according the state police, he used the rifle in the school. the shotgun was left in the car.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c3#/video/us/2012/12/16/ct-shooting-350p-presser-shooter-id-weapon-info.cnn

also, for the uninformed, .223 Remington is banned for deer hunting in many states on the grounds that it is viewed as too weak to result in reliable, ethical kills on deer-sized game.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 10:13 AM. Reason : asdf]

12/17/2012 10:05:38 AM

The scary looking assault weapony Bushmaster is the rifle correct?

12/17/2012 10:15:58 AM

yes, i believe it was a Glock chambered in 10mm, a Sig chambered in 9mm, and a Bushmaster rifle in the school and a Saiga shotgun in the car.



in that video, he doesn't say what the AR is chambered for and doesn't explicitly say it was a saiga, but other stories were reporting a Saiga and showing one with all sorts of scary-looking stuff hanging off it, even though it functions like any other semi-automatic duck hunting shotgun.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 10:25 AM. Reason : asdf]

12/17/2012 10:20:41 AM

And around we go.



[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 10:51 AM. Reason : lol internet]

12/17/2012 10:40:16 AM

someone explain to me why it matters which gun he used to kill the kids?

12/17/2012 10:46:38 AM

pic doesn't work for me

12/17/2012 10:46:41 AM

^^ It shouldn't, but the way guns look is important to some people

12/17/2012 10:53:13 AM

Damn he used a 10mm glock to shoot little kids?

That is way more fucked up than using an AR.

12/17/2012 11:01:31 AM

To rephrase my question from the previous page that went unanswered...

Has anyone in this thread said that certain guns should be banned because of the way they look? I get that there was some confusion over the difference between semi-and full-auto, but unless I overlooked a bunch of posts (certainly a possibility), I don't think anyone has argued in favor of another assault weapons ban based on cosmetics.

12/17/2012 11:05:25 AM

Quote :

"Damn he used a 10mm glock to shoot little kids? That is way more fucked up than using an AR."

i do not think they have definitively said what he actually shot anyone with. they said that he mostly used the rifle. watch the cnn video i posted.

12/17/2012 11:08:28 AM

^^don't think anyone in this thread has. Most of those comments you're referring to are talking about legislative movements in the past that, due to ignorance, were based more on the cosmetics and accessories of a rifle than its actual firepower

^won't load for some reason on my phone, I'll check it out when I'm at a pc

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 11:15 AM. Reason : .]

12/17/2012 11:10:06 AM

From my liberal retard friends facebook. I cant even begin to point out all the stupid in this post. Enjoy

Quote :

"I didn't want to comment on this but I feel so frustrated! No one argues that Individuals are not accountable for their actions but when the same problems happen repeatedly the larger community needs to come together to address the contributing factors. If you believe that every citizen has the right to own this type of weaponry, you lose your right to complain about the consequences. Get w the times ppl, this isn't the 1700s. The gov't doesn't need Marshall law to threaten you, bc it already convinced you to kill yourself w gluttony and greed thanks to "drill baby drill" (i.e., fracking), your American right to eat tons of genetically modified food and hormone pumped meat, and then argue against those of us wanting more comprehensive and preventative healthcare. The only arm I want the right to bear is the one I raise up to smack the paranoid and gullible fools who continue to allow themselves to be distracted by a scapegoat and blinded to the real problems of our country. It's the individualistic mentality that has gotten us into this mess and will continue to doom us. We need to recognize we are in this together and act accordingly by making the hard decisions that will keep the masses safer. Ask yourself how your everyday life would be different wo your safe o' guns right now. Regardless of who's to blame, ask yourself is it worth it. We are all to blame for not demanding more protection from our govt. Protection from crazies, from corporate greed, from ourselves. Turn your finger around to yourself and act to make this country safer for all. "

12/17/2012 1:10:35 PM

so does anybody know about the school rampage that happened in China on the same day as this Connecticut thing? motherfucker used a knife on like 20 kids... they all survived.

12/17/2012 1:18:38 PM

red baron 22 be sure to thank the parents in Connecticut for sacrificing their children for your rights.

12/17/2012 1:18:45 PM

^^^ I cant even begin to point out all the stupid in that post.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 1:19 PM. Reason : ^]

12/17/2012 1:19:05 PM

Be sure to thank me for yours.

12/17/2012 1:19:47 PM

did you protect us from saddam's invasion?

12/17/2012 1:20:50 PM

Why would I thank you for anything?

12/17/2012 1:21:15 PM

I am just as sickened by this as anyone, but Im not jumping into knee jerk reactions.

12/17/2012 1:24:07 PM

Knee jerk on both sides. That's why there a dozen posts going crazy about the differences between guns.

A "meaningful discussion" can mean a thousand things but absolutely should include revisiting gun control laws AND how our society deals with mental illness.

I'm sorry, but having a discussion is not tantamount to "ban all guns" or "moar guns, less violence."

12/17/2012 1:27:22 PM

Quote :

"That's why there a dozen posts going crazy about the differences between guns."

there are a dozen posts going crazy about the differences between guns because the media does not present facts about these firearms and if we're going to have a meaningful discussion about how to regulate them, then both sides need to have a full understanding of what exactly they're regulating.

12/17/2012 1:29:31 PM

I agree with you both

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 1:30 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2012 1:29:54 PM

i would love for this country to have a meaningful, fact-based discourse on gun control. we need to leave the emotions out of it. i have no doubt that if the right people were involved, we could agree on a system that protects citizens and my right to keep and bear arms, but political discussions are never that way.

12/17/2012 1:33:32 PM

no offesne, but i don't see how getting into the details about the types of guns used helps that discourse.

12/17/2012 1:40:43 PM

it's relevant because a lot of folks support support banning specific types of guns. i think we should discuss why they want to ban those specific types of guns and what makes them different than the guns they're ok with me having.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 1:44 PM. Reason : http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/16/feinstein-will-introduce-assault-weapons-b]

12/17/2012 1:43:50 PM

Because if you don't, you end up with AWB. Its important.

12/17/2012 1:44:58 PM

So what can we do to curtail these kinds of tragedies from both gun control and mental health perspectives? It's obvious that the status quo isn't ideal, so how can we make things better? How do we determine the best balance between freedom and security? What measures can we as individuals and a society take to effect both immediate and long-term change for the better? Can we even come to an agreement on what "better" would be? Etc, etc, etc...

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 1:46 PM. Reason : biting my tongue ]

12/17/2012 1:45:44 PM

I'd rather have AWB than nothing, and fear of an inadequate or otherwise imperfect law isn't a reason to delay a law indefinitely. Endless quibbling is the last line of defense for the defenders of the status quo.

People on the right want a good, comprehensive, well informed gun control? Then fucking propose it. When they do nothing but poke holes in bills concocted by anti-gun advocates, it becomes clear their priority is obfuscation, not solution-finding. If pro-gun advocates want reasonable gun control that doesn't infringe on their right, the onus is on them to put pressure on their own representatives to do so, not play Statler and Waldorf to whatever the Dems cook up.


[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 1:49 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2012 1:46:48 PM

the point i'm trying to make is that an AWB essentially is nothing. it does nothing to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

unless you think Lanza would've been less effective if his rifle didn't have a flash hider, bayonet lug, or adjustable stock or if his mother had've had to pay more for the 30 round magazines he used.

12/17/2012 1:49:53 PM

So fucking propose something.

12/17/2012 1:50:38 PM

Even the moderate right goes through pointless theatrics on this.

"Oh, I'm totally in favor of modest gun regulation, but rather than tell you what I'd support, let me first pick apart the AWB, then 'educate' you on the differences between gun X and gun Y to demonstrate how much I know about them, then hopefully by the end you'll forget I ever promised to tell you what regulations I'd support."

12/17/2012 1:52:57 PM

Look

its not picking it apart to be obstructionist

its picking it apart because it does jack shit to actually control guns,
it does not make people safer.

If you want more gun control, want to reduce crimes and make things safer then YOU. SHOULD. NOT. WANT. AWB.

12/17/2012 1:57:17 PM

Keep proving my point.

12/17/2012 1:58:48 PM

a national system similar to the NC CHP process

i attend a meaningful, reasonably priced, easily accessible training course. upon completion of a background check, i am issued a firearm permit which allows me to purchase firearms.

further training and permitting allows me a similar permit that allows the purchase of items covered under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

tough penalties for those who fail to secure their firearms.

i think this would be a very good start. what would you add?

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 2:00 PM. Reason : permit must be renewed for a reasonable fee every 5 years]

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 2:03 PM. Reason : training should include live fire exercises]

12/17/2012 1:59:26 PM

Gun control needs to be revised. Given. Problem is, even level-headed gun ownership proponents have a hard time getting any representation, as the loudest pro-gun lobbies are borderline to hysterically fanatical about it. But there is a compromise to be made, and we need to figure out logistically how that is accomplished.

But in the meantime, and this is transcending the scope of this thread, the real issue has nothing to do with the weapon used. My uncle (gulf war veteran, ex-cop, gun rights supporter) made a lucid point yesterday on FB:

Quote :

"I think we should all agreed to NOT mention the name of that louse that killed those children in Conn. He does not deserve to be mentioned by name. His name should be stricken from any use in the future. If the media would not broadcast his name and picture and just say "the person that did this..." perhaps no one else would think this is a great way to die by murdering innocent people. Give them NO notariety."

Gun violence in America is a direct result of desensitization and glorification thereof. Since enacting a shift in social paradigm will be even harder than coming to universal agreement on gun laws, one thing we CAN do is mandate that the media not name or discuss the killer beyond gross facts. Lessen the glory, lessen the violence. Of course it won't stop them all, but it can dampen the resolve of the psychos that want to go out in flames and leave their stamp on history.


edit: I like how str8foolish blatantly ignores the solutions already proposed by gun supporters in this thread. Keep it up though broseph you're the people's hero

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 2:07 PM. Reason : asdf]

12/17/2012 1:59:44 PM

^^ This and ^ this are both meaningful and valid additions to the discussion.

For my two cents .. maybe add a requirement for gun safe/locks sold with firearms.


[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 2:09 PM. Reason : maybe for old guns too?]

12/17/2012 2:04:19 PM

some sort of security device. trigger locks, action locks, whatever. a safe requirement may become cost prohibitive.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 2:06 PM. Reason : every new firearm is already sold with lock of some sort]

12/17/2012 2:05:41 PM

Quote :

"i attend a meaningful, reasonably priced, easily accessible training course. upon completion of a background check, i am issued a firearm permit which allows me to purchase firearms."

Does exactly nothing to deter what happened Friday.

Quote :

"further training and permitting allows me a similar permit that allows the purchase of items covered under the National Firearms Act of 1934."

Same.

Quote :

"tough penalties for those who fail to secure their firearms."

Might have done something if both Adam and his mother weren't basically crazy and probably not attuned to this kind of cost-benefit analysis.

Beyond that, what do you mean by "secure"? Locking them in the house isn't enough, that's about as good as a gun safe with a pane glass window. I'm pretty skeptical of trigger guards too.

Quote :

"i think this would be a very good start. what would you add?"

Just spitballing here, not necessarily all of these at once: Ban all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, ban extended mags and speedloaders, require X number of therapy sessions in an Y month period and require the therapists approval for purchase, maybe with X and Y depending on things like criminal history, medication, etc.

Something that would actually do something to deter or slow down the process that happened Friday would be nice, or even something to just reduce the body count. It may have been that Adam was having a psychotic break that would have passed if he'd been unable to follow through for 1 more day.

12/17/2012 2:10:24 PM

I like how paerabol posted his uncle's facebook post as though that exact same viewpoint isn't expressed over and over again every single time this happens.

12/17/2012 2:11:05 PM

define "extended mags" and "speedloaders"

12/17/2012 2:14:15 PM

Also I am all for actually respecting the ENTIRE second amendment, and allowing the formation of State Militias that you could enroll in for access to greater firepower.

12/17/2012 2:14:22 PM

Quote :

"i attend a meaningful, reasonably priced, easily accessible training course. upon completion of a background check, i am issued a firearm permit which allows me to purchase firearms. further training and permitting allows me a similar permit that allows the purchase of items covered under the National Firearms Act of 1934. tough penalties for those who fail to secure their firearms."

What does the background check actually check? Specifically, the mental health stuff. How do you determine whether or not someone is likely to use the firearm in a criminal manner or is that something that shouldn't or can't be guessed at?

Quote :

"edit: I like how str8foolish blatantly ignores the solutions already proposed by gun supporters in this thread. Keep it up though broseph you're the people's hero"

In his defense, most of those posts didn't do much to generate discussion.

Quote :

"some sort of security device. trigger locks, action locks, whatever."

It obviously wouldn't be practical yet, even if it might be technically possible, but I was thinking the other day about some sort of biometric verification built into the gun. So until the registered owner or other approved user(s) "unlocked" it, the gun would be inoperable.

12/17/2012 2:17:45 PM

Quote :

"I like how paerabol posted his uncle's facebook post as though that exact same viewpoint isn't expressed over and over again every single time this happens."

i like how str8foolish gets off on being a raging fucking dick, quite literally every chance he gets.

you're insufferable.

12/17/2012 2:19:02 PM

scratch the extended mag thing, i would just set magazine limits for firearms, maybe something like 9 for pistols, 5 for rifles, 2 for shotguns

"speedloader" would include all revolver speedloaders, quickloaders, speed strips, and magazine loaders that DONT require at least one button push or crank-turn per round, and stipper clips.

Quote :

"i like how str8foolish gets off on being a raging fucking dick, quite literally every chance he gets. you're insufferable."

Fucking cry about, why don't you. I returned sarcasm with sarcasm.


[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 2:21 PM. Reason : DONT]

12/17/2012 2:19:22 PM

Quote :

"Does exactly nothing to deter what happened Friday. "

Well if it didn't stop this one specific instance that has already happened then it must have no value or possibility to stop anything in the future and must be abandoned for more generalized rants about guns and name calling.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 2:20 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2012 2:20:14 PM

Quote :

"It obviously wouldn't be practical yet, even if it might be technically possible, but I was thinking the other day about some sort of biometric verification built into the gun. So until the registered owner or other approved user(s) "unlocked" it, the gun would be inoperable."

what if that one freak time i need my firearm for protection, my battery is dead or it otherwise malfunctions? that's not reasonable gun control imo.

12/17/2012 2:21:01 PM

so tuff

i also like how you don't deny intentionally being an asshole. you must be a hit at parties.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 2:22 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2012 2:21:13 PM

Quote :

"I like how paerabol posted his uncle's facebook post as though that exact same viewpoint isn't expressed over and over again every single time this happens."

Great contribution. Then why hasn't something been done about it? It's a point that all sides can agree on, and likely to have a MUCH greater effect on reducing gun violence. Media has such an enormous influence here and it's run completely unmitigated. Video games, prime time TV, news coverage...all these things have contributed to the environment these kids have been raised in. Combines with parenting failures and general negligence, the specific tool of death is of secondary concern at best.

It's just incredibly narrow-minded to think that eliminating gun availability will stop mass killings or even have any significant net effect on public safety.



[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 2:28 PM. Reason : sadf]

12/17/2012 2:21:34 PM

Quote :

"what if that one freak time i need my firearm for protection, my battery is dead or it otherwise malfunctions? that's not reasonable gun control imo."

If the battery's dead because you were negligent, it's your own fault. If it's defective, that's the manufacturer's fault, just like with a defective gun. I think it's pretty reasonable.

12/17/2012 2:22:38 PM

Quote :

"what if that one freak time i need my firearm for protection, my battery is dead or it otherwise malfunctions? that's not reasonable gun control imo."

Responsible gun ownership would include maintaining battery levels. If "it might malfunction" is an argument against having something you may as well throw out the entire gun.

Quote :

"Great contribution. Then why hasn't something been done about it? It's a point that all sides can agree on, and likely to have a MUCH greater effect on reducing gun violence. Media has such an enormous influence here and it's run completely unmitigated. Video games, prime time TV, news coverage...all these things have contributed to the environment these kids have been raised in. Combines with parenting failures and general negligence, the specific tool of death is of secondary concern at best. It's just incredibly narrow-minded to think that eliminating gun availability will stop mass killings or even have any significant net effect on public safety."

It's not guns, it's video games. Got it.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 2:25 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2012 2:23:48 PM