Elementary school shooting

[joea132]

I am an avid gun owner and I do own an AR-15. I carry a pistol most every day so long as it falls within the law. I will say that I am completely against banning AR-15s. Now undoubtedly in the wrong hands it is a machine of death but so is a knife or a sports car. I use mine for sport shooting and as a collector piece. I have never pointed it at another human being and myself and all of my AR sporting friends never would.

When considering making something illegal such as an AR, we should look at the demographic we are looking to remove the guns from. People who will kill other people. Criminals. The word criminal implies that you are already breaking the law. How will instating another law help? This thinking is emotionally fueled and logically flawed. There are plenty of fully automatic weapons in the hands of gangsters in inner cities that ignore the current strict assault rifle laws.

I will say that I do support the consideration of background checks for long guns. There are plenty of people who should not own long guns that have slipped through the cracks. Owning a firearm is a large responsibility and background checks are all good idea. In CT you can buy an AR15 (CT compliant meaning no telescoping stocks, pinned muzzle, and 16 inch barrel) with only a drivers license and a 2 week wait. If you have your pistol permit or hunting license it is an over the counter deal. I support the idea of stricter checks for anybody owning a gun in this country.

Let me clarify the definitions of firearms in our state. A long gun is a rifle or shotgun that has a barrel over 16 inches in CT. A pistol is a handheld firearm. And assault rifle under current CT legislation is a firearm that is fully automatic with the option of being semi automatic as well. A machine gun is strictly a fully automatic firearm. There are certain firearms that are explicitly named in the 1994 ban, AKs, Tec 9s, etc. A semi automatic rifle is considered a rifle unless it falls under the specific named ban. A Bushmaster is a semi automatic only rifle. So many people think an AR15 is a fully automatic weapon,it is NOT.

I agree if this maniac had not had an AR15 then the carnage may have been less. But as a pistol carrying citizen of this country who happens to live 2 towns away, I wish I could have been there to change things. Me and my father were at the shooting range, practicing our pistol competency when the shootings happened. The answer is not to demonize an inanimate object but to think rationally about who we are selling them too. Having responsible armed citizens is a good thing. Would a criminal bent on killing as many people as he can walk into a crowded room knowing that a large number of people carry concealed firearms? I think not. And I would gladly defend my fellow citizen with the pistol I carry on a daily basis should I be placed in the situation even if it meant my life. That's not the firefighter instinct in me, that's the responsibly armed citizen speaking.

 

[UBB]

Overall, I think this debate is crazy. I doubt most gun owners really care strongly about combat-style weapons, armor piercing rounds, high capacity magazines, and reasonable background checks. Likewise, I doubt the anti-gun crowd wants to eliminate guns used for sporting, target, and self defense.

You really have no grasp of what the 2nd amendment is all about do you. All you seem to be good at is throwing out buzz words and liberal talking points and general nonsense. You seem to have very little knowledge about the subject matter.

Combat style weapons. What does that mean? Do you even know?

Armor piercing rounds?? Where and how does one get some because they sound interesting, I might like some of those.

What is a high capacity magazine exactly? It suggests something extra ordinary so you can't possibly mean 20 and 30 round magazines when you talk about AR-15 type weapons as those are the STANDARD magazines for that kind of rifle. So do you mean belt felt weapons? Those would fall under the NFA guidelines and it takes more then a phone call at the local sporting goods store to acquire one.

Reasonable back ground checks?? Please elaborate since I'm very well versed on the current gun laws as the NFA regulations and can tell you that every commercially sold firearm in this country involves a back ground check involving a FBI database in the form the NICS.(National Instant Criminal Background Check System)

Again, you mention sporting and target purposes and again I urge you to read the Bill of Rights and educate yourself.

 

[UBB]

The red text are my words.

I will say that I do support the consideration of background checks for long guns. As previously mentioned there are back ground checks already in place, so what exactly are you proposing?There are plenty of people who should not own long guns that have slipped through the cracks. Owning a firearm is a large responsibility and background checks are all good idea. In CT you can buy an AR15 (CT compliant meaning no telescoping stocks, pinned muzzle, and 16 inch barrel) with only a drivers license and a 2 week wait.It should be noted that all the regulations you just mentions have zero effect on the lethality of the weapon, only appearance If you have your pistol permit or hunting license it is an over the counter deal. I support the idea of stricter checks for anybody owning a gun in this country.

Let me clarify the definitions of firearms in our state. A long gun is a rifle or shotgun that has a barrel over 16 inches in CT.Any long gun with a barrel length less then 16" falls under the NFA guidelines which requires much more effort to obtain A pistol is a handheld firearm. And assault rifle under current CT legislation is a firearm that is fully automatic with the option of being semi automatic as well.Which, by your definition is a 'select fire' weapon, thus falls under the NFA A machine gun is strictly a fully automatic firearm. There are certain firearms that are explicitly named in the 1994 ban, AKs, Tec 9s, etc. A semi automatic rifle is considered a rifle unless it falls under the specific named ban. A Bushmaster is a semi automatic only rifle. So many people think an AR15 is a fully automatic weapon,it is NOT.

I agree if this maniac had not had an AR15 then the carnage may have been less.Please elaborate. Substitute the AR for any handgun or pump action shotgun and explain how less children would have died. But as a pistol carrying citizen of this country who happens to live 2 towns away, I wish I could have been there to change things. If that is really true you seriously would have preferred a handgun over a rifle?

 

[joea132]

The red text are my words.

Question 1. There are only simple criminal background checks for long guns right now. If you are not a felon, you can buy a long gun with a 2 week wait. There is no mention acuity exam.

Question 2. Huge lethality difference. Shorter length barrels allow you to conceal easier to get into a more vulnerable position before you fire upon your victims. Pinned muzzles mean you can't affix a silencer, and telescoping stocks fall under the same position as short barrels.

Questions 3 and 4. I was simply educating people on what the current laws were. No argument there. Simple facts.

Question 5. I am affirming that an AR15 is an efficient weapon should it be used that way. You can simply sling more rounds through an AR15 then you can a break action rifle and in turn kill more victims in a faster period of time. There can be no argument there. As for a pump action shotgun or handgun, there is more time for reloading in between shots, just like the above example. A handgun has roughly 10-14 shots between reload and a pump shotgun about 5. And AR 15 standard magazine is 30 rounds. Again this all hinges on how the tool is used.

Let's not spin this into a "all guns are dangerous" argument either. While there is some merit in that, it depends on how they are used. I have a shotgun for home defense, a pistol for self defense, and a rifle for sport shooting. I also have rifles and shotguns for hunting. I possess the necessary mental prerequisites to know when to use each and the consequences of my actions.

Question 6. I practice with all of my firearms and I know that if I intend to stop a person with it when they are in my sights, they will be stopped. I wouldn't be carrying a rifle around and have the opportunity to stop somebody, that's just not practical or legal. That argument is invalid. But should I be armed and caught in a similar situation, I feel that the use of a firearm would at the very least deter a shooter and significantly change the outcome. If you can't at least agree with that then you are beyond reasoning with.

The basic boiled down missing link here is how a person intends to use a gun. If somebody is mentally deficient, they should not be allowed to own a gun. Plain and simple. I don't think you'll find and gun nut that would argue against that.

 

[ibglowin]

There has already been one warning here folks on this thread.......

 

[UBB]

Again, it's me in the red.

Question 1. There are only simple criminal background checks for long guns right now.And that to you is unreasonable? If you are not a felon, you can buy a long gun with a 2 week wait.IMO it's unreasonable you have to wait 2 weeks. NICS takes minutes. There is no mention acuity exam. I'm going to assume this is a typo and you meant 'mental acuity' exam. Seems to me you should be arguing for better mental health treatment in this country and not so much more gun laws.

Question 2. Huge lethality difference. Shorter length barrels allow you to conceal easier to get into a more vulnerable position before you fire upon your victims. And I'll mention again that there are already pretty stringent regulations in place with regards to short barrel long guns in the for of NFA. I guess I should have been more clear. These regulations are cosmetic. The do nothing to alter the functioning of the weapon.Pinned muzzles mean you can't affix a silencer, You mean a suppressor, no such thing as a 'silencer' That is a Hollywood creation. And suppressors fall under NFA guidelines as well. and telescoping stocks fall under the same position as short barrels.

Questions 3 and 4. I was simply educating people on what the current laws were. No argument there. Simple facts.

Question 5. I am affirming that an AR15 is an efficient weapon should it be used that way. You can simply sling more rounds through an AR15 then you can a break action rifle and in turn kill more victims in a faster period of time. There can be no argument there. As for a pump action shotgun or handgun, there is more time for reloading in between shots, just like the above example. A handgun has roughly 10-14 shots between reload and a pump shotgun about 5. And AR 15 standard magazine is 30 rounds. Again this all hinges on how the tool is used. More time between shots? Silly argument to make especially when the crime is being committed in a gun free zone with no fear of an armed individual resisting. How much extra time would it really take to change out magazines? Have you ever done it? Ever been timed?? I have shooting IDPA and let me tell you. It doesn't take long change magazines in a handgun you are familiar with so unless you're talking about a revolver your argument doesn't hold water.
Please take a moment and watch the video link I posted.

Let's not spin this into a "all guns are dangerous" argument either. While there is some merit in that, it depends on how they are used. I have a shotgun for home defense, a pistol for self defense, and a rifle for sport shooting. I also have rifles and shotguns for hunting. I possess the necessary mental prerequisites to know when to use each and the consequences of my actions.

Question 6. I practice with all of my firearms and I know that if I intend to stop a person with it when they are in my sights, they will be stopped. I wouldn't be carrying a rifle around and have the opportunity to stop somebody, that's just not practical or legal. That argument is invalid. But should I be armed and caught in a similar situation, I feel that the use of a firearm would at the very least deter a shooter and significantly change the outcome. If you can't at least agree with that then you are beyond reasoning with.

The basic boiled down missing link here is how a person intends to use a gun. If somebody is mentally deficient, they should not be allowed to own a gun. Plain and simple. I don't think you'll find and gun nut that would argue against that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M1u0Byq5Qis

 

[UBB]

There has already been one warning here folks on this thread.......

I'm confused?

Do we need to start a different thread to have this discussion?

 

[ibglowin]

No but you do need to be polite. Consider yourself warned.

 

[Rocky]

Guys and Gals, this is a very emotionally charged subject and we all feel helpless, frustrated and powerless in the wake of this unspeakable tragedy. Just a suggestion, why not carry on your discussion through private messages?

 

[joea132]

Again, it's me in the red.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M1u0Byq5Qis

As far as background checks, it is proof that people have slipped through the legal cracks that would outlaw them from buying a firearm. My girlfriend's brother has a traumatic brain injury, has been psychiatrically evaluated for years and can buy a gun in 2 weeks. He is a drug addict, has been driving in his car with plates he stole from his parents and without a license and been pulled over 4 times now with only promises to appear. He has had violent tendencies in the household and holds no criminal record that would exempt him from buying a gun tomorrow. He has been sent to rehab programs to escape sentences multiple times.

He could buy a gun (with his $60k a year he makes from his TBI lawsuit) and commit a similar atrocity in a 2 week period. As much as in my heart I'm a pro gun advocate, this scares me. These people should not have access. I do agree we need to step up mental health programs, wholeheartedly.

As far as the 2 week wait, it was explained to me that it is to deter somebody who is angry at another person from being able to buy a gun in the heat of the moment and exact revenge. I can understand that. No matter how fast the database comes back on a otherwise unarmed citizen.

I also disagree that length is cosmetic. If you were to walk into a shopping mall with a full length rifle, people would spot it and draw attention much sooner than if you had a more concealable weapon and placed yourself in a more tactically suitable spot to massacre. It has little to do with the function of the weapon, agreed, but everything to do with intention which is the basis of our disagreement.

As far as my terminology is concerned, yes you are correct. Silencer is not the correct term. Thank you for the editing, however it goes along with my above scenario. How long until people draw attention to a person's actions.

Let's take a second to consider magazine capacity and how one would carry it. If a person has an AR15 with a 100rd magazine and spares, they could theoretically shoot almost non stop until they ran out of magazines. While not totally out of the realm of possibility, one may be able to send similar rounds down range with a pistol, although with more magazine changes. I have little problem banning high capacity magazines. They serve no purpose but for massacres. I would definitely give my 100rd AR15 magazine up. I bought it for the same reason I needed a hanna sulfite tester.... I didn't.
The fact that it is a gun free zone is significant. It goes to show that another gun control law didn't stop the shooter but rather encouraged him. More time reloading in a gun free zone gives more opportunity for escape. Plain and simple. But here's another law that could have played into the whole scenario. The shooter, when choosing a place to carry out his mad plans, must have considered the fact that nobody else would have a gun there. It gave him a safe haven to murder children. While I don't necessarily support arming teachers, schools being gun free are significant. Would any shooter perform a massacre if he knew that half of the people he was going to encounter that day were carrying pistols? I think not.

The video you posted is strongly pro gun on all accounts. I'm not sure what your stand is on the issue. To sum up my feelings, I feel like there should be better control over who gets guns, better mental health care and documentation, consideration for a ban on high capacity magazines and a more supportive government of those who lawfully carry protection.

 

[UBB]

. I have little problem banning high capacity magazines. They serve no purpose but for massacres.

Incorrect. One only has to understand and believe in the Constitution of the United States to realize that they do indeed serve an enormous purpose in protecting the Republic.

 

[Wade E]

SOAB! I just typed up 3 paragraphs only to have a glitch in my stupid DSL and lose it all! In short I have an AR-15 with 11 30 round clips, 3 high capacity clips for my Glock 19 and a 12 gauge shotgun with pistol grip. Banning the use or sales of these guns isnt the answer, thats like saying we should ban a corvette as it goes faster then the speed limit but we do need to come up with something, maybe a psychiatric evaluation to obtain a gun permit? Maybe we do need to utilize the armed forces in our schools?

Lets keep this very civil people! Do not attack each other or we will have to close this thread. Its why politics and religion are no no's on forums because they spiral out of control 99% of the time and people attack other people and then we have to police the forum making us look like the bad guys.

 

[Pumpkinman]

Agreed Wade, I will keep this very civil.

We are all extremely passionate about the Elementary school shooting, these children were are future, they did not deserve the cold calculated murderous end to their lives, the children that survived, their innocence has been taken from them, they will never feel safe, nor do i supposed that they will ever trust again.

It is hard to think about this tragedy and try to come up with something positive about guns, and to be honest, I am thankful that we live in a country where we can have a difference of opinions, but my mind races back to the Luby's Diner massacre in Texas in 1991, 50 people shot, 23 killed.

Suzanna Hupp and her parents were eating lunch. Hupp reached for her .38 revolver in her purse, only to realize she had left it in her vehicle as per the concealed weapon laws of the day, her mother and father were among the people killed, could she have prevented this? Very possible.

Most legal gun owners are not the wild west gun carrying types, I carry my 45 concealed everywhere but church on Sunday. I am a big man, you would think that I wouldn't move away from any kind of confrontation, but I do, as gun owners, most of us know that we have an incredible responsibility, but we also know that we can protect ourselves and our family.

That said,

I agree that maybe mental health issues should be flagged when you do a background check, but it wont happen, with the amount of adults and children that have seen doctors for anxiety or other mental health issues in the past 10 years, a very small percentage of the population would be eligible for a firearm, big business and politics wouldn't allow it to happen.

The first thing that we need to do is to stop the media from making these killers famous, this is their 15 mins of fame, in my opinion, they are fueling their need for attention, there should be strict laws against what the news, newspapers and TV in general have done to immortalize this murderers.

As far as allowing long guns like rifles instead of pistols? A rifle round will penetrate an officers vest with ease, it will give these killers the option of hiding and killing from a distance, bad choice.
If someone wants to conceal a long arm, they will, trench coats are a common sight, and due to the politically correct country that we live in, God forbid that we stop and question someone that just doesn't look right, that would mean that we are profiling, or violating their rights.

As a country, we have allowed ourselves to be so politically correct that we cannot discipline our children, it is child abuse, we cannot question someone, that is violating their civil rights.....we have allowed a whole generation to be able to run a muck.

For those of us that are 30-50 yrs old:
Growing up, how many times did you read about someone walking into a school and killing children?
How many times did you read about someone killing everyone at their job?

Everyone is afraid to get involved these days, there is a major lack of respect, it's almost like the "inmates are running the prison".

High Capacity magazines
This would cure the problem? Eliminating magazines that hold more than, let's say for arguments sake, 10 rounds, would make us safer?
Nonsense, I can drop a clip and have another clip in my 45 in a blink of an eye, this is just something that the media has focused on to try to make themselves look like experts on the topic of firearms.
It's kind of like saying that a car that seats 4 people can kill fewer people than a car that seats 6 if it were to swerve out of control into a crowd....

I have little problem banning high capacity magazines. They serve no purpose but for massacres.

Joe you cannot really believe this? Do you?

Sorry for the long post.

 

[TonyP]

Tom, please don't take this personal, but I'd be interested in a response. You suggest high capacity magazines serve a purpose other than massacres, but don't say what that is. Putting aside a Constitutional right (because these magazines are not guaranteed by the Constitution), what other substantial value do they serve, beyond saving a few seconds time when target shooting.

 

[UBB]

Putting aside a Constitutional right (because these magazines are not guaranteed by the Constitution), .

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.

 

[TonyP]

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.

And you suggested earlier I don't know the Constitution. EVERY amendment in the Bill of Rights has limitations, including the second. You can't own surface to air missiles, grenades, and much more.

I'll say again what I said before, there is no Constitutional right to high capacity magazines. Can someone explain to me why they need one?

 

[UBB]

And you suggested earlier I don't know the Constitution. EVERY amendment in the Bill of Rights has limitations, including the second. You can't own surface to air missiles, grenades, and much more.

I'll say again what I said before, there is no Constitutional right to high capacity magazines. Can someone explain to me why they need one?

Maybe we should be able to is what I would argue.
The 2nd Amendment was put in place to protect the people from a tyrannical government. Whether it is 1812 with muskets or 2012 with semi automatic rifles it doesn't matter. The people need to be on as equal ground as possible when it comes the right to bear arms. Banning firearm magazines does the opposite of that thus it's unconstitutional.

And I'll say it again. When in reference to an AR type rifle a 30 rnd magazine is not high capacity. You are using political buzz words in your descriptions. A 30 round magazine for an AR-15 is standard. It's not extra ordinary.

 

[joea132]

What I consider a high capacity magazine is a 100 round magazine for an AR15. 30 rounds being the standard and I have no issues with them. The 40 and 50 round magazines are all judgement call. I'm not really sure if they have a place or not. I do think 30 round pistol magazines are all bit much too.

I have a tough time thinking an AR would be a deterrent for a tyrannical government that has tanks, bombs, predator missiles, etc. I do think if we ever had a major collapse of government or natural disaster that they would be purposeful in protecting your family.

It is so difficult to say ban this, not that. This can stay, etc. Unfortunately we will be at the mercy of our lawmakers who will be making these decisions very soon.

 

[grapeman]

There are Rules and Regulations in effect on this forum.

***********************Please Read*************************************************************************

This thread was started as a reaction to a horrible situation in one of our schools. It has turned into a debate on guns/gun control.
According to rule 15. No debate threads in General Chit Chat.
This thread has turned into just that and if you respect the forum rules, we must get off this gun and gun control subject, otherwise the thread will be closed or deleted as commented on earlier. This is not censorship as some will argue, just enforcement of the rules, just like law enforcement is supposed to enforce our societies rules, we must enforce ours- otherwise they are meaningless.

 

[ffemt128]

There are Rules and Regulations in effect on this forum.

***********************Please Read*************************************************************************

This thread was started as a reaction to a horrible situation in one of our schools. It has turned into a debate on guns/gun control.
According to rule 15. No debate threads in General Chit Chat.
This thread has turned into just that and if you respect the forum rules, we must get off this gun and gun control subject, otherwise the thread will be closed or deleted as commented on earlier. This is not censorship as some will argue, just enforcement of the rules, just like law enforcement is supposed to enforce our societies rules, we must enforce ours- otherwise they are meaningless.

I think this thread has remained very civil. I would see no reason to close it. Having a debate about this subject is stirring emotions because of the subject. It is no different than debating whether a Cab Sauv is better than a Merlot as long as the debate remains civil which in my opinion it is.