Connecticut school shooting

spaced cowboy wrote:

Talon wrote:It's never going to stop. Knives, guns, or bombs... people are still going to do stupid shit like this. You don't need a gun to do a lot of serious damage.

No, you don't. But guns provide an easy method to do a lot of damage. And there is a much higher number of these incidents in the U.S. than elsewhere. Why?

If I knew the answer, then I'd have a solution.

clockbreaker wrote:Well it's probably pretty hard for a regular person to make a bomb that would be as effective as a gun could be in that same person's hands. Like what would most people be able to make? A pipe bomb? You're probably not killing 20 people with that. And knives or swords are a threat of course, but it's still not as easy to kill with them as it is with a gun, and plus it would probably be easier for people to stop you with a knife as opposed to a gun.

Bombs are the deadliest and most destructive, but they're also the hardest to get/make. Knives are extremely easy to get, but they're not as dangerous as a gun or bomb can be. Guns are both very destructive and fairly easy to get.

I don't think it would be hard to make a pipe bomb at all. They aren't that big, one could easily carry 15-20 in a backpack.

Oklahoma City, the first attack on the WTC, that Norway massacre guy, all used explosives of some sort.

This shit almost happened again in Northwest Indiana.

http://news.yahoo.com/ind-man-47-guns-arrested-school-threat-164928349.html;_ylt=AoONwuS4EBNyBhoerp_3naas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNscWkzZ3ZvBG1pdANUb3BTdG9yeSBGUARwa2cDZjdiNmE1MTAtYzUwMy0zOTYwLWE5OTktNzE5NTBlYjgzOGVjBHBvcwM2BHNlYwN0b3Bfc3RvcnkEdmVyAzljYjM0ZWMzLTQ3YWMtMTFlMi1hZmI2LWJjODBmMTEwNGE1MQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTFpNzk0NjhtBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3

47 guns. A different kind of gun for every species of animal he might want to hunt?

Talon wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:You get nutcases everywhere - but the US penchant for guns means that instead of the nutcase losing his temper and trashing the local 7/11 or at worst killing one or two people, he takes an M4 carbine and shoots up the school/shopping centre/cinema/etc. Guns are the problem, make no mistake.

As far as i see it, there is absolutely no reason for any citizen to own anything above a pistol for self defence or a rifle for hunting. Id be interested to see an American here attempt to justify it, because the rest of the world cant fathom it?

Where do you draw the line on what a hunting rifle is? Many people hunt with an AR-15.

Some people out there also use them for hobby and recreation as well. To want to take away said platform because YOU see no need for it would be like me saying there should be no Ferrari because there really isn't a need for them.

Why the fuck do you need to hunt with an AR-15? It's complete overkill - the rest of the world makes do just fine with far less potent weaponry.

There are many hobbies and recreations that have been banned over the centuries as they became incompatible with society of the time. The 'Its mar right to own gurns' argument no longer holds water as these shootings increase in frequency.

You seem to have every lobby group and Association in America chiming in with their 2 cents to exonerate their own interests without providing any help whatsoever on finding a solution. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is screaming the answer at you but you wont listen. Too many votes will be lost for the government that has the balls to do what is needed, and that's sad.

with all due respect to the rest of the world (meaning you since you so often like to speak for them), this isn't their issue to solve.
at any rate, some people own so many guns because, as Talon said, its a hobby. the problem is that the black market is far bigger than the legal market, and they're far too accessible to crazies. So then outlaw the legal sale/possession of guns, and this solves everything?
If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns.
That is the problem, not the guns themselves. That's like saying cars are responsible for street racing, which is inane.

youre completely missing the point im making (and supporting it at the same time). there are plenty of nutcases the world over. the difference is when they lose it and flip out they dont have the tools to kill into double figures.

If you restrict gun sales to pistols and non auto rifles then your average citizen retains their right to self defence etc etc, but they arent getting hold of something capable of a massacre. most of these mass killings are with guns bought legally. these people arent dealing with gun running criminals.

People hunt with AR-15s probably because they can. People also hunt with lever actions, bolt guns, revolvers, and pistols; it depends on the laws of an individual state. Here, one can only use a shotgun (slugs for deer) or a straight-walled-cartridge handgun, ie 44 mag. However, you cannot use that same round in a rifle.

Anyway, I get back to my point that the guns are the scapegoats. This kid was fucked up. His mom (the one who willfully bought the guns and allowed him access, btw) knew it, his family knew it, etc. Why were her guns accessible to him? Whose fault is that? Would buying a combo safe really been that difficult?

Sorry, but when you tell the babysitter of your then 10 year old kid:

"His mom Nancy had always instructed me to keep an eye on him at all times, never turn my back or even go to the bathroom or anything like that. Which I found odd but I really didn't ask; it wasn't any of my business," said Kraft, who lives in Hermosa Beach. "But looking back at it now, I guess there was something else going on."
http://news.yahoo.com/gunmans-mother-kept-trials-home-life-hidden-010414000.html

Your kid’s fucked up and you know it. How about you not give him access to firearms? How about you get him help? There is a lot more to this story that I think we will see in the near future… but, ultimately the fact he got those guns at all were his mother’s fault/responsibility. If you’re telling a babysitter 10 years ago not to turn his back on the kid, to even go to the bathroom, then you leave guns accessible? She shouldn’t even have owned those guns (based on being a responsible citizen) and if so, put them in a safe and don’t tell Jr. the fucking code.

Anyway, it is a hobby. Target shooting, dynamic shooting, etc. Just like anything else. You can take a lever action to a dynamic shooting environment but that would be like taking a dump truck to a race track. Lame. Go to youtube and type in three-gun match to see kind of what I am talking about.

You’re speaking to someone who owns an AR-15 and has since ~ 2007, that’s never hurt anyone and sits in a thick-ass safe when not being used. It's not rocket science.

I like lever action and bolt action rifles over semi-automatic rifles. Just my preference. I've shot AR-15s before, while fun, I prefer to go through some rounds with a Mosin-Nagant or a Model 94 .30-30.

Same here. Operating the mechanism yourself is way more satisfying.

its like driving a stick.
not to mention they tend to be more accurate.

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:youre completely missing the point im making (and supporting it at the same time). there are plenty of nutcases the world over. the difference is when they lose it and flip out they dont have the tools to kill into double figures.

If you restrict gun sales to pistols and non auto rifles then your average citizen retains their right to self defence etc etc, but they arent getting hold of something capable of a massacre. most of these mass killings are with guns bought legally. these people arent dealing with gun running criminals.

I think it's you who's missing my point. I do get your point, and I simply don't agree.
With enough clips, you can kill just as many people with a handgun as you can an assault rifle. With a pipe bomb or another IED, you can take out a crowd (this happens in the EU all too often as well, though lately it's been more attributed to terrorist attacks.) Hell, if you are quick enough and have the skill and are crazy enough, you could cut a swath through a crowd with a sword.
You don't need a gun to cause a tragic massacre into the double digits. It isn't the guns' fault. They aren't pulling their own triggers. If somebody's going to go out with a bang by massacring a bunch of people, they can very well do it with whatever implement they can acquire for their purpose; gun, blade or explosive.
Do you really need an AR-15 to hunt? No. Do you really need a Ferrari 458 to parade around town like you own the place? No.
But people want Ferraris for whatever reason, be it to show off their wealth, compensate, or genuinely feel the power of the engine and the speed it generates.
It's much the same with guns. Some people use it as a compensation device, others actually use it for what it was intended for: protection, or worst case scenario, large-scale defense (IE if we ever got invaded). But far too few people actually secure it properly, allowing them to get into the wrong hands, which is the real problem.
What you're proposing then, is limiting people to owning Volkswagens, and outlawing Ferraris on the chance that some nut could get a hold of it, drive down a city street at triple digits, mow down pedestrians and plow broadside into a bus; whilst completely ignoring the fact that the very same can be done with the Volkswagen just as easily, and all because somebody wasn't keeping an eye on their keys.

To repeat from my earlier post, the USA will NOT rid itself of the right to bear arms. That Amendment may as well be written in stone. That said, rights do not come without laws to shape and hone them. Freedom of Speech is the very first Amendment yet there are laws used in how that right is looked at and respected. Gun control does NOT abrogate a right but puts a level of measure on it. This said the debate is whether and how much gun control shall the US have? IMO the majority of US citizens have come to terms with gun violence in the USA and accept it as a matter of course to have as liberal laws on gun rights as possible. I'm not saying most Americans are happy with the many, many, times more gun violent crimes in the USA to any of its peers but that over the decades and centuries Americans accept the price they pay at times even if such price is is felt and seen sad and tragic. I'm not going to judge them for it pro or con in this regard. But only explain it as REALITY!

The US citizenry will or will not make more or less gun laws but will NEVER accept losing the right to bear arms.

Yes, people kill people but facts are clear the USA has more gun murders per year than probably the next 20-25 nations combined. It is a part of the American makeup.

That said even as such, life in the USA for most any clean nosed, MYOB citizen is still rather safe. Cars kill over 3 times more Americans each year than guns. Yes, likely nobody in cars INTEND to kill but it does leave a lot of human carnage too. The single most dangerous thing people do each day especially with their kids is to DRIVE THEM somewhere.

Food for thought.

Turbojett wrote:With enough clips, you can kill just as many people with a handgun as you can an assault rifle.

Exactly.

clockbreaker wrote:Same here. Operating the mechanism yourself is way more satisfying.

To each their own. I like lever actions, but in a competition environment forget it. You get like six shots and reloading one takes all day, relatively speaking. I had one and it was fun for blowing up pumpkins and such, but ended up selling it.

Turbojett wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:youre completely missing the point im making (and supporting it at the same time). there are plenty of nutcases the world over. the difference is when they lose it and flip out they dont have the tools to kill into double figures.

If you restrict gun sales to pistols and non auto rifles then your average citizen retains their right to self defence etc etc, but they arent getting hold of something capable of a massacre. most of these mass killings are with guns bought legally. these people arent dealing with gun running criminals.

I think it's you who's missing my point. I do get your point, and I simply don't agree.
With enough clips, you can kill just as many people with a handgun as you can an assault rifle. With a pipe bomb or another IED, you can take out a crowd (this happens in the EU all too often as well, though lately it's been more attributed to terrorist attacks.) Hell, if you are quick enough and have the skill and are crazy enough, you could cut a swath through a crowd with a sword.
You don't need a gun to cause a tragic massacre into the double digits. It isn't the guns' fault. They aren't pulling their own triggers. If somebody's going to go out with a bang by massacring a bunch of people, they can very well do it with whatever implement they can acquire for their purpose; gun, blade or explosive.
Do you really need an AR-15 to hunt? No. Do you really need a Ferrari 458 to parade around town like you own the place? No.
But people want Ferraris for whatever reason, be it to show off their wealth, compensate, or genuinely feel the power of the engine and the speed it generates.
It's much the same with guns. Some people use it as a compensation device, others actually use it for what it was intended for: protection, or worst case scenario, large-scale defense (IE if we ever got invaded). But far too few people actually secure it properly, allowing them to get into the wrong hands, which is the real problem.
What you're proposing then, is limiting people to owning Volkswagens, and outlawing Ferraris on the chance that some nut could get a hold of it, drive down a city street at triple digits, mow down pedestrians and plow broadside into a bus; whilst completely ignoring the fact that the very same can be done with the Volkswagen just as easily, and all because somebody wasn't keeping an eye on their keys.

I would have to agree with most everything here. Except they're called magazines, not clips! If the rounds are encased it's a magazine; if they're exposed (like the M1 Garand), it's a clip.

xtine wrote:

Turbojett wrote:With enough clips, you can kill just as many people with a handgun as you can an assault rifle.

Exactly.

I can tell by the photo that's not a real Glock 18. I have fired a legit Glock 18 (owned by Glock, not legal for civi perchance since they're made after 1986) and holy shit that's fucking fun. It's actually not difficult to control at all.

If by the powers of God I could have any gun in the world, I'd pick an MP5 full auto, but that G18 might be second. I've fired an MP5 full auto... holy shit, smooth as butter.

uups.
call me a noob, but I always thought it was clips for handguns and magazines for rifles.

Turbojett wrote:uups.
call me a noob, but I always thought it was clips for handguns and magazines for rifles.

Na, there's a difference. Now you know.

And, I would have to agree with a lot of this article:

http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/newtown-connecticut-mass-shootings-blame-192700959.html

Mental illness and autism. While some parents are reluctant to address mental health issues in their children -- or themselves -- others find that getting even basic treatment is difficult.

"A persistent shortfall in funding has made access to community-based services difficult for families and patients so that accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatments are not readily available for many who need them," Dr. David Sack MD, CEO of Elements Behavioral Health, told Yahoo! Shine. "Patients with mental health problems, because of their illnesses, often reject services offered to them and are vulnerable to alcohol and other substance abuse which it harder to help them."

Earlier this year, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper said that tougher gun laws would not have prevented the mass shooting that killed 12 and wounded 58 others in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, in July. Though he now says that he's willing to discuss restricting high-capacity magazines, he feels that educating people about mental illness and supporting those who are dealing with mental health problems could be a better way of addressing violent tragedies.

"That's something we can do immediately without getting into some of the battles of gun legalization or restricting access to guns," Hickenlooper, a Democrat, told CNN.

A lack of support for parents. In an essay that went viral over the weekend, mother of four Liza Long wrote about what it's like to parent a child with mental illness.

"I love my son," she said of her 13-year-old. "But he terrifies me."

"When he's in a good mood, he will gladly bend your ear on subjects ranging from Greek mythology to the differences between Einsteinian and Newtonian physics to Doctor Who. He's in a good mood most of the time," she wrote at The Blue Review. "But when he's not, watch out. And it's impossible to predict what will set him off."

He screams insults and has threatened to kill her—and himself—more than once. His 7- and 9-year-old siblings know to lock themselves in the family car when he gets violent. He's spent time in the ER and in mental hospitals, been diagnosed with a host of disorders, been on antipsychotic and mood-altering drugs, subjected to strict behavioral plans. And nothing has worked. His social worker says that the best way to get help for her son would be to have him charged with a crime, to create a paper trail. "No one will pay attention to you unless you've got charges," Long was told.

Hundreds of responses to the essay show that Long is not alone. Still, amid the outpouring of compassion are plenty of comments and blog posts calling her an unfit parent, accusing her of hiding her own history of mental illness and violent tendencies.

There is nothing this mother can do... literally. By the time something can be done, it will be too late.

The media. A statement attributed to Academy Award-winning actor Morgan Freeman criticized the media for sensationalizing tragedies went viral over the weekend and, while Freeman denies that the quote was his, plenty of people agree with it.

"It's because of the way the media reports it," the hoax statement read. "Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single victim of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody."

More on the mother of the violent kid...

http://thebluereview.org/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother/

Talon wrote:

xtine wrote:

Turbojett wrote:With enough clips, you can kill just as many people with a handgun as you can an assault rifle.

Exactly.

I can tell by the photo that's not a real Glock 18.

I'm not surprised. It was just the funniest image that came up looking for extended mags.

Oh, great, here we go again. The media is trying to link First Person Shooter games to gun violence.

It's been proven time and time and time and time and time again that it doesn't. They even have psychiatrists come on and say it doesn't even the Supreme Court has shut down laws from states trying to ban violent games.

ive been playing violent games all my life and i feel bad when i have to kill a mouse.

Well it seems like Obama follows the same train of thought as most non-US citizens. Talk of banning assault weapon sales now... but how are you ever going to hunt racoons without your M134???

except he's not going to get very far if most of the country disagrees with him. that's sort of how our political system works.

here's your backhanded back.

Well duh. Thats why this shit will continue in America - because no politician will have the balls to risk the votes from an entitled population who believes its their god given right to be armed to the teeth at all times. No matter how many lives it would save.

do you not realize that the majority of gun owners already are just pistols, shotguns or non-auto or semi-auto carbines? and most people who do own automatic rifles usually only own just the one. That's not exactly "armed to the teeth."
True, there are some people that collect them, but aside from getting cleaned and shot maybe once or twice a year, all they do is collect dust. and occasionally you will get a whackjob who stockpiles armaments because they fear some sort of weird scenario like Y2K or an alien invasion or a zombie apocalypse, but they're few and far between, as are, truthfully, things like this.

Turbojett wrote:do you not realize that the majority of gun owners already are just pistols, shotguns or non-auto or semi-auto carbines? and most people who do own automatic rifles usually only own just the one. That's not exactly "armed to the teeth."
True, there are some people that collect them, but aside from getting cleaned and shot maybe once or twice a year, all they do is collect dust. and occasionally you will get a whackjob who stockpiles armaments because they fear some sort of weird scenario like Y2K or an alien invasion or a zombie apocalypse, but they're few and far between, as are, truthfully, things like this.

Im not arguing that ALL gun ownership should be outlawed. It would impractical and unfair to those who enjoy them as a hobby or have a genuine need for them. What i find unfathomable is how you are allowed to own an assault rifle, large magazine pistol or other such firepower that is in no way reasonable/necessary for any kind of hunting or self defence. The majority of these massacres are done using weapons like this that are illegal in almost every other developed country in the world. Don't you see the distinction there?

Turbojett wrote:do you not realize that the majority of gun owners already are just pistols, shotguns or non-auto or semi-auto carbines? and most people who do own automatic rifles usually only own just the one. That's not exactly "armed to the teeth."
True, there are some people that collect them, but aside from getting cleaned and shot maybe once or twice a year, all they do is collect dust. and occasionally you will get a whackjob who stockpiles armaments because they fear some sort of weird scenario like Y2K or an alien invasion or a zombie apocalypse, but they're few and far between, as are, truthfully, things like this.

I work with three of them. And one of our vendors' delivery drivers is too.

Two of them have AR-15's, and one was talking yesterday of getting one. Only ONE out of the four keeps quiet about it, and doesn't flaunt it in everyone's face.

I did hear that at the latest Gun Show, and at the local sporting goods stores the lines are unbelievable, people stocking up on weapons and ammo before they are possibly banned.
Sorry, Timmy, no presents for you this year. Daddy had to buy an assault rifle and 500 rounds in case the black president outlaws them.

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

Turbojett wrote:do you not realize that the majority of gun owners already are just pistols, shotguns or non-auto or semi-auto carbines? and most people who do own automatic rifles usually only own just the one. That's not exactly "armed to the teeth."
True, there are some people that collect them, but aside from getting cleaned and shot maybe once or twice a year, all they do is collect dust. and occasionally you will get a whackjob who stockpiles armaments because they fear some sort of weird scenario like Y2K or an alien invasion or a zombie apocalypse, but they're few and far between, as are, truthfully, things like this.

Im not arguing that ALL gun ownership should be outlawed. It would impractical and unfair to those who enjoy them as a hobby or have a genuine need for them. What i find unfathomable is how you are allowed to own an assault rifle, large magazine pistol or other such firepower that is in no way reasonable/necessary for any kind of hunting or self defence. The majority of these massacres are done using weapons like this that are illegal in almost every other developed country in the world. Don't you see the distinction there?

duely noted, but I still maintain that such firepower is not necessarily the problem, it's just a scapegoat. And its an unfair generalization to point to "all these massacres" because again, they don't actually happen so very often. Most shootings are single-victim, the vast majority with handguns, and a lot, if not most can be attributed to gang violence.
But if someone is going to massacre people, they will do it how they want.
How many people were killed in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995? Not a shot was fired there. how much more violent crime per person happens in other countries by other means?

Benfolio wrote:

Turbojett wrote:do you not realize that the majority of gun owners already are just pistols, shotguns or non-auto or semi-auto carbines? and most people who do own automatic rifles usually only own just the one. That's not exactly "armed to the teeth."
True, there are some people that collect them, but aside from getting cleaned and shot maybe once or twice a year, all they do is collect dust. and occasionally you will get a whackjob who stockpiles armaments because they fear some sort of weird scenario like Y2K or an alien invasion or a zombie apocalypse, but they're few and far between, as are, truthfully, things like this.

I work with three of them. And one of our vendors' delivery drivers is too.

Two of them have AR-15's, and one was talking yesterday of getting one. Only ONE out of the four keeps quiet about it, and doesn't flaunt it in everyone's face.

I did hear that at the latest Gun Show, and at the local sporting goods stores the lines are unbelievable, people stocking up on weapons and ammo before they are possibly banned.
Sorry, Timmy, no presents for you this year. Daddy had to buy an assault rifle and 500 rounds in case the black president outlaws them.

Who the fuck are you to tell people how to spend their money? IF there is another AWB, that $900 AR your buddy bought will probably be worth $2,500.

If the govn't bans AR15s, they should probably just go ahead and ban Porsches too. I don't see any practical reason anyone on this planet would possibly need a Porsche. They are very dangerous and impractical.

Oh, and any TV bigger than 42". Who would need a TV any bigger than that? Yea, no one needs that and if you want one, well fuck you, you can't have it because I said so.

Swimming pools need to go, too. Thousands of kid die and/or are permanently injured (brain damaged) because they went into the family pool while the parents aren't paying attention. It's not the parents' fault, or the kid's fault, it's the pool's fault. We need to ban those, too.

Turbojett wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

Turbojett wrote:do you not realize that the majority of gun owners already are just pistols, shotguns or non-auto or semi-auto carbines? and most people who do own automatic rifles usually only own just the one. That's not exactly "armed to the teeth."
True, there are some people that collect them, but aside from getting cleaned and shot maybe once or twice a year, all they do is collect dust. and occasionally you will get a whackjob who stockpiles armaments because they fear some sort of weird scenario like Y2K or an alien invasion or a zombie apocalypse, but they're few and far between, as are, truthfully, things like this.

Im not arguing that ALL gun ownership should be outlawed. It would impractical and unfair to those who enjoy them as a hobby or have a genuine need for them. What i find unfathomable is how you are allowed to own an assault rifle, large magazine pistol or other such firepower that is in no way reasonable/necessary for any kind of hunting or self defence. The majority of these massacres are done using weapons like this that are illegal in almost every other developed country in the world. Don't you see the distinction there?

duely noted, but I still maintain that such firepower is not necessarily the problem, it's just a scapegoat. And its an unfair generalization to point to "all these massacres" because again, they don't actually happen so very often. Most shootings are single-victim, the vast majority with handguns, and a lot, if not most can be attributed to gang violence.
But if someone is going to massacre people, they will do it how they want.
How many people were killed in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995? Not a shot was fired there. how much more violent crime per person happens in other countries by other means?

What about the guy from the Norway Massacre? How many people did he kill, 80(?), using guns he illegally obtained along with a couple car bombs.

This is long, but read it… you might learn something.

This is so god damn stupid and most don’t even realize it. Thing is, the assault weapon ban (AWB) of 1994 did NOT halt or ban the sale of assault weapons. All it did was slightly restrict what could be on the AR-15. For example, flash hiders, collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs. YOU COULD STILL BUY ONE, just not with that stuff. AND, to fucking boot, Conn has some of the most restricted gun laws in the country, including an AR-15 checklist virtually identical to what the AWB was. It expired in 2004 but the state of Conn kept similar restrictions active. Did a lot of good, yea?

That shit just doesn’t work. The little shit still was able to do what he did. It was the mother’s neglect in keeping her guns safe that is the ultimate blame. She was the first victim for her – lack of – efforts. This kid went into a Dick’s Sports and tried to buy a gun. They rejected his ass. The systems in place WORKED!

The guy who shot up the theater in Colorado… I’ll just leave this here:

“Instead, out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned. In Colorado, individuals with permits can carry concealed handgun in most malls, stores, movie theaters, and restaurants. But private businesses can determine whether permit holders can carry guns on their private property.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/10/did-colorado-shooter-single-out-cinemark-theater/

These people go where they know no one is going to be armed: college campus, theaters, schools, etc. We live in a different time. It is EVERY person’s equal right in this country to become a responsible gun owner and to obtain a CCW permit to protect him or herself if absolutely necessary. Some states don’t allow it, but it’s still your right to move somewhere that does. Ill, NY, and Cali come to mind. Yea, Chicago, LA, and NYC… no fucking crime there!

I own an AR-15. Maybe I own one, maybe I own five. I have a CCW permit that requires 12 hours of classroom and range training from registered instructors (most current or ex LEO) and carry a pistol on my person when I so chose to do so to protect myself and my wife. Police support concealed carry. My wife knows how to handle a gun; if I am not home, she has something she can use. I’ve never mentioned either on this forum until now. I’ve gone to training to obtain the permit. I’ve had an FBI background check, and given my prints to obtain the permit. I go to AR-15 & pistol shoots about once per month. (They are like going to a driving class: fun as hell and fun to push your limits but also help keep you safe in the real world). I’ve been trained how to shoot a pistol by arguably one of the best trainers in the world, three days, eight hours a day (no-bullshit, Chris Costa, co-creator of the Magpul Dynamic DVDs and currently owns his own company traveling the states to give training) and hope to take rifle training from him in 2013. We may meet someday and I could very well have a pistol on my person (and if I am doing it right, which I do, you would never know) but that should make you feel safer, not threatened. Until I can carry a LEO on my hip, I will carry a gun. I don’t always carry, but I have eared and given myself that option, and that’s what’s so fucking great about this country. Most countries, the government decides for you and you just have to deal with it.

I am a responsible gun owner. I am for more intensive background checks; I am for the FBI speaking to the ATF and conveying any information that one has even been in, or lives with someone that has seen a psychiatrist. I do not want to wait days, but will gladly wait 30 minutes for a background check to be done on me. I am for getting people help BEFORE they fucking kill someone (read the mother’s blog I posted above; she is scared of her kid but can’t do a fucking thing about it because the system won’t help her). I am NOT for gun control. It doesn’t work. It’s too late at this point.

Obama is a smart man. 100x the president Bush was. I voted for him both times. I think he knows doing an AWB will solve nothing. He’s being pushed really hard now and I think he will cave regardless. He knows the guns aren't the root of the problem... people are crying out for help and can't get it. People like Jon Holmes pass the background check even though he was seeing a psychiatrist, which is wrong. People are afraid… he’s been the biggest gun salesmen ever without even trying, and up until now has done nothing to make me believe he would change any gun laws. The more the anti-gun people push, the more guns get sold because people are afraid they won’t be able to buy them anymore. You can’t find an AR-15 anywhere right now. Why? Not because of an AWB, but because of the threat of one and they’re sold out everywhere! People are buying AR-15s and stripped lowers like crazy. The more the antis push, the more guns get sold. Ironic, yea? Leave it the fuck alone.

(On a side note, I hate even calling them assault weapons as that is a made up term by anti-gun lobbyists. The “AR” in AR-15 stands for Armilite, NOT assault rifle).

Talon wrote:

Benfolio wrote:

Turbojett wrote:do you not realize that the majority of gun owners already are just pistols, shotguns or non-auto or semi-auto carbines? and most people who do own automatic rifles usually only own just the one. That's not exactly "armed to the teeth."
True, there are some people that collect them, but aside from getting cleaned and shot maybe once or twice a year, all they do is collect dust. and occasionally you will get a whackjob who stockpiles armaments because they fear some sort of weird scenario like Y2K or an alien invasion or a zombie apocalypse, but they're few and far between, as are, truthfully, things like this.

I work with three of them. And one of our vendors' delivery drivers is too.

Two of them have AR-15's, and one was talking yesterday of getting one. Only ONE out of the four keeps quiet about it, and doesn't flaunt it in everyone's face.

I did hear that at the latest Gun Show, and at the local sporting goods stores the lines are unbelievable, people stocking up on weapons and ammo before they are possibly banned.
Sorry, Timmy, no presents for you this year. Daddy had to buy an assault rifle and 500 rounds in case the black president outlaws them.

Who the fuck are you to tell people how to spend their money? IF there is another AWB, that $900 AR your buddy bought will probably be worth $2,500.

If the govn't bans AR15s, they should probably just go ahead and ban Porsches too. I don't see any practical reason anyone on this planet would possibly need a Porsche. They are very dangerous and impractical.

Oh, and any TV bigger than 42". Who would need a TV any bigger than that? Yea, no one needs that and if you want one, well fuck you, you can't have it because I said so.

Swimming pools need to go, too. Thousands of kid die and/or are permanently injured (brain damaged) because they went into the family pool while the parents aren't paying attention. It's not the parents' fault, or the kid's fault, it's the pool's fault. We need to ban those, too.

We had this same discussion at work today.

Trust me, I'm on his (and your) side. I may not own a gun (can't, long story), but I don't think that banning is going to solve anything. I was just using it as an example.
Its not a need, its a want, and you're right. No one NEEDS an assault rifle, the same way no one NEEDS a Ferrari, or a million dollar mansion.
The problem is two of those things are well regulated and easy to keep so.

Oh, and

tailhappy's an ex-con!
j/k

If you think owning a Ferrari is the same as owning a gun, no wonder you dont get it

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:If you think owning a Ferrari is the same as owning a gun, no wonder you dont get it

Yeah, the car analogies, swimming pool analogies, and other similar bullshit don't apply at all. This is not a debate about gun carelessness or gun flashiness. It's a debate about gun violence. Intentional acts of lifetaking and what can be done to curtail it. Yes, a car can be dangerous if driven carelessly, but we're not talking about a car accident. We're talking about people intentionally massacring groups of people. There aren't weekly stories of groups of people intentionally mowed down with a 458 Italia because the driver couldn't take his mother's bullshit anymore and he snapped, or some sort of drug deal went horribly wrong. Leather and spoilers on a car isn't like adding a drum magazine.

The irony with the car analogies is that cars are HEAVILY regulated items, that must be designed to specific standards of crashworthiness, equipped with all manner of safety equipment from airbags to stability control systems, given specific bumper heights and bonnet heights for pedestrian safety, with mandates regarding their fuel efficiency and what have you. And they must be meticulously licensed, registered, insured, and titled all at a not-insignificant cost, and you must follow certain rules when operating them in public, even if they have that high-output engine, and if you don't follow those rules, the government will fine you, imprison you, and take your license and/or your car away.

But really, we should all be able to strap AR-15s on our backs with high-capacity magazines and carry them around without the government sticking their dicks into everything.

The "knives and bombs kill people too" arguments are also bunk, and actually go against the entire "we need guns" argument in the first place. If the knives are just as deadly, why do we need the guns again? No, there's a reason gun control is center stage in the news right now and not knife control. Those Chinese kids that were cut last Friday will be seeing their next birthdays. It's just not the same thing at all. And bombs? That requires knowledge, time, and purchasing of materials that make you look pretty damn suspicious when purchased in large quantities. It's too much work, too hard to hide, and most people don't even bother. Some guys got lucky once almost 20 years ago with the Murrah building bombing, and no one's done anything like that since.

Talon wrote:This is so god damn stupid and most don’t even realize it. Thing is, the assault weapon ban (AWB) of 1994 did NOT halt or ban the sale of assault weapons. All it did was slightly restrict what could be on the AR-15. For example, flash hiders, collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs. YOU COULD STILL BUY ONE, just not with that stuff. AND, to fucking boot, Conn has some of the most restricted gun laws in the country, including an AR-15 checklist virtually identical to what the AWB was. It expired in 2004 but the state of Conn kept similar restrictions active. Did a lot of good, yea?

That shit just doesn’t work.

So just to be clear, the previous assault weapon ban wasn't much of a ban at all because it didn't actually ban assault weapons. And it's surprising that the completely ineffective assault weapon ban that still allowed people to buy assault weapons didn't solve anything? No wonder it didn't work! Saying any new legislation wouldn't work because the old one didn't doesn't really mean much because the old one didn't do anything. We'll have to see what the proposed bans actually are looking to ban to make that determination.

Talon wrote:I am a responsible gun owner. I am for more intensive background checks; I am for the FBI speaking to the ATF and conveying any information that one has even been in, or lives with someone that has seen a psychiatrist. I do not want to wait days, but will gladly wait 30 minutes for a background check to be done on me. I am for getting people help BEFORE they fucking kill someone (read the mother’s blog I posted above; she is scared of her kid but can’t do a fucking thing about it because the system won’t help her). I am NOT for gun control. It doesn’t work. It’s too late at this point.

I'm in agreement on nearly all of those sentiments (however, if it takes days to get the check done, then it takes days. Taking a few days to thoroughly check some databases to be sure a gun buyer isn't crazy or a criminal is no big deal whatsoever). Outright banning guns is not only unfair to all the safe and responsible gun owners that are in the vast majority, it's just not a realistic solution, but there are steps that can be taken to make an awful situation more survivable. And that's really all that can be done. Minimize the damage that the crazies can do. If Adam Lanza had to stop to reload more often due to a smaller magazine, then maybe one more child would have managed to get away or maybe a teacher would have had an opening to tackle his skinny ass. If there was a law stating you must be licensed and put into a database that closely monitors your criminal and health backgrounds to own a gun and are required by law to put weapons in a gun safe when not in use so unlicensed people don't get their hands on them, maybe Adam's mom would have been much more aware of the liabilities of making them accessible to her son and he would have never retrieved them on his own.

And far better mental healthcare is completely necessary. For both Adam and his mom, because as stories keep coming out, it sounds like she had some problems of her own that led to Adam going down the path he did. Removing the stigmas and the cost barriers to mental healthcare is going to be of the utmost importance, far more important in the long run than any short term band-aid related to gun restrictions. It's a shame that this part of things doesn't seem to be getting the attention it needs in the media.

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:If you think owning a Ferrari is the same as owning a gun, no wonder you dont get it

The desire to upgrade from a .22 revolver to an AR is similar from driving a Cavalier, then wanting a GT-R. According to the multiple gun owner I work with. His words, not mine.

I would say that I would feel more comfortable if people had to wait a couple days for a thorough background check than having a ban of any sort.

The problem is, still, that people are not going to wait and guns are still going to be purchased illegally.

The problem with America is that every issue is debated on an ideological rather than practical level. It's why Republicans are happy with the most expensive healthcare in the world - it might be expensive, but at least only the companies profit. God forbid some unemployed moocher gets meds for cheap.

It's exactly the same with guns. The only thing keeping the government from taking away people's rights is apparently the right to bear arms. Meanwhile, the last government took away plenty of rights, but no conservative cared because they were smart enough to leave alone the right to pack heat.

Frustrating, and I don't even live there...