Shooting in Conn. School

[quote name='berzirk']Not sure why people keep saying fully automatic weapons are illegal to possess. They aren't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_the_AK-47#In_the_United_States[/QUOTE]

Can you point out where in that article it states its legal to own fully automatic guns? All I see is this:

In 1986, an amendment called the Firearm Owners Protection Act stopped all future domestic manufacturing of fully automatic weapons for civilian use (non-military/non-LEO). Fully automatic weapons are still manufactured in the US for military and law enforcement use. However, automatic firearms manufactured domestically prior to 1986 or imported prior to 1968 may be transferred between civilians in accordance with federal, state and local law. A number of Soviet and PRC rifles were brought into the U.S. during the mid-1960s, when returning Vietnam veterans brought them home after capture from enemy troops. Some of these were properly registered during the amnesty period under the 1968 NFA law.

Basically stating that only vintage/antique automatic guns can be legally owned.
 
[quote name='winterice']We should have a one pull one bullet law. It would make every gun have the same firing rate of a revolver. I've never shot a gun before but wouldn't the index finger be tired by the tenth or so bullet? Even if the index finger doesn't tired easily, I think the delay of having to pull the trigger every time would help.[/QUOTE]
Um, I can say it wouldn't be. You could fire an entire magazine from an AR-15 as fast as you can pull the trigger and not be tried.
 
I prefer a tragedy to be politicized as quickly as possible. Why delay the inevitable?

Americans have proven that they are willing to give up rights to feel more secure when they really are not more secure. While it will not happen this cycle, I think a few more elementary school shootings and we'll have European-style gun control within 20 years. This is especially likely what with the changing demographics of the nation and the fact that the Republican party is on the way out.

I do not think it will fix anything, though. I don't think the national conversation we are having will lead to any solutions.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']While I disagree with the idea of *never* discussing the policies leading up to an event like this, I think it's entirely reasonable to stick with a cooling-off time so that decisions and discussions aren't based off emotion.[/QUOTE]

fuck that. We have a cooling off period- it's called the legislative process.
 
We need to start a vs gambling pool, because I could have called this thread before it was started.
 
Berzirks confusion is actually understandable. The Ak47 is frequently used as the whipping boy in & by gun control advocates as most people associate it with automatic weapons- nevermind that >99% of all AK47s and Kalashnikov variants in the US are semi-automatic weapons.

I've been around guns, gun-shows and the "gun culture" all my life and, in 20+ years, with many family members collecting paramilitary weapons and class III arms- and I have never even seen a transferable class III automatic AK47 (read: an automatic AK47, made pre-1986, that a civilian with the right licenses, federal stamps, and background check could legally buy).

It's a sinister looking weapon, inspiring thoughts of soviet era oppressors and modern day terrorists- its reality a "civilian owned automatic weapon" is much less of a reality. It not hyperbole to say it is easier for a us citizen to buy a surplus military fighter jet than a class III automatic AK47, and selling in the tens of thousands of dollars it's nearly as affordable.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Can you point out where in that article it states its legal to own fully automatic guns? All I see is this:

In 1986, an amendment called the Firearm Owners Protection Act stopped all future domestic manufacturing of fully automatic weapons for civilian use (non-military/non-LEO). Fully automatic weapons are still manufactured in the US for military and law enforcement use. However, automatic firearms manufactured domestically prior to 1986 or imported prior to 1968 may be transferred between civilians in accordance with federal, state and local law. A number of Soviet and PRC rifles were brought into the U.S. during the mid-1960s, when returning Vietnam veterans brought them home after capture from enemy troops. Some of these were properly registered during the amnesty period under the 1968 NFA law.

Basically stating that only vintage/antique automatic guns can be legally owned.[/QUOTE]

1986 is vintage or antique? You must be young.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

"In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the ATF. About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)"

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/identification-of-nfa-firearms.html

Let me know if your Google is still broken and I can probably find more links.
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']Berzirks confusion is actually understandable. The Ak47 is frequently used as the whipping boy in & by gun control advocates as most people associate it with automatic weapons- nevermind that >99% of all AK47s and Kalashnikov variants in the US are semi-automatic weapons.

I've been around guns, gun-shows and the "gun culture" all my life and, in 20+ years) with many family members collecting paramilitary weapons and class III arms- and I have never even seen a transferable class III automatic AK47 (read: an automatic AK47, made pre-1986, that a civilian with the right licenses, federal stamps, and background check could legally buy).

It's a sinister looking weapon, inspiring thoughts of soviet era oppressors and modern day terrorists- it's reality a "civilian owned automatic weapon" is much less of a reality. It not hyperbole to say it is easier for a us citizen to buy a surplus military fighter jet than a class III automatic AK47, and selling in the tens of thousands of dollars it's nearly as affordable.[/QUOTE]

I merely used it as a commonly known assault rifle. I have shot one multiple times, have a handful of friends that own them, all semi-auto. To convert them to full auto is very easy, but highly illegal. Additionally, there is a technique called bump firing which uses the recoil of the gun to cycle the next round, allowing for burst or full-auto-like results.

I'm no gun expert, but I am mildly familiar with them too. Wish I would've bought an Ak a few years back when they were a couple hundred bucks cheaper. Dependable, cool looking, and fun to shoot. Whether I think they should be legal, is not that relevant.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I bet he had high capacity magazines.[/QUOTE]

No doubt about it. Has it been confirmed that he used an assault rifle, most places are reporting that it was strictly handguns being used.
 
For clarification, we understood that you posted the link to justify your statement that "automatic weapons" were not "banned."

Convert one to full auto and show me how "easy" it is- maybe you posses the machining & mechanical skills to do so- and also posses a lower receiver that has not been built to prevent its conversion.

It's "easy" in the same sense to make your own home-built suppressor, put together a fully automatic grease gun in your garage, print a plastic fully automatic lower receiver with a photo-polymer printer. How often is that done?

I've fired automatic weapons, my family even owned a few growing up, and I have bump fired ARs- IME comparing them is laughable in terms of functionality, control and use.

[quote name='soulvengeance']No doubt about it. Has it been confirmed that he used an assault rifle, most places are reporting that it was strictly handguns being used.[/QUOTE]

Assault weapon, assault rifle- potato, tomato. Interchangeable.
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']


Assault weapon, assault rifle- potato, tomato. Interchangeable.[/QUOTE]

Okay, not really sure what you're getting at, I just wanted to know if he just used handguns or not.
 
[quote name='soulvengeance']Okay, not really sure what you're getting at, I just wanted to know if he just used handguns or not.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for reenforcing my point.
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']
Convert one to full auto and show me how "easy" it is- maybe you posses the machining & mechanical skills to do so- and also posses a lower receiver that has not been built to prevent its conversion.

It's "easy" in the same sense to make your own home-built suppressor, put together a fully automatic grease gun in your garage, print a plastic fully automatic lower receiver with a photo-polymer printer. How often is that done?
[/QUOTE]

I don't even own one, so couldn't explain mechanically what you need to do. I'm going off of the word of a few of the owners. Two of them build cars for fun, so I would assume that for those who are mechanically inclined it's much easier than it would be if I tried.

I've fired automatic weapons, my family even owned a few growing up, and I have bump fired ARs- IME comparing them is laughable in terms of functionality, control and use.
Click to expand...

Not trying to say bump firing is the same as full auto, more mentioning it because people seem to think semi-auto is too hard to fire quickly, which of course is ridiculous. Hell, I'd wager that if I ever tried to fire auto, I'd barely be able to aim the damn thing down range.

Anyhoo, long story short, full auto weapons are legal to own despite what others are saying, and a vast majority of assault rifles are semi-auto only. I'm not sure we disagree. Help me out if I'm wrong.
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']Thank you for reenforcing my point.[/QUOTE]

Geez, it's impossible to get a straight answer from anyone around here. Did he use only the Sig and Glock HANDGUN or did he also use the Bushmaster M4 Carbine RIFLE. I'm trying to explain to someone else how a ban on assault rifles is pointless because handguns are also semiauto. Do I need to be more specific, or will that do?
 
[quote name='berzirk']I don't even own one, so couldn't explain mechanically what you need to do. I'm going off of the word of a few of the owners. Two of them build cars for fun, so I would assume that for those who are mechanically inclined it's much easier than it would be if I tried.

Not trying to say bump firing is the same as full auto, more mentioning it because people seem to think semi-auto is too hard to fire quickly, which of course is ridiculous. Hell, I'd wager that if I ever tried to fire auto, I'd barely be able to aim the damn thing down range.

Anyhoo, long story short, full auto weapons are legal to own despite what others are saying, and a vast majority of assault rifles are semi-auto only. I'm not sure we disagree. Help me out if I'm wrong.[/QUOTE]

My point was more that you are feeding and perpetuating myths, distortions, and misinformation- e.g. AK47 = automatic weapon, easy full-auto conversions, bump fire ≈ full-auto, splitting hairs of a de facto ban vs an absolute ban.

Indeed- meet enough standards, pass the scrutiny, pay the BATFE, and come up with a few tens of thousands of dollars and you can buy a stamp and a transferable automatic weapon. How often are they used in committing crimes? Why conflate the issue when your motives are the opposite?

VS, damn.
 
[quote name='berzirk']I don't even own one, so couldn't explain mechanically what you need to do. I'm going off of the word of a few of the owners. Two of them build cars for fun, so I would assume that for those who are mechanically inclined it's much easier than it would be if I tried.



Not trying to say bump firing is the same as full auto, more mentioning it because people seem to think semi-auto is too hard to fire quickly, which of course is ridiculous. Hell, I'd wager that if I ever tried to fire auto, I'd barely be able to aim the damn thing down range.

Anyhoo, long story short, full auto weapons are legal to own despite what others are saying, and a vast majority of assault rifles are semi-auto only. I'm not sure we disagree. Help me out if I'm wrong.[/QUOTE]

Yes full auto guns that were brought back from Vietnam are still in circulation. A whopping 120,000 (according to your statistic). Any guess on how many handguns are kicking around? The NRA estimated that there are 250 million guns in the united states (only 15% of which are semi-automatic)... should we really be worried about those 27+ year old legally owned automatic guns?

Also you should watch out for those people lugging around the Maxim Gun. Nothing says full auto like an 1884 American made machine gun (and yes that counts towards the 120,000).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_gun

Lastly since you are so concerned about automatic weapons when was the last mass murder committed by someone that legally owned an fully automatic weapon?
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']My point was more that you are feeding and perpetuating myths, distortions, and misinformation- e.g. AK47 = automatic weapon, easy full-auto conversions, bump fire ≈ full-auto, splitting hairs of a de facto ban vs an absolute ban.

Indeed- meet enough standards, pass the scrutiny, pay the BATFE, and come up with a few tens of thousands of dollars and you can buy a stamp and a transferable automatic weapon. How often are they used in committing crimes? Why conflate the issue when your motives are the opposite?

VS, damn.[/QUOTE]

...one of my links already mentions that full autos have almost never been used in crimes. I've already explained where my link to the AK wiki page wasn't to use it as a taboo firearm. I wish I had one. Don't want to pay what they're selling them for these days.

It seems like you're trying hard to find someone to argue with. I'm sure there's a better website or poster for that, but I've been clear enough in everything I've stated that if you're still trying to find ways to disagree, I've either lost interest, or am not smart enough to figure out what they are.
 
Mandatory ballistics fingerprinting won't stop tragedies like this from happening, but they should reduce the number of daily gun-related deaths significantly by virtue of vastly improving the ability to identify the shooter.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Yes full auto guns that were brought back from Vietnam are still in circulation. A whopping 120,000 (according to your statistic). Any guess on how many handguns are kicking around? The NRA estimated that there are 250 million guns in the united states (only 15% of which are semi-automatic)... should we really be worried about those 27+ year old legally owned automatic guns?

Also you should watch out for those people lugging around the Maxim Gun. Nothing says full auto like an 1884 American made machine gun (and yes that counts towards the 120,000).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_gun

Lastly since you are so concerned about automatic weapons when was the last mass murder committed by someone that legally owned an fully automatic weapon?[/QUOTE]

Oh...OK...so you're admitting they aren't illegal after saying they were, and you're agreeing with my position that they're rare and seldom used in crimes.

I AM VERY ANGRY AND WILL POST THAT I DISAGREE WITH YOU!

Sorry, that's the most sincerity I could muster. You too, seem to be agreeing with me. I'm not sure if I should be flattered or embarassed.

Shit-sake, it's like you guys failed to read my first post where I say I'm pretty heavily pro-gun. This is one of the few times where I'm wondering where in the hell the guys that accuse me of being just right of Bachmann, and just left of Karl Rove are.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Ah, and we've already had News Media throwing around the Twitter/Facebook accounts of people with the same name as the shooter. Pretty good shit, but let's see if we can't up the class a little bit more?

7sEMW.png


HldnF.png

Yes. Yes, thank you, American Family Association's "Director of Issues Analysis". Thank you for existing.[/QUOTE]

Same dude: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...es-shooting-in-CT-on-lack-of-prayer-in-school
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Mandatory ballistics fingerprinting won't stop tragedies like this from happening, but they should reduce the number of daily gun-related deaths significantly by virtue of vastly improving the ability to identify the shooter.[/QUOTE]

It's a neat idea but in the end useless.
Running a stiff metal bristled brush through a rifled barrel changes the "bullet fingerprint" significantly enough that it negates a bullet fingerprint database. The simple act of thoroughly cleaning a gun between shots renders those useless. It's good between a few shots- matching bullets from different crime scenes to a single weapon a few says apart but in that regard only.

Edit: To: Berzirk- Again, while we agree, what I am saying is that you are making your points badly- in fact, to the arguments detriment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='berzirk']...one of my links already mentions that full autos have almost never been used in crimes. I've already explained where my link to the AK wiki page wasn't to use it as a taboo firearm. I wish I had one. Don't want to pay what they're selling them for these days.

It seems like you're trying hard to find someone to argue with. I'm sure there's a better website or poster for that, but I've been clear enough in everything I've stated that if you're still trying to find ways to disagree, I've either lost interest, or am not smart enough to figure out what they are.[/QUOTE]

I apologize in advance; I'm not trying to create friction---my girlfriend and I were having a long discussion earlier. She grew up in Waterbury CT and has very young little sisters that would be about the same age of the victims.

We were talking gun control and to me it seems like the first thought is to ban dangerous guns---you know... the ones that bad guys use on TV.

Truth is we just need tighter and more regulated all-around gun control period. All guns sales should be done through a state licensed broker. You should have to provide documentation of proof of ownership every couple of years and if you no longer have a gun (i.e. missing/stolen) you need to report that as well.

Guns should be treated like kids (well if everyone was a responsible parent). I also don't like the idea of super shopping centers like Walmart or Target selling guns but what do I really know.

I just think that we should eliminate private sales and require that EVERY gun be documented.

Are people really that nuts that they don't want the government knowing how many and what type of guns they own?
 
[quote name='GBAstar']

Are people really that nuts that they don't want the government knowing how many and what type of guns they own?[/QUOTE]

Yes. In case the government decides that they need to take away weapons from everyone, they surely will use the list to weed out the people with the most guns. Or the coolest ones anyway.
 
[quote name='soulvengeance']Yes. In case the government decides that they need to take away weapons from everyone, they surely will use the list to weed out the people with the most guns. Or the coolest ones anyway.[/QUOTE]

Insane. I don't ever see the government doing a full out ban. In fact if they do ban guns I would expect there would be some type of grandfather clause; similar to what was used with the fully automatic weapons.

I just figured people didn't want to report that information because they have several thousand dollars tied up and it would be considered (I assume) a financial asset
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Insane. I don't ever see the government doing a full out ban. In fact if they do ban guns I would expect there would be some type of grandfather clause; similar to what was used with the fully automatic weapons.
[/QUOTE]

I agree, I'm fairly pro gun for the most part, but most pro gun people see it as an all or nothing kind of deal it seems.
 
Ok, learning some things about guns today. I've always thought semi-auto meant holding down the trigger and the firing rate would be between manual firing and auto firing.

Maybe we should gimp the trigger. You know how in those old western films where they have one hand over the lever that hits the bullet. Then you make all rifles the bolt action kind. This is probably not very realistic at all.

Truthfully, I don't think this will lead to any kind of gun control law. Sad but gun control talks seem to only happen when tragedies like these happen and then we put it in the back burners after a month or so.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Mandatory ballistics fingerprinting won't stop tragedies like this from happening, but they should reduce the number of daily gun-related deaths significantly by virtue of vastly improving the ability to identify the shooter.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps, but given that most of these mass shootings are done by crazy motherfuckers who end up killing themselves during the shooting, I'm not sure how effective it'll really be.
 
Somebody told me that the guy was somehow mentally handicapped, but I can't find anything to confirm that, also that the guns used were his mother's.
 
[quote name='Clak']Somebody told me that the guy was somehow mentally handicapped, but I can't find anything to confirm that, also that the guns used were his mother's.[/QUOTE]

This is what I could find about that. Don't know if it's reliable though.

"The neighbor said that Nancy Lanza told friends that her younger son, Adam, was a troubled child with a learning disability who would often rebel against her strict teachings."

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...-identified-as-shooter-at-newtown-conn-school
 
[quote name='Clak']Somebody told me that the guy was somehow mentally handicapped, but I can't find anything to confirm that, also that the guns used were his mother's.[/QUOTE]
He shot a bunch of fucking kids...what other confirmation do you need?
 
[quote name='IRHari']Perhaps, but given that most of these mass shootings are done by crazy motherfuckers who end up killing themselves during the shooting, I'm not sure how effective it'll really be.[/QUOTE]

Well, I'm more concerned about the "mundane" (by news standards) everyday, routine gun-related killings that tend to be concentrated in certain parts of the country.

You can't stop gun-related killings, but you can minimize their impact (magazine size) and you can seek to reduce the possibility that someone who killed before will do so again. fingerprints help target specific people so they don't kill again.

Gun-related fatalities matter far more to me than the too-frequent-but-less-impactful mass killing. The CT mass killing is tragic indeed, but the murders we read in the paper and forget about the moment we turn the page are more tragic, because we don't reflect on what we, as a society, can do to reduce them.
 
[quote name='ZombieToast']He shot a bunch of fucking kids...what other confirmation do you need?[/QUOTE]
The actual type?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, I'm more concerned about the "mundane" (by news standards) everyday, routine gun-related killings that tend to be concentrated in certain parts of the country.

You can't stop gun-related killings, but you can minimize their impact (magazine size) and you can seek to reduce the possibility that someone who killed before will do so again. fingerprints help target specific people so they don't kill again.

Gun-related fatalities matter far more to me than the too-frequent-but-less-impactful mass killing. The CT mass killing is tragic indeed, but the murders we read in the paper and forget about the moment we turn the page are more tragic, because we don't reflect on what we, as a society, can do to reduce them.[/QUOTE]
Here is my thing. In my opinion, gun owners have had it easy for quite some time. We've been able to easily buy guns, and own them in a relatively irresponsible way. Now though we have things like this happening with increasing frequency, and it's getting more obvious that if we want our guns, we need to take responsibility for what they're used for. The citizens of this country have shown that many of us cannot handle firearms responsibly. Of course the constitution doesn't take that into account. Of course, the 2nd amendment makes no mention of how easy it should be to acquire a gun, or of what kind of guns we can have. If you take the context of the time into account, you can have a musket at least. As long as everyone can have at least one "arm", no right has been infringed upon. You're bearing arms, it may not be the one you'd like, or as many as you'd want, but you've got it.
 
[quote name='Clak']Here is my thing. In my opinion, gun owners have had it easy for quite some time. We've been able to easily buy guns, and own them in a relatively irresponsible way. Now though we have things like this happening with increasing frequency, and it's getting more obvious that if we want our guns, we need to take responsibility for what they're used for. The citizens of this country have shown that many of us cannot handle firearms responsibly. Of course the constitution doesn't take that into account. Of course, the 2nd amendment makes no mention of how easy it should be to acquire a gun, or of what kind of guns we can have. If you take the context of the time into account, you can have a musket at least. As long as everyone can have at least one "arm", no right has been infringed upon. You're bearing arms, it may not be the one you'd like, or as many as you'd want, but you've got it.[/QUOTE]

banning guns does nothing to stop shit like this ... a person will just bust into someone house who has guns or a place that has guns and take them and shoot people...


I can see why someone says I NEED and have a right to buy a gun

But why the hell do you have the right to buy bullet proof armor its not like the animals are going to shoot back

instead of talking about BANNING GUNS how about BANNING THE PEOPLE SO SELL THE ARMOR
 
[quote name='Clak']Here is my thing. In my opinion, gun owners have had it easy for quite some time. We've been able to easily buy guns, and own them in a relatively irresponsible way. Now though we have things like this happening with increasing frequency, and it's getting more obvious that if we want our guns, we need to take responsibility for what they're used for. The citizens of this country have shown that many of us cannot handle firearms responsibly.[/QUOTE]The low-hanging fruit is the daily gun violence which is predominantly carried out with illegally obtained weapons in places where legal gun ownership is strictly regulated, such as South Shore Chicago, to give one example. Understand that these are only homicides. Many more were wounded. Passing more laws will not prevent these incidents. In fact, by driving up the prices of firearms, you may introduce violence into the act of acquiring firearms in the first place and embedding guns more firmly into the black market, such as what is happening with drug prohibition and what has happened in the past with alcohol prohibition. We already have a black market for weapons and we would be unwise to strengthen it. After all, part of the problem with drug prohibition are the people who knock you over the head and steal your wallet in order to buy the overpriced drugs from the black market. Weapons can also be purchased in this way. Allowing prices to maintain equilibrium is a crime prevention tool.
 
[quote name='slidecage']banning guns does nothing to stop shit like this ... a person will just bust into someone house who has guns or a place that has guns and take them and shoot people...


I can see why someone says I NEED and have a right to buy a gun

But why the hell do you have the right to buy bullet proof armor its not like the animals are going to shoot back

instead of talking about BANNING GUNS how about BANNING THE PEOPLE SO SELL THE ARMOR[/QUOTE]

I'll send you a dollar in the mail if you can point to a single person in this thread who is advocating "banning guns."

The reason we can't have a discussion about reasonable gun control is because you all have been mindfucked by Wayne LaPierre to think that *any* gun control = gun grab by the fascist state.

You can yuk it up all you want about the "Dey tuk ur jerbs!" jokes on South Park, but when it comes to gun control, you all ape that shit in a way that you simply do not comprehend.
 
As someone that wants to take up shooting as a hobby(and boy did I get shit on for calling it a hobby as if that's a derogatory term), I can't help but be repulsed by the culture surrounding guns in this country. It's not enough to support gun ownership, but you have to support removing any and all regulation. A democrat got elected president, governor, mayor, or PTA and they're going to take your guns away. Or shit related to being able to open carry. I swear, it's like a goddamned cult.
 
The most recent thing I saw was that the guns -- including the assault rifle (which was apparently grandfathered in as she owned it pre 1993) -- were all legally owned and registered by the mother/teacher. So, no amount of legislation would have really mattered here.

I don't particularly have a strong opinion either way on the issue but it seems to me that more often than not its a complete non-starter in terms of whether or not it would actually prevent the various gun-related tragedies.
 
[quote name='Mooby']The most recent thing I saw was the the guns -- including the assault rifle (which was apparently grandfathered in as she owned it pre 1993) -- were all legally owned and registered by the mother/teacher. So, no amount of legislation would have really mattered here.

I don't particularly have a strong opinion either way on the issue but it seems to me that more often than not its a complete non-starter in terms of whether or not it would actually prevent the various gun-related tragedies.[/QUOTE]
Actually, legislation to ensure that they were properly secured whether by trigger locks or by safe would've gone a long way in preventing this type of tragedy along with the proper resources given to recognize and treat mental illnesses. It might be easier to secure guns than to treat mental illness, but we need to do both.

Either way, I'd still love to see your explanation as to how guns become "illegal."
 
And how on Earth do you enforce legislation like that? Random home inspections? It's one thing when a measure sounds nice on paper but quite another to have it actually yield pragmatic results.

[quote name='dohdough']

Either way, I'd still love to see your explanation as to how guns become "illegal."[/QUOTE]

Eh, I guess you're referring to comments I made several hours ago? I wasn't ducking an answer I simply got up and did something else instead of monitor this thread. How do guns become 'illegal?' You realize there are no shortage of guns that are manufactured outside of the United States, right? So, yes, there's a fairly large black market of unregistered guns flowing into this country.
 
[quote name='Mooby']And how on Earth do you enforce legislation like that? Random home inspections? It's one thing when a measure sounds nice on paper but quite another to have it actually yield pragmatic results.[/QUOTE]
Well fuck! How the hell do we enforce seatbelt laws! Kinda like how the chain of custody doesn't matter either right?:roll:
 
It blows me away to see people actually saying that armed teachers would have reduced the number of deaths or even completely stopped this. WTF!? More guns are not the answer!
 
[quote name='dohdough']Well fuck! How the hell do we enforce seatbelt laws! Kinda like how the chain of custody doesn't matter either right?:roll:[/QUOTE]


Why do you keep harping about 'chain of custody' like it's some all important buzzword. Typically the phrase refers to criminal evidence not tracking items in commerce.

And the reality is... some people don't use their seat belts. And anyone cited in violation of those laws are usually pulled over for some other form of moving violation or at a sobriety check point. Anyway, the analogy is fairly inapt. Again, the only way you'd actually see pragmatic results from a law that you propose would be to authorize random home/gun inspections and that will never fly.

People just don't want to admit that sometimes you just can't stop some tragedies from occurring.
 
[quote name='Mooby']Eh, I guess you're referring to comments I made several hours ago? I wasn't ducking an answer I simply got up and did something else instead of monitor this thread. How do guns become 'illegal?' You realize there are no shortage of guns that are manufactured outside of the United States, right? So, yes, there's a fairly large black market of unregistered guns flowing into this country.[/QUOTE]
Wut the...?

Pretend I'm the dumest motherfucker on this forum and explain this to me in as much detail as you can muster.

[quote name='Mooby']Why do you keep harping about 'chain of custody' like it's some all important buzzword. Typically the phrase refers to criminal evidence not tracking items in commerce.[/quote]
Would you prefer "records of ownership" or something? If you're uncomfortable with the term, why aren't you supplying a better one?

And the reality is... some people don't use their seat belts. And anyone cited in violation of those laws are usually pulled over for some other form of moving violation or at a sobriety check point. Anyway, the analogy is fairly inapt. Again, the only way you'd actually see pragmatic results from a law that you propose would be to authorize random home/gun inspections and that will never fly.
Click to expand...
We also don't see cops pulling someone over everytime they don't see a seatbelt, but accident statistics have shown that the law works. No one is saying that it's a perfect solution, so I don't know why you're treating like someone is promoting it as one.

People just don't want to admit that sometimes you just can't stop some tragedies from occurring.
Click to expand...
No one is saying that anything can stop ALL tragedies from happening, but that we should do things to make sure they happen as seldomly as possible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='ninju D']It blows me away to see people actually saying that armed teachers would have reduced the number of deaths or even completely stopped this. WTF!? More guns are not the answer![/QUOTE]

They're also assuming all teachers would like to be armed.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Insane. I don't ever see the government doing a full out ban. In fact if they do ban guns I would expect there would be some type of grandfather clause; similar to what was used with the fully automatic weapons.
[/QUOTE]

If the legislation regarding "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines" that was attempted to be included the last cyber security bill is to be the bench mark or foreshadow what is to come, possession would be limited exclusively to current owners with destruction/confiscation following their death. There would be no sale of what you own allowed and no transfer of the prescribed arms period.

[quote name='mykevermin']Well, I'm more concerned about the "mundane" (by news standards) everyday, routine gun-related killings that tend to be concentrated in certain parts of the country.

You can't stop gun-related killings, but you can minimize their impact (magazine size) and you can seek to reduce the possibility that someone who killed before will do so again.[/QUOTE]

Enter the limited capacity magazine fallacy. The irony is that a person who can quickly and effectively swap out a ten round magazine is more dangerous the someone wielding a weapon with a cheap high capacity magazine. It takes very little practice to learn to do so. Recent events being the best evidence- what part of his gun caused the jam allowing Loughner to be subdued? His 33 round pistol magazine according to witnesses.

What failed in James Holmes theater shooting causing him to flee?
What jammed in Jacob Roberts' rifle in the mall shooting?

As even the most novice gun owner can testify to it takes much longer to clear a jam than swap a mag.

Sickeningly, I'd rather these people equip themselves thusly than learn how to use something that is in reality far more formidable.


A "single fire" pump action shotgun with an eight round tube- every model of which can be reloaded while firing- pumping out buckshot is far more of a real threat than some attention seeking seeking mental case with a drum fed AR-15. It just lacks the allure and pop-culture draw of the weapons these guys gravitate towards.

While superficially it might seem like a good idea, hobbling "magazine capacity," is more feel good- take that NRA- nonsense than impactful legislation.

For critics who question advocates concern over the incremental creep of gun control, those who have followed the issue for a long time have watched the slippery slope in action in other Western societies that once had liberal gun ownership rights- oftentimes following highly publicized tragedies. Competitive and hobbiest pistol shooters in the UK are well versed in the "registration leads to confiscation" cliche and whether or not it's true. Aussie gun owners watched even "sporting use" (cringes at the inevitable & irrelevant concept vis-à-vis our 2nd amendment) weapons become prohibited. Mr LaPierres often asinine statements aside, it's hardly a mind-fuck.
 
[quote name='soulvengeance']They're also assuming all teachers would like to be armed.[/QUOTE]

My girlfriend asked me why the school didn't have metal detectors... and I'm not sure she realized it was just an elementary school rather then a consolidated K-12 or K-8; but either way it made me really depressed to think that it may come to a point where we have to put metal detectors in at a fucking elementary school (not that it would have fixed anything).

On another note a lot of schools in the area where I grew up do not have points of entry where you can just walk in. In fact you have to be buzzed into the school during school hours. Meaning all entrances and exits are locked and you can only gain entry through the front door after being buzzed in by someone in the main office
 
So, is mike suggesting that we do now is what the Federal Government "encouraged" movie and television shows to do in the 40's and 50's when it came to showing the Nazis losing? I.E. "encourage" these shows and movies to not show/use guns?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top