The Topic of Gun Control and How it Relates to Recent Mass Shootings

Interesting that Commodore has disappeared.

 

Looks like the right to bear arms as a privilege instead of a right works much better.

 

There is at least one thing that reasonable gun owners should agree with. To limit clips to 10 rounds, except for collectors who could own and use one with a permit. There's simply no valid reason to own a clip carrying more than ten rounds. It doesn't take any time at all to reload a clip. You could have more than one. The 30 round clips this lunatic was using should be illegal, except for the contraints I mentioned. And I wouldn't have a problem with making them entirely illegal. I'm simply attempting to offer a compromise to collectors. Go through a process to own a clip larger than 10 rounds. Require a Federal permit. It's not a lot to do, but it's something.

 

Low capacity magazines take no time at all to change (2 seconds). Banning high capacity magazines would be pretty meaningless.

Just so everyone knows, Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. It already has a ban on assault rifles and 'waiting periods' too. This seems to be what most liberals are using the Sandy Hook murders to push for nationwide.

 

Disagree. it's just one measure... like all of these measures, none in and of themselves stops gun murders entirely...but it can be a part of reducing the carnage.

 

A 2 second clip change would not of lessened the carnage at Sandy Hook. He walked into classrooms of kids who had no escape and it didn't end until he took his own life. An extra 6-10 seconds wouldn't of changed anything.

 

Post a video of you, or anyone, loading a 10 round clip in 2 seconds. Thanks in advance. And if a "ban" on higher capacity clips would be "meaningless," then why do you object?

 

Who said I object? I said it would be meaningless. Don't really see the point in banning something if the ban is meaningless. Just a little less freedom.

Here's your video (not me. I don't own a gun)
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CAFxgQmxbGI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Connecticut also has a large magazine ban (10 rounds or more). It stopped nothing. You can look up all the failed Connecticut gun policies at the link (click a state and scroll down).

EDIT: I apologize. no they don't

 

I'm not interested in them making gun policy SOLELY around the specific events that occurred in this one particular shooting. An extra 6-10 seconds in Aurora meant getting out of the theater or not getting out of the theater.

 

Bull****.

During the Gabby Gifford's shooting-

Every clip change is another opportunity for intervention and escape. The body count during the Giffords shooting could have been much lower if Loughner had to switch clips after 10 rounds instead of ****ing 33.

You never know, The principal and counselor at Sandy Hook could have reached Lanza just as he was switching clips after having to shoot his way into the school.

So, a limit on high capacity rounds is demonstrably not "meaningless".

Lanza shot one kid 11 times. Think about that. Really think about it. Why did he do it. Because his 30 round clips gave him the "freedom" to do it and move on to other kids without pause.

 

You know how when you're driving across west Texas or Nevada or some place similar and the only thing you can pick up on the radio is wingnut Talkers like Limbaugh and Hannity or the even worse versions like Savage? The Talkers always take great pains to build up their audience and tell them how smart they are and how they understand everything and are rational as opposed to the gullible, emotional Liberals. Then the ads come on and the pitches for hair enhancement, heating oil futures, gold coins and such are aimed at the most gullible emotional people imaginable, the wingnut listeners.

Sort of the same thing with guns. When you follow the money you find the smart people who know what's really going on. Case in point: the financial prospectus of the Freedom Group, a consortium of gun manufacturers. Here are parts of an article that document some of the official financial filings of the Freedom Group:

So, their traditional hunting base is rapidly declining, therefore, they market to insecure and younger men by offering cool looking guns that can be customized, they sell lots of ammo, they are dependent on the people of Wal-mart, they are hoping that having their country deal with economic hard times and the specter of evil Obama will increase sales, current regulations do not affect their sales, they may have a legal liability for some of their products but it's not worth worrying about too much, and they fully expect some horrific event that may change public perceptions but take no responsibility for it.

These guys don't care about your freedom or the 2nd Amendment or any other Constitutional passage so long as they make lots of money selling lots of guns and ammo to mostly insecure guys who are awed by cool looking killing machines. And the gun manufacturers own the NRA.

 

Then they will tell ya, see, you need more guns and ammos to protect yourself from other people's guns they sold. This is no different from arm races among nations and the role of the arms dealers. There is little sense in the reasoning why people need to arm themselves in a civil society. The US probably is the only country believing in that, although that belif is not shared by many many of us any more.

 

A couple of interesting quotes:

“There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.”

--Ronald Reagan

“Guns are an abomination.”

--Richard Nixon

 

This. If high capacity magazines make no difference in lethality then why are they even used by the military in the first place?

It is simple logic. The less time you have to reload means the more times you have to shoot. Even if it takes 2 seconds to reload in those two seconds with a semiauto means around 4 shots not to forget that each time you have to put another clip in you have to stop aiming so the time is actually longer to hit a target than the time it takes to eject the empty clip and insert a loaded one.

The Gabby Giffords shooting has been cited several times already so we know for a fact that having to reload makes a difference in these massacres.

 

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people"

But, Mr. Gun owners, people cannot kill people that easily without guns. There is right to protect oneself, but there is no right to an ability that can kill others massively in a span of seconds.

 

By the way, the .223 round was developed because the Army wanted a bullet to go through a helmet at 500 yards.

Not for home defense or target shooting, but for killing soldiers.

 

Wacky Gun owners would say that's perfect since they stockpile it for the impending Revolution and secession

 

I agree that pistols and shotguns have a place for self defense but an AR-15 with a high capacity magazine doesn't. For the example frequently brought up of the 100 pound woman protecting herself from muggers and rapists it is is impractical.

 

That is a byproduct of the m855 62 grain round. If you use non-green tip semi armor piercing rounds such as 55 grain fmj, or even better,..my preferred heavier 75 open tip match rounds, you actually get less penetration and more incapacitating fragment capability...which is preferable in close quarters.

I've done my research and the .223 is THE best rifle round for interior use.

 

I am former federal officer, trained extensively in combat shooting. The real issues in this horrible incident do not relate to gun control. The real issues are primarily mental health intervention and school security. Other issues include violent video games, the morality of the culture, and child socialization including parental supervision. No sort of gun control not even "no guns" of any kind would have prevented this very sick individual from committing this horrific crime. He could have tossed molotov cocktails through the window, he could have set off a homemade explosive, he could have set off a natural gas explosion and so on. Someone set on destruction is best stopped by, yes, you guessed it, ARMED security.

The Left's obsession with "gun control" is a fantasy, an illusion, an enormous mistake. It reduces freedom and solves no problem. The right to bear arms makes us the most difficult country in the world to "take over" by military force. With armed security present on the scene, the children would have been safe. Unfortunately, they were in a "no gun zone."

Had any public official been approached by this maniac, their security detail would have eliminated him with the firearms that they carry. Think about it. These are the people you want to vote for gun control.