Would it be any less horrible?

Reply

  #1  
Old 12-19-12, 05:25 PM
Tolyn Ironhand's Avatar
Group Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 12,248
Would it be any less horrible?

Would it have been any less horrible if the psychopath in Newtown, CT killed 10 people instead of 26? Based on the the rhetoric I have been hearing on the radio, which sadly is NPR for my best station for news, there is new life to reinstate the assault weapons ban and the ban of high capacity magazines. If this ban was in place, and the shooters mother could not have legally purchased the AR-15 as she did, the shooter would have had to resort to a gun, likely a pistol, with a maximum capacity of 10 rounds. So I ask again, would that have been better? Only 10 dead children instead of 20? In my opinion one murdered child is too many.

With the looming possibility of the banning of AR-15 type rifles, I decided to go to my small town local gun store and purchase myself another lower receiver, which according to the ATF is "the gun" of an AR-15 rifle and carries the serial number. This store specializes in AR type weapons and parts. The guy there told me they are sold out of 300 since last Monday! These are not complete rifles, but stripped lowers and he said that the went through 300! He has also went through 3,000 30 round mags! This is a small town gun shop in the middle of nowhere. I suspect this is the same thing going on in the rest of the country. So with this many rifles, future rifles, and high capacity mags out there, how effective do you think an assault weapons ban is going to be?

I understand the feeling of disgust, remorse, and the need to take action, but I think it would be more constructive to look at improving school security. Just as what happened to air travel after 9-11, schools need to control who enters the buildings and how. Most schools around here, anybody can just enter into a school and wander the halls, at least for a little while, before somebody confronts them and asks them what they are doing there. Many cases there are multiple points of entry as unlocked doors. Does this sound safe? Wouldn't it be more proactive to stop the psychopaths from entering the building freely in the first place, then banning the sale of weapons and magazines that are already plentiful in the US?
 
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 12-19-12, 05:48 PM
lawrosa's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,607
So I ask again, would that have been better? Only 10 dead children instead of 20?
Yes !!!

So with this many rifles, future rifles, and high capacity mags out there, how effective do you think an assault weapons ban is going to be?


You have to start somewhere. Eventually they will all come out years down the road. Offer a high price to turn in a illigal gun and you will get many IMO.

Just as what happened to air travel after 9-11, schools need to control who enters the buildings and how. Most schools around here, anybody can just enter into a school and wander the halls, at least for a little while, before somebody confronts them and asks them what they are doing there. Many cases there are multiple points of entry as unlocked doors. Does this sound safe?
What about mall, food stores. etc...or any other place many people frequent???? To try to deter any public shootings we would need security at every business that is entered.

IMO there is no need for the civilian to have an automatic weapon and/or massive clips. Hunters do not need it and self defense home protection dont need it.

Tell me why I need a AK 47 living in a Howell NJ residential neigborhood????

Because I can..........

Please dont tell me about the right to bear arms.... Did they have such weapons when that was written?

Something has to be done. If anyone out there had their child or loved one succumb to this type violence you would feel the same way,,,

Just my two cents.













 
  #3  
Old 12-19-12, 06:05 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,446
I do agree with you Tolyn Ironhand there is a need for more security. At the same time though I also question why anyone would need a gun that can fire off multiple rounds. If say you have a burglar in your house it only takes one bullet to disable or kill an intruder. If you are hunting you only need one bullet.
Several things really need to be done control the sale of assault weapons. Make sure that those who have mental illnesses are never anywhere near any type of fire arm even if they don't own that gun and that means confiscate all weapons where that person lives. If someone is really mentally off then that person needs constant care in a mental institution. Also violence being portrayed on tv from television shows needs to be toned down as there is just too much violence being portrayed on tv.
 
  #4  
Old 12-19-12, 06:23 PM
Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 424
You have to start somewhere. Eventually they will all come out years down the road. Offer a high price to turn in a illigal gun and you will get many IMO.
You will never rid the country of all guns no matter what laws are written.


IMO there is no need for the civilian to have an automatic weapon and/or massive clips. Hunters do not need it and self defense home protection dont need it.



Please dont tell me about the right to bear arms.... Did they have such weapons when that was written?


You have got to be kidding, if such weapons did exist at that time I doubt they would have been excluded. The only thing founding fathers didn't consider at the time was for society break down to the level it has.

I also find the daily murder of far more unborn children just as horrible!
 
  #5  
Old 12-19-12, 06:24 PM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 4,941
The assault weapons ban is pointless. What is an assault weapon? The last federal ban defined an assault weapon by cosmetic characteristics. What difference is made by banning a semi-automatic rifle because it looks like an automatic rifle and allowing semi-automatic rifles that don't look like an automatic rifle? Everyone should understand that and assault rifle is an automatic weapon is not legal to have in the US. Everyone should also understand that if a ban were to go into effect, none of the banned guns already owned by people would be illegal.

IMO there is no need for the civilian to have an automatic weapon and/or massive clips. Hunters do not need it and self defense home protection dont need it.
Mike, no one can legal own an automatic weapon in the US.
 
  #6  
Old 12-19-12, 06:46 PM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 4,941
Mike, no one can legal own an automatic weapon in the US.
I have to take this statement back. Upon further research, it is very difficult to own an automatic weapon in the US. Many if not most states make it illegal and/or very difficult to have one. You basically have to be law enforcement to get them in most states that allow them.
 
  #7  
Old 12-19-12, 06:51 PM
Tolyn Ironhand's Avatar
Group Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 12,248
IMO there is no need for the civilian to have an automatic weapon and/or massive clips. Hunters do not need it and self defense home protection dont need it.
First off, civilians can not have automatic weapons, without some VERY major hoops (see class 3 license) to jump through. Those hoops and the automatic weapons are VERY pricy (about $16,000 for a M-16/M4) And contrary to some peoples beliefs, you cannot easily modify an AR-15 to full auto. You need specialized parts which are also highly regulated.

The AR-15 is a semi auto rifle. So lets say we should ban all semi auto guns. There are plenty of hunting rifles and shotguns out there that are semi auto. Should those be banned?

I am a big time hunter. I use the tool that is best for the hunt. Of my three AR-15's, I have one that I use for varmint hunting, mostly prairie dogs, but I might use it for coyote at some point. The 2nd one is an M4 configuration that I like to use for target practice. The 3rd one is a 6.8mm SPC which I would like to use for either deer of wild boar. All these rifles (parts) were legally purchased from an FFL and was called in to the ATF. I do agree that better background checks, and even waiting periods, need to be done, and the mental illness issue needs to be addressed, but as I pointed out, the AR used in the shooting was more, or less, stolen.

To address the shooting in places other in schools, I suggest that carry laws need exist in all states. I, however, do not agree that teachers should have firearms in schools.

Tell me why I need a AK 47 living in a Howell NJ residential neigborhood????
You don't. Just like nobody "needs" a high performance sports car that goes 140 mph, but people buy them because that is how they choose to spend their money. If I had a child that was killed buy some yahoo going 140mph and lost control, I would not want to ban sports cars.

The AR15 is nothing more than a high performance rifle. BTW - You/I/they can buy and AK47 as well, just not full auto.
 
  #8  
Old 12-19-12, 07:19 PM
lawrosa's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,607
If I had a child that was killed buy some yahoo going 140mph and lost control, I would not want to ban sports cars.

Most likly a car will kill very few. Occupents and a few pedestrians possibly. The cars mechanicals are often stopped, no?

Would I get in a car to kill as many people as I could?

A gun on the other hand is more of a weapon of mass killings.


Lets take it on a smaller scale per country and not per person...... Who should be allowed to possess nuclear power? Do you want control over that?

Its no different IMO. Its the old adage eliminate weapons of mass destruction....


I am very open to disscussion and this is my personal opinion.

Possible its because I live in NJ and gun laws are very restrictive here.

Is there a comparison of gun laws per state vs violence?


You have got to be kidding, if such weapons did exist at that time I doubt they would have been excluded. The only thing founding fathers didn't consider at the time was for society break down to the level it has.

I also find the daily murder of far more unborn children just as horrible!
No... Im not kidding...


 
  #9  
Old 12-19-12, 07:34 PM
Tolyn Ironhand's Avatar
Group Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 12,248
So, your OK with smaller killings, say 1-10 people at a time, just not more than that? I do not condone using ANY gun for ANY crime. Regardless of the crime.

Nuclear power is not really analogous as it is not very easy to get, and enrich, plutonium/uranium. However, I can easily see things moving to bombs, similar to the Oklahoma City bombing, with or without the assault weapons ban.

Most likly a car will kill very few. Occupents and a few pedestrians possibly. The cars mechanicals are often stopped, no?
I could also easily see that happening by driving a car into a crowd. The reason that killers do not do this is they will likely not be killed, which is what they want as the outcome of the attack.
 
  #10  
Old 12-19-12, 07:51 PM
lawrosa's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,607
So, your OK with smaller killings, say 1-10 people at a time, just not more than that?

I said that? In what context? Or are you asking.....

Very interesting thread, and I do not normally get involved in such things.... But I guess it goes back to my belief on the high fructose corn syrup thing.... Uggggg... ( Inside knowledge...)

 
  #11  
Old 12-19-12, 07:58 PM
Justin Smith's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Cressona, Pa, USA
Posts: 2,546
Here's my view on all of this:

A car filled with explosives can do far more damage than any automatic rifle. Especially if it's driven into a school cafeteria.

With enough determination someone could always build a gun.

I could probably build something that can shoot and possibly kill with stuff laying around the house if I wanted to.

Disclaimer: I have no bad intentions, I'm just thinking here.
 
  #12  
Old 12-20-12, 04:53 AM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
I'm only going to interject once, then leave it alone. As stated, fully automatic weapons have been banned in the US for decades. What defines an "assault" weapon? Pistol grip? Flash suppressor? Movable butt stock? Air cooled forestock? Is it just the looks they are after? IMO, that's it. Legislators who are pushing this ban are afraid of looks. A semi automatic hunting rifle can do just as much damage as an AR or AK, it's just they are heavier.

As far as clips are concerned, I can expend 10 rounds, drop and insert a new clip in 3 seconds. Eliminating the ubiquitous 14 round clips doesn't phase the operation of a semi auto weapon one bit.

Offer a high price to turn in a illigal gun and you will get many IMO
Gun buybacks don't affect the legal owners. The government offers a paltry amount for the weapon. Just enough to encourage druggies to invade a home, steal weapons, turn them in to the government, get $50, and stick it in their arms.

I know there are geographical issues here. Closed in cities versus wide open spaces. Common sense must rule, not knee jerk reactions to an incident involving inanimate tools at the hand of someone Hell bent on destruction. The tool didn't jump off the table into his hands, whether it be a gun, knife, or hammer. THAT'S where we gotta start.
 
  #13  
Old 12-20-12, 06:39 AM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,542
The view of stockpilling guns (high powered or not) as a form of safety is what needs to change.
Too many folks believe they are safe because they own guns or big guns. It's the same as people who drive large trucks or SUVs here in the winter. If you can't drive it proper, it's no safer then driving a Smart car.
The way to change this view is the same as they have done with smoking (at least here in Canada anyway). Back a few years ago, it was socially acceptable to smoke. Now everyone frowns on you if you smoke.

They won't be able to remove the existing large clips (media refered to as mega-clips), or high powered weapons that already owned.

If they can remove the need for a single mom in an up scale neighborhood to own many guns for protection... A lot less kids will have access to these, which will remove a portion of the mass shooters out there.
 
  #14  
Old 12-20-12, 07:00 AM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
I lied. I can't help it.

Too many folks believe they are safe because they own guns or big guns
It's not the stockpiling of guns that needs to change. It is the attitude toward their use. I don't "believe" I am safe....I KNOW I am safer with weapons than waiting on dial-a-cop to respond.

Now everyone frowns on you if you smoke.
BINGO!!! No more calls folks, we have a winner!! It wasn't the banning of cigarettes that caused the reaction. It was the social stigma placed on smoking that changed attitudes. Social pressure, not regulation.

a single mom in an up scale neighborhood to own many guns for protection
What is the difference in a woman in an upscale neighborhood owning guns for protection than one in a lower scale neighborhood? Do you not view their lives worth the same? Why protect one and not the other? Along with gun ownership comes RESPONSIBILITY. You disrespect this responsibility, you are guilty of injustice, IMO.

I have misquoted the city name in previous posts, but Kennesaw (metro Atlanta), GA mandated in 1982 that all heads of households were to posess and maintain a firearm in the house. From 1982 to 2012 there have only been 4 murders, 3 of which were in Gun Free School Zones. It goes to show perps don't want to perform their deeds where they are likely to be confronted, but choose, instead, to prey on the innocent and the KNOWN area of least resistance....our schools.
 
  #15  
Old 12-20-12, 07:28 AM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,542
See I got your attention Larry.
What is the difference in a woman in an upscale neighborhood owning guns for protection than one in a lower scale neighborhood? Do you not view their lives worth the same? Why protect one and not the other? Along with gun ownership comes RESPONSIBILITY. You disrespect this responsibility, you are guilty of injustice, IMO.
I was just playing with a bit of info from the last incident (which is why this and other discussions exist). Based on the media reports (keep in mind, I'm not a local, so this is all I have for info), the neighborhood they lived in didn't sound like an area where someone would need a stockpile of weapons for protection.
Regardless of where they lived, mom had a lot of guns that her son (easily?) accessed. How many rounds or guns did mom need to protect herself?

BINGO!!! No more calls folks, we have a winner!! It wasn't the banning of cigarettes that caused the reaction. It was the social stigma placed on smoking that changed attitudes. Social pressure, not regulation.
Sounds like we have the same thought about a potential solution (or ease to the problem). Even if they changed the perseption to quality over quantity (I only need a bolt action because I'm that good of a shot ).

I'll take my winnings in 10's and 20's please.
 
  #16  
Old 12-20-12, 09:22 AM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
Yeah, and TV/Hollywood aren't helping. Gee, you see them firing 400 rounds at each other and no one gets hit. I am a firm believer in "one shot - one kill". .44 Mag rounds cost upwards to 50 cents now
 
  #17  
Old 12-20-12, 09:59 AM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,542
I personally like the .22 rounds. Aim not to kill, but give them a perminent reminder.
J/k A firearm is the last thing I'll reach for in a confrontation.
 
  #18  
Old 12-20-12, 11:38 AM
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,188
"A semi automatic hunting rifle can do just as much damage as an AR or AK, it's just they are heavier."

The same can be said about high capacity clips. One 30 round clips or two 15 round clips - how long does it take to swap a clip?

The problem is that the issue is being framed by the ignorant. Yesterday I heard Whoopi Goldberg ranting about how an assault rifle (whatever that is) can't be used for hunting " 'cause it just blows everything away" and it's no good for protection because "it will just blow down apartment walls." It's obvious that her opinion of assault rifles is baseed on TV where all the bad guys are carrying full auto AKs.

I mentioned Goldberg's comments to my wife and she agreed - with GOLDBERG! She was under the impression that the assault weapons being targeted were full auto, just like in the movies.
 
  #19  
Old 12-20-12, 11:45 AM
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,188
Typical Hollywood

Matt Damon has a new movie coming out called "Promised Land." The premise of the movie is the environmental dangers and damge caused by fracking.

The movie was partly based on reports of contaminated drinking water in Dimrock PA. Then the producers learned that those reports were fraudulently concocted by anti-fracking activists.

What did they do - they rewrote the script so that the fraud was actually perpetrated by the oil industry to discredit the anti fracking activists!

Of course Matt Damon is cute so whatever he says must be gospel.
 
  #20  
Old 12-20-12, 12:01 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,542
The problem is that the issue is being framed by the ignorant. Yesterday I heard Whoopi Goldberg ranting about how an assault rifle (whatever that is) can't be used for hunting " 'cause it just blows everything away" and it's no good for protection because "it will just blow down apartment walls." It's obvious that her opinion of assault rifles is baseed on TV where all the bad guys are carrying full auto AKs.

I mentioned Goldberg's comments to my wife and she agreed - with GOLDBERG! She was under the impression that the assault weapons being targeted were full auto, just like in the movies.
This is why celebrities (actors and singers) should not be allowed to speak after events like this.
They don't know what they are talking about, and people believe them.
 
  #21  
Old 12-20-12, 12:54 PM
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 10,022
A difficult discussion.

There's no denying the tragedy of this and other similar events, but what about the tragedies that never happened because the right person had a gun. We will never know about them and how many innocent people might have been killed.

If they pass every gun ban they want, make ownership of any gun illegal, confiscate them all, or at least all of them they can find, what is society going to do when they discover the tragedies will continue? And worse, then there would be no guns for the good guys.

Our society is in trouble, fed by an uncensored supply of violent information via the media. Why do we protect the rights of someone to publish the details on how to build a B word out of fertilizer. Tv, video games, movies, the internet are teaching an entire society that violence is more exciting, the more extreme it becomes. Thus the extreme senseless target of a school full of children.

Bud
 
  #22  
Old 12-20-12, 01:09 PM
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,188
Bud - I agree 100%. Unfortunately the ones that will be publicly pushing more gun laws are the same ones making the movies, TV shows and video games.
 
  #23  
Old 12-20-12, 01:15 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,542
If they pass every gun ban they want, make ownership of any gun illegal, confiscate them all, or at least all of them they can find, what is society going to do when they discover the tragedies will continue? And worse, then there would be no guns for the good guys.
Although we do not have an all out ban in Canada, it is a lot more controlled access. 99% of us are unarmed at any given time (outside hunting season, a lot of us outside the larger cities like to hunt).
Yes we still have gun kills, but there are less (per population I believe, but haven't confirmed), and definitely less mass shootings.

An all out ban will never happen, nor is it the option. Even gaining control of the current gun situation may be hard to do.


The rest of your post I agree with.
 
  #24  
Old 12-20-12, 01:49 PM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 4,941
Most likly a car will kill very few. Occupents and a few pedestrians possibly. The cars mechanicals are often stopped, no?
I do recall at least a couple stories of someone mowing down a crowd of people with their car and killing them. With that said, over 30,000 people died in automobiles last year. It wasn't murder, but accidents. I'm not sure what the difference between the two would be. I just read that gun deaths in the US last year were 11,000 not including suicides. Yet no one is talking about banning cars or certain types of cars. By the way, cars are the number one cause of death for children.
 
  #25  
Old 12-20-12, 02:29 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,446
I still stick to my thinking that if someone is found to later be mentally ill then the whole household has their guns confiscated. Another thing you have been hearing a bit too much of lately is young children getting guns and playing with them. In my opinion if the gun owner is or is not home no matter whether it is a rifle or pistol that fire arm should be locked up at all times except when it is in use. Some might have the excuse but what if a burglar comes in it will take time to get my gun even if he stops by my kitchen to get a snack. Not really some newer gun safes can be opened with your fingerprints and no one else can open the safe. Then too for the really wealthy there are what they call safe rooms as once you get in that room you are protected from all kinds of invading people or even a nuclear bomb attack for that matter. So in that room at least you never would need a gun if you are wealthy and have that kind of money.
 
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes