Sandy Hook familes sue...well, pretty much everyone

MadsL · 16-12-2014 8:35pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Keep in mind that no matter how great a constitution is its a man made document and in this case was written in a time when bearing arms meant a bag of black powder, a flint and probably 20 seconds between each shot.
They couldn't foresee present day weapons... obviously its not written with them in mind. .

Yet at the time it was written a repeating gun capable of 63 shots in 7 minutes was in existance for 73 years.

A liitle bit more firepower than "a bag of black powder, a flint and probably 20 seconds between each shot" but surely the framers of the constitution coud not concieve of such a thing

nor apparantly that the citizens would be armed rather than a standing militia.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."Thomas Jefferson ...

Got any more myths needing debunking?

Dan_Solo · 16-12-2014 8:49pm

MadsL wrote: »

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."Thomas Jefferson ...

Got any more myths needing debunking?

The US is already ignoring its own constitution in that case then as there is no mandatory 24 hour gun carrying legislation.

MadsL · 16-12-2014 8:52pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The US is already ignoring its own constitution in that case then as there is no mandatory 24 hour gun carrying legislation.

Thomas Jefferson's letters are NOT the constitution. Do keep up.

Manic Moran · 16-12-2014 8:52pm

Keep in mind that no matter how great a constitution is its a man made document and in this case was written in a time when bearing arms meant a bag of black powder, a flint and probably 20 seconds between each shot.
They couldn't foresee present day weapons... obviously its not written with them in mind.

That argument has been dealt with by the courts as well. The Internet wasn't in mind when they wrote the right to free speech, but the First Amendment applies just as much. Similarly, wire taps were probably not in the minds of the framers when they came up with the 4th Amendment, but it applies. On this basis, the courts have rejected the "it wasn't invented yet" concept as being a very bad idea.

timetogo wrote: »

I thought it made sense. If my house is being burgled and I have a gun, I don't want t a "tactical advantage", I want the burglar to get the hell out preferably without having to shoot him.

Three things. Firstly, Joe Homeowner is probably somewhat untrained and a bit scared. You want to hamper him as little as possible. Giving the guy he's worried about the advantage of being able to easily see Joe is probably not going to help his case. Secondly, if you have a glowing gun right in front of your eyes, you won't be able to see anything beyond it in a dimly lit situation. Thirdly, what will it actually achieve? You can already buy bright pink ARs with daisies and Hello Kitty on them, they're just as dangerous as black ones.

Either way an assault rifle doesn't make the best home defense gun. It's going to be awkward indoors and it's round could end up going through walls and injuring people in other rooms or houses

Which is why more and more SWAT teams are using them to go into houses? You see the rifles that the Australian police were using two days ago? Yep... ARs. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/141215071307-07-sydney-1215-horizontal-gallery.jpg

If you have even a vague idea what you're doing, they are actually the -best- home defense gun, popular myths notwithstanding. They are less likely than pistols to go through walls, more likely to hit the target and only the target than either pistols or shotguns, do not provide a bigger signature and are not more awkward than a handgun or shotgun, are easier to retain and use in physical altercation.

See, for example, http://www.corneredcat.com/article/choosing-firearms/a-long-gun-for-home-defense/ or http://www.theboxotruth.com/educational-zone-143-what-is-the-best-weapon-for-home-defense-a-serious-discussion/

I use a pistol because I've a young daughter and it fits in my quick-release safe, not because I think it's actually a better weapon for the job than one of my carbines.

Dan_Solo · 16-12-2014 8:54pm

MadsL wrote: »

Thomas Jefferson's letters are NOT the constitution. Do keep up.

Oh, this discussion was about the US constitution. You'll have to apologise for me assuming in error that you were able to follow the conversation when you started quoting random things.

MadsL · 16-12-2014 8:56pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Oh, this discussion was about the US constitution. You'll have to apologise for me assuming in error that you were able to follow the conversation when you started quoting random things.

Yeah. I can see how me quoting one of the framers of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights confused you. Like I said, do keep up.

MadsL · 16-12-2014 9:00pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

easier to retain and use in physical altercation.

This made me chuckle. If all else fails swing it like a bat.

The Diabolical Monocle · 16-12-2014 9:02pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

There already is a happy medium. Try buying a submachine gun, a tank, a rocket launcher...

The problem with legislating specific weapons is twofold. Firstly, that much objection is founded simply on aesthetics. Some people just don't like the -look- of an AR, but don't mind the -look- of a Remington 750. But their mechanical operation is identical. Centre-fire, gas-operated, semi-auto. This is the basis for much recent legislation in the US which determines which firearms you can or cannot own.

The second problem is that the firearms which are best or most popular for hunting or defense of home, by their very nature, are also best or most popular for shooting up a school. Changing -that- is arguably going to be a Constitutional matter, not just Federal, but also at the State levels, where a number of States make hunting and self defense a Constitutional right. If you're going to limit the ability to exercise a Constitutional right (eg prohibit the use of semi-auto handguns for home defense), you need to have a damned good rationale for putting law abiding homeowners at a disadvantage. Otherwise, it's not going to pass muster in the courts, let alone politically.

Disagree.

If the only reasons for owning firearms are hunting and defense of the home then many weapon designs available for Americans to buy go well beyond what is required for these roles.

What is needed over there is legislation which will permit the public to buy a weapon which WILL allow a hunter a fair shot at his/her prey yet WONT be easy to work with when trying to shoot up a public area.

That logic has already been put in place up to a point.
Ideally publicly available weapons should be slow to operate and re-load and difficult to conceal.

That would probably on occasion inconvenience some inept hunters, and stop some gun nuts from playing rambo, but that huge god awful burden would be worth it.

Dan_Solo · 16-12-2014 9:05pm

MadsL wrote: »

Yeah. I can see how me quoting one of the framers of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights confused you. Like I said, do keep up.

But as you admit, what you quoted isn't actually in the constitution, which was the topic of discussion.
Sorry, aren't you supposed to at least try to prove your side of this instead of just repeating that you were off topic?

V_Moth · 16-12-2014 9:09pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#2010s

75 school shootings since Sandy Hook with 54 people killed.

MadsL · 16-12-2014 9:13pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But as you admit, what you quoted isn't actually in the constitution, which was the topic of discussion.
Sorry, aren't you supposed to at least try to prove your side of this instead of just repeating that you were off topic?

I fail to see how quoting one of the Founding Fathers and one of the framers of both the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights is off topic. How can you possibly not see that, unless you are being deliberately disingenuous.

As to the topic of discussion, that is the lawsuit, is it not? Again your reading skills seem a bit superficial.

As to proving anything, you seem to have utterly ignored the fact that you conflating a quote from Jefferson with the text of the actual US Constitution shows how out of your depth you are in this thread. Unless you want to explain to me how people not following Jefferson's suggestion is equal to...

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The US is already ignoring its own constitution in that case then as there is no mandatory 24 hour gun carrying legislation.

- please do. I could use a laugh today.

MadsL · 16-12-2014 9:16pm

V_Moth wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#2010s

75 school shootings since Sandy Hook with 54 people killed.

What is your solution?

Also, lets not pretend that this only happens in the US.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

Dan_Solo · 16-12-2014 9:19pm

MadsL wrote: »

I fail to see how quoting one of the Founding Fathers and one of the framers of both the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights is off topic. How can you possibly not see that, unless you are being deliberately disingenuous.

As to the topic of discussion, that is the lawsuit, is it not? Again your reading skills seem a bit superficial.

As to proving anything, you seem to have utterly ignored the fact that you conflating a quote from Jefferson with the text of the actual US Constitution shows how out of your depth you are in this thread. Unless you want to explain to me how people not following Jefferson's suggestion is equal to...
- please do. I could use a laugh today.

Again, you appear to have your little heart set on proving my point for me. Thanks n all.
We were discussing the constitutional right to bear arms. Unless you're about to tell me that everything Jefferson ever said, like the quote you randomed up, is part of the constitution, it is, unfortunately for you, entirely irrelevant.
Now, more entertainment from you please. Hey, here's another random Jefferson quote for ya!

“Brought from their infancy without necessity for thought or forecast, [blacks] are by their habits rendered as incapable as children of taking care of themselves, and are extinguished promptly wherever industry is necessary for raising young. In the mean time they are pests in society by their idleness, and the depredations to which this leads them.”

Hey, Jefferson said it. It must be in the constitution we're discussing, right? Right?

ScumLord · 16-12-2014 9:19pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Which is why more and more SWAT teams are using them to go into houses?

I would have thought there are a number of reasons for them moving to assault riffles that aren't all based on the guns practicality. The first reason I heard was that they had to move to higher powered riffles because the criminals started wearing bulletproof vests and have their own rifles. I've also heard that they are getting surplus military equipment whether they need it or not.

At least they get training for the weapons they're using. The training can give them the confidence to use the weapon properly.

If you have even a vague idea what you're doing, they are actually the -best- home defense gun, popular myths notwithstanding. They are less likely than pistols to go through walls,

I don't understand how a nato round can't go through a wall but a 9mm can? I know you know more about this stuff than I do but that's a confusing one.

It's still overkill in my opinion.

MadsL · 16-12-2014 9:27pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Again, you appear to have your little heart set on proving my point for me. Thanks n all.
We were discussing the constitutional right to bear arms. Unless you're about to tell me that everything Jefferson ever said, like the quote you randomed up, is part of the constitution, it is, unfortunately for you, entirely irrelevant.

Oh you were being saracstic earlier? I thought you were being simply dense.

A quote from Jefferson on the topic of bearing arms IS relevant in discussion of the 2A to any normal, rational thinking person. Your random quote clearly isn't about the right to bear arms so is in fact off topic and clearly simply designed to add noise to the SNR of this thread.

Do you have anything to actually say? You can see how I have to make your points for you, as you seem incapable of actually spelling them out.

MadsL · 16-12-2014 9:29pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

If the only reasons for owning firearms are hunting and defense of the home then many weapon designs available for Americans to buy go well beyond what is required for these roles.

My State constitution includes recreation as a valid reason to own a firearm.

Dan_Solo · 16-12-2014 9:36pm

MadsL wrote: »

A quote from Jefferson on the topic of bearing arms IS relevant in discussion of the 2A to any normal, rational thinking person. Your random quote clearly isn't about the right to bear arms so is in fact off topic and clearly simply designed to add noise to the SNR of this thread.

How is something not in the constitution relevant to a discussion of what's in the constitution? My "random" quote shows just how relevant. Who cares what Jefferson said in some letter to who cares who?
And he didn't write the US Constitution entirely himself anyway.
Sorry, you plucked a random quote from nowhere in a discussion on the US constitution and you're backpedalling yourself into a frenzy trying to pretend it's relevant.
Kinda hilarious you're asking if I have anything relevant to add actually.

The Diabolical Monocle · 16-12-2014 9:38pm

MadsL wrote: »

My State constitution includes recreation as a valid reason to own a firearm.

so you live in a state that currently views weapons as toys.

MadsL · 16-12-2014 9:41pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

How is something not in the constitution relevant to a discussion of what's in the constitution? My "random" quote shows just how relevant. Who care what Jefferson said in some letter to who cares who?
And he didn't write the US Constitution entirely himself anyway.
Sorry, you plucked a random quote from nowhere in a discussion on the US constitution and you're backpedalling yourself into a frenzy trying to pretend it's relevant.
Kinda hilarious you're asking if I have anything relevant to add actually.

Yeah as I thought. You actually have nothing to say.

A quote from Jefferson is relevant to the discussion, but your waffle isn't, so this is my last reply to your silly responses.

However I guess you would rather make a handy distraction from actually dealing with the point that I made earlier, that in fact automatic weapons were in existance at the time that the Bill of Rights was written and had been for over 70 years.

Go on, have a shot (pun intended) at that little fact, see how you get on.

MadsL · 16-12-2014 9:41pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

so you live in a state that currently views weapons as toys.

Do you consider an off-road vehicle a "toy"?

V_Moth · 16-12-2014 9:42pm

MadsL wrote: »

What is your solution?

Also, lets not pretend that this only happens in the US.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

I was simply stating a very sad statistic (the last one was only four days ago). Arguably, similar shootings in other countries could be taken as copy-cat events due to the sheer frequency of them and related media coverage.

I don't think there are any solutions until the problem is addressed with the seriousness it deserves. Arguing semantics over gun ownership is not helpful and I think guns and their ownership are only one of a number of factors involved (bullying, mental health). I am sure if adequate resources were provided towards addressing the latter issues, we would see a reduction in school shootings. Until then, they will continue to happen.

Dan_Solo · 16-12-2014 9:45pm

MadsL wrote: »

Yeah as I thought. You actually have nothing to say.

A quote from Jefferson is relevant to the discussion, but your waffle isn't, so this is my last replay to your silly responses.

However I guess you would rather make a handy distraction from actually dealing with the point that I made earlier, that in fact automatic weapons were in existance at the time that the Bill of Rights was written and had been for over 70 years.

Go on, have a shot (pun intended) at that little fact, see how you get on.

Yes, as I thought, all you got is bluster as your random irrelevant quotation "got shot to pieces" (pun intended). Do you actually have anything on topic to say?
Next time pay attention to the discussion and avoid this kind of embarrassment for yourself, OK?

The Diabolical Monocle · 16-12-2014 9:45pm

MadsL wrote: »

Do you consider an off-road vehicle a "toy"?

Personally - no.

Do you view firearms as a means of recreation ?

MadsL · 16-12-2014 9:50pm

V_Moth wrote: »

I was simply stating a very sad statistic (the last one was only four days ago). Arguably, similar shootings in other countries could be taken as copy-cat events due to the sheer frequency of them and related media coverage.

I don't think there are any solutions until the problem is addressed with the seriousness it deserves. Arguing semantics over gun ownership is not helpful and I think guns and their ownership are only one of a number of factors involved (bullying, mental health). I am sure if adequate resources were provided towards addressing the latter issues, we would see a reduction in school shootings. Until then, they will continue to happen.

The Affordable Care Act at least brings mental health coverage into a large pool of people who might otherwise not have been able to benefit.

I agree wholeheartedly that there are a wide variety of reasons for these tragic events. However the idea that gun manufacturers and legal gun owners are in some way responsible is trotted out over and over again. I find it doesn't hold up to much scrutiny.

MadsL · 16-12-2014 9:52pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Personally - no.

Do you view firearms as a means of recreation ?

In order to answer your question then - since firearms are simply toys according to you, then surely the IOC should remove shooting sports from the Olympics? Or do you accept that target shooting is a valid form of recreation?

The Diabolical Monocle · 16-12-2014 9:56pm

MadsL wrote: »

In order to answer your question then - since firearms are simply toys according to you, then surely the IOC should remove shooting sports from the Olympics? Or do you accept that target shooting is a valid form of recreation?

I dont view firearms as toys.

Do you view firearms as a means of recreation ?

MadsL · 16-12-2014 9:59pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Yes, as I thought, all you got is bluster as your random irrelevant quotation "got shot to pieces" (pun intended). Do you actually have anything on topic to say?
Next time pay attention to the discussion and avoid this kind of embarrassment for yourself, OK?

You've said absolutely nothing on topic and all you are doing is adding noise. On the other hand all my previous posts ARE on topic, excpet for the ones engaging with you. Therefore to save this thread (which you haven't read at all I suspect) more noise, welcome to my ignore list.

If you only bothered to read posts correctly, and learn to recognise context you might do better with forming an argument. As it is, you have had ample opportunity and failed entirely.

Dan_Solo · 16-12-2014 10:03pm

MadsL wrote: »

I agree wholeheartedly that there are a wide variety of reasons for these tragic events. However the idea that gun manufacturers and legal gun owners are in some way responsible is trotted out over and over again. I find it doesn't hold up to much scrutiny.

3/4 of mass shooting in the US in the last 30 years were with legally held firearms.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
Scrutinize that please.

Manic Moran · 16-12-2014 10:05pm

ScumLord wrote: »

I would have thought there are a number of reasons for them moving to assault riffles that aren't all based on the guns practicality. The first reason I heard was that they had to move to higher powered riffles because the criminals started wearing bulletproof vests and have their own rifles. I've also heard that they are getting surplus military equipment whether they need it or not.

If all you want to do is punch through body armour at short range, there are better rounds for it. The 5.7mm being a case in point. Of course, there's no reason one can't simply swap out a .223 upper receiver for a 5.7mm upper. It takes about 90 seconds and is part of the beauty of the AR design. It's just so damned flexible.

At least they get training for the weapons they're using. The training can give them the confidence to use the weapon properly.

That statement applies equally to all forms of firearm. There is nothing mysterious about the operation of a rifle as opposed to a handgun, even indoors.

I don't understand how a nato round can't go through a wall but a 9mm can? I know you know more about this stuff than I do but that's a confusing one.

It's a combination of velocity and round design. The round travels so fast, that it actually shatters more easily on impact with anything. There's a level at about 2,200fps at which point a round doesn't shatter so well (unless it's specifically designed to do so, which exists for rifles and pistols both), which is faster than a pistol calibre round will attain, but it much less than the AR's.

FBI testing on pistol vs rifle calibres.
http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14:223-penetration-information&catid=13:technical-info

However, for more than 20 years, conventional law enforcement wisdom generally held that the .223 in any configuration was a deeply penetrating round and, therefore, totally unsuited for CQB missions in the urban environment. Partly because of this erroneous, but long held perception, and other tactical factors, the pistol caliber submachine gun (SMG) eventually emerged as the primary shoulder "entry" weapon for the police and military SWAT teams.

<snip>

Bottom Line: In every test, with the exception of soft body armor, which none of the SMG fired rounds defeated, the .223 penetrated less on average than any of the pistol bullets.

Bear in mind also that ammunition specifically designed for use in the home has since been developed for all types of weapon, pistol and rifle both, so the argument is a bit spurious anyway. People keep thinking of using full metal jacket ammo (or hollow-tip, in some cases), as that's the only thing that the army is legally allowed to fire from its rifles at people. Civilians are given a lot more lattitude.

MadsL · 16-12-2014 10:06pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

I dont view firearms as toys.

Do you view firearms as a means of recreation ?

Blatantly they are a means of recreation, they have been for centuries since man first learnt to build a slingshot and decided to a have a friendly game of who can hit the target first.

You appear to be confusing

rec·re·a·tion
ˌrekrēˈāSH(ə)n/
noun
activity done for enjoyment when one is not working.

with

toy
toi/
noun
1.
an object for a child to play with, typically a model or miniature replica of something.

I certainly do not feel that a child should play with a firearm, but there is no reason why anyone of a reasonable age should not enjoy safe and supervised recreation with a firearm. Thousands of tourist enjoy such recreation in the US every year with a very very low accident rate.

Sandy Hook familes sue...well, pretty much everyone

Comments