Is it time for a serious conversation about Gun Control?

[TigerNBham 3]

And you won't stop them. History has droves of examples of the success of a dedicated nut job willing to give or unable to coceive of

losing their life for the success of an action. It does not mean that you do not try to control the most efficient means he has of being violent.

We have to take some action politically or we say that the problem while complex (2nd amendment and home defense ) is insurmountable and we arm 'em all and let

God sort it out.

[Raven_tiger 5]

How many of you idiots thst are opposed to banning high capacity assault weapons actually own one?

Thanks for the insult. I notice that coming a lot from your side of the argument in this thread. I own several and plan on picking up a few more as well as some mags before next year.

you guys are funny. I know a guy who went out and purchased a bushmaster in 2008 after the election fearing gun ban. Of course, it never materialized. So he overpaid for his gun for that cool factor. The gun industry loves you guys.

[leglessdan 1,934]

Its not the weapon....it's the person with the weapon, andthe chemical imbalance in their heads. There's no other way to paint it. No matter how many valid points each side presents. That is the trump card.

[Raven_tiger 5]

What is the purpose of civilians owning assault weapons with 30 round mags? None. I don't have an issue with handguns even Glocks were targeted to reduce magazine sizes. Although you can still buy high capacity clips. Why the fixation on owning assault weapons?

All weapons are assualt weapons when the intent is to assault another individual.

As in the 1790's, the basic musket was considered the "assault" weapon of it's time. When the people have their rights infringed upon the government rarely stops at just one thing. Automatic weapons are already illegal. Next, the government wants to restrict magazine size.....next it will be semi-auto....until finally it's handguns and shotguns.

When will people learn that bad people do bad things and the tools they use doesn't keep them from being bad people. Oklahoma City comes to mind.

No, you are wrong.

While all weapons - or tools for that matter - can be used to assault other people, they were not designed for that. They were designed for hunting or self-defense.

Assault weapons were designed specifically for high intensity military combat which emphasizes effect and rate of fire, including the necessity of re-loading. There is no justifiable civilian use for them. One does not require a 30 round magazine to defend oneself.

Would you draw a line anywhere? I seems you resent the automatic weapons regulations. How about hand grenades?

The guns sold to civilians are not military grade weapons. These weapons fire a single shot with each pull of the trigger. Military weapons fire a three round burst with each pull and have a selector switch for full auto. As others have said if you limit magazine capacity people will only carry more mags . Or more guns if you take away magazine fed weapons. Also you can obtain grenades with a 200 dollar tax stamp on each one purchased and then proof that each has been expended once it has been used.

Please, don't make trivial distinctions between military issue and military "style". It's insulting.

And to my point, I seriously doubt just anyone can buy a grenade - even with a $200 stamp. Regardless, I thought my question was obvious - should grenades be as accessible as a Bushmaster (for example)?

It is insulting that you and most of the other people spouting assault rifles must be banned don't know the difference. The round fired by a 223 is not even the same as the 5.56 nato round used by the military. While it is safe to fire 223 ammo in a rifle chambered for 5.56 nato the reverse is not the case. Due to the fact 223 cartridge is shorter and the 5.56 nato round would be in contact the firing pin in a 223 chamber. They already are harder to access than a rifle. But I don't really care about ease of access since if the desire is there to get them. It can be done legally or not.

save your condescending dribble for someone else. The civilian ARs are derived from their military cousins. Just because they are rechambered for civilian ammo doesn't make it any less lethal. Are suggesting that you would rather take a .223 round vs 5.56? Difference between almost dead and very dead. You have no argument.

[Raven_tiger 5]

Its not the weapon....it's the person with the weapon, andthe chemical imbalance in their heads. There's no other way to paint it. No matter how many valid points each side presents. That is the trump card.

I think we could all agree that mentally impaired people should not have access to firearms. The problem is that these very people are able to access firearms time and time again.

[3rdgen 2]

How many of you idiots thst are opposed to banning high capacity assault weapons actually own one?

Thanks for the insult. I notice that coming a lot from your side of the argument in this thread. I own several and plan on picking up a few more as well as some mags before next year.

you guys are funny. I know a guy who went out and purchased a bushmaster in 2008 after the election fearing gun ban. Of course, it never materialized. So he overpaid for his gun for that cool factor. The gun industry loves you guys.

Not really concerned about the cool factor. I'm looking for a new rig for 3 gun competitions.

[Raven_tiger 5]

I guess I've never thought...honey I'm sure you would feel safer if you had an AR15 instead of that silly 380...

[alexava 6,973]

I mean idiots in the nicest way possible. And i really hate it for those who are not severely mentally flawed,but enjoy squeezing off 30~100rounds as fast as your finger will move or untill it cramps up. Somebody mentioned a shooting competition. I was not aware of any competition that required that. I can admit that banning these thiings is a radical move. But inaction is an invite for more of the same. As someone mention earlier, the media makes this appealing to nuts who seek a blaze of glory. I still think the preppers, the people who claim these are for protection, invasion of foriegn military. You guys are on the fringe of insanity anyway.

[3rdgen 2]

What is the purpose of civilians owning assault weapons with 30 round mags? None. I don't have an issue with handguns even Glocks were targeted to reduce magazine sizes. Although you can still buy high capacity clips. Why the fixation on owning assault weapons?

All weapons are assualt weapons when the intent is to assault another individual.

As in the 1790's, the basic musket was considered the "assault" weapon of it's time. When the people have their rights infringed upon the government rarely stops at just one thing. Automatic weapons are already illegal. Next, the government wants to restrict magazine size.....next it will be semi-auto....until finally it's handguns and shotguns.

When will people learn that bad people do bad things and the tools they use doesn't keep them from being bad people. Oklahoma City comes to mind.

No, you are wrong.

While all weapons - or tools for that matter - can be used to assault other people, they were not designed for that. They were designed for hunting or self-defense.

Assault weapons were designed specifically for high intensity military combat which emphasizes effect and rate of fire, including the necessity of re-loading. There is no justifiable civilian use for them. One does not require a 30 round magazine to defend oneself.

Would you draw a line anywhere? I seems you resent the automatic weapons regulations. How about hand grenades?

The guns sold to civilians are not military grade weapons. These weapons fire a single shot with each pull of the trigger. Military weapons fire a three round burst with each pull and have a selector switch for full auto. As others have said if you limit magazine capacity people will only carry more mags . Or more guns if you take away magazine fed weapons. Also you can obtain grenades with a 200 dollar tax stamp on each one purchased and then proof that each has been expended once it has been used.

Please, don't make trivial distinctions between military issue and military "style". It's insulting.

And to my point, I seriously doubt just anyone can buy a grenade - even with a $200 stamp. Regardless, I thought my question was obvious - should grenades be as accessible as a Bushmaster (for example)?

It is insulting that you and most of the other people spouting assault rifles must be banned don't know the difference. The round fired by a 223 is not even the same as the 5.56 nato round used by the military. While it is safe to fire 223 ammo in a rifle chambered for 5.56 nato the reverse is not the case. Due to the fact 223 cartridge is shorter and the 5.56 nato round would be in contact the firing pin in a 223 chamber. They already are harder to access than a rifle. But I don't really care about ease of access since if the desire is there to get them. It can be done legally or not.

save your condescending dribble for someone else. The civilian ARs are derived from their military cousins. Just because they are rechambered for civilian ammo doesn't make it any less lethal. Are suggesting that you would rather take a .223 round vs 5.56? Difference between almost dead and very dead. You have no argument.

All guns are derived from military cousins. As the militaries of the world are the big drivers of gun design and have always been. From the wheellock to semi automatic rifles all those began with military designs. Most modern bolt action rifles are a ripoff of the K98 Mauser. I'm more of an AK platform man as they tend to be cheaper and less prone to jams when not cleaned religiously. I am not particularly interested in what you think about anything I post. I'm just pointing out to those who may not be familar with weapons that these scary guns that look like the guns of the military. Are not the same and have limited capabilities compared to the military weapon. Also that other weapons have the capability of causing the same amount of damage irregardless of there design, mechanism of action, or magazine capacity. The user is the key element in whether a weapon will be dangerous to the public not the type of weapon. No law or ban will ever change that.

[leglessdan 1,934]

Its not the weapon....it's the person with the weapon, andthe chemical imbalance in their heads. There's no other way to paint it. No matter how many valid points each side presents. That is the trump card.

I think we could all agree that mentally impaired people should not have access to firearms. The problem is that these very people are able to access firearms time and time again.

That has always been the problem, not the caliber or type or rate of fire or appearance. It's the human factor that fuels these attacks. Take the military style off the market, fine, won't bother me a bit. But...what then? Their will still be other guns out there. Guns that CAN be modified if needed. You and I both know the Government can't very well put a ban on all guns. That will NEVER pass....NEVER. Nor should it. Every citizen has a right to defend themselves. I don't think there really is a concrete. solution. There could be a more aggressive study and monitoring of mental health, but in most cases these people just snap. How can you monitor or study that until after an event takes place. I hate this happened to this community in CT. It broke my heart, I have a 6 yr old girl that I couldnt wait to hug and squeeze when she got out of school, but gun control isn't the solution as far as type. He could have just as easily gone in there with a pump shotgun or a semi-automatic shotgun(that we all use to hunt deer and dove) and cleared the classrooms with a handful of blasts. This event is a byproduct of the poisonous culture we live in combined with mental issues. They can try and legislate this to death in regards to gun control, but that will NEVER address or solve the driving force behind these type of events.

[Ouchyfish 67]

I still think the preppers, the people who claim these are for protection, invasion of foriegn military. You guys are on the fringe of insanity anyway.

Yet they aren't the ones doing this stuff.

By the way, I wasn't referring to a foreign military. I was referring to the foreign criminals invading our southern border every day.

[Ouchyfish 67]

Its not the weapon....it's the person with the weapon, andthe chemical imbalance in their heads. There's no other way to paint it. No matter how many valid points each side presents. That is the trump card.

I think we could all agree that mentally impaired people should not have access to firearms. The problem is that these very people are able to access firearms time and time again.

That has always been the problem, not the caliber or type or rate of fire or appearance. It's the human factor that fuels these attacks. Take the military style off the market, fine, won't bother me a bit. But...what then? Their will still be other guns out there. Guns that CAN be modified if needed. You and I both know the Government can't very well put a ban on all guns. That will NEVER pass....NEVER. Nor should it. Every citizen has a right to defend themselves. I don't think there really is a concrete. solution. There could be a more aggressive study and monitoring of mental health, but in most cases these people just snap. How can you monitor or study that until after an event takes place. I hate this happened to this community in CT. It broke my heart, I have a 6 yr old girl that I couldnt wait to hug and squeeze when she got out of school, but gun control isn't the solution as far as type. He could have just as easily gone in there with a pump shotgun or a semi-automatic shotgun(that we all use to hunt deer and dove) and cleared the classrooms with a handful of blasts. This event is a byproduct of the poisonous culture we live in combined with mental issues. They can try and legislate this to death in regards to gun control, but that will NEVER address or solve the driving force behind these type of events.

Dr. Drew had a very interesting show tonight addressing autism and more importantly the different physical brain conditions of psychopaths. despite all of this, though, it still does little to protect us from people gaining access to guns illegally. Until they can come up with a foolproof way to keep firearms from functioning in the hands of those who shouldn't be using them (I had actually heard of this technology being tested!) this will continue to happen. Be it with a major firearm or a simple pistol.

[autigeremt 6,629]

I suspect something coming as a result of this shooting. In the meantime, 45,000 people will die as a result if auto accidents this year.

[AUloggerhead 2,231]

I still think the preppers, the people who claim these are for protection, invasion of foriegn military. You guys are on the fringe of insanity anyway.

Yet they aren't the ones doing this stuff.

By the way, I wasn't referring to a foreign military. I was referring to the foreign criminals invading our southern border every day.

It doesn't have to be foreign criminals or military. Defending yourself & property from ANY type of lawless types caused by natural causes (storms, earthquakes, flooding) or manmade (riots, tyranny) is your 2nd amendment right. And whether or not a citizen chooses to arm themselves with a brace of flintlocks, a samurai sword or a few dozen Bushmaster rifles with banana clips ... For those who keep asking why does anyone need a semi-automatic weapon -- who the hell are you to dictate how someone chooses to arm themselves?

Let's go back to Nancy Lanza's situation: divorced mother living with her youngest (mentally troubled) son in a large home in a wealthy neighborhood. With no man in the house, responsibility of defending the homestead fell to her. Call her paranoid if you must about being a "prepper" but the even the possibility of being targeted by thieves must have been a concern for her too. So she arms herself with a Bushmaster rifle and a few semi-auto pistols and teaches her sons to shoot. By any standard she would have to be considered a responsible gun owner. The unpredictable factor here was her trusting her mentally troubled son. In hindsight, she should have obviously sought professional help for him.

[alexava 6,973]

I still think the preppers, the people who claim these are for protection, invasion of foriegn military. You guys are on the fringe of insanity anyway.

Yet they aren't the ones doing this stuff.

By the way, I wasn't referring to a foreign military. I was referring to the foreign criminals invading our southern border every day.

It doesn't have to be foreign criminals or military. Defending yourself & property from ANY type of lawless types caused by natural causes (storms, earthquakes, flooding) or manmade (riots, tyranny) is your 2nd amendment right. And whether or not a citizen chooses to arm themselves with a brace of flintlocks, a samurai sword or a few dozen Bushmaster rifles with banana clips ... For those who keep asking why does anyone need a semi-automatic weapon -- who the hell are you to dictate how someone chooses to arm themselves?

Let's go back to Nancy Lanza's situation: divorced mother living with her youngest (mentally troubled) son in a large home in a wealthy neighborhood. With no man in the house, responsibility of defending the homestead fell to her. Call her paranoid if you must about being a "prepper" but the even the possibility of being targeted by thieves must have been a concern for her too. So she arms herself with a Bushmaster rifle and a few semi-auto pistols and teaches her sons to shoot. By any standard she would have to be considered a responsible gun owner. The unpredictable factor here was her trusting her mentally troubled son. In hindsight, she should have obviously sought professional help for him.

i am the voice of logic. reread your post... you prove my points for me.

[Weegle777 78]

Side note: It's ironic how most of the hippies yelling for tighter gun control to protect the poor children with their whole lives ahead of them have no problem with all of the babies being aborted.

Extremely well said. :bow:/>

Well said maybe, but totally irrelevant, if not downright wacko.

Bet you were one of the wackos that thought it was great that "life" might have been found on Mars aren't you.

[BamaGrad03 0]

"It looks like a machine gun"

So effing what. A Tippman paintball gun looks like a machine gun. An airsoft rifle looks like a machine gun. Your point is worthless.

Secondarily - liberals fear gun nuts. They demonize gun nuts. The media wants you scared of gun nuts. The picture painted is a "Tea Party" republican gathering up a bunch of weaponry and putting it in their weapons room.

The problem is - NONE OF THESE PEOPLE EVER GO ON SHOOTING RAMPAGES. None. Never. Never, never, never. Did I say never?

There are hundreds of thousands of AR15s in America. We live in Alabama - the land of the gun loving redneck. Yet when we have a mass killing - it's a democrat Yankee female with one pistol. The kid in Colorado was a mentally ill science nerd (also probably a liberal). Jared Lee Loughner wasn't a gun nut. His friends said he was crazy, with 'extreme liberal' views and he got 'angry at the sight of George Bush.'

I'm not saying that to say liberals are the ones likely to carry out a mass killing. I say it to suggest that the person you all are scared of, is the LEAST likely to actually carry such an action out. Preppers, gun collectors, munitions stockpilers, and guys who go to the range all the time - they aren't the ones carrying out these acts. So why is everyone using THEM as the type we have to protect ourselves from?

[AcUmen 242]

I am a guy who loves FACTS and not media hysteria. Let's look at a few facts.

FACT #1: The VA-Tech shooter killed more people than both the Aurora shooter and the recent CT school shooter (both of them used AR-15's). What did the VA-Tech shooter use? A handgun. He killed 32.

FACT #2: The murder rate in 2011 is the lowest it has been since 1969.

FACT #3: The murder rate dropped 1.9% from 2010 to 2011.

FACT #4: The murder rate was at it's all time high from 1991-1995. This was before Columbine, Va-Tech, Ft. Hood, Gabby Giffords, Aurora, the CT shooting and about a half dozen other mass shootings.

FACT #5: The murder rate from 2000-2010 was lower than it was from '70-'80 and '80-'90 and '90-'00.

FACT #6: There were 23,040 murders in 1980. The U.S. population in 1980 was about 225 million. There were 14,612 murders in 2011. The U.S. population in 2011 was 311 million. 86 million more people in 2011, but almost 10,000 FEWER murders than in 1980.

FACT #7: There were 16,000 murders in 1970. The population was 203 million. There were 15,399 murders in 2009 with a population of 307 million. Fewer murders with over 100 million more people.

Facts about mass murder/shootings

Mass shootings are not new. Here is a list of some people who were doing it well before Columbine (which happened in 1999).

1) 1927: Andrew Kehoe was one of the first school rampage killers. He was a local school board member and treasurer in Bath, Michigan. He woke up one morning, wired his home and his farm with explosives and detonated it (killing his wife and his farm animals). He then went to a local school and set explosives killing 44 people (38 children). He even waited until rescue workers showed up and detonated an explosive on them, killing several more people including himself. It is still the deadliest school rampage in US history.

2) 1928: Leung Ying was an immigrant Chinese farm worker in California. He was high on cocaine and went to the farm and killed 11 co-workers and residents. Committed suicide in prison.

3) 1949: Howard Unruh killed 13 in a mass shooting in Camden, NJ. He did this with a German Luger pistol. Was deemed unfit to stand trial.

4) 1966: Charles Whitman was the famous "bell tower shooter." He was a former Marine who took a rifle to the University of Texas and killed 15 people in 1966. He was killed by Police. Whitman's autopsy found a brain tumor, which are known to cause psychotic symptoms in some people.

5) 1982: Carl Robert Brown was a school teacher who went into a machine shop in Hialeah, Florida and killed 8 workers with a shotgun. Brown was mad about the bill for his lawnmower. He was killed by bystanders on scene.

6) 1984: James Huberty killed 23 at a McDonald's near San Diego, CA. Killed by police on scene.

7) 1986: Patrick Sherrill was a postal worker who killed 14 people at his workplace in Oklahoma. He is responsible for popularizing the phrase "going postal." Sherrill committed suicide on scene.

8) 1989: Joseph Wesbecker killed 8 people in a mass shooting in Louisville, KY in 1989 at his former workplace. He committed suicide on scene.

9) 1990: George Hennard walked into a restaurant in Killeen, TX and killed 21. Committed suicide on scene.

10) 1990: James Pough killed 11 at a General Motors car loan center in Jacksonville, FL. Committed suicide on scene.

Sources:

1) FBI crime stats 1991-2011. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

2) Disaster Center crime stats (goes back to 1960) http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

3) Andrew Keyhoe story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Kehoe

4) Charles Whitman story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

5) Wikipedia list of rampage killers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

[leglessdan 1,934]

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4876880336257056&pid=15.1

THIS IS WHO WE NEED TO BE WORRIED ABOUT. NOT THE TYPE OF WEAPON.(NOTICE HE HAS A PISTOL) IT'S THE CULTURE.

[leglessdan 1,934]

[homersapien 11,373]

What is the purpose of civilians owning assault weapons with 30 round mags? None. I don't have an issue with handguns even Glocks were targeted to reduce magazine sizes. Although you can still buy high capacity clips. Why the fixation on owning assault weapons?

All weapons are assualt weapons when the intent is to assault another individual.

As in the 1790's, the basic musket was considered the "assault" weapon of it's time. When the people have their rights infringed upon the government rarely stops at just one thing. Automatic weapons are already illegal. Next, the government wants to restrict magazine size.....next it will be semi-auto....until finally it's handguns and shotguns.

When will people learn that bad people do bad things and the tools they use doesn't keep them from being bad people. Oklahoma City comes to mind.

No, you are wrong.

While all weapons - or tools for that matter - can be used to assault other people, they were not designed for that. They were designed for hunting or self-defense.

Assault weapons were designed specifically for high intensity military combat which emphasizes effect and rate of fire, including the necessity of re-loading. There is no justifiable civilian use for them. One does not require a 30 round magazine to defend oneself.

Would you draw a line anywhere? I seems you resent the automatic weapons regulations. How about hand grenades?

The guns sold to civilians are not military grade weapons. These weapons fire a single shot with each pull of the trigger. Military weapons fire a three round burst with each pull and have a selector switch for full auto. As others have said if you limit magazine capacity people will only carry more mags . Or more guns if you take away magazine fed weapons. Also you can obtain grenades with a 200 dollar tax stamp on each one purchased and then proof that each has been expended once it has been used.

Please, don't make trivial distinctions between military issue and military "style". It's insulting.

And to my point, I seriously doubt just anyone can buy a grenade - even with a $200 stamp. Regardless, I thought my question was obvious - should grenades be as accessible as a Bushmaster (for example)?

It is insulting that you and most of the other people spouting assault rifles must be banned don't know the difference. The round fired by a 223 is not even the same as the 5.56 nato round used by the military. While it is safe to fire 223 ammo in a rifle chambered for 5.56 nato the reverse is not the case. Due to the fact 223 cartridge is shorter and the 5.56 nato round would be in contact the firing pin in a 223 chamber. They already are harder to access than a rifle. But I don't really care about ease of access since if the desire is there to get them. It can be done legally or not.

Anyone who really thinks that is a significant distinction is too dumb to be insulted.

[homersapien 11,373]

As to those who can't see the use of these weapons or high capacity magazines in civilian hands. I would point to things like Katrina, the LA riots, or any other various instances when the rule of law breaks down. When the police aren't coming and single person may be faced with a mob of people. In which case these weapons are extremely useful for one to have around.

Nice apocalyptic fantasy you have there. Except in the real world, a pump shotgun would be no less (extremely) useful than an assault rifle. (Unless your fantasy includes zombies)

:homer:/>

So you are admitting a shotgun is as dangerous as an assault rifle?

Certainly not.

I am saying that a shotgun is just as effective in repelling a bunch of looters (who are undoubtedly black in your fantasy)

Yep can't win the argument pull the race card. If as you said it is just as effective in repelling looters. Then it would be just as effective in a classroom of kids doing what this guy did.

Oh I am sorry. It must be zombies in your particular fantasy.

[homersapien 11,373]

Second, drop the alcohol, driving, abortion arguments. They make you sound like, well, let's just say someone who is not real intelligent. This thread is about "gun control". If you have to talk about drunk driving or smoking or abortion, start a thread on it.

So I don't sound intelligent because I use logical comparisons?

:-\

"Logical comparisons"?

Lets not regulate guns because people are dying in auto accidents?

That is logical only to the irrational.

[leglessdan 1,934]

I'm really getting sick of people pulling the race card and calling people racists in here. Those that do it make this society stagnant. Pitiful.

[homersapien 11,373]

I'm really getting sick of people pulling the race card and calling people racists in here. Those that do it make this society stagnant. Pitiful.

I am getting really sick of people talking about the "race card". You can't tell me that many people who are fantasying about mowing down raging rioters in New Orleans are "seeing" black people in their vision.

But then, like I said, I could be mistaken. Maybe you are one of the few who see zombies.

Regardless it has nothing to do with my arguments so it is hardly playing a "card". Find something else to rescue your case.