Mass shooting

[Guest Derek L]

I understand why one would want to own a hand gun. Not so clear on the Bushmaster. If you use it for hunting, I'd call you a cheater. I watched a ESPN documentary last night about Bo Jackson. He does his hunting with a Bo and Arrow. Now that's Huntin'!

One has to understand what an AR-15 clone is……….It’s not an assault rifle, those that need an assaulting rifle (i.e. military) use the “real thing”, but a self loading, semi automatic rifle, just the same as grandpas old wood stock Remington…………….

As for their utility for hunting, with their calibre being .223 REM, the actual bullet is only slightly larger then a bullet in a .22LR “plinker”, as such, they’re not an ideal gun for game larger then a dog………Hence why that calibre sized gun is referred to as a varmint gun, ideal for gophers, foxes, coyotes and wolves………Now the AR-15 family of guns, is a very accurate platform (for a semi-auto rifle) for target shooting also………..As to self-defence, it uses the exact same cartridge as the M-16, as such, many gun owners that have served in most western militaries feel comfortable with the platform’s ergonomics and the availability of the relatively cheaper ammo and spare parts…

Bushmaster’s parent company also owns Remington, that has been marketing their own AR-15 line up with the R-15 (.223) and the R-25 (.308), with the R-25 suited to larger game:

[The_Squid]

What other rights do Canadians want to take away from Americans? How about that awful "Free Speech" thing that makes banning hate speech impossible in the U.S. ?

Empty rhetoric. Obviously guns can be regulated without taking away anyone's "rights". They are already....

And it is Americans who will be making the changes. Canadians will have nothing to do with it.

Edited December 16, 2012 by The_Squid

[bush_cheney2004]

Empty rhetoric. Obviously guns can be regulated without taking away anyone's "rights". They are already....

Such "regulations" have been rolled back in D.C. and Illinois based on Supreme Court rulings. Gun owners are winning right-to-carry in more states, now a majority of the Union. "Castle Doctrine" laws are also being legislated and upheld in court.

And it is Americans who will be making the changes. Canadians will have nothing to do with it.

Canadians already have nothing to do with it, but some here still think they do.

[The_Squid]

No, an opinion does not mean the person thinks that they have a say.... It sounds like you don't know what an Internet forum is for!! Sharing opinions is kind of a large part of it....

Edited December 16, 2012 by The_Squid

[Boges]

Canadians already have nothing to do with it, but some here still think they do.

Dude you're on a Canada Politics message board. No one here has any influence on anything, that I'm aware.

People are just putting forward opinions on what they think America aught to do to prevent things like this happening again. It's called debate.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Boges

[cybercoma]

Because he enjoys guns, and is able to separate that from a mass murder, he's somehow not an example of a responsible gun owner?

Yeah. That's exactly why. You've been spending too much time justifying CPC spin. You're starting to make boneheaded statements like them.

I made it explicitly clear what the problem was. Argus too and others noticed the disgusting way they were drooling over weapons in a thread about mass murder. It was inappropriate and it's that kind of ridiculous divorce from reality that some gun owners have that give them a bad name.

[cybercoma]

A gun saved my dads life...from another gun, mind you, but still, without it, he would have been dead.

Good for your dad. The research that I've already posted in this thread shows that people who own guns are 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault or to be murdered by a gun in their own home or commit suicide using a gun, which is far more effective than other means. So your anecdotal evidence is for nothing.

[Smallc]

Yeah. That's exactly why. You've been spending too much time justifying CPC spin. You're starting to make boneheaded statements like them.

I'm not justifying any spin. Because I think you've been wrong on a few subjects lately, it doesn't mean I'm justifying spin.

I made it explicitly clear what the problem was. Argus too and others noticed the disgusting way they were drooling over weapons in a thread about mass murder. It was inappropriate and it's that kind of ridiculous divorce from reality that some gun owners have that give them a bad name.

That they drool over weapons inappropriately has nothing to do with whether or not they are responsible gun owners. That's my underlying point. I don't agree with drooling over weapons in the thread, and I think it's in poor taste.

Good for your dad. The research that I've already posted in this thread shows that people who own guns are 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault or to be murdered by a gun in their own home or commit suicide using a gun, which is far more effective than other means.

Which is nice and all, but if not for a legal gun, my dad would have been killed by an illegal gun. Pretty simple.

[Guest Derek L]

I'm not justifying any spin. Because I think you've been wrong on a few subjects lately, it doesn't mean I'm justifying spin.

Be prepared, now that you are getting your licence, you’ll be labelled as supportive of mass shootings of small children.

That they drool over weapons inappropriately has nothing to do with whether or not they are responsible gun owners. That's my underlying point. I don't agree with drooling over weapons in the thread, and I think it's in poor taste.

As I said above to another poster, please highlight were BC and myself “drooled” over guns in a “inappropriate manner”?

Context is kinda important.

[Smallc]

As I said above to another poster, please highlight were BC and myself “drooled” over guns in a “inappropriate manner”?

I'm only referring to the part where you were talking about buying ammunition. The rest of what you showed, was, as far as I'm concerned, for demonstration of stupid laws.

[Guest Derek L]

I'm only referring to the part where you were talking about buying ammunition. The rest of what you showed, was, as far as I'm concerned, for demonstration of stupid laws.

Fair enough, but said offshoot between BC and I was in respects to the fact that after such a tragedy like the recent shooting, with the ensuing cries for “gun control”, sales of guns and ammo increase radically…….In effect, raising the prices, increasing the profits of the makers, all the while further proliferating private firearms……..I would think such a result would be the opposite intended effect by the anti-gun folk.

Ironic really.

[The_Squid]

Fair enough, but said offshoot between BC and I was in respects to the fact that after such a tragedy like the recent shooting, with the ensuing cries for “gun control”, sales of guns and ammo increase radically…….In effect, raising the prices, increasing the profits of the makers, all the while further proliferating private firearms……..I would think such a result would be the opposite intended effect by the anti-gun folk.

Ironic really.

Justify it however you want. It was disgusting.

[jbg]

You've jumped the shark now. You really need them to denounce these actions? Seriously? Come'on man.

Perfect analogy. Jumping the shark occurs when someone can no longer be taken seriously. As when Fonz was shown water-skiing and jumping over a shark.

[-TSS-]

The constitutional right to bear arms stems from the 1800's when there were no such efficient automatic weapons as there are today.

[Argus]

After a plane crashes or a bridge collapses do people call for bans on bridges and planes?

Not really equivalent given bridges and planes aren't supposed to kill people.

Guns have no other purpose.

[jbg]

'Common sense' gun laws are not at all what you advocate.

Actually I advocated, in the response to your post above, tougher licensing, combined with insurance, mental health screening and equal requirements as law enforcement…………..Perhaps emotionally unstable folks such as yourself shouldn’t have guns.

I think the focus has to be not on the gun but on the person. As I discuss in this thread (link) the person, not the gun, does the killing. People really need to know their neighbors.

If the neighbor does not want to be known perhaps that's a reason to learn a bit more. People who are a danger to society should be confined and treated even if against their will. The decision should be made by society, not be a person who is out of their mind. Of course there needs to be a right to a hearing. But this situation doesn't look at all like a gray area.

Edited December 16, 2012 by jbg

[Argus]

Nothing to do with masculinity, more to do with people like you that lump the vast majority of gun owners in with those that would shoot-up a Kindergarten……………Think about, after a “terror” attack by a Islamic extremist, is it sound to call for a ban on all Muslims?

The Muslims used hijacked planes to kill people. So afterwards, the authorities did their best to keep planes from being hijacked.

[Guest Derek L]

The constitutional right to bear arms stems from the 1800's when there were no such efficient automatic weapons as there are today.

You might have a point if the Government armed the military and police services with smoothbore muskets………As such the intent has kept pace with the technology……………..Perhaps in 100 years it will be Phasers like on Star Trek.

[Guest Derek L]

Not really equivalent given bridges and planes aren't supposed to kill people.

Guns have no other purpose.

You drew the comparison.

[Argus]

As to gun owners worrying about image or perception , well remember, we’re part of the public too………As to “safe ownership”, the NRA and gun disciple Jeff Cooper were the driving force behind all modern gun safety programs and procedures.

There is really no question the NRA and its adherents are responsible for the violent deaths of more Americans in the last century than any other organization short of the German and Japanese armies.

Correction.

Each year, more than 30,000 Americans die in gun suicides, homicides, and unintentional shootings as a result of the ready availability, and accessibility, of specific classes of firearms

Edited December 16, 2012 by Argus

[Guest Derek L]

The Muslims used hijacked planes to kill people. So afterwards, the authorities did their best to keep planes from being hijacked.

Hijacked from people…………A airliner sitting on a tarmac is as deadly as gun in a safe……….

[cybercoma]

The constitutional right to bear arms stems from the 1800's when there were no such efficient automatic weapons as there are today.

And, you know, Americans were fighting a military several times larger and more powerful than theirs, so they needed all the help they could to keep the Brits back and hold on to their independence.

The right to bear arms has little to do with shooting your neighbour in self defence.

[Argus]

Most gun owners are fine. I am among them. The gun nuts like DerekL add nothing to the debate and stand in the way of progress on sensible gun control.

Most gun owners are fine. My issue is that if millions own firearms, it's not going to be hard for 'bad people' to get their hands on them.

Also, statistically, if millions own firearms, then many more are going to wind up dying accidentally, or by suicide than would otherwise be the case.

[Guest Derek L]

wI think the focus has to be not on the gun but on the person. As I discuss in this thread (link) the person, not the gun, does the killing. People really need to know their neighbors.

If the neighbor does not want to be known perhaps that's a reason to learn a bit more. People who are a danger to society should be confined and treated even if against their will. The decision should be made by society, not be a person who is out of their mind. Of course there needs to be a right to a hearing. But this situation doesn't look at all like a gray area.

I agree fully, as such, in this recent go around and as in others on the topic of gun control, I advocate licensing and safe storage…………..With the recent shooting, if the mentally disturbed son didn’t have access to his mothers firearms, the likelihood of such a tragedy occurring would have decreased…….Further more said son, after completing a background check, was unable to purchase a gun on his own……..Hence one small victory for the “system”.

[cybercoma]

Safe storage? You're the same poster that thinks people should be allowed to carry and shouldn't have to lock up their guns at home, so they can be used for self-defence, right?