Another mass shooting in the U.S

wonderfullife · 19-12-2012 09:17PM

Sparks wrote: »

Not so much.

Nope, not true.

See, here's the thing. It's an assault weapons ban, and that rifle, is not an assault rifle. The ban set out things you could not have; this rifle was made in compliance with that law.

Now you want to say that they were in some way nefarious or underhanded because they followed the law?
What, so when I cross the street on a pedestrian crossing, I'm being nefarious?

Wrong.
Just... wrong.
You need to research so badly it'd be funny if the topic didn't have such a tragic origin.

I mean look -- you can't even keep your line straight for the length of one post:

You've bounced from talking about an assault weapons ban to a "proper ban on semiautomatic weapons" in the space of one post while talking about the same physical thing. Do you not understand that words in the English language have defined meanings that don't change those meanings for your convenience? Or that you can't call people liars just because you don't use a dictionary?

Yeah we get it, you're a literary genius and all-knowing when it comes to any matter gun related and will come up with any technical, pedantic justification necessary to mock the mere mortals and MAJORITY of this country and most others in Europe who think owning semi-automatic weapons OR assault rifles is wrong, you can get technical all you want but you know what was meant.

The Bushmaster .223 still has a large capacity magazine. Whether it's automatic, semi-automatic, digital, analogue, monomatic (im making up words now just for you) i couldn't give a rats ass, it has no purpose to be in the hands of people for self-defence. And if you want to go target shooting fine those guns should be stored in safes at competition venues and shooting clubs, should not be free to take as you please anywhere you please.

InTheTrees · 19-12-2012 09:17PM

The Aussie wrote: »

As a bloke that does the odd bit of hunting about the place, my thoughts on it are, if you need an assault rifle to go hunting, in fairness you must be fairly crap at.

So your second option seems the most likely.

Right. You buy an Ak to blast the hell out of the old fridge that you hauled out into a field. Which is Fun.

But probably only 10 shots at a time fun after next year...

And I actually have no problem with that really. I resent being forced to comply but there's enough lunatics out there.

Sparks · 19-12-2012 09:18PM

yoyo wrote: »

That's true, but the gun supports higher capacity magazines which in turn makes it easier for nutters to go on a rampage with the need to reload drastically less. If the shooter has a shotgun, after 6/7 cartridges they must reload or switch weapon, its quicker to slip out a 30 round mag and put another in and continue shooting.

Swapping magazines in a rifle like the AR-15 can be done quite quickly, in less than a second with practice (there are videos all over youtube if you want to see it being done). Personally, I don't see the point in a magazine capacity limit. If someone can't own a 30-round magazine, but they can own an unlimited number of 10-round magazines which they can change in under a second? I don't see how that limit is going to do anything to limit damage in a spree shooting. It's just ineffective.

Also, some shotguns load with magazines, and the more common pump-action ones can be reloaded before their magazines are empty, meaning that there is always a round in the chamber, and when that round contains between 8 and 16 pellets that are each larger than a 9mm pistol bullet...

Yeah, this is one of those cases where preventing a shooting is far better than ineffective limits on the tools the shooter is abusing...

Manic Moran · 19-12-2012 09:18PM

Sparks wrote: »

You might - if you didn't mind most of them going into the ceiling - get two rounds a second out of it with some practice.
Maybe. MM or some of our American posters or any of the Irish posters that own these rifles might know different, and I'd bow to their experience, but I don't personally think you could do it.

In fairness, I could probably get off about three half-aimed rounds a second with an AR. Though if I was intent on doing damage, I'd slow it down to about one a second and aiming properly.

As for the hunting argument, here's a breakdown in a hunting magazine of suggested sporting rifles for hunting and target shooting.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/guns/rifles/centerfire/2011/11/20-best-semi-automatic-rifles-big-game-hunting

You don't get to the 'traditional-looking non-scary' rifles until #17.

This article, from a different hunting magazine, asks the question 'should you go semi-auto or bolt-action?'
http://www.gameandfishmag.com/2010/10/07/hunting_guns-shooting_bolt_action_or_semi-auto_big_game_hunting_rifles_1010/

As you can see, there are arguments in favour of the semi-auto for sporting purposes.

This is before one goes back to the issue that the laws in the US are not just about hunting, but about all sorts of uses for the firearm, to include shooting people.

NTM

hedzball · 19-12-2012 09:18PM

bajer100 wrote: »

There are lots of jurisdictions where vermin and predators are a problem. Their control and eradication is usually undertaken by trained professionals - not by the be the general public. If these professionals require special weaponry to deal with the pests - fine.

Staying on topic..

Trained professionals?.. For hunting vermin?. I'm sorry what planet do you live on?.. Here and abroad vermin shooting is done by hunters.. The only trained professionals I can think of you are referring to exterminators in office blocks..

Tell me these trained professionals out shooting hundreds of thousands of boar and coyote a year.. Who pays them?.

Suppose all those septics on youtube are cowboy poachers eh?..

Suppose me dispatching vermin makes me a trained professional? A 15 minute proficiency course..

I'll put that on my CV will I? :pac::pac:

Im not saying some of the weapons aren't unjustified.. a 30 round mag on a 16inch barrel for hunting , 50cal for deer :pac::pac:

But they can put "home protection" down as reason of firearm ownership..

we wouldnt get too far if we put it on our fca1 forms.

bajer100 wrote: »

I know enough about hunting and shooting sports - they are both legal in Ireland and are both strictly controlled.

Strictly controlled?.. I could go out and shoot 100 foxes and 1000 bunnys without question long as Im using a weapon of mine and on a permission of mine..

Not very strict now?..

Sports shooting is tighter but I don't do it.

Sparks · 19-12-2012 09:20PM

smurgen wrote: »

However, I find you guys are almost sneering at people who are looking for solutions to stop events like. so far you guys haven't been able to throw up any possible steps that could be taken to prevent more massacres like this.

Actually, quite a few got mentioned, but nobody wanted to listen.
Better mental healthcare, to stop people from ever trying a spree shooting.
Better secure storage (okay, that's not us, that's what the NRA's been calling for for the past fifteen years at least).
Better laws brought about by people with technical knowledge of the problem having a debate without acrimony.

Thing is, these are all things for the people in the US to do; we're Irish. We have neither voice nor vote in this, it's US domestic policy. Sympathy and empathy, we can offer aplenty and should; orders not so much.

Witcher · 19-12-2012 09:22PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

And if you want to go target shooting fine those guns should be stored in safes at competition venues and shooting clubs, should not be free to take as you please anywhere you please.

Great...contact these people and let them know because right now they they disagree with your suggestions and see no issue with Irish firearms owners (including those owning centrefire s/a rifles) keeping them at home.

Manic Moran · 19-12-2012 09:25PM

it has no purpose to be in the hands of people for self-defence.

Do you not see the contradiction in your own statement? If the purpose of a firearm is to be self defence, surely restricting the ability to shoot is going to reduce the ability to conduct the act of self defence? If magazine capacity isn't important for self defence, why don't police officers use ten-round magazines instead of 15-round ones?

And if you want to go target shooting fine those guns should be stored in safes at competition venues and shooting clubs, should not be free to take as you please anywhere you please.

Sparks addressed this earlier, maybe on a different thread. Keeping all the guns on the range means that the range is now a prime target to be raided. Better to keep them without a big sign outside saying "Guns kept here"

Sparks · 19-12-2012 09:28PM

bajer100 wrote: »

@Sparks - as an aside to the point you make, making it harder for people to get access to the weapons will invariably decrease the likelihood that they will carry out the acts. If the last 20 perpetrators of mass murder with guns were not able to get their hands on guns, do you think that they all would have gone on to makes bombs? No they wouldn't - and less people would have died. Simple as that.

I wish that was true, but it's not. Several of the people you're talking about did use bombs, including the most infamous school shooting until now (Columbine) and the worst mass killing at a school in US history (Bath) (which did also use a firearm, though as a detonator).

And in other countries where firearms are restricted more heavily, mass killings have used bombs, poison, nerve gas, arson, knives, hammers and so on.

Seriously, we need to be looking at root causes, not trying to run around playing whack-a-mole with the things these people use.

The Aussie · 19-12-2012 09:31PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

Right. You buy an Ak to blast the hell out of the old fridge that you hauled out into a field. Which is Fun.

But probably only 10 shots at a time fun after next year...

And I actually have no problem with that really. I resent being forced to comply but there's enough lunatics out there.

Yeh we (Australians) used to have absolutely mental firearms available to us until the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996 when all Semi-autos got banned and a buy back scheme introduced, there was massive outcry about it but everyone got on with it and had to learn how to shoot and hunt properly for a change, I know what you mean about shooting things for the craic though, I know of a mid 60's Land Rover that would have well over 1000 holes in it from me and my 6 older brothers when we were growing up.

wonderfullife · 19-12-2012 09:32PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Do you not see the contradiction in your own statement? If the purpose of a firearm is to be self defence, surely restricting the ability to shoot is going to reduce the ability to conduct the act of self defence? If magazine capacity isn't important for self defence, why don't police officers use ten-round magazines instead of 15-round ones?

Sparks addressed this earlier, maybe on a different thread. Keeping all the guns on the range means that the range is now a prime target to be raided. Better to keep them without a big sign outside saying "Guns kept here"

The purpose of a firearm is for killing, not shooting targets or feeling like a big man because you own one. In that respect yeah go ahead have all the assault weapons you want. Sure why don't you go buy a tank or maybe some grenades just in case you are in "fear" if someone tries to break into your house or nick your car. Or for your families protection!! Sure drive the kids to school in a tank they'll be safe as houses in it!

Whatever done trying to reason with gun/violence obsessed people like yourself. And before mods give out to me AGAIN, when you keep banging on about your vast knowledge of guns and weapons and keep banging on about your right to own and use them, yes it makes you gun obsessed. It's not an insult and i'm sure you even find it complimentary. I just hope you're never around my neck of the woods in case i sneeze in the wrong direction and you feel "threatened".

Sparks · 19-12-2012 09:33PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

You are now suggesting the 9/11 hijackers were all mentally ill?

I'm suggesting you have to be in some way "mad in the head" (to use our expression) to deliberately plan and carry out an attack that you know will result in the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

If you disagree, well, I guess it takes all types; but I won't be agreeing with your point of view.

Red Hand · 19-12-2012 09:38PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Do you not see the contradiction in your own statement? If the purpose of a firearm is to be self defence, surely restricting the ability to shoot is going to reduce the ability to conduct the act of self defence? If magazine capacity isn't important for self defence, why don't police officers use ten-round magazines instead of 15-round ones?

The purpose of a firearm is to fire bullets. That can be either self defense or assault. It's not accurate to say that is self defense.

If holding a gum with a high rate of discharge is to curb being attacked with an equivalent, then why not counter being attacked with a machine gun by possessing heavier weaponry that will take out the attacker even sooner with less risk to yourself?

Sparks addressed this earlier, maybe on a different thread. Keeping all the guns on the range means that the range is now a prime target to be raided. Better to keep them without a big sign outside saying "Guns kept here"

Sparks · 19-12-2012 09:38PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

The purpose of a firearm is for killing, not shooting targets or feeling like a big man because you own one.

Perhaps that's what you think the purpose of a firearm is.
You won't be getting a licence in Ireland so, and perhaps that's for the best.
And it won't change the actual purpose of a firearm, which varies according to the firearm being considered.

MadsL · 19-12-2012 09:40PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

Whatever done trying to reason with gun/violence obsessed people like yourself. And before mods give out to me AGAIN, when you keep banging on about your vast knowledge of guns and weapons and keep banging on about your right to own and use them, yes it makes you gun obsessed. It's not an insult and i'm sure you even find it complimentary. I just hope you're never around my neck of the woods in case i sneeze in the wrong direction and you feel "threatened".

Given that ManicMoran is a combat veteran and highly weapons trained (as opposed to obsessed) he is very welcome in my neck of the woods to investigate any 'sneezes' (or sounds of breaking and entering) coming from my property.

He has my respect. You, 'sir', do not.

wonderfullife · 19-12-2012 09:42PM

Sparks wrote: »

I'm suggesting you have to be in some way "mad in the head" (to use our expression) to deliberately plan and carry out an attack that you know will result in the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

If you disagree, well, I guess it takes all types; but I won't be agreeing with your point of view.

Is President Obama mad in the head?

He deliberately planned and oversaw an attack that he knew would result in deaths (the capture/kill of Bin Laden).

The logic that planning and carrying out an attack = mental illness is so RIDICULOUS it's untrue.

In and outside of war, attacks are planned and carried out that result in multiple deaths. It's not mental illness. When Israel start flattening Palestine, do you believe they are mentally ill to do so? Their logic is that it's for "self-defence" and the deaths are a bi-product of this. Well the hijackers on 9/11 probably had the same misguided nonsense in their heads - attack America as some sort of attempt to weaken them (and it did for a while both economically and mentally).

You've got some interesting opinions and a quite stunning unwillingness to ever be wrong on anything. ever.

Sparks · 19-12-2012 09:43PM

Red Hand wrote: »

Better to keep them without a big sign outside saying "Guns kept here"

The thing is, it's rather hard to hide a target shooting range. They tend to be large, with targets at one end and lots of people firing firearms without silencers at the other end, and they tend to have lots of members and be generally well-known.

If you stored all the firearms there - and they are almost never in towns both because of the price of land and for safety reasons enforced in law in Ireland - then you have a large cache of firearms whose alarm the Gardai physically cannot respond to in less than a half-hour (if you're lucky - it's more likely to be closer to an hour), in an isolated area where you can show up with a flatbed truck, power tools and then proceed to cut your way into the safe, rip it off the wall and abscond with it to crack it open at your leisure.

This is not a scenario that the Gardai - or the shooting community - would care to have come about.

Overheal · 19-12-2012 09:44PM

why is there a need for a civilian to have a gun with such a rate of fire?

If you take this line of arguing you might as well ask why the military requires it either, but sure they do.

bajer100 wrote: »

Leaving the boar alone and not shooting it in the first place is an option.

Funny, because there are boar tracks not 100m from my house. Boars are dangerous animals and not the only dangerous animal around. Bears, Boars, Panthers, etc. are all known to get caught up in suburbia and they present a real danger to people when they are encountered. Bolt-action is not what I would choose to carry on a hike, it won't do you much good if you encounter a wolf or coyote pack and anything as big as a panther, bear or boar will easily survive single-shot and come retaliate.

However, I find you guys are almost sneering at people who are looking for solutions to stop events like. so far you guys haven't been able to throw up any possible steps that could be taken to prevent more massacres like this. The feeling i'm getting from ye is that the mass murder of civilians is just the cost of the right to bear arms and those of us complaining need to just put up and shut up.

No, not quite. I've said several times in-thread along with others I would like to see the media take a good look at itself and the way it morbidly glorifies such killings in the name of ratings. Other people on the thread feel the need to rely on arguments which have been proven invalid again and again, like "violent movies and video games"; "ban weapons"; "Ban Anti-Depressants"; "Require Psyche Profiles"; etc.

Banning guns just makes it easier for people who don't care about the law anyway to commit crime against law-abiding people knowing they will face little or no resistance. Banning ADs just harkens back to Reefer Madness, and banning something which has positive effects for many because of negative effects on the few. And Psyche profiles don't exactly work when the firearms typically used in these incidents aren't legally acquired.

wonderfullife wrote:

The Bushmaster .223 still has a large capacity magazine.

That all entirely depends on the buyer. a Saiga 12-gauge semi-automatic shotgun can be optionally fitted with a 30-round cyclical drum magazine, if desired.

Whatever done trying to reason with gun/violence obsessed people like yourself. And before mods give out to me AGAIN, when you keep banging on about your vast knowledge of guns and weapons and keep banging on about your right to own and use them, yes it makes you gun obsessed.

The only point Sparks has been at, is that there is no point in these ban 'gestures' as they are not going to solve the issue. If you limit the use of 30 round magazines, people will just carry 3 10 round magazines and become proficient in swapping them. Ban guns, and people will just build bombs. It's not that hard to do, unfortunately, and in fact a bomb is cheaper to get a hold of than a firearm in most cases. I mean look at Terrorists: we tightened up our security measures, and they kept finding all the little holes in it, so that now we're talking off our belts, shoes, and getting scanned by machines ourselves. And they will still find a way to blow up a plane. The thing is, if he was that disturbed, and he had no access to a gun, what about a Machete. Not that difficult, just stand in front of the door and whack each little child's arms and head off one by one. Anybody tries to stop you, well they can just be sliced up too. By the time the police arrive with a gun you've probably slaughtered a good what, 20, 30 children? Ban Machetes then. Oh, hey, what about a Chainsaw? Where have I heard that before.

Sparks · 19-12-2012 09:44PM

Sparks wrote:

I'm suggesting you have to be in some way "mad in the head" (to use our expression) to deliberately plan and carry out an attack that you know will result in the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

wonderfullife wrote: »

Is President Obama mad in the head?
He deliberately planned and oversaw an attack that he knew would result in deaths (the capture/kill of Bin Laden).
The logic that planning and carrying out an attack = mental illness is so RIDICULOUS it's untrue.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise Bin Laden was innocent...

The Aussie · 19-12-2012 09:48PM

Sparks wrote: »

I'm sorry, I didn't realise Bin Laden was innocent...

Don't lay the logic on to thick, it gets lost amongst the faux outrage.

wonderfullife · 19-12-2012 09:48PM

MadsL wrote: »

Given that ManicMoran is a combat veteran and highly weapons trained (as opposed to obsessed) he is very welcome in my neck of the woods to investigate any 'sneezes' (or sounds of breaking and entering) coming from my property.

He has my respect. You, 'sir', do not.

Combat veteran from another ridiculous, silly, unwinnable war in Afghanistan. History shows nobody comes out of that country as winners, the Russians, Yanks . British, fruitless hopeless task. Only reason Afghanistan was picked is George Bush threw a few darts at the Middle East countries with oil anywhere nearby and it landed on Afghanistan, despite most of the hijackers being Saudi in origin.

The only "combat veterans" from America i rate are from WW2, the rest are all just from ridiculous wars that had almost zero to do with the "defence" of America. Pre-emptive wars are illegal but sure so is killing people and neither of you seem to have a problem with either concept.

Good luck to you!

wonderfullife · 19-12-2012 09:50PM

Sparks wrote: »

I'm sorry, I didn't realise Bin Laden was innocent...

and again a stunning ignorance of the rest of my examples. Palestinian civilians? Are the Israelis mentally ill too? Like the hijackers? As your logic seems to be ordering and committing an attack on "innocents" is mental illness. Whatever the motivation.

Red Hand · 19-12-2012 09:51PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

Combat veteran from another ridiculous, silly, unwinnable war in Afghanistan. History shows nobody comes out of that country as winners, the Russians, Yanks . British, fruitless hopeless task. Only reason Afghanistan was picked is George Bush threw a few darts at the Middle East countries with oil anywhere nearby and it landed on Afghanistan, despite most of the hijackers being Saudi in origin.

The only "combat veterans" from America i rate are from WW2, the rest are all just from ridiculous wars that had almost zero to do with the "defence" of America. Pre-emptive wars are illegal but sure so is killing people and neither of you seem to have a problem with either concept.

Good luck to you!

Trained in Afghanistan, there is no denying that. Extremist Muslims hardly went there to go to holiday camp, did they?

Overheal · 19-12-2012 09:52PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

Combat veteran from another ridiculous, silly, unwinnable war in Afghanistan. History shows nobody comes out of that country as winners, the Russians, Yanks . British, fruitless hopeless task. Only reason Afghanistan was picked is George Bush threw a few darts at the Middle East countries with oil anywhere nearby and it landed on Afghanistan, despite most of the hijackers being Saudi in origin.

The only "combat veterans" from America i rate are from WW2, the rest are all just from ridiculous wars that had almost zero to do with the "defence" of America. Pre-emptive wars are illegal but sure so is killing people and neither of you seem to have a problem with either concept.

Good luck to you!

I have no earthly idea what the meta-reason for the war has to do with a person's combat experience. Either you were in a combat situation where people were trying to kill you, and vice versa, or you weren't. Either you saw what a .762 round can do to a human skull, or you didn't. Whatever you feel the justification for the conflict, it doesn't invalidate the fact that someone operated a tank or sniped someone off from 2km away or has seen people get the receiving end of an IED. Real world ballistics and hollywood ballistics are two very different strangers.

MadsL · 19-12-2012 09:52PM

Red Hand wrote: »

The purpose of a firearm is to fire bullets. That can be either self defense or assault. It's not accurate to say that is self defense.

If holding a gum with a high rate of discharge is to curb being attacked with an equivalent, then why not counter being attacked with a machine gun by possessing heavier weaponry that will take out the attacker even sooner with less risk to yourself?

Because most criminals use small caliber handguns. Why, because they are cheap and ammo is a fraction of the cost. A box of .22 is $2-3 compared to $10-15 upwards for larger calibres.

The most common calibre to be shot with in criminal shootings is a .22, and even during the crimewave in Miami in the 80s, full auto weapons were very rare as they cost way too much.

Most home defense owners will buy something affordable, but with enough punch to take care of some idiot who comes into your house waving a $100 gun around. Hence why Glocks are probably the most popular legally owned home defense pistol, together with a short barrelled pump shotgun.

Wibbs · 19-12-2012 09:54PM

bajer100 wrote: »

Good argument for banning semi-autos. If proper training and practice means that a proficient, dedicated enthusiast can get non-automatic weapons to perform to the same standard as semi and fully automatic weapons - then ban all semi and fully automatic weapons. The psychos who tend to carry out these massacres probably wouldn't have the dedication to get these weapons to perform at this level.

Eh again do some reading a lever action firearm is not semiautomatic.

smurgen wrote: »

so you're telling me the bushmaster gun used in this case didn't fire several bullets a second?why is there a need for a civilian to have a gun with such a rate of fire?

If it's a semiauto several rounds a second aren't really in play. In any event spraying rounds is only much use as suppressive fire against armed opponents. When this bastard was targeting children he could have taken his sweet time. Christ with an antique black powder revolver from the mid 1800's he could have shot 6.

bajer100 wrote: »

Leaving the boar alone and not shooting it in the first place is an option. If the argument boils down to banning weapons that will result in saving people's lives versus allowing people to hunt animals for sport - it really is a no-brainer.

Ah here we go, the anti hunting brigade. Unless you're a full on vegetarian, don't let the ham sandwich upset your stomach with hypocrisy. I'd rather be a boar shot in the wild than some poor overweight pig kept indoors for most of it's life then led to the slaughterhouse to die listening to the squeals of my fellows. I also know which meat I'd feel less guilty eating.

wonderfullife wrote: »

The purpose of a firearm is for killing, not shooting targets or feeling like a big man because you own one.

Oh god... Women shoot too you know. Target shooters can and most do go through their whole lives never having killed anything. OK would you object to archery as a sport? Quite popular one it is. Bows kill!!! you know(well arrows do..) The javelin? Oh god it's a spear!! :eek: eh well no...

Whatever done trying to reason with gun/violence obsessed people like yourself. And before mods give out to me AGAIN, when you keep banging on about your vast knowledge of guns and weapons and keep banging on about your right to own and use them, yes it makes you gun obsessed.

Well I for one don't own a gun, have no intention to do so. Have fired a few in my time on a couple of occasions, shotguns all the way up through pistols and even *gasp* an AK47 selective fire one too(both semi and full auto selectable). Yep an actual "assault rifle". Ye gods. Didn't kill anything. Hell I barely hit any targets. Hell, I'm so non shooty the safest place to stand if I'm aiming a gun is directly in front of me. How do I know a bit about firearms? Little thing called general knowledge and human curiosity. No "obsession" required.

It's not an insult and i'm sure you even find it complimentary. I just hope you're never around my neck of the woods in case i sneeze in the wrong direction and you feel "threatened".

It's Maud Flanders.

The only "combat veterans" from America i rate are from WW2, the rest are all just from ridiculous wars that had almost zero to do with the "defence" of America.

Well one could argue the Americans in the WW2 in the European theatre of war weren't fighting in defence of America. Hell you could argue that Japan had shot it's bolt from the second they hit Pearl harbor, but then we'd be into historical debate and this might prove troubling.

Sparks wrote: »

I'm suggesting you have to be in some way "mad in the head" (to use our expression) to deliberately plan and carry out an attack that you know will result in the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

and themselves to boot.

wonderfullife · 19-12-2012 10:05PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh again do some reading a lever action firearm is not semiautomatic.

If it's a semiauto several rounds a second aren't really in play. In any event spraying rounds is only much use as suppressive fire against armed opponents. When this bastard was targeting children he could have taken his sweet time. Christ with an antique black powder revolver from the mid 1800's he could have shot 6.

Ah here we go, the anti hunting brigade. Unless you're a full on vegetarian, don't let the ham sandwich upset your stomach with hypocrisy. I'd rather be a boar shot in the wild than some poor overweight pig kept indoors for most of it's life then led to the slaughterhouse to die listening to the squeals of my fellows. I also know which meat I'd feel less guilty eating.

Oh god... Women shoot too you know. Target shooters can and most do go through their whole lives never having killed anything. OK would you object to archery as a sport? Quite popular one it is. Bows kill!!! you know(well arrows do..) The javelin? Oh god it's a spear!! :eek: eh well no...
Well I for one don't own a gun, have no intention to do so. Have fired a few in my time on a couple of occasions, shotguns all the way up through pistols and even *gasp* an AK47 selective fire one too(both semi and full auto selectable). Yep an actual "assault rifle". Ye gods. Didn't kill anything. Hell I barely hit any targets. Hell, I'm so non shooty the safest place to stand if I'm aiming a gun is directly in front of me. How do I know a bit about firearms? Little thing called general knowledge and human curiosity. No "obsession" required.

It's Maud Flanders.

Well one could argue the Americans in the WW2 in the European theatre of war weren't fighting in defence of America. Hell you could argue that Japan had shot it's bolt from the second they hit Pearl harbor, but then we'd be into historical debate and this might prove troubling.

and themselves to boot.

Archery as a sport is a very skillful sport. Yes the original purpose of a bow & arrow (just like the gun) is to kill.

However, my consistent argument has been this: It is EASIER to mass-murder people with a gun than most other weapons you can pick up in your home. Lanza i'm sure had a choice, kitchen knives in his mams kitchen, baseball bat or golf club in his room, maybe a tennis racket, maybe even a badminton racket, he had a piano too he coulda tried something outlandish like dropping it out of a plane to do some damage.

Fact is, he picked up the semi-automatic rifle and killed 20 children in minutes.

It's easier to kill people with guns, it's easier again with the type of gun he used. I'm just advocating making it harder to mass-murder people, if they are hell-bent on doing it they will succeed, whether it's a bomb or suicide bomb or whatever they will find a way. But make it as hard as possible. Easy access to this type of weaponary make it so easy to commit the atrocities.

More to the point there is not enough evidence to indicate how many of these mass-murders are "snap" murders. I.e. the perpetrator hits a breaking point during an argument or heat of moment and snaps and does this. You are all implying these are well thought out , pre-planned crimes. They may well be. But harder access to these weapons will a) make it harder for them to mass murder and b) give them more time to cool off if it is a red-mist snap type moment.

Overheal · 19-12-2012 10:06PM

I would argue that if he didn't have the guns he'd have built pipebombs. Throw a couple into a few classrooms and the bodycount would have been a lot higher.

My name is URL · 19-12-2012 10:11PM

Overheal wrote: »

I would argue that if he didn't have the guns he'd have built pipebombs. Throw a couple into a few classrooms and the bodycount would have been a lot higher.

The chances of him blowing himself up or being detected before the event would also be greater though. Swings and roundabouts, really.

aloyisious · 19-12-2012 10:11PM

Ditto on the post by "The Aussie". An assault rifle is exactly what it say's on the box, a weapon to be used over varying distances in Military Battle, sometimes with dual semi and full auto capability, but mostly full-auto. They were intended to give one user an advantage over another using bolt-action rifles. re speed of loading and fire-response, a greater chance of killing the O/P and surviving in a fire-fight.

Modern assault rifles are not field hunting weapons, they weren't and aren't made for hunting non-human animals or for use in Non-Military scenarios, so any such excuse or reason posited for buying an assault rifle is not truthful.

Another mass shooting in the U.S

Comments