VTech shooter killed more people without gas, so the answer is obviously Yes. Who is that person? Correct on fully automatics better for hog hunting? Uhh no, lol. Why are you in this discussion BTW? You know nothing of guns, which ones are better for what etc. You called me Hightop but you are the one with solidified beliefs based on a massive lack of facts. Would anyone entertain Hightop on a debate of School Vouchers if he started with NO insight on the subject beyond the simple public schools are terrible line? Of course not.
Air Langley is correct in his assessment. I don't think he ever hinted about private citizens having access to heavy artillery. The 2nd amendment was put in place to protect its citizens from governments/military that became violent, brutal and/or out of hand. I suppose you have forgotten about the civil war. Countries like China, Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, and Cuba are where they are because citizens can't defend themselves.
That's interesting, but you know I am talking about this specific situation. If you had to venture a guess would the current shooter have done more less or equal amount of damage if all things being equal except for the fact that he was not armed with a semi-automatic (fully automatic?) rifle, but rather a personal handgun. If you really want to talk about VT, do you think that shooter would have done more or less damage with a fully automatic rifle or semi-automatic rifle than a personal handgun? Earlier I was hoping it would be you or Refman or Tallanvor, but I have pretty much given up on getting you to add constructive comments to the conversation. I was trusting the hypothetical rural owner to know his own needs given the exact situation on the ground in his hypothetical farm and his specific disabilities and abilities and I was also using the example provided by Deji and acknowledging all his presumptions as true, my mistake. Once again, you have given further support for added control of these weapons. At this point, given your earlier links, I'm actually wondering if you are a liberal plant here to undermine the support for guns at this point given that you said you don't own any. Even if the hog owner is completely wrong, my statement stands and is actually provided with additional support.
Similar damage. At that range a 9mm is just as deadly and a Glock can hold just as many rounds. In fact the load would have been lighter. I can only work with what questions are presented. I don't have much interest in babysitting people with little knowledge and preformed opinions. Don't take it personal, its just in this subject your opinions are not based on much. What additional support. I posted a picture of a semi automatic rifle. Why do you want to ban it? What features does that model have that you deem to dangerous to allow the public access to?
Earlier you linked me to an article saying that the police should be using semi-automatic weapons so as to have additional stopping power. So that no longer applies? Also, what you are saying seems to be militating toward controlling the capacity of magazine. Do you think that the issue is that their should be stricter controls on the size of magazines so as to limit damage? You mistake me, I hope to learn something from this discussion. So far the one who seems to have a pre-formed opinion is you. You still haven't explained your position on freedom. Please explain how you balance right to life of the dead people, with the right to own semi-automatic rifles and guns with large magazines. What features of the dead people make their right to life be outweighed by the right for people to own semi-automatic weapons or guns with large magazines? I will answer your question to the best of my abilities once you link me the relevant specs on that specific model in the picture.
You asked a question if he could have killed the same number of people. I told you the VTech guy KILLED more people without the gas. In what way? All of the information you seek is easily available and you haven't pursued any of it. What does this even mean? Seriously. http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/finder.asp?f1=002B&bg=x
There is a fundamental difference between the historic rationale for a law and the practical application of it today. The Civil War is your example? Really? The military is much more advanced than it was in 1861. Today, even if you had a basement full of AR 15s, you would not survive your house being blown to smithereens by the ordinance from an A1 Abrahms tank.
Err... the Brits and Canadians are where they are because citizens can't defend themselves too? Obviously you didn't think through that logic.
CaseyH, we are talking about the gun, not the gas, you know that. Hypothetically would the guy shooting the theater have killed and wounded as many people if he had been using with a personal handgun with a smaller magazine rather than the AR-15 he used? It means how and why do you weigh the rights to own these specific guns higher than the right to life of the people who might have otherwise survived the way you do.
False, I told you the VTech killer DID kill more, with handguns. In the same way you weigh the right to personal freedom over those who died in the theater. I could stop way more deaths with a curfew than any gun control. What are your findings on the Browning?
Actually if you read the Amendment in whole and the Federalist Papers the 2nd Amendment isn't about individual self-defense for personal safety or against a tyrannical government. What it is about is at a time when the US didn't have a standing army the ability of the states themselves to provide for their own defense against, foreign invasion, insurrection, the Federal government and even each other. The 2nd Amendment in many ways it the most socialist of the amendments as while it is an individual right it is a right circumscribed by the needs of the states. That is why the text is so complexly worded "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." In fact for those who argued against the Affordable Care Act on the basis that it was unprecedented for the government to mandate individuals to purchase a private product in 1792 Congress passed the Militia act which mandated that every able bodied man 18 to 45 be able to be conscripted into the militia and as such were required to own a musket. That act was promptly used to call up the militia to crush another citizens rebellion, The Whiskey Rebellion. That seems like fairly fallacious reasoning. Consider that Saddam Hussein had armed practically every family in Iraq with Kalishnikovs yet those Iraqis were both unable to overthrow Saddam or resist the US invasion. Also consider that the rebels, armed mostly with personal arms, in Libya were on the verge of getting slaughtered until NATO provided air cover to take out Gadafi's heavy weapons. Same with Syria where the rebels were being routed until army defectors crossed over bringing heavier weapons. Countries like China, Iraq, NK, and Cuba don't have personal freedoms because of lack of personal arms (Iraq still has plenty) but because they either have little or weak democracy to begin with. In the age of mechanized / industrialized warfare small arms in the hands of individuals doesn't make much of a difference in holding back a modern well equipped military.
This is true of almost every political issue in this country right now. Black/white...all/nothing. No compromise. That's not leadership.
Ok, let's talk about the VTech shooter, would the VTech shooter have done more damage with a semi-automatic rifle or fully-automatic rifle with a larger magazine than he did with the handgun? Also, speaking as the former gun owner and resident expert, if you were to walk into a crowded theater compelled to kill as many of them as was possible in 1 minute but you weren't a good shot. Would you take the AR-15 with a 30 round magazine, or would you take a handgun like a Beretta Bobcat with a 7 round magazine? Once again this is a false choice, you are letting the most effective solution prevent you from being able to take a good. We prevent access to many things that are dangerous in the wrong hands without imposing curfews. Additionally the freedoms of being able to leave the house at night are way more valuable than the freedom to own semi-automatic rifles. On the totem pole of rights, it isn't even close. That you would compare the two makes me wonder how you balance freedoms. No findings, I'm sorry. The page you linked led me to a list of 20 odd of the same model with 5 different calibers for each. It didn't have any of the relevant info that I would need to know to even begin guessing at deadliness. Seeing that, I just presumed you were trolling. Additionally, I had thought you were referring to the AR-15 used in the shooting. If you could give me more info on the weapon used in the shooting including the max rate of fire, and the average size of magazine, etc. I could try to explain to you why it was more dangerous in that situation than say a personal handgun. Or maybe you could save me the guesswork and explain in your own words why the AR-15 with the 30 round clip is no more dangerous in a crowded theater than the handgun.
A fully automatic weapon is not very effective. Naturally a weapon with a very high capacity magazine is much more effective. But that argument is moot. Holmes and Cho have two very different psychological makeup. Holmes used months of planning and a lot of equipment. Cho on the other hand used weapons that are easily come by. Realistically, no amount of restrictions would have stopped him. Pistols are very easy to come by. Holmes was just living out a fantasy and looking to terrorize. Cho was an angry individual who wanted to hurt as many people as possible. People like Cho are much more dangerous. It wasn't an accident that he killed 2 1/2 times more than Holmes, despite Holmes arsenal. Taking guns away won't stop people like Cho and Holmes. They will simply find alternate ways of mass killing.
Restricting high capacity magazines would have given Cho less ammo before reloading, and restricting assault rifles may or may not have altered what Holmes did.
Except though you have to consider that guns make much much easier to kill people. Consider that during the 2008 Olympics a nut case in Beijing attacked some American tourists with a knife and killed one. Now consider if that nut case had a semi-automatic with a high capacity magazine. For that matter consider the flipside what if Jared Loughner, Cho and Holmes only had knives? In most cases nut cases use the tools on hand further building a bomb that can kill a lot of people isn't an easy matter. Consider Faisal Shahzad who tried to bomb Times Square. He had engineering training yet still couldn't build a working bomb. Without guns I suspect that these nutcases would've still killed people it would've been harder for them to do so without access to guns.
I think this post on the first page illustrates it: That is what is wrong with this country that so many people focus on single issue with no compromise.
But there is a difference between the Vtech shooting and the shooting in the theater. The theater shooter decided to stop on his own accord at a much sooner time while the Vtech shooter decided to stop after a much longer period of his attack and committed suicide.
Both these idiots keep referring to the movies and wanted to live out their sick fantasies, Cho-Old Boy and Holmes-TDK
how are assault rifles less effective? Assault rifles have up to 30 round magazine. In the theater incident range obviously is not an issue but assault rifles have much greater range and in a situation like a large campus like Vtech an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine would of been more deadly.
