scsinet
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/180#post_3504607
My point is simple. A shotgun has a lower probablity rate of killing a massive amount of people in a semi-confined area than a semi-automatic weapon that can hold 30 or more rounds of ammunition at any given time. Granted, if you had a sawed-off shotgun, your spread pattern would be greater, as well as if you were using 8-shot as opposed to buck shot. But you still maintain a larger death rate with the semi-auto weapon. Why is it that these last four or five incidents involved an assault weapon as the primary weapon? If someone can do the same carnage with a shotgun or semi-auto handgun, why not just use those instead? It has absolutely nothing to do with "feel good politics". It's plain math and statistics. An assault weapon can kill more people than any other weapon because of the volume of ammo, and the speed at which you can shoot it. In these scenarios, there's really not that must difference between a full auto and a semi auto. I can empty a 30-round mag in an AR-15 in 10-15 seconds. In full auto mode, I can cut that time down to 3 - 5 seconds. Are you going to say that 7 - 10 seconds is going to save more lives in a scenario such as what occurred in Newtown? Reducing the firepower will reduce the number of casualties in these massive shootings. Unless a total ban occurred, which any logical and rational person in this country knows would NEVER happen, you will continue to have incidents like this. However, that goes to say that even those may be reduced when these individuals may have second thoughts because they don't have that assault weapon firepower to give them that "invulnerabilty feeling".
How do you address this issue you speak? Where do you even begin? I explained to you how difficult it is to diagnose mental health issues. I explained how several "triggers" can set off even the most timid and mild-mannered person. This kid NEVER exhibited any violent tendencies in his 20 years of living. No one was ever threatened by this kid, no "alarms" were set off. If the mother had an inkling of perception that this kid had violent tendencies, do you honestly think she'd teach him to use these weapons she owned, and have them available for him to take anytime he wanted?
And my point is also simple. My point is that there are a lot of weapons "between" shotguns and semi-automatic "assault rifles" that are not part of the discussion here, and that's where the slippery slope comes in. It is incredibly easy to carry several handguns, each with 15+ round magazines in them that can do just as much damage. Therefore, my point is that if you are going to look at "assault rifles" because you can carry 30 rounds of ammunition in them, then you can't logically ignore the other means to do essentially the same thing.
Lest we forget that the columbine massacre took place without the use of "assault rifles," rather, it took place with 9mm handguns and pump shotguns. I maintain that the fact that only 15 people were killed does not make it a lesser tragedy than the 26 who were killed at Sandy Hook.
Furthermore, in Columbine, if I recall correctly, there were something like 100 handgun rounds discharged and a couple dozen shotgun shells discharged, and they didn't need "high capacity magazines" to do it.
Ergo, if we respond to these events by focusing and banning the weapons used, we, just as a result of Columbine and Sandy Hook will have banned handguns, shotguns, and "assault rifles." There isn't a whole lot left. That's the slippery slope.
As far as the mental thing, you are still focused on only a couple of approaches to this situation: Mental Illness and Gun Control. What I have been trying to explain is that the root cause of this situation goes beyond these easy answers. This is a society problem. Banning weapons or other quick easy answers don't solve that problem, they only conceal it.
By the way, I'm not interested in saving lives by minimizing the number of deaths. I'd much rather see these acts not committed in the first place. To do otherwise would be like saying that "Columbine wasn't so bad because at least it was only 15 students that time instead of 26." I just don't believe gun control is an effective or comprehensive way to accomplish it.
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393788/27-dead-at-connecticut-elementary-school/180#post_3504607
My point is simple. A shotgun has a lower probablity rate of killing a massive amount of people in a semi-confined area than a semi-automatic weapon that can hold 30 or more rounds of ammunition at any given time. Granted, if you had a sawed-off shotgun, your spread pattern would be greater, as well as if you were using 8-shot as opposed to buck shot. But you still maintain a larger death rate with the semi-auto weapon. Why is it that these last four or five incidents involved an assault weapon as the primary weapon? If someone can do the same carnage with a shotgun or semi-auto handgun, why not just use those instead? It has absolutely nothing to do with "feel good politics". It's plain math and statistics. An assault weapon can kill more people than any other weapon because of the volume of ammo, and the speed at which you can shoot it. In these scenarios, there's really not that must difference between a full auto and a semi auto. I can empty a 30-round mag in an AR-15 in 10-15 seconds. In full auto mode, I can cut that time down to 3 - 5 seconds. Are you going to say that 7 - 10 seconds is going to save more lives in a scenario such as what occurred in Newtown? Reducing the firepower will reduce the number of casualties in these massive shootings. Unless a total ban occurred, which any logical and rational person in this country knows would NEVER happen, you will continue to have incidents like this. However, that goes to say that even those may be reduced when these individuals may have second thoughts because they don't have that assault weapon firepower to give them that "invulnerabilty feeling".
How do you address this issue you speak? Where do you even begin? I explained to you how difficult it is to diagnose mental health issues. I explained how several "triggers" can set off even the most timid and mild-mannered person. This kid NEVER exhibited any violent tendencies in his 20 years of living. No one was ever threatened by this kid, no "alarms" were set off. If the mother had an inkling of perception that this kid had violent tendencies, do you honestly think she'd teach him to use these weapons she owned, and have them available for him to take anytime he wanted?
And my point is also simple. My point is that there are a lot of weapons "between" shotguns and semi-automatic "assault rifles" that are not part of the discussion here, and that's where the slippery slope comes in. It is incredibly easy to carry several handguns, each with 15+ round magazines in them that can do just as much damage. Therefore, my point is that if you are going to look at "assault rifles" because you can carry 30 rounds of ammunition in them, then you can't logically ignore the other means to do essentially the same thing.
Lest we forget that the columbine massacre took place without the use of "assault rifles," rather, it took place with 9mm handguns and pump shotguns. I maintain that the fact that only 15 people were killed does not make it a lesser tragedy than the 26 who were killed at Sandy Hook.
Furthermore, in Columbine, if I recall correctly, there were something like 100 handgun rounds discharged and a couple dozen shotgun shells discharged, and they didn't need "high capacity magazines" to do it.
Ergo, if we respond to these events by focusing and banning the weapons used, we, just as a result of Columbine and Sandy Hook will have banned handguns, shotguns, and "assault rifles." There isn't a whole lot left. That's the slippery slope.
As far as the mental thing, you are still focused on only a couple of approaches to this situation: Mental Illness and Gun Control. What I have been trying to explain is that the root cause of this situation goes beyond these easy answers. This is a society problem. Banning weapons or other quick easy answers don't solve that problem, they only conceal it.
By the way, I'm not interested in saving lives by minimizing the number of deaths. I'd much rather see these acts not committed in the first place. To do otherwise would be like saying that "Columbine wasn't so bad because at least it was only 15 students that time instead of 26." I just don't believe gun control is an effective or comprehensive way to accomplish it.
