Gun Control Anyone?

[Master Shake]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Can you define what an "assault rifle" is, according to the expired "Assault Rifle" ban?

The reason I ask is, most people who are against "assault rifles", don't have a clue what they actually are.

They don't have a clue because they get their information from TV.

[vt]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

http://lewrockwell.com/sowell/sowell123.html

Ideas to avert further tragedies:

Some have proposed arming teachers. Of course many, being more liberal, dislike guns. Why no fill open teaching positions with out of work military veterans? They definitely have the training with weapons, and know how to tell enemy from friend.

The war on handguns is a war on women. How many women would be protected from rape and murder by having a small handgun in their purse.

Assault weapons and hgh capacity magazines are another matter. That will certainly be addressed soon. The desire for these weapons is driven by far more than the concern over protecting the home against criminals. It is driven by fear of tyrannny of a repressive dictatorship. Our country was populated by people fleeing repression and tyranny, and still is. Citizens fear government and crime.

[bpr]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Bullshit. Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens is cowardly and intellectually feeble-minded. Last week, a madman armed with a knife killed 20+ schoolkids in China.

Bullshit: last week a madman armed with a knife wounded 20+ schoolkids in China.

Only seven of the children were hospitalized, none fatally wounded. (link)

From a legislative perspective, there is no argument that a no-firearm law wouldn't decrease the number of deaths in such a situation: its 0-26.

The several hundred million firearms are capable of being confiscated. Even yours. ESPECIALLY YOURS.

From a practical perspective, you have all convinced yourselves that firearms are good and therefore any such legislation should be off the table.

I can't believe you've all had this discussion for this many days and have come to this conclusion. You're all sick. Even Shiny, who wants us to teach our children to fire weapons because eventually they might have to.

That's f'ing sick. You may think that's the world we live in, but it's f'ing sick.

I'm almost 40, a pacifist, and I've only held a gun once -- in taking it away from another who had it turned on himself. I have no desire to hold one again, and will never teach my children to hold one.

Call me what you will, but I'm an American disgraced by the fear and lack of civility in my country. All you military retirees fought real hard so I wouldn't have to hold a gun, right? So me and my family could have a safe place to live without being armed and on the ready? Isn't that freedom?

Freedom to me isn't having an armed guard everywhere I go. It's going without the need to be armed.

EDIT: I know this is difficult, but try to imagine your point of view from someone who has never held a gun, never gone to a firing range, never went hunting... This event in Connecticut, regardless of your affinity for the "American hunter," or the "Wild West," or whatever illogical connection you have made between "Freedom" and the firearm, was caused and facilitated by the availability of firearms right here in the U.S. And said availability reduces my ability to raise children in an anti-violence pacifist manner.

I am at odds with a number of family members as well on this issue, but the ultimate question remains: is freedom attained by holding a weapon, or by releasing it? My belief is that it is the latter.

[bpr]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

BuckarooBanzai, please think like a grownup in your response.

I know you don't personally treat firearms like a toy, and I know that you don't personally advocate the kind of violence that's been carried out here.

But I ask you to enter the grownup mind of someone who has no interest, will, or knowledge of firearms.

And I ask you to recognize that there are grownup people out there with an interest, a will, and knowledge of and access to firearms with ill intent.

Does such a person have a place in this republic? Does the will of a person who is viscerally opposed to firearms, have no place in this discussion?

I have not heard this voice and claim it.

I don't care if it's a Sig Sauer or a .38 Special or an AR-15.

I simply don't want to live in a country where you - YOU, Buckaroo - or anyone - "grownup" or not - can buy it.

I'm on the radical left side of this debate, but we - the pacifists - can safely claim no political victories and no children's blood due to our beliefs.

Go ahead, justify the need for Bushmasters and Sig Sauers and Glocks in the hands of ordinary citizens, and not law enforcement officials and military.

That said, caliber needs to be considered. If y'all are so concerned that you need to be packing every time you go to the supermarket, then you should probably be packing .22s.

In any case, I'm beginning to think that there are safer places to raise a family, like, maybe Afghanistan.

EDIT: Oh, and please explain to me how more stringent gun laws would result in higher casualties because folks woudn't have weapons to draw at all times; because China has more stringent gun laws and just had a real similar attack, except no one died. Yeah, that's right, NO ONE DIED. Not one teacher. Not one student. Bunch of knife holes in them, but no one died.

[jpatter666]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

"I simply don't want to live in a country where you - YOU, Buckaroo - or anyone - "grownup" or not - can buy it."


What are you going to do when anyone can just print it?

http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/16/gun-control/

[jpatter666]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

EDIT: Oh, and please explain to me how more stringent gun laws would result in higher casualties because folks woudn't have weapons to draw at all times; because China has more stringent gun laws and just had a real similar attack, except no one died. Yeah, that's right, NO ONE DIED. Not one teacher. Not one student. Bunch of knife holes in them, but no one died.

I understand where you are coming from, but is this really relevant? Violence is violence -- those students could well have died and everyone in the gun attack could have been only wounded.

"In less than two months, China has seen six cases of men charging into schools and kindergartens to kill and hurt children. On April 28, 29, and 30, there was one incident per day in three separate cities. On Wednesday, a man with a cleaver killed seven children and two adults in a central China kindergarten, while on Saturday the man behind the April 29 attack was sentenced to death for stabbing 29 children in an eastern province. The situation has become not only very dark, but very surreal."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ing-spree.html

[c1ue]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Frankly to assert that without guns, fewer would have died is probably true but irrelevant. Lakedaemonian can speak to this better, but IMO this guy was a pretty good shooter. The wounded/dead ratio was very low - most of the time most people get wounded and are saved by the paramedics.

Just because in the China knife incident, no one died it doesn't mean future incidents will be the same.

For one thing, knives aren't the only way. Are we forgetting that 3000 people died when 2 airplanes hijacked with box cutters slammed into their building?

In Japan, where guns are largely prohibited and very few people have access, a cult managed to whip up Sarin gas and killed 13 in the subway. Fortunately they weren't terribly competent nor was their Sarin particularly potent - as tens of thousands or millions travel via Tokyo subways every day. There are all sorts of ways to kill a lot of people if you really try at it. Prohibiting all guns might raise the barrier in one aspect, but that leaves all the other ways open. How about ramming a hijacked tanker truck of gasoline into a school bus? Or a high school football game?

And as I noted before - IMO a large reason why this is occurring is because it is increasingly 'acceptable' in the 'everyone's talking about it' sense to do such things.

All the stupid crap you see people do on reality shows in order to 'be a star' - that same quest for fame/the attention of millions, even for just a few minutes, can seem pretty attractive to certain types.

[LorenS]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

EDIT: Oh, and please explain to me how more stringent gun laws would result in higher casualties because folks woudn't have weapons to draw at all times; because China has more stringent gun laws and just had a real similar attack, except no one died. Yeah, that's right, NO ONE DIED. Not one teacher. Not one student. Bunch of knife holes in them, but no one died.

Grown ups realize that most victims of violence are victims of government employees or organized rebellion. Blaming guns for violence is popular with the gun haters, but that works no better than blaming the holocaust on poison gas. If you are a pacifist you still don't get off the hook for violence you enable.

Our troops in Iraq are coming back with horrific wounds. The gunshots can usually be sewn up, the blown off limbs can be replaced with prosthetics, but the mangled skin and brain injuries have no good treatment, leaving our troops disfigured and permanently mentally diminished.

China is one of the worst offenders for government sanctioned violence against it's own people. Would you trade your freedom of expression Tienanmen Square style justice?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HG21Ad01.html

You see, the world is not bundled into neat little packages that you get to choose from. Life is not multiple choice. Decisions have consequences.

[unlucky]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Grown ups realize that most victims of violence are victims of government employees or organized rebellion. Blaming guns for violence is popular with the gun haters, but that works no better than blaming the holocaust on poison gas. If you are a pacifist you still don't get off the hook for violence you enable.

Our troops in Iraq are coming back with horrific wounds. The gunshots can usually be sewn up, the blown off limbs can be replaced with prosthetics, but the mangled skin and brain injuries have no good treatment, leaving our troops disfigured and permanently mentally diminished.

China is one of the worst offenders for government sanctioned violence against it's own people. Would you trade your freedom of expression Tienanmen Square style justice?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HG21Ad01.html

You see, the world is not bundled into neat little packages that you get to choose from. Life is not multiple choice. Decisions have consequences.

It's not about blaming guns for violence. It's about noting that the people who are to blame for violence, will be able to kill more people more frequently if they have easier access to more deadly weapons. Guns are dangerous and the government is entitled to regulate access to them in the interest of public safety. The same is true of knives, which are also regulated in most (all?) western countries.

[raja]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Really???? In Britain after their gun ban it was common for criminals to ram a building with a large vehicle in order to gain access to the unarmed occupants.

I doubt that criminals would expect breaking into an elementary school a profitable endeavor. First-graders are not known for carrying lot's of cash.

I doubt that there is even one case of a nut-job massacre at a school where the perp drove through the entrance.

In Denver a guy shot the security guards and ran through the metal detectors.

Notice that in my post I referred to metal detectors outside of the inner, locked entrance door.
The inner door is only opened after passing successfully through the metal detector.

Besides, you can always set a large portion of the building on fire, trigger a gas leak, break a water main..... then the occupants must exit and the glass/doors are irrelevant.

I don't think you have a future as a massacre-perp.

Set the building on fire?
All the schoolbuildings I see are brick . . . it would be a slow burn. And even if it were a wooden structure, with a 911 call the police would be there in 5 minutes to shoot the perp, and the kids could exit in time.

A gas leak?
It would have to be on an outside line, in which case the gas would rapidly disperse into the surrounding air, and igniting it would not cause a big problem.

Death by broken water line?

Just like posting an armed security guard at the front door is basically putting a target on the guy's chest.

That's what they're paid for.
However, in reality I think if the nut-jobs knew they'd have to face an armed defender rather than a bunch of unarmed teachers and school children, the incidence of school massacres would be far lower.

Navy seals could probably come up with some workable ideas for school security. Politicians usually end up making things worse (and why not, they're in the business of exploiting problems, not solving them).

At last . . . something we can agree on . . . . .

[LorenS]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

It's about noting that the people who are to blame for violence, will be able to kill more people more frequently if they have easier access to more deadly weapons.

So why on earth do you want to concentrate those weapons in the hands of those most likely to use them for that very purpose?

[raja]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Freedom to me isn't having an armed guard everywhere I go. It's going without the need to be armed.

Making guns illegal will NOT give you the freedom to live your life without the need of being armed . . . if by that you mean being SAFE from violence.
Criminals will always have access to guns through the black market.
Only the better behaved members of the community will obey the anti-gun laws.

The gun can be a protector of the non-violent.
It can prevent a weaker victim from being injured by a stronger assailant.
If a BIG drug-crazed criminal enters your home, you can stop him from harming you or your family with a gun, whether he is armed with a gun, a knife or a club.
If you pass anti-gun laws, you lose that protection.
I don't care if you voluntarily choose to forgo that protection for youself and your family, but don't tell me I can't have it.

As the global economy continues it inexorable slide into depression and poverty, crime will rise.
I'm glad that I have guns to protect me from those who wish to do me harm.

[unlucky]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

So why on earth do you want to concentrate those weapons in the hands of those most likely to use them for that very purpose?

I don't have a problem with people keeping guns for self-defence, but personally I would prefer if they kept single shot manual loading models. If I learned that a neighbor of mine kept a semi-automatic rifle with multiple large ammo clips (as this boy's mum apparently did), I would be concerned. Even if I knew that he was e.g. a sports shooter who likes large clips to minimize re-loading, the presence of such a weapon would be a matter of concern to me.

[LorenS]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Notice that in my post I referred to metal detectors outside of the inner, locked entrance door.
The inner door is only opened after passing successfully through the metal detector.

Um, you just shoot your way through it, just like the guy in Denver. You don't need to "pass" the metal detector. Or, you use your Chevy Impala to break a brick wall in the back and bypass this annoyance altogether.

I doubt that criminals would expect breaking into an elementary school a profitable endeavor. First-graders are not known for carrying lot's of cash.

??????

I doubt that there is even one case of a nut-job massacre at a school where the perp drove through the entrance.

Only because they didn't have to. It's not like these guys invent obstacles to slow themselves down.

I don't think you have a future as a massacre-perp.

Set the building on fire?



Death by broken water line?

Thanks, I'll take that as a compliment. But you obviously don't get the point (see below). I'll use a real example so I'm not accused of giving idiots "ideas". Unfortunately in order to convince people of the flaws in their security plans you have to show how they can be defeated. I'm only rebutting the obviously flawed ideas, if it's good enough to deter a significant portion of the prospective threats I'd not comment in public.

As they arrived, Golden pulled the fire alarm while Johnson took the weapons to the woods outside of the school. Golden then ran back to the woods where Johnson had taken the weapons. When children and teachers filed out of the school, the two boys opened fire.

Get it now?

However, in reality I think if the nut-jobs knew they'd have to face an armed defender rather than a bunch of unarmed teachers and school children, the incidence of school massacres would be far lower.

Perhaps you're beginning to see my point? Why legislate unarmed teachers? As I look back to my childhood I can count on one hand the teachers I wouldn't trust with a gun and most of them hated guns anyway.



When you guys get your 10 round magazine limit it won't work (it didn't last time either). You know it, I know it. Next you'll be after anything "automatic". That won't work either. Then you'll be after "sniper" rifles, "Saturday night specials", pump shotguns, revolvers and anything "cheap". It still won't work nor will a the total gun ban, so knives will be next and around that same time "hate speech" will come up as a prosecutable crime. We'll still have "too much violence" so the trouble makers will be "preemptively detained" and the police state will be complete. Of course it's all for a good cause, so we shouldn't complain (in fact it will be illegal). But, hey, if a majority votes for it it can't be wrong.... can it?

[unlucky]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

When you guys get your 10 round magazine limit it won't work (it didn't last time either). You know it, I know it. Next you'll be after anything "automatic". That won't work either. Then you'll be after "sniper" rifles, "Saturday night specials", pump shotguns, revolvers and anything "cheap". It still won't work nor will a the total gun ban, so knives will be next and around that same time "hate speech" will come up as a prosecutable crime. We'll still have "too much violence" so the trouble makers will be "preemptively detained" and the police state will be complete. Of course it's all for a good cause, so we shouldn't complain (in fact it will be illegal). But, hey, if a majority votes for it it can't be wrong.... can it?

The line has to be drawn somewhere. Right now heavy machine guns and RPGs are illegal in the US.