Page 15 of 41 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 300 of 820

Thread: Revisiting Gun Laws in the U.S.

  1. #281
    Has anyone talked about what happened in Oregon prior to this shooting?

    The "shooter" there stopped his assault and shot himself when a civilian tried to respond to the active shooter. Once the "shooter" saw the gun, he gave up.

    How many more people would have died if that civilian didn't possess a firearm?

    When the police showed up at the school in CT, the "shooter" there shot himself as well.

    Things are aren't cut and dry. Sane, responsible people shouldn't be punished to appease the mass media. How about all the warning signs that were ignored? People are too worried to not hurt people's feelings, and do the politically correct thing. Some people can, and SHOULD own firearms. Others shouldn't even have a slingshot.

    How about video games? Should violent video games be banned as well?

    Gun control will never happen. Look for a heavier screening process, and a heavy tax imposed on all weapons.

  2. #282
    Quote Originally Posted by John_0515 View Post
    Has anyone talked about what happened in Oregon prior to this shooting?

    The "shooter" there stopped his assault and shot himself when a civilian tried to respond to the active shooter. Once the "shooter" saw the gun, he gave up.

    How many more people would have died if that civilian didn't possess a firearm?

    When the police showed up at the school in CT, the "shooter" there shot himself as well.

    Things are aren't cut and dry. Sane, responsible people shouldn't be punished to appease the mass media. How about all the warning signs that were ignored? People are too worried to not hurt people's feelings, and do the politically correct thing. Some people can, and SHOULD own firearms. Others shouldn't even have a slingshot.

    How about video games? Should violent video games be banned as well?

    Gun control will never happen. Look for a heavier screening process, and a heavy tax imposed on all weapons.
    The battle was lost when the kid got a hold of his mother's guns. The kid was crazy. He likely never would have gotten a firearm on his own. His mother's negligence caused her own death and the death of all those children and teachers. So when you talk about how to stop these types of events, I think you start there. How do you keep sane people with clean backgrounds and their own mental sanity from making horrifically stupid decisions that cost dozens of lives? I think it's obvious that there needs to be more in place to keep crazies from buying guns, but that's not what happened in Connecticut.

  3. #283
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Wildcat Country
    Posts
    5,099
    Quote Originally Posted by John_0515 View Post

    Gun control will never happen. Look for a heavier screening process, and a heavy tax imposed on all weapons.
    You're confusing the term "gun control" with an outright ban on guns. Gun control already exists in this country and has since the 19th century.

  4. #284
    Quote Originally Posted by Snell41 View Post
    The battle was lost when the kid got a hold of his mother's guns. The kid was crazy. He likely never would have gotten a firearm on his own. His mother's negligence caused her own death and the death of all those children and teachers. So when you talk about how to stop these types of events, I think you start there. How do you keep sane people with clean backgrounds and their own mental sanity from making horrifically stupid decisions that cost dozens of lives? I think it's obvious that there needs to be more in place to keep crazies from buying guns, but that's not what happened in Connecticut.
    This is a valid point, but right now people are wanting heads to roll. I think people need to be vigilant for copycats, and take a deep breath before raising the gun control flag. More than likely, each individual state will impose their individual gun control laws, rather than a national one.

    I was just in my FFL's shop today (yes, I own firearms), and he was clean out. He is also a class 3 dealer. I asked him "how about suppressors and such. Do you think they'll be affected by the weapon ban, if imposed?"

    He told me that they would NOT. Point is, they're expensive, and people don't go after suppressors, meaning people with more money buy them. He believes there will be a weapon TAX making firearms more expensive.

  5. #285
    Quote Originally Posted by BushyTheBeaver View Post
    You're confusing the term "gun control" with an outright ban on guns. Gun control already exists in this country and has since the 19th century.
    I think we all know what I mean. More stringent gun control. Assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

    Is that more clear?

  6. #286
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Wildcat Country
    Posts
    5,099
    Quote Originally Posted by John_0515 View Post
    I think we all know what I mean. More stringent gun control. Assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

    Is that more clear?
    No now I'm even more confused. So you think there is zero chance of for example further restrictions on high capacity magazines? Really?

  7. #287
    Quote Originally Posted by BushyTheBeaver View Post
    No now I'm even more confused. So you think there is zero chance of for example further restrictions on high capacity magazines? Really?
    No, I think more states will impose individual bans on those items, but there will be no federal ban. For instance, you can't have 30 round magazines in NJ, can you? But in Virginia, and states like that, you can buy anything you want. Surefire makes 60 round magazines which are available for 5.56 weapons.

    In Maryland (where I live) you can't have a magazine higher than 20 rounds. But the Troopers encourage you to drive to VA or PA, buy whatever you want and drive it back - because it's legal.

    Assault weapons in NJ are very strict. Collapsible stock, etc., all not allowed. But to be honest, do you need an assault rifle to do something bad?

    I don't think a federal ban will happen (on assault weapons and accessories). They may make the screening process more thorough, impose a new one, or something like that, but Capitol Hill will stay out of it, other than just do enough to appease the media.

    I live near and work in DC. I interact with a lot of Senators and Congressmen. I'd say 90% believe the above. Add to the fact that assault weapons are not commonly used in these atrocities, pistols are.

    A mentally ill person will find a way to hurt people if he/she really wants to.

  8. #288
    Quote Originally Posted by John_0515 View Post
    No, I think more states will impose individual bans on those items, but there will be no federal ban. For instance, you can't have 30 round magazines in NJ, can you? But in Virginia, and states like that, you can buy anything you want. Surefire makes 60 round magazines which are available for 5.56 weapons.

    In Maryland (where I live) you can't have a magazine higher than 20 rounds. But the Troopers encourage you to drive to VA or PA, buy whatever you want and drive it back - because it's legal.

    Assault weapons in NJ are very strict. Collapsible stock, etc., all not allowed. But to be honest, do you need an assault rifle to do something bad?

    I don't think a federal ban will happen (on assault weapons and accessories). They may make the screening process more thorough, impose a new one, or something like that, but Capitol Hill will stay out of it, other than just do enough to appease the media.

    I live near and work in DC. I interact with a lot of Senators and Congressmen. I'd say 90% believe the above. Add to the fact that assault weapons are not commonly used in these atrocities, pistols are.

    A mentally ill person will find a way to hurt people if he/she really wants to.
    Add to that....Conn had one of the strictest gun laws. Number 5 I heard today.

  9. #289
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Wildcat Country
    Posts
    5,099
    Rep. Villalba: Let teachers carry concealed guns

    by MAURICE CHAMMAH

    The Texas Tribune

    Posted on December 18, 2012 at 11:36 AM

    Updated today at 6:16 PM

    Poll:
    Would you approve of teachers being armed at your child's school?
    Related:

    Sales soar as gun debate rages
    NRA pledges to help prevent school shootings
    Perry: School districts should decide on arming teachers
    Kids, Santa Claus... and guns?
    Agents visit gun shops after school massacre


    In response to last week's Connecticut school shooting, state Rep. Jason Villalba, R-Dallas, says he will file legislation to allow public school teachers to carry concealed weapons while on campus.

    The bill, which Villalba is calling the Protection of Texas Children Act, would permit Texas schools to appoint a member of their faculty as a "school marshal." The marshal, with training and certification, would be able to "use lethal force upon the occurrence of an attack in the classroom or elsewhere on campus," according to a press release from Villalba's office.

    “Unfortunately, law enforcement personnel cannot be everywhere at all times," Villalba said in a statement. "We need to talk very frankly about how we can protect our children if the unthinkable should occur."
    .


    So if calling for tighter restrictions on assault weapons in the wake of Newtown is a knee jerk reaction, how is this also not a knee jerk reaction?
    Last edited by BushyTheBeaver; 12-18-2012 at 09:53 PM.

  10. #290
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,705
    Quote Originally Posted by John_0515 View Post
    Has anyone talked about what happened in Oregon prior to this shooting?

    The "shooter" there stopped his assault and shot himself when a civilian tried to respond to the active shooter. Once the "shooter" saw the gun, he gave up.

    .
    Is that true? I haven't heard about that at all. You'd think that would be a relevant point to make. Of course, I'm not surprised that little tidbit was buried.

  11. #291
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Wildcat Country
    Posts
    5,099
    Quote Originally Posted by John_0515 View Post
    A mentally ill person will find a way to hurt people if he/she really wants to.
    Of course. But let's be honest here too, without semi-auto weapons there would not be 26 people dead right now. Maybe six, maybe 12, but there is no way to argue that the weapons this kid had did not factor into the high casualty count.

  12. #292
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cape Cod, MA
    Posts
    3,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard View Post
    Is that true? I haven't heard about that at all. You'd think that would be a relevant point to make. Of course, I'm not surprised that little tidbit was buried.
    It's kind of a common theme. When resistance is imminent, they end it. Don't want to run the risk of getting caught and not killed (I'm speculating).

  13. #293
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,705
    Quote Originally Posted by BushyTheBeaver View Post
    Of course. But let's be honest here too, without semi-auto weapons there would not be 26 people dead right now. Maybe six, maybe 12, but there is no way to argue that the weapons this kid had did not factor into the high casualty count.
    Aren't most guns semi-auto? I mean, unless you're talking about a pump shotgun or a bolt action rifle -- or an old 19th century cowboy revolver -- almost every gun is a semi-auto.

    It seems like the media is using the term "semi-automatic" in the same way as "assault rifle". It doesn't really mean anything but it sounds menacing and scary.

  14. #294
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Wildcat Country
    Posts
    5,099
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard View Post
    Is that true? I haven't heard about that at all. You'd think that would be a relevant point to make. Of course, I'm not surprised that little tidbit was buried.
    Link. Didn't see this in any reporting of the story. Even if it were true, it's anecdotal, the shakiest of grounds on to which to build an argument.

  15. #295
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,705
    Quote Originally Posted by BushyTheBeaver View Post
    Link. Didn't see this in any reporting of the story. Even if it were true, it's anecdotal, the shakiest of grounds on to which to build an argument.
    http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-ma...183593571.html

    It may be anecdotal, but it certainly prevented more people from losing their lives.

  16. #296
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cape Cod, MA
    Posts
    3,676
    Quote Originally Posted by BushyTheBeaver View Post
    Of course. But let's be honest here too, without semi-auto weapons there would not be 26 people dead right now. Maybe six, maybe 12, but there is no way to argue that the weapons this kid had did not factor into the high casualty count.
    Timothy McVeigh had a gun on him that he didn't need to use. 170 dead, 20 under 6 y.o.
    Elaborate, I know. But if this kid had stabbed his mother to death then drove his car through the bus line, we wouldn't be talking about guns.

    Not a gun nut, by the way.

  17. #297
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Wildcat Country
    Posts
    5,099
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard View Post
    http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-ma...183593571.html

    It may be anecdotal, but it certainly prevented more people from losing their lives.
    Really? Where does it say that? Where does it say the shooter even saw this guy?

  18. #298
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Wildcat Country
    Posts
    5,099
    Quote Originally Posted by stanner View Post
    Timothy McVeigh had a gun on him that he didn't need to use. 170 dead, 20 under 6 y.o.
    Elaborate, I know. But if this kid had stabbed his mother to death then drove his car through the bus line, we wouldn't be talking about guns.

    Not a gun nut, by the way.
    So your point is we wouldn't be talking about guns if this guy hadn't used a gun to kill 27 people? I cannot but agree.

  19. #299
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,705
    Quote Originally Posted by BushyTheBeaver View Post
    Really? Where does it say that? Where does it say the shooter even saw this guy?
    "I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."
    Reading is fundamental.

  20. #300
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Wildcat Country
    Posts
    5,099
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard View Post
    Aren't most guns semi-auto? I mean, unless you're talking about a pump shotgun or a bolt action rifle -- or an old 19th century cowboy revolver -- almost every gun is a semi-auto.

    It seems like the media is using the term "semi-automatic" in the same way as "assault rifle". It doesn't really mean anything but it sounds menacing and scary.
    Semi-auto of course has a meaning. Simply, it's loaded by a clip (as opposed say to a breach loader rifle or a revolver) and everything required to fire the weapon except pulling the trigger is automatic (loading the chamber, cocking the firing mechanism, ejecting the spent shell casing). The speed with which a particular semi auto can do this + the number of bullets it can hold in its clip determines how fast and long it can fire.

    There actually is a history and loose definition of assault rifle although for sure there's a lot of grey. Basically, after WW2 the US army did a bunch of studies. One of the things they learned was that that in combat most killing came at a much closer range than previously expected. Also, most soldiers did not fire their weapons (yes, you read that right). So the rifles that had been in use, which emphasized the ability to fire a heavy caliber bullet with accuracy from a long range (at the cost of slower loading and a sharp recoil) were largely wasted. The studies suggested that battles were won by the side able to fire the most bullets the fastest at medium range. So the "assault" rifle was born (or advanced, if you're a real history student), a weapon that sacrifices caliber and long range accuracy in favor of speed. By designing a weapon that could shoot a lot more bullets faster, you in part made up for the soldiers that didn't fire at all. Not surprisingly, guns, just like the cars we drive, the appliances we use, are increasingly designed to make up for the shortcomings of the humans that use them. So in that respect most guns (but possibly assault rifles in particular) are designed to make the inexperienced more lethal.
    Last edited by BushyTheBeaver; 12-18-2012 at 10:58 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us