27 dead at Connecticut Elementary School

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCSInet http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/220#post_3504856
Oh I get it alright. You're right, your opinions are facts, you know better, and if anyone disagrees, you are wrong, and here is a law to force you to do it my way. And I'm not rationalizing anything. My pursuits do not require an explanation to you or anyone else, as long as I do not deprive you or anyone else of life, liberty, or property.
The point many guns rights advocates are trying to make is "Who are you to decide what I need and what I don't?" Put simply, you are not in a position to do so.
Purposes, such as target shooting or certain hunting situations exist where this weapon can be useful or enjoyable. Your response (seemingly typical of gun-control advocates) to that is simply to disregard those justifications, then claim that said justifications do not exist. In other words, your response is "I know better, and I want laws to force you to do it my way." Sorry, not if I have anything to say about it.
If you were to say "I acknowledge that these responsible, legal uses exist, I do not feel that these reasons are worth keeping the status quo" you would come across quite a bit better. However, when you approach advocates of freedoms and liberties by basically saying "I know better than you what you should and should not need/do/whatever, and I intend to pass laws to force those beliefs on you," you are going to get pushback.
So your contention is the public has to put faith in your word that you'll never use that type of weapon in a criminal fashion. That's because you're a "responsible gun owner". Sorry, but your word doesn't mean squat. That's where the problem lies. Anyone with a driver's license can purchase weapons of these types, and we're supposed to trust they'll never use them in a harmful manner because "I like shooting for sport" is the excuse. Like I told you, I used an AR for hunting. I really had no use for a 30-round or larger mag. I could shoot that weapon just as accuately with just 5 shots, and that deer was just as dead. You want to play Rambo with a 30-round mag, or even a 100-round drum? Allow the gun ranges to "rent" you one, and you can shoot away until your bank account is dried up. You have no use for one sitting around your house.
When I see some gun advocate use phrases like " Sorry, not if I have anything to say about it." or " you are going to get pushback", that alone raises some red flags, and should concern anyone knowing you have all this "firepower" in your possession to back those words up. Is that your solution? Start a revolution just so you can have the "right" to own some weapon that really has no practical purpose? Please show me in the Constitution or even the 2nd where it sates "I have the right to own a weapon that was initially designed to be used in a military fashion."

 

[2quills]

Bionic is pulling numbers out of his arse again. For a semi auto AR is more like 30 seconds for 30 rounds. If you're actually trying to hit somethimg.

 

[darthtang aw]

Anyone with a driver's license can purchase weapons of these types, and we're supposed to trust they'll never use them in a harmful manner because "I like shooting for sport" is the excuse. 
The same can be said for alcohol. We just have to "trust".

 

[reefraff]

You guys don't understand. Because Bionic is ascared of mean ol assault weapons we have no legitimate reason for owning one.
The Republican just need to drag this out a while. The democrats whore out these tragedies to attempt to convince otherwise clear thinking individuals to make irrational decisions while their emotions are still raw. I think the NRA should trip them up and go for a limit on Mags then let the Democrats try to convince people that because "assault weapons" look like machine guns we should ban them.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/240#post_3504872
So your contention is the public has to put faith in your word that you'll never use that type of weapon in a criminal fashion. That's because you're a "responsible gun owner". Sorry, but your word doesn't mean squat. That's where the problem lies. Anyone with a driver's license can purchase weapons of these types, and we're supposed to trust they'll never use them in a harmful manner because "I like shooting for sport" is the excuse. Like I told you, I used an AR for hunting. I really had no use for a 30-round or larger mag. I could shoot that weapon just as accuately with just 5 shots, and that deer was just as dead. You want to play Rambo with a 30-round mag, or even a 100-round drum? Allow the gun ranges to "rent" you one, and you can shoot away until your bank account is dried up. You have no use for one sitting around your house.
When I see some gun advocate use phrases like " Sorry, not if I have anything to say about it." or " you are going to get pushback", that alone raises some red flags, and should concern anyone knowing you have all this "firepower" in your possession to back those words up. Is that your solution? Start a revolution just so you can have the "right" to own some weapon that really has no practical purpose? Please show me in the Constitution or even the 2nd where it sates "I have the right to own a weapon that was initially designed to be used in a military fashion."
You are awfully fond of using the Rambo analogy. Is that your man crush or something?

 

[fish master]

NO ONE HAS VERIFIED THAT THE SHOOTER HAD THE ASSULT RIFLE IN THE SCHOOL. ALL OF THE NEWS STATIONS SAY IT WAS FOUND IN THE CAR.

 

[reefraff]

The medical examiner (who seems to have and agenda) announced a 223 was used. That pretty much rules out the pistols.

 

[darthtang aw]

NO ONE HAS VERIFIED THAT THE SHOOTER HAD THE ASSULT RIFLE IN THE SCHOOL. ALL OF THE NEWS STATIONS SAY IT WAS FOUND IN THE CAR.
No,a shotgun was found in the truck of the car.

 

[geridoc]

All of this (previous 13 pages) is very nice, but meaningless because the opinions given represent the unattainable. Some want to eliminate gun ownership entirely - not gonna happen in our lifetimes. Others would like to have unfettered gun access in the belief that an armed citizenry is safer - also not gonna happen. Why don't we turn the discussion to the things that, given the political and economic will, could be done to prevent more Newtowns. First, lets keep guns out of the hands of identifiably mentally ill persons. This would require closing loopholes in the current laws, and enforcing those regulations. There is already precedent for sharing medical information with law enforcement. Several years ago I had a broken right leg, and my orthopedist had to inform the motor vehicle bureau, and I was not permitted to drive a car until the cast came off. Second, require all new guns to have biometric locks, and all guns to be stored in a locked safe when not being carried. While I recognize that these changes will not be easy nor cheap, but thinking back to recent massacres in this country, most could have been averted if those with mental problems were prohibited from gun ownership (West Virginia), or the guns were secured and usable only by the authorized owner (Newtown, Columbine).
In the interests of transparency, if I had to choose, I would live in a society that had no guns at all, but that's not gonna happen. I do live in a fairly safe city (New York), where police responses are rapid and effective. Some of you may recall several years that there was a gunman on our campus, and I was reporting from under my desk in a locked, darkened office. The after action analysis showed that within 2 minutes of the gunman appearing on campus (detected by cameras at the entrance gates) almost 30 police were present on campus, and that by the 15 minute mark there were several hundred police, arriving by helicopter and armored vehicles. I understand that this is possible only in a large city with a high population density, and that many of you live in different situations, far removed from such governmental protection. If you feel safer by being armed then that is your reality, but it is reasonable for the government to place some limitations on the ability of the less stable of you to kill our children. Just my opinion.

 

[darthtang aw]

All of this (previous 13 pages) is very nice, but meaningless because the opinions given represent the unattainable.  Some want to eliminate gun ownership entirely - not gonna happen in our lifetimes.  Others would like to have unfettered gun access in the belief that an armed citizenry is safer - also not gonna happen.  Why don't we turn the discussion to the things that, given the political and economic will, could be done to prevent more Newtowns.  First, lets keep guns out of the hands of identifiably mentally ill persons.  This would require closing loopholes in the current laws, and enforcing those regulations.  There is already precedent for sharing medical information with law enforcement.  Several years ago I had a broken right leg, and my orthopedist had to inform the motor vehicle bureau, and I was not permitted to drive a car until the cast came off.  Second, require all new guns to have biometric locks, and all guns to be stored in a locked safe when not being carried. While I recognize that these changes will not be easy nor cheap, but thinking back to recent massacres in this country, most could have been averted if those with mental problems were prohibited from gun ownership (West Virginia), or the guns were secured and usable only by the authorized owner (Newtown, Columbine).
In the interests of transparency, if I had to choose, I would live in a society that had no guns at all, but that's not gonna happen.  I do live in a fairly safe city (New York), where police responses are rapid and effective.  Some of you may recall several years that there was a gunman on our campus, and I was reporting from under my desk in a locked, darkened office.  The after action analysis showed that within 2 minutes of the gunman appearing on campus (detected by cameras at the entrance gates) almost 30 police were present on campus, and that by the 15 minute mark there were several hundred police, arriving by helicopter and armored vehicles.  I understand that this is possible only in a large city with a high population density, and that many of you live in different situations, far removed from such governmental protection.  If you feel safer by being armed then that is your reality, but it is reasonable for the government to place some limitations on the ability of the less stable of you to kill our children.  Just my opinion.
I think what you are proposing 99% of the citizen would agree with.

 

[scsinet]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/240#post_3504872
So your contention is the public has to put faith in your word that you'll never use that type of weapon in a criminal fashion. That's because you're a "responsible gun owner". Sorry, but your word doesn't mean squat. That's where the problem lies. Anyone with a driver's license can purchase weapons of these types, and we're supposed to trust they'll never use them in a harmful manner because "I like shooting for sport" is the excuse. Like I told you, I used an AR for hunting. I really had no use for a 30-round or larger mag. I could shoot that weapon just as accuately with just 5 shots, and that deer was just as dead. You want to play Rambo with a 30-round mag, or even a 100-round drum? Allow the gun ranges to "rent" you one, and you can shoot away until your bank account is dried up. You have no use for one sitting around your house.
When I see some gun advocate use phrases like " Sorry, not if I have anything to say about it." or " you are going to get pushback", that alone raises some red flags, and should concern anyone knowing you have all this "firepower" in your possession to back those words up. Is that your solution? Start a revolution just so you can have the "right" to own some weapon that really has no practical purpose? Please show me in the Constitution or even the 2nd where it sates "I have the right to own a weapon that was initially designed to be used in a military fashion."
My contention is that for every one of these horrible acts that is committed with a particular type of gun, there are millions more of them in the hands of safe, responsible gun owners, who will never use those weapons for anything but safe, responsible, and legal uses, and who will never allow those weapons to fall into the hands of those who would, and that has value. My contention is that to be so cavalier about disregarding legal uses because what some sick, twisted individual does with a very, very miniscule percentage of them is not looking at the complete picture. What happened in that school is beyond words, and if the other responsible gun owners out there feel the same way I do, they are as sick over the whole thing as you are. However, I remain unconvinced that the type of gun control that is being proposed will do anything to stop the problem, and in the end, the only ones who get hurt are the responsible gun owners.
Your words above seem to suggest that every "assault weapon" out there is just waiting it's turn to be involved in the next massacre, and/or that every legal gun owner out there is just a ticking bomb waiting to snap. I remain taken aback by the assertion (by many) that the only reason someone wants to own guns is because they want to shoot someone. There is a word for that, and it's a word that people on the left are very opposed to: profiling.
However, your post reveals why this is such a problem for you to understand.
You read a post where I said "Sorry, not if I have anything to say about it." or me use the word "pushback" and immediately infer that I am talking about violence (ostensibly, gun violence).
Just because someone owns guns or supports gun rights does not mean they have any tendency to use those weapons for anything unlawful. I know you don't know me, but frankly the idea that I would do as you imply is disgusting, and you're way out of line for so much as hinting at it.
You obviously are convinced that gun owners only have one agenda in mind, and that's to take the first opportunity to start shooting people. It may surprise you to hear this, but there are gun owners out there who prefer to settle a disagreement without whipping out a weapon (or even a fist), there are gun owners who realize that we are not in the old west, and there are gun owners who are as disgusted wtih gun violence as you are. I OWN guns and I'm not afraid of the other gun owners. Why? Because I can protect myself? No. Though I am licensed to do so, I don't even carry. I am nothing more than another everyday American who actually has a respect for the enormously unique and special thing that is America, and the protection of rights and liberties. You can't realize what something is worth until you learn to respect it, but you apparently do not.
This may surprise you, but I spent the first half of my life in fear of weapons. The first time a friend told me he bought a gun, I told him he was not welcome on my property if he had any weapons with him, and told him flat out that I thought his desire to purchase one was due to his feeling "inadequate down there." Instead of getting mad at me, he told me to go out and try to learn about the subject objectively and get back to him. I did so, and it changed everything. Maybe you should consider doing the same.

 

[meowzer]

Did anyone see the NRA's press conference.....if not
http://home.nra.org/#
You can go to their website and read it

 

[reefraff]

He makes some great points about the entertainment industry. When I was 20 I didn't get it. At 40 or so I finally caught on. Some of these over the top splatter movies and video game don't belong in the hands of teenagers. I remember when Grand Theft Auto first came out. At one point in the game a cop is standing in the road trying to stop you. For giggles I tried to run him over. The game wouldn't let you. Now from what I understand not only could you run over the cop you can get out of your car and shoot them. As an adult I don't have an issue with separating a game or movie from reality but what about mush headed kids who spend hours playing these kind of games or watching the ultra violent movies? Parents really need to pay closer attention to what their kids are filling their minds with.

 

[snakeblitz33]

I feel like that nra spokesperson was right. I feel like those people are a product of our society. The actions of a sick individual is the reflection of societies values as a whole.

 

[theclemsonkid]

Hmm, so the NRA wants an armed, trained guard at every school in America. Shocking that their answer to the problem 1) Puts even more guns on the streets (or in the schools as the case may be... 2) Involves spending billions of dollars on guns and gun related products, 3) Assumes that now because every school has an armed guard, a crazy person wouldn't want to try and pull a Newtown again.
Yeah, that sounds about right...

 

[darthtang aw]

Hmm, so the NRA wants an armed, trained guard at every school in America.  Shocking that their answer to the problem 1) Puts even more guns on the streets (or in the schools as the case may be... 2) Involves spending billions of dollars on guns and gun related products, 3) Assumes that now because every school has an armed guard, a crazy person wouldn't want to try and pull a Newtown again. 
Yeah, that sounds about right...
 
Why is that bad? Our politicians get them.....why shouldn't the children at our schools?

 

[2quills]

An immediate responder could have had the potential to save far more lives than some of the other alternatives I've been reading here.
Hasnt that been the argument for banning the bushmaster? It wont prevent these types of things from happening but may save a few lives? We're not going to stop it we're in far too deep for that. But I'd pay a few extra dollars in taxes to better protect our nations youth. At least then I'd feel like some of my tax dollars are going for a worthy cause.
Are our kids not worth it? Cause regulations sure dont seem to be stopping it?

 

[theclemsonkid]

Well I thought the argument was that guns don't kill people, people kill people, right? Not, "Let's come up with a solution that profits our industry another couple hundred million dollars". Think about this... There are approximately 131,000 public and private schools in the United States. If each new "Armed guard" were to purchase a police issue Glock, which runs about $600, you would have approximately 78 million spent on new weapons. Let's say each course they would have to take is another hundred bucks. There's another 13 million. Let's not forget rounds, training, maintenance; which would be another 65 million a year. On top of that, you have to hire and pay these guys, which at $20 an hour, you're looking at ($28,960 a year) 3.7 billion dollars to school districts which most are already in dire straights financially.
So in short, the NRA response to the "gun problem", is more guns, and more money spent on guns.

 

[darthtang aw]

Well I thought the argument was that guns don't kill people, people kill people, right? Not, "Let's come up with a solution that profits our industry another couple hundred million dollars".  Think about this... There are approximately 131,000 public and private schools in the United States.  If each new "Armed guard" were to purchase a police issue Glock, which runs about $600, you would have approximately 78 million spent on new weapons.  Let's say each course they would have to take is another hundred bucks.  There's another 13 million.  Let's not forget rounds, training, maintenance; which would be another 65 million a year.  On top of that, you have to hire and pay these guys, which at $20 an hour, you're looking at ($28,960 a year) 3.7 billion dollars to school districts which most are already in dire straights financially.
So in short, the NRA response to the "gun problem", is more guns, and more money spent on guns. 
 
Raise the tax on assault weapons and divert that money to education. I would have no issue paying a 35% tax for an assault weapon if I chose to purchase one. I would even be willing to pay 10% ammunition tax.
See that is the problem with anti-gun crowd, BAN THEM! No, that will not prevent this situation. Everyone knows this. our biggest problem in this country is deficits...borrowing...not enough tax revenue. here is a way to pay for stuff, but instead...the option to ban is done instead....We tried this with alcohol, granted it had a much bigger market) and then we lifted the ban.Instead we raised the tax on alcohol and cigarettes...I have no issue paying more for something if I really want it.
Alot of you say government should not legislate social or moral decisions. Owning a gun is a moral decision.

 

[2quills]

Darth, I don't think that clemson is part of the anti-gun "ban em ALL" crowd. In the other thread he told us how he's gearing up to get his CCW. Thats his answer to personal defense. He's going to be one of those guys who wants to put another gun on the street. Remember?