continuous firing by just holding the trigger. Typically, full auto weapons have a selector switch which allow either "fire everything" capability or "fire 2 or three rounds" capability with a single trigger pull.

Fully automatic weapons, as I described previously, have been under Federal control since 1934.

Virtually every modern handgun which has a magazine (i.e. not a revolver) is a "semi auto", as are many rifles (as opposed to bolt or lever action, etc.).

The public, through (deliberate, I believe) misinformation or fuzzy reporting, simply reacts to the evil sounding words, without any knowledge of what the real differences are.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by quagmire

Semi-auto's automatically eject the spent casing and load the next bullet to be fired from the magazine. Where non-auto guns you have to manually eject the casing. They are still one bullet= one trigger pull.

Ahh, that makes sense. And an automatic would fire multiple bullets/trigger pull?

Thank you.

[Huntn]

There has been so much bad info passed in the early days of this story, however my understanding is that the doors were locked and the shooter shot out a window to get in. I'm not sure about if it were pistols or an assault rifle or both that were used. Anyway, if armed guards are the answer, easily one might not be enough. It seems that something will have to be done about building security.

The real challenge seems to be laws and regulations that will make a difference, not just go through the motions. However, my impression is for short term, force must be met with force. I don't like saying that, but if you expect an armed person to storm a building whether it be a school or a mall, armed personnel must be there to oppose them because even if you fortify schools and create safe closets for every class, there are still vulnerable times at the start and end of the day when armed personnel will be required.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

There is a drastic difference in operation between a semi-automatic weapon and a fully automatic weapon.

Semi-automatic operation simply means that the energy expended by a fired cartridge is used to (1) push back the slide or bolt or whatever, depending upon the particular firearm, which (2) ejects the empty shell casing and (3) pushes the next round from the magazine into the chamber and (4) cocks the hammer or striker or whatever is used to fire the bullet. This does not mean that you can simply squeeze and hold the trigger and fire off as many rounds as the magazine holds. It simply makes the ejection of the empty cartridge and reloading of the next round "automatic".

A fully automatic weapon, on the other hand, does allow for continuous firing by just holding the trigger. Typically, full auto weapons have a selector switch which allow either "fire everything" capability or "fire 2 or three rounds" capability with a single trigger pull.

Fully automatic weapons, as I described previously, have been under Federal control since 1934.

Virtually every modern handgun which has a magazine (i.e. not a revolver) is a "semi auto", as are many rifles (as opposed to bolt or lever action, etc.).

The public, through (deliberate, I believe) misinformation or fuzzy reporting, simply reacts to the evil sounding words, without any knowledge of what the real differences are.

I think it's a matter of fuzzy reporting and assumptions. The guns look scary and our imagination takes it from there. It's not the only thing out there that the American public is misinformed on, so I wouldn't take it as personally as you seem to be.

And I thank you as well for clarifying.

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

I think it's a matter of fuzzy reporting and assumptions. The guns look scary and our imagination takes it from there. It's not the only thing out there that the American public is misinformed on, so I wouldn't take it as personally as you seem to be.

And I thank you as well for clarifying.

I don't take it personally, but I do get annoyed when I see people on the news who should (or really do) know better but do nothing to stop perpetuating mythical analysis.

[Ugg]

The partisan differences persist, however, across almost every demographic measure. White voters were substantially more likely to own guns than Hispanics, blacks or Asians. But white Republicans were more likely to own guns than white Democrats, Asian Republicans more likely than Asian Democrats, and so forth.

More elaborate data-mining techniques, such as logistic regression analysis, suggest that gun ownership is a more powerful predictor of whether a voter is Republican than her gender, whether or not she identifies as gay or lesbian, whether she is Hispanic, or whether she lives in the South, along with many other demographic characteristics.

The above is from Nate Silver's 538 Blog at the NYT. It falls on line with other studies that have been posted here that Repubs are more interestedin authoritarian, top down, paternalistic forms of governance. It's sad so many people have bought into the 'fear doctrine' of the NRA.