Mass shooting

[Guest American Woman]

Exactly, I think a great many people in both our countries shouldn’t have access to firearms, cars and booze……….But in all these cases, the vast majority of people that do enjoy shooting, a nice car or a drink, all in a responsible fashion, shouldn’t be punished for the sins of a small minority.

It seems that only guns draw that kind of response. People realize that a drink or two should be a person's choice, in spite of the fact that some will have more - and then get behind the wheel of a car, breaking the law, and people end up dead - just as the law was broken in the Conn. school shooting.

Edited January 15, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

Again, there needed to be further clarification, after the constitution was written and as technology improved, about what weapons a person can "bear." One can physically "bear" a suitcase nuke but it's still restricted and that restriction is apparently constitutional. So we agree that such restrictions are necessary and appropriate, based on the destructive power of the weapon.

So how many children killed per second is too many for you? Where do you personally draw that line?

Some of the stats indicate that the deaths from these 'assault' type weapons are under the 5% margin. The majority of gun related deaths are from .. handguns, but there is no talk of restricting handguns or the amount that a handgun magazine can hold. So we should understand the difference between total gun related deaths and the percentage of deaths broken down by type of firearm. Then we can get a clear picture.

One can possibly say that most of the mass murders have been done by assault type weapons, but still that is a very small portion of gun related deaths. If we took all the assault type weapons away, you still have thousands being killed yearly by handguns.

Better background checks to prevent convicted criminals and people with mental health issues (and that kind of needs to be clearly defined or else anyone can be denied based on some assessment for mental illnesses).

And none of this prevents the criminals from getting these types of weapons, because they are criminals and don't work inside the law.

[Canuckistani]

Better background checks are not mutually exclusive with restricting magazine size, and there's no reason to only restrict magazine size on long arms. The shooter who shot Cathy Gifford didn't need a 33 round magazine for his Glock. 18 people were shot. He was overpowered when he stopped to reload. How many less would have been shot/killed if he had only a 10 round mag? Restricting semi-automatic rifles won't cause hardship to hunters or target shooters, but could save some lives. Hand guns should be restricted to the degree they are in Canada.

None of this will prevent all killing. But that's just the strawman of perfection - most things we do don't achieve perfect results. Doesn't mean we should do nothing.

[waldo]

Meh...more croc tears for "the children". These kind of gun grabbers are the same people who think nothing of aborting millions of "children", and that isn't even an enumerated constitutional right.

guns don't kill people... U.S. gun culture kills people!

[cybercoma]

Right. So since we already agree that the constitution was too vague and that it was necessary to define those arms further, as technology improved, in order to apply restrictions for "destructive" weapons, we can agree that it is not unreasonable to revisit the application of those restrictions as technology has improved since the 1930s. Citizens can fight a tyrannical power by acquiring assault weapons through the usage of smaller arms.

Think I could get an assault weapon with a switch-blade?

[BubberMiley]

I accept that for the majority of people to partake in a drink, owning a car or a gun, that from time to time, a small minority of society will abuse such devices and injure and kill other members of said society………..

So I should be able to have my suitcase nuke, even though a small minority of society will abuse such devices.

[GostHacked]

Better background checks are not mutually exclusive with restricting magazine size, and there's no reason to only restrict magazine size on long arms. The shooter who shot Cathy Gifford didn't need a 33 round magazine for his Glock. 18 people were shot. He was overpowered when he stopped to reload. How many less would have been shot/killed if he had only a 10 round mag? Restricting semi-automatic rifles won't cause hardship to hunters or target shooters, but could save some lives. Hand guns should be restricted to the degree they are in Canada.

None of this will prevent all killing. But that's just the strawman of perfection - most things we do don't achieve perfect results. Doesn't mean we should do nothing.

You mean to tell me that with someone like Gifford at a public event like that is not surrounded by armed police/security? Also what type of firearm was that person using at the Gifford's ,, a pistol perhaps? I prefer no deaths, but if you restrict the size of the magazine, sure you will get 5 dead instead of 10 dead, but you still have not addressed the problem of people shooting other people. The intent is there regardless, a point driven home by many but some people still just cannot seem to grasp that.

You can go for a total gun ban across the board. And if you were able to somehow accomplish all that, then you can put a huge dent in that sector of crime. However we know that guns are not going away, and I would like to see responsible people own a firearm in order to make a stand against those who illegally obtain guns to commit crimes with.

[Canuckistani]

You mean to tell me that with someone like Gifford at a public event like that is not surrounded by armed police/security? Also what type of firearm was that person using at the Gifford's ,, a pistol perhaps? I prefer no deaths, but if you restrict the size of the magazine, sure you will get 5 dead instead of 10 dead, but you still have not addressed the problem of people shooting other people. The intent is there regardless, a point driven home by many but some people still just cannot seem to grasp that.

You can go for a total gun ban across the board. And if you were able to somehow accomplish all that, then you can put a huge dent in that sector of crime. However we know that guns are not going away, and I would like to see responsible people own a firearm in order to make a stand against those who illegally obtain guns to commit crimes with.

He used a Glock with a 33 round magazine. As I said, he was overpowered when he stopped to change magazines.

How old are you to dismiss 5 dead instead of 10? Most of the measures we take in society to keep people safe are imperfect. That's not a reason not to do them. Nobody is talking about taking all guns away, the question is what are reasonable restrictions. Banning semi-auto rifles and large capacity magazines for both long and short guns seems reasonable to me.

You want to go deeper and address the reasons people do this, be my guest. Of course we should. But nobody really knows why, and the US would have to undergo a much deeper transformation than just further restricting guns to accomplish anything. Since they're not even ready to restrict guns, they certainly don't seem ready to go for the deeper causes either.

[bush_cheney2004]

He used a Glock with a 33 round magazine. As I said, he was overpowered when he stopped to change magazines.

....Banning semi-auto rifles and large capacity magazines for both long and short guns seems reasonable to me.

The Glock is a semi-automatic handgun....why not "ban" those too? How many rounds in a magazine are too many ? Do you count the round already in the chamber ?

[GostHacked]

He used a Glock with a 33 round magazine. As I said, he was overpowered when he stopped to change magazines.

And if someone in the crowd was properly trained and packing, he could have been taken out before he even needed to reload.

How old are you to dismiss 5 dead instead of 10?

Well the only difference is that less people would die in these incidents, but the incidents will still happen and people will still die. I am not dismissing the fact that less people would die. As I said, I prefer no one dies in these incidents, but I am a realist.

Most of the measures we take in society to keep people safe are imperfect.That's not a reason not to do them.

And some are just outright stupid. How do you expect to handle the criminal element who obtains firearms illegally? Also how does the government reconcile needing gun control for the US population when the government themselves are involved in the gun running business? Have we forgot the Fast and Furious gun running to Mexico already? Many of these made their way back across the border. What do you propose we do about that?

The government cannot be gun running and expect to put in any reasonable gun control laws within it's own borders. Simply does not add up.

Nobody is talking about taking all guns away, the question is what are reasonable restrictions. Banning semi-auto rifles and large capacity magazines for both long and short guns seems reasonable to me.

Ok, so what about semi-automatic pistols as is mentioned in this thread? Pistols are easier to carry and conceal, are just as deadly as many high capacity long guns. Only difference between handguns and long guns are range/accuracy. But in these cases like Sandy Hook, accuracy is not really needed since the kids were all inside a building restricting their movements and escape routes. Shooting fish in a barrel.

You want to go deeper and address the reasons people do this, be my guest. Of course we should. But nobody really knows why, and the US would have to undergo a much deeper transformation than just further restricting guns to accomplish anything. Since they're not even ready to restrict guns, they certainly don't seem ready to go for the deeper causes either.

Of course we know why we need to look into that, because people are DEAD. Exactly the reason we need to look into the notion of prescription medication as a possible cause for these people to go off the edge and commit the murders. Solve that and you have people owning guns without the intention of killing each other.

Why does a person kill another? Who knows. Does restricting or banning guns solve that intent? No.

[Canuckistani]

Why does a person kill another? Who knows. Does restricting or banning guns solve that intent? No.

So no restriction on guns for you, huh?

[Guest Derek L]

So I should be able to have my suitcase nuke, even though a small minority of society will abuse such devices.

Fill your boots, if you can obtain one guarded by folk with small arms.

[Guest Derek L]

He used a Glock with a 33 round magazine. As I said, he was overpowered when he stopped to change magazines.

How old are you to dismiss 5 dead instead of 10? Most of the measures we take in society to keep people safe are imperfect. That's not a reason not to do them. Nobody is talking about taking all guns away, the question is what are reasonable restrictions. Banning semi-auto rifles and large capacity magazines for both long and short guns seems reasonable to me.

You want to go deeper and address the reasons people do this, be my guest. Of course we should. But nobody really knows why, and the US would have to undergo a much deeper transformation than just further restricting guns to accomplish anything. Since they're not even ready to restrict guns, they certainly don't seem ready to go for the deeper causes either.

How long does it take to change a Glock mag?

And the reasons it seems reasonable to you, is that you know little about firearms………like the shooters, be it with a 32 round Glock magazine or a 100 beta mag for an AR-15.………in both cases, the shooter would have been much better off with numerous standard size 17 and 20/30 round mags………

[Guest Derek L]

The Glock is a semi-automatic handgun....why not "ban" those too? How many rounds in a magazine are too many ? Do you count the round already in the chamber ?

Nope........(not here anyways).........Nor does using .40 S&W mags in a 9mm if you cross your fingers

[BubberMiley]

Fill your boots, if you can obtain one guarded by folk with small arms.

That shouldn't be necessary. Doesn't the constitution allow me to "bear" suitcase nukes?

[Guest Derek L]

That shouldn't be necessary. Doesn't the constitution allow me to "bear" suitcase nukes?

No, the Destructive Weapons act namely followed by a whole other regime of laws..........But hey, I could be wrong, check out Cabelas.

[BubberMiley]

No, the Destructive Weapons act namely followed by a whole other regime of laws..........But hey, I could be wrong, check out Cabelas.

Fine. Then we can agree that since the constitution is open to interpretation based on a weapon's level of destructive power and that these restrictions are necessary and appropriate, you must have no problem with continuing that precedent with other overly destructive weapons.

[Guest Derek L]

Obama Is a friggen genius:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/14/politics/gun-laws-battle/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

(CNN) -- The gun lobby is "ginning up" fears the federal government will use the Newtown shooting tragedy, exactly one month ago, to seize Americans' guns, President Barack Obama said Monday.

At least part of the frenzy is little more than marketing, he implied.

"It's certainly good for business," the president said, responding to a question about a spike in weapons sales and applications for background checks after the massacre at Connecticut's Sandy Hook Elementary School left 27 people dead, 20 of them children.

"Part of the challenge we confront is that even the slightest hint of some sensible, responsible legislation in this area fans this notion that somehow, 'Here it comes, everybody's guns are going to be taken away,'" Obama said.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/15/obama-i-dont-know-if-all-gun-control-legislation-will-get-through-congress/

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama endorsed controversial bans on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines on Monday, as well as stricter background checks for gun buyers — but conceded he may not win approval of all in a Congress reluctant to tighten restrictions.

My question, did he honestly think this was going to happen?

[BubberMiley]

My question, did he honestly think this was going to happen?

When someone asks you a question you are afraid to answer, it's a good strategy to ask an incomprehensible one in response.

[Guest Derek L]

Fine. Then we can agree that since the constitution is open to interpretation based on a weapon's level of destructive power and that these restrictions are necessary and appropriate, you must have no problem with continuing that precedent with other overly destructive weapons.

No, the Constitution defines what types of weapons a citizen can have, small arms……….nuclear weapons (including your desired back-pack nuke) and smoothbore cannons pulled by horses not so much……But as I stated, those individual personal guarding said “larger weapons”, are armed with small arms, just as the citizen……..

[Guest Derek L]

When someone asks you a question you are afraid to answer, it's a good strategy to ask an incomprehensible one in response.

Ahh like you're doing with nukes?

[Guest Derek L]

It seems that only guns draw that kind of response. People realize that a drink or two should be a person's choice, in spite of the fact that some will have more - and then get behind the wheel of a car, breaking the law, and people end up dead - just as the law was broken in the Conn. school shooting.

Didn’t see your post………..I wonder why said shootings seem to always appear in “gun free zones”…….

[GostHacked]

Here is the one I wanted to post.

[Guest Derek L]

Ahh New York:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/15/new-york-to-pass-toughest-gun-control-law-in-u-s-first-since-newtown-massacre/

Under current state law, assault weapons are defined by having two “military rifle” features, such as folding stock, muzzle flash suppressor or bayonet mount. The proposal would reduce that to one feature, including the popular pistol grip. The language specifically targeted the military-style rifle used in the Newtown shootings.

And how does deleting those features make a rifle “safer” to the public?

Current owners of those guns will have to register them.

Or what?

Private sales of assault weapons to someone other than an immediate family would be subject to a background check through a dealer. New Yorkers also would be barred from buying assault weapons over the Internet, and failing to safely store a weapon could lead to a misdemeanor charge.

Can’t say I’m opposed to background checks or safe storage mind you……..Internet sales sounds reaching…..

Ammunition magazines would be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10, and current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.

Totally unenforceable…………

In another provision, a therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally would be required to report it to a mental health director who would have to notify the state. A patient’s gun could be taken from him or her.

That's reasonable and only common sense.

[BubberMiley]

No, the Constitution defines what types of weapons a citizen can have, small arms……….nuclear weapons (including your desired back-pack nuke) and smoothbore cannons pulled by horses not so much…

Where in the constitution does it state that I can''t have a suitcase nuke?