So, if I understand the story correctly, the guns actually belonged to his mother, right? He took those guns, killed her, and then went to the school. Would gun control laws have done anything to stop this particular event?

12/16/2012 4:18:11 PM

^^^Clearly I was wrong in trying to shed a little light as to why gun guys/girls would be against extreme regulation. Obviously your mind is closed to a little insight.

^^I agree with what you are saying. That being said, I buy guns and collect them as a hobby...there are often times I find a gun I'm missing in my collection in a gun shop and buy it that day. Do I need to be under investigation because I see a gun I "NEED" in my collection and buy it that day?

[Edited on December 16, 2012 at 4:26 PM. Reason : .]

12/16/2012 4:25:29 PM

No.

It's pretty clearly not something that tighter gun control laws would have prevented.

12/16/2012 4:26:02 PM

Quote :

"Do I need to be under investigation because I see a gun I "NEED" in my collection and buy it that day?"

a gun is not a Need

a gun is most definitely a Want

12/16/2012 4:33:37 PM

Ban em and throw anyone found with a firearm in jail for a minimum of 20 years.

Realistic? No.

Will it stop crazy mass shootings? No.

It would likely cut down significantly on other *gun* crime and drastically cut down on availability of firearms for the loonies that do the mass shootings.

Do I support this? No, but all options should be considered.

12/16/2012 4:36:49 PM

^^ hence the caps and quotes, duh

12/16/2012 4:47:19 PM

Quote :

"I've never tried to ignite a shoe bomb in my life, nor do I know anyone who has, but I still have to take my shoes off while going through airport security "

And this is fundamentally wrong. Never mind that everyone in the country, left and right knows that the TSA is a joke. Never mind that every single under cover investigation has been able to sneak loaded firearms aboard, never mind that civilians have accidentally done so. Never mind that Adam Savage walked through the X-Ray scanner with two, foot long, razor blades on his person. The simple fact of the matter is that aside from taking your shoes off being nothing but security theater, as you point out, you have never lit a shoe bomb, bombed any thing or even (presumably) done or made any threats within the airport that would have you subjected to this unreasonable invasion of your privacy. The fact that we as a society infringe on and collectively ignore our few remaining rights is not an excuse to continue doing it.

Quote :

"if you really think it's acceptable that virtually ANY citizen with cash can walk into a gun show, hell even a proper shop, and walk out a few minutes later with a battery of high-power semi-auto rifles and ammo, then I'm not sure we're ever going to reach common ground. "

The still need to pass a NICS check. The "Gunshow Loophole" is simply referring to the fact that federal law does not require one private individual to perform a NICS check on another private individual before selling them a gun. However, this may be modified by individual state law, and only applies to intra state sales (that is, sales from one resident of the state to another, interstate sales still fall under the federal regulations). Per wikipedia, 17 states (including CT) regulate private party sales to include a background check in some form or another.

Quote :

"Do you think our forefathers, who wrote the second amendment, were intending to protect the gun ownership rights of their criminals, mentally ill and habitually drunk?"

Only in as much as they intended the rights of the rest of the amendments to apply to those people. It's also worth noting that by federal law, felons and the mentally ill are already prevented from owning.

12/16/2012 5:05:37 PM

Quote :

"mentally ill are already prevented from owning."

feel free to go read the NYT article I posted on page 3 and see how much of a farce that statement is

Quote :

"So, if I understand the story correctly, the guns actually belonged to his mother, right? He took those guns, killed her, and then went to the school. Would gun control laws have done anything to stop this particular event?"

meaningful gun control would have kept a woman from amassing a small armory in her home

Quote :

"If you really think a semi-automatic and a fully automatic have no distinction in the speed at which they unload rounds...you are misinformed."

as someone who in his life has put 10's (if not 100's) of thousands of rounds down range from both semi and fully automatic weapons, I am confident that the deal that is made by the anti-control people over this distinction is nothing more than a distraction from the real issues

[Edited on December 16, 2012 at 6:42 PM. Reason : .]

12/16/2012 6:38:33 PM

The kid used two pistols, that's not an armory

Go away, troll

12/16/2012 6:57:21 PM

Quote :

"Lt. J. Paul Vance said that Lanza died as a result of suicide using a handgun. Vance added that Lanza's mother, Nancy Lanza, died as a result of "multiple gunshot wounds" in her home. Vance also told reporters that Adam Lanza used the Bushmaster AR-15 "assault-type weapon" most of the time at the school."

with all due respect, your false narrative can eat a dick

[Edited on December 16, 2012 at 6:59 PM. Reason : .]

12/16/2012 6:59:04 PM

Quote :

"feel free to go read the NYT article I posted on page 3 and see how much of a farce that statement is"

Ah, so as many gun rights folks have said in this and previous threads, one of the problems is that we don't enforce the gun laws we already have on the books.

^ ITT, 2 pistols and a deer rifle is considered an "armory"

[Edited on December 16, 2012 at 7:04 PM. Reason : bleh]

12/16/2012 7:00:50 PM

the point of me saying that was because you were grossly misinformed about gun control and the mentally ill.

you don't get to be wrong and then try and pivot your wrongness into another anti-control narrative

[Edited on December 16, 2012 at 7:03 PM. Reason : .]

12/16/2012 7:02:49 PM

Quote :

"as someone who in his life has put 10's (if not 100's) of thousands of rounds down range from both semi and fully automatic weapons, I am confident that the deal that is made by the anti-control people over this distinction is nothing more than a distraction from the real issues "

Funny, I have shot a pile of rounds myself from every action type I can think of (save a double-barrel), and I find a huge distinction between full and semi-auto.

I find most potential measures that we might take against guns themselves to be the easy, feel-good approaches that wouldn't do much, if any, good.

The way to fix this is more stringent screening of potential gun owners, and more robust treatment of mental illness. There are limitations and even potential pitfalls/unintended consequences with both of those avenues, but they're at least potentially useful steps in the right direction.


^^^^ It looks now like he used the AR as well as the pistols.
^^^^^ but 2 handguns and an AR are hardly a small armory or even anything beyond the normal and routine.

[Edited on December 16, 2012 at 7:03 PM. Reason : ]

12/16/2012 7:03:33 PM

of course there is a distinction. but as I said, those who try to blow up the media's sometime confusion-inducing reporting of semi-automatic vs. automatic are trying to obfuscate the real issues of gun control

the mother had many more weapons in her house. the fact that he only took 3 of them doesn't change that

[Edited on December 16, 2012 at 7:07 PM. Reason : .]

12/16/2012 7:07:04 PM

Quote :

"the point of me saying that was because you were grossly misinformed about gun control and the mentally ill."

Except I wasn't wrong. Federal law says those adjudicated mentally ill are unable to own firearms. That there is a provision to allow them to petition the courts for reinstatement of that right, and that we don't enforce that law nearly as we'll as we could does not make my pious statement concerning federal law incorrect. The law is on the books, so we don't need more laws, we need to enforce the ones we have.

12/16/2012 7:09:53 PM

the problem isn't one of enforcement. as you pointed out, the law itself has, thanks to the NRA, a laughable loophole that allows mentally ill to get their guns back with extremely low barriers to ownership.

the laws we have do not work. there is no level of enforcement that will make them work. we need more laws that will. ones that are made in a vacuum where the NRA can not control legislature with money and influence. ones where we decide we're going to update 300 year old theory and take a stand against the absurd gun culture we now have

[Edited on December 16, 2012 at 7:23 PM. Reason : .]

12/16/2012 7:18:54 PM

Quote :

"the problem isn't one of enforcement. as you pointed out, the law itself has, thanks to the NRA, a laughable loophole that allows mentally ill to get their guns back with extremely low barriers to ownership."

Those low barriers are set by the individual states, and the article itself point out how the judges aren't even doing due diligence to adhere to those standards. So again, not enforcing the laws, unless you think that analyzing whether a person is or continues to be a risk to themselves and others shouldn't include an evaluation of their current medical treatments. But to my knowledge (and nothing in the article indicates otherwise) there is nothing legislative standing in the way of the courts doing their job, they just aren't doing it.

12/16/2012 7:30:06 PM

Quote :

"of course there is a distinction. but as I said, those who try to blow up the media's sometime confusion-inducing reporting of semi-automatic vs. automatic are trying to obfuscate the real issues of gun control"

When one side of the debate doesn't even, to a staggering extent, even know what a semi-automatic weapon is, that's a problem.

I was arguing today with this chick who said we should ban semi-automatic weapons, and lo and behold, there's a fucking video on her Facebook of her shooting a semi-auto shotgun. I mentioned it to her, and she said "no, i'm pretty sure it wasn't semi-automatic."

[facepalm]

12/16/2012 7:32:18 PM

I still fail to see the problem with having a "small armory".

12/16/2012 7:42:47 PM

if you think this dude had a small armory, then i wonder what you consider a reasonable collection?

12/16/2012 7:51:49 PM

I'd say the armory I oversaw why I was running an anti-terrorism unit in the military was a reasonably sized one. you know, smaller than an infantry unit, but larger than the armory I ran when I was the ordnance officer on a warship

12/16/2012 7:55:59 PM

12/16/2012 8:39:32 PM

it begins

12/16/2012 8:48:45 PM

stock up on your guns and ammo now

12/16/2012 8:57:24 PM

REMF, Pogue, Fobbit, WOG, etc...

12/16/2012 8:59:44 PM

aww, how cute. someone looked up jargon. i mean you're wrong...kinda like how you were wrong about it being just pistols...but it's still cute nonetheless.

[Edited on December 16, 2012 at 9:32 PM. Reason : who's trolling now?]

12/16/2012 9:07:36 PM

so did obama propose anything other than hope and change today?

12/16/2012 9:22:55 PM

he's made it very clear that he takes a relatively anti-gun stance

[Edited on December 16, 2012 at 9:27 PM. Reason : not today, but in the past]

12/16/2012 9:27:06 PM

Maybe we can balance the budget by taxing gun sales

12/16/2012 9:34:30 PM

^^ this has been covered but by what actions? Reagan was more "anti-gun" than Obama has been so far.

12/16/2012 9:37:32 PM

he was extremely anti-gun before he became a presidential candidate. anti-gun at a federal level is political suicide, so that shit ended with a quickness.

[Edited on December 16, 2012 at 9:40 PM. Reason : i mean, i can copy and paste, but it's not a secret]

12/16/2012 9:39:31 PM

he was the less anti-gun candidate

anyone have a video of the speech today? i missed it

12/16/2012 9:40:22 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLbZ6gUqOKA

And ^, yes. NRA supported Romney because they have to. It's all about the $$$$ and the vast majority of their donors are certainly Republicans/Libertarians.

[Edited on December 16, 2012 at 9:52 PM. Reason : this appears to be full speech]

12/16/2012 9:51:04 PM

yes, in the past, romney has made it clear that he is anti-gun. not sure how that is relevant.

[Edited on December 16, 2012 at 9:54 PM. Reason : right video now]

12/16/2012 9:53:48 PM

It's as relevant as the comment before it

Not very

12/16/2012 10:00:44 PM

I saw this post:

Quote :

"So Diane Fienstein is going to try to re-institute the “Assault Weapons Ban.” This infuriates me. But probably not for the reason you think. Let me explain . . . For those of you who support this legislation, please enlighten me as to how it would make a difference. How it would actually protect people and make the country and it’s citizens safer. There are 310 million guns in America, so they aren’t going anywhere. There are always going to be guns. Legal and illegal. Period. Due to our current laws, the sick individual who killed a bunch of innocent kids and adults last week was denied the purchase of a gun prior to his rampage. So like the criminal he was, he stole the guns he used. And ignored the fact that schools are gun free zones. Because he was a psychotic murder. Why does anyone think a new law would have changed his mind? If Diane really wanted to make a difference, she would get serious about states reporting mental illness events/diagnoses to the FBI to be included in NICS background checks. Because right now, the states don’t and the Federal government, who requires this information, doesn’t punish them for withholding it. How about withholding a little federal money from the states until they comply? Let’s see how quick that information starts flowing in. Or equally important, help fund a trained, armed police officer in every public school. Most high schools have them, why not expand this to all public schools? And don’t tell me we don’t have the money for it. Call it “stimulus” for safety. Take the money the federal government spent sending F-16's, fixing religious buildings, etc. in Egypt over the last year alone and reinvest it here. That’s over one billion dollars of “foreign aid” by the way. That would cover just over 20% of public schools with one officer (based on a 50k salary, and 98k public schools). One year of foreign aid to one country so cover 20% of public schools. Those two actions alone would make a tremendous difference. But instead, we are going to argue about trying to get rid of “scary” looking guns. Because if you look at the details of what an assault weapons ban actually restricts, you might not find it so impressive after all. It’s mostly a bunch of cosmetic features. And if you still think it will make a difference, look at the AWB that California has and the guns you can still buy and be in compliance with the law. And I forgot to mention — Connecticut already has an assault weapons ban. Just saying. And above all else, please pray for the families who have lost a loved one. I think of the children of that age that I know, and the educators I know, and my heart breaks for their community. I know, despite my best efforts to show empathy, I will never understand their grief. I am truly sorry for their loss."

It's a good point, most assault weapon ban stuff is cosmetic in nature, and does little to change the aspect of the basic gun.

[Edited on December 16, 2012 at 10:18 PM. Reason : .]

12/16/2012 10:16:50 PM

i guess folks would just feel better if Lanza's rifle didn't have a flash hider on it

12/16/2012 10:24:47 PM

Whs the point of laws? They are broken every day.

12/17/2012 12:01:42 AM

Fienstein should lead by example and not allow the secret service protecting her to have guns

12/17/2012 6:46:56 AM

The point is that AWB are dumb laws, based on how many cosmetic things a gun has and not on if a gun is more dangerous or more likely to be used in a crime. It's also silly to waste political time arguing an AWB after a shooting done with two pistols.

This should be a time we talk about real control, not AWB, but because some people don't have a basic understanding about guns and see the scary picture of the bushmaster and don't know what semi-automatic means or think that something is an assault rifle because its .223... this is what we get.

12/17/2012 6:47:00 AM

So would the media be confused when they realize this "non-scary" rifle is the exact same thing as a ZOMGBLACKRIFLEAR-15ASSAULTRIFLE?

12/17/2012 8:13:20 AM

That looks the same.

12/17/2012 8:16:16 AM

the '94 AWB is actually one of the main reasons the AR-15 became so popular. before the ban, a lot of folks just thought they were expensive, underpowered, and finicky. the AWB created more interest in them and folks found out how much fun it is to shoot a comfortable, ergonomic, low-recoiling rifle. more folks started making AWB-compliant versions (no flash hider, no bayonet lug) and prices came down.

the simplest way to prevent the shooting in CT would've been for his mother to properly secure her firearms. that shit is inexcusable.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 8:18 AM. Reason : ^but that rifle he posted is AWB-compliant]

12/17/2012 8:18:06 AM

let's go through this again, since folks don't seem to get it.

Semi-automatic Bushmaster chambered for .223 Remington. not legal for manufacture under the '94 AWB:


Semi-automatic Remington model R-15 chambered in .223 Remington. made by the same company that makes Bushmaster. legal for manufacture under the '94 AWB:


do you see the issue?

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 8:24 AM. Reason : "civilian ownership" is a better term than "manufacture", actually]

the AWB is pushed by the same folks who tried to get full metal jacket (FMJ) ammunition in military chamberings outlawed. FMJ is less lethal than soft-point hunting ammunition, which is why the Geneva Convention outlawed soft points and hollowpoints for military use. they are all up in the kool-aid, but they don't even know the flavor.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 8:27 AM. Reason : asdf]

12/17/2012 8:22:17 AM

Forgive me if I've overlooked it, but has anyone in this thread actually argued in favor of an assault weapons ban similar to the recent one? I see an awful lot of arguments against, but I'm not sure what they're in response to.

12/17/2012 8:39:12 AM

That's why the gun people should propose what should be banned.


Anyway, most of the guns in all these shootings were legally acquired. So, any effort to crack down on these shootings will be to make the way they acquired those weapons illegal.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 8:41 AM. Reason : .]

12/17/2012 8:40:01 AM

Ban murder. There, I did it.

12/17/2012 8:41:58 AM

http://easybakegunclub.com/blog/1968/Concealed-Carry-Hero-at-Portland-Mall---The-Full-S.html

Here, something good done by a gun owner. Lord knows what would have happened if this brave concealed carry holder had not approached the shooter.

12/17/2012 8:51:48 AM

If this asshole would have only left the Bushmaster at home, then we would have had a better chance at a true discussion about guns without getting sidetracked by assault weapon nonsense.

But then again, maybe not.

12/17/2012 9:59:01 AM

he did leave it at home

12/17/2012 10:03:54 AM