Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Connecticut Tragedy  (Read 12993 times)
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1441



WWW
« Reply #220 on: December 20, 2012, 05:29:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Rob, we are not talking about philosophical or moral distinctions between mass murders and (presumably justifiable) war killings. We are talking about weapons. Military weapons, which sole purpose is to inflict mass casualties, i.e., killings.

I really do not get why is it so difficult to accept that military weapons are designed to kill??? Spin it however you want, use whatever euphemism you want, the sole purpose of military weapons is to kill. Justifiably or not, legally or not, by the right side or the wrong side, it is design to KILL for god's sake!!! The more the better, the faster the better.

And, no I do not argue for the sake of arguing. I believe that military weapon ownership by civilians is dangerous and I argue against it.
So far you haven't been talking about military weapons.   What you said is military weapons are designed for MASS MURDER.   They are not.  Not one gun manufacturer sells a gun designed to murder.  This is a politically hyped up term and it's not funny when discussing a serious subject. 

Have you ever been to war?  I didn't think so.  You certainly wouldn't want someone implying you were a mass murderer.  You have no idea how offensive this is.  You are wrong to say this and wrong not to retract what you said.  I've been sensitive to you feeling patronized with no argument at all.. or that your shortened name offended you.  But now you call me and our veterans mass murderers by attaching this term to the weapons we carried.   

Meanwhile, you're mislabeling an AR-15 which WAS NOT made to kill..  Sorry, but you're way off base.   The only way you could express your lack of knowledge on the subject would be to classify a weapon by the way it looks..
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1441



WWW
« Reply #221 on: December 20, 2012, 05:34:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Slobodan, What "military" weapons are we talking about? I thought you were referring to the Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle which was used in the Connecticut shootings. You told me you'd fired the M-16 and AK-47 on full automatic. That being the case it's damned sure you know that the Bushmaster isn't an "assault weapon" or a "military weapon." Civilians aren't allowed to own full automatic weapons in the US. It's different in most Middle Eastern countries.

Yes we are depending on the state.  And these weapons have never been part of the assault weapon ban of the past, nor will they be considered part of any bans of the future.. they numbers are small, TAXES are charged ($200 per weapon) and they're tightly controlled.  Owning a Class III weapon basically gives the BATF the right to inspect it's licensed address any time they please.

Machine gun shooting is a huge draw at many events.. crowds love it.. and they pay big for a turn shooting water melons or whatever.  But there are many hobbyists who get together with various machine guns of the past and some of the present.. and enjoy them.   

AFAIK not one has ever been involved in a robbery or killing.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1441



WWW
« Reply #222 on: December 20, 2012, 05:35:45 PM »
ReplyReply

No, Steve, I see jokes as my weapon of choice (pardon the pun) that is perfectly suited to expose utter ridiculousness of some of your statements and concepts.
No.  You are doing nothing but exposing your ignorance of the subject and taking away from what would be a serious subject. 

I can wait until the children are put to bed if you prefer.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1441



WWW
« Reply #223 on: December 20, 2012, 05:40:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Ok, lets see what the Bushmaster .223 is:

From a Times Magazine article:

I mean, just take a look at that cutie. Isn't it obvious it is made for purely recreational purposes?

1.  A screwdriver has been used to murder.  This does not make the screwdriver an "assault screwdriver."  I've taken the time to TWICE list what constitutes an "assault weapon" under the last assault weapons ban.. this is what the BATF uses and the government uses.    Refer to it if in doubt.

2.  A M16 IS NOT an AR-15.   There are huge differences, namely one shoots automatic and the other is semi-auto.  But lighter weight barrels and the such wouldn't stand up to full auto fire.

Once again, your ignorance of the subject is showing as you mix and match and laughably classify guns by the way they look and not function.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1441



WWW
« Reply #224 on: December 20, 2012, 05:42:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Hmmm... why not? If the mighty 2nd Amendment says "the right to bear arms," without limiting or defining it, why then not automatic weapons as well? If it was possible to ban automatic weapons, why not then ban sami-automatic as well? Looks like the 2nd Amendment isn't such an obstacle as gun proponents would like us to believe.

They're not banned.  They're taxed.   It's been that way for decades through many assault weapon bans..  This explains the NFA act..
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1441



WWW
« Reply #225 on: December 20, 2012, 05:56:53 PM »
ReplyReply

It's funny..  A mother who thought the world was coming to an end bought a handful of guns.. not unlike millions of others.  She couldn't control her son, saw danger signs.. and probably still didn't have them locked up.. so far there's been no mention of the kid using a torch or cutter to get into a safe.    So, she leaves her weapons and ammo unsecured and gets killed by her loony kid because as the media describes it "he was pissed off."

The kid claimed she loved the school more than him.. so he goes to a school and kills 20 kids and 6 adults.  The school had a brand new security system and protocol in place designed to protect them for guys like this.  It failed.


The kid had an AR simply because it's the Honda or Toyota of rifles.   It's cheap and it works well.  That's why we see them everywhere this sort of thing happens.. not because they're weapons of war or any of that nonsense.. Only because they're a decent rifle at a good price and the mags and parts are interchangeable..


So now all of a sudden we "need to do something" that will target stripping constitutional rights..  Because the mom didn't store her weapons correctly and the kid got pissed off.   

Not one person who's advocating gun control really believes it has anything to do with this event..  Not one.  Other than it's one of three hundred MILLION other guns.. there is no link.

It's obvious.. guns should be locked up.   It's obvious we cant trust people to do it themselves.. so we'll need to jail a few people until they get the message..

But it's more obvious our children are not well protected while at school.  In fact, because it's a "gun free" zone they're targets for the crazies.   Who in their right mind will spend time quibbling over what type of rifle someone uses.. while totally ignoring the kids are not protected.. they're the proverbial sitting ducks.

We should be finding ways to protect them.  I had an idea, but I don't expect everyone to like it.. or for it to be the only idea.. But at least I was talking about the right subject and offered up an solution.   We have retired law enforcement personnel of all types (marshals, cops, ATF, DEA, FBI, etc,e tc, etc) who would take such a job.. but I don't think putting some old out of shape guy at the front of every school door as an effective solution.  I see the younger more fit teachers being highly trained and protecting what they love.. We need to teach them strategy,. how not to shoot, when we must shoot.. and a shooter will never know what teacher will be his end.

Focus on the problems.. stop putting valuable resources and time into things which aren't problems or worse..will further divide our country.  It's not worth it.  We need to bring people together to do what we need done.. protecting our children in the classroom.  Everything else is secondary.

Thank you Texas for being way ahead of me.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4998



WWW
« Reply #226 on: December 20, 2012, 05:57:13 PM »
ReplyReply

1.  A screwdriver has been used to murder.  This does not make the screwdriver an "assault screwdriver."  I've taken the time to TWICE list what constitutes an "assault weapon" under the last assault weapons ban.. this is what the BATF uses and the government uses.    Refer to it if in doubt...

Are you disputing the accuracy of the Times article I quoted?

Quote
It was one of the weapons [specifically] banned by the Assault Weapons Ban legislation in 1994,

Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4998



WWW
« Reply #227 on: December 20, 2012, 06:03:04 PM »
ReplyReply

... Civilians aren't allowed to own full automatic weapons in the US...

Yes we are...

Will you two experts agree on this one before turning again against my "ignorance"?
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5717



WWW
« Reply #228 on: December 20, 2012, 06:29:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Ok, lets see what the Bushmaster .223 is:

From a Times Magazine article:

I mean, just take a look at that cutie. Isn't it obvious it is made for purely recreational purposes?

Slobodan, have you or have you not fired full-automatic weapons? If so you must know that the appearance of the damned gun has nothing to do with its effectiveness. There are toy guns that look just like the Bushmaster. Are they "assault weapons" too?

And, as usual, Time magazine has its facts wrong. The Bushmaster is a takeoff made to look like the M-16, not the other way around. When I was mayor and our cops confiscated one from a local "citizen" I thought at first it was an M-16. It isn't. Compared with the M-16 it's a toy.

As far as the "federal definition of the term 'assault weapon'" is concerned, the "definition" was made by people who hadn't a clue what they were talking about. They were anti gun nuts looking for a way to emasculate the second amendment without going for a Constitutional amendment they realized they had a snowball's chance in hell of passing. They were politicians, not people who knew anything about firearms.

Yes, "take a look at that cutie." What about it? It's toy twin looks essentially the same, and it's made for purely recreational purposes. Neither of them is an "assault weapon."
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4998



WWW
« Reply #229 on: December 20, 2012, 08:05:08 PM »
ReplyReply

...There are toy guns that look just like the Bushmaster. Are they "assault weapons" too?

They can surely be mistaken for one. Just ask Steve's colleague who killed a boy with a toy weapon.

Quote
... And, as usual, Time magazine has its facts wrong....

Journalists are wrong, politicians are wrong, the Congress is wrong, the laws of the U.S. were wrong ... just Russ and Steve are right. Well, if you two are the experts, and everyone else is ignorant, I do not mind being considered ignorant either.

Quote
... Compared with the M-16 it's a toy...made for purely recreational purposes...

And mass murders committed with that "toy" are just recreational games. Kind of video games live.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4998



WWW
« Reply #230 on: December 20, 2012, 08:15:20 PM »
ReplyReply

... laughably classify guns by the way they look...

Why not? That's a legitimate legal doctrine, just ask Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart  in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)

Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4998



WWW
« Reply #231 on: December 20, 2012, 08:31:00 PM »
ReplyReply

...you're mislabeling an AR-15 which WAS NOT made to kill.. 

Let's see... the huge mistake I've been accused of is mistaking an AR-15, which is apparently "just a recreational toy," with an assault weapon.

Ok... let's then see what experts say on that subject (highlights mine):

Quote
What the gun industry did, was take an AR-15 assault weapon, cut off the bayonet lug, replace the collapsible stock with a fixed stock, and welded the flash hider to the barrel threads.. thereby eliminating useful barrel threads.

That's it.  Same black gun, same semi-auto action, same mean looking accessories can be mounted on it, fires the same .223 cartridge..  Same same.. 

It would not be fair not to give credit for the above expertise where credit is due: the author of the quote above is... Steve Weldon.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4998



WWW
« Reply #232 on: December 20, 2012, 08:55:48 PM »
ReplyReply

...  A M16 IS NOT an AR-15.   There are huge differences, namely one shoots automatic and the other is semi-auto...

Ok.. huge difference... one is semi-auto the other is auto. The difference being, you'd have to pull the trigger every time on semi-auto, and just keep it pressed on auto. The difference being the speed of fire. I see. So, how fast you can pull the trigger repeatedly on a semi-auto? Certainly not as fast as on auto, I agree. But is the difference significant (from the standpoint of a mass murderer)? Could that speed be increased with practice?

Again, let's turn to an expert* for answer. Though he talks about a difference between regular guns (even slower) and sami-auto, it is still relevant (again, highlights mine):

Quote
You're assuming revolvers, pump, lever fed type firearms are inherently slower than semi-automatic weapons?  It's a good thought but watch some IPSC and IDPA competitions sometimes.. or even the old fashioned cowboy shooing comps where they exclusively use dated and period correct weapons.  It's stunning to see how fast they can be deployed.  Anyone remember the Rifleman?  Stunning rate of fire from his 1870 lever action.  Pumps are just as fast.  Even single shot mechanisms have devices sold which speeds them up quite a bit.

* Steve Weldon
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Jim Pascoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


WWW
« Reply #233 on: December 21, 2012, 01:49:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Ok.. huge difference... one is semi-auto the other is auto. The difference being, you'd have to pull the trigger every time on semi-auto, and just keep it pressed on auto. The difference being the speed of fire. I see. So, how fast you can pull the trigger repeatedly on a semi-auto? Certainly not as fast as on auto, I agree. But is the difference significant (from the standpoint of a mass murderer)? Could that speed be increased with practice?

Again, let's turn to an expert* for answer. Though he talks about a difference between regular guns (even slower) and sami-auto, it is still relevant (again, highlights mine):

* Steve Weldon

Slobodan, I think you might as well give up here.  Let's face it, the two pro-choice posters here are not going to change their minds.  Steve will just keep you going around in circles because he thinks there's a difference between a recreational gun and a killing machine, and he and Russ think that unless you have extensive experience with a variety of automatic weapons then you have no idea what you are talking about.  The fact that you and many other members on this thread have had a lot of life experience, have seen life and death, and can see quite plainly that the good old US way with guns is seriously flawed, is of much less importance than the RIGHT to have a gun handy just in case one wants to use it.  The simple idea that the more guns that are taken out of circulation, the less chance disaffected young men will have their chance to get hold of them passes them by.  

Steve quotes at length the sequence of events leading to the killer in the latest incident getting hold of his mother's guns, and then blames her for not locking them safely away.  So she is fallible.  Under my scheme she would not have been able to own four guns in the first place and neither would the guy next door, or anyone else in the street.  Perhaps the boy would then have strangled his mother or stabbed her to death with a knife.  Tragic, but at least he would not have gunned down a whole class of children in addition.

The idea that a load of old men (and women) are sitting around with such weapons leaves me chilled to the bone.  We have a lot of old people around us, and a lot of them are our friends and I have huge respect for the older generation.  However many of those in their 80's and above should not be in charge of a car let alone a gun or rifle.  Just to watch them trying to get out of a car park would make you realise that they would not be able to hit anyone with a bullet unless they had a machine gun (ah, I see the flaw in my argument).

The semantics about what constitutes an assault rifle and whether the Bushmaster (makes it sound quite tame compared to the Terminator or similar) or whatever is less dangerous/effective than an M16 is just ridiculous.  It might make a difference against a trained and motivated enemy soldier, but against a class of children would make no difference whatsoever.  It makes me think of the idiots who bang on about how a Canon 1Ds is a 'professional' camera and a 350D is strictly for 'amateurs', as if it makes the slightest difference to the pictures.  True, one is a professional build and a better long term camera, but the end result from both is basically the same.

Isn't it nice to talk about photography again.

Regards

Jim

And as a postscript before anyone questions my credentials, I do have extensive experience with a range of weapons.  My time in the Royal Navy allowed me one full clip from a Stirling sub-machine gun, one clip from a 9mm pistol, and several magazines from a 7.62mm SLR.  Now that last one made me realise that I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end.  
And lastly, I do have a .22 Relum Tornado air-rifle.  A couple of Magpies were harassing our pet rabbit the other day and I fired a shot over their heads to scare them off - couldn't bring myself to kill them even though I am a great shot!

It's good that this has been a civilised discussion despite the fact that we have such polarised views - let's face it, there are no easy answers.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2012, 02:10:38 AM by Jim Pascoe » Logged
jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #234 on: December 21, 2012, 05:15:38 AM »
ReplyReply

There are toy guns that look just like the Bushmaster.

Yup.  Toys can get you in serious trouble  ... When everyone has real ones ...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1855490/posts

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/28/nyregion/officer-shoots-boy-holding-a-toy-gun.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/11/local/me-palmdale11





Logged
kers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


WWW
« Reply #235 on: December 21, 2012, 05:33:42 AM »
ReplyReply

...
 I am glad to live in a country where i never even considered i needed a gun...

Here in Europe we shoot jpegs

( trying to connect guns and photography)

Logged

Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu
jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #236 on: December 21, 2012, 05:50:39 AM »
ReplyReply

The fact that you and many other members on this thread have had a lot of life experience, have seen life and death, and can see quite plainly that the good old US way with guns is seriously flawed, is of much less importance than the RIGHT to have a gun handy just in case one wants to use it.  

It isn't simply the right to have a gun.  Most of us in the US are ok with people having a gun.

What is astonishing is the ferocity with which these folks assert their "right" to own military-style semi-automatic "modern sporting rifles" with 30 round magazines full of bullets intended to shred humans ... And must be able to walk into a store and walk out armed to the teeth with no background check.

What is even more astonishing is the insensitive need to ferociously defend such "rights" even as these children are being buried.

For god's sake ... Just give it a rest for one month.

Logged
jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #237 on: December 21, 2012, 05:57:12 AM »
ReplyReply

where i never even considered i needed a gun...

Let's make one thing crystal clear ... They don't NEED these guns.  They WANT them.

The US is a very, very safe place.  People with guns in their home are MUCH less safe than people without.  Your odds of being murdered by gun go through the roof if you, your spouse or loved one owns or has access to a gun.
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5717



WWW
« Reply #238 on: December 21, 2012, 06:16:21 AM »
ReplyReply

They can surely be mistaken for one. Just ask Steve's colleague who killed a boy with a toy weapon.

No doubt we'd all be a lot safer if we banned toys.
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5717



WWW
« Reply #239 on: December 21, 2012, 08:24:20 AM »
ReplyReply

. . . their "right" to own military-style semi-automatic "modern sporting rifles". . .

. . .their "right" to own military-style semi-automatic "modern sporting rifles"

Jeremy, the world might be better off if sporting rifles were all bolt action, lever action, or pump action rather than semi-automatic. But nobody owns "military-style semi-automatic" arms. Semi-automatic weapons are not military -- at least now nowadays. You and Slobodan would be more believable if you'd stop using that "military" terminology. It makes it clear to anybody who's been in the service and in a combat zone that you guys haven't a clue what you're talking about.

But, let's face it, Chicago, New York, DC, Detroit, Los Angeles, among other cities, demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt that strict gun laws, rather than having a positive effect, probably have a negative effect.

Yes, I know you're going to argue that places like New York are at the mercy of surrounding areas where guns are legal. Yes, criminals always can get guns. Unfortunately, with strict gun laws law-abiding people can't. That makes things a lot safer for criminals, a fact they take full advantage of.

But let's imagine we've banned firearms in the US and managed to find and destroy all the previously legal guns in the country. What a terrific subsidy for gun producers in places like North Korea or the Middle East, who'd smuggle guns into the country to illegal dealers at extremely high prices. We've done the same thing with the subsidy we've given drug producers and dealers by having a "war on drugs."

The point is that if people like Lanza really want guns they're going to find a way to get them, and in a completely disarmed country those guns are going to be unusually effective. I've been really busy lately so I haven't had time to plow all the way through this absurd thread, but I know that somebody from Britain pointed out how few gun crimes they have in England. He didn't mention the fact that gun crimes have climbed by 89% in the past decade and their cops have reached the point where they need to carry full-automatic weapons ("assault weapons" Slobodan) rather than billy- clubs.

It's clear that the problem isn't the guns; the problem is the society. I'm old enough to have witnessed the change and the difference. If I had to put the blame on one thing I'd point my finger at TV. I've been around through the whole development of television, and in the beginning it looked as if TV had the ability to lift up our society by helping to expand our horizons and educate the uneducated. But it hasn't worked that way. Instead, it's convinced the ignorant that violence is a game and that violence can make you famous or notorious, no matter how stupid and worthless you may be.

That's the bottom line. That's what people like Lanza are being taught: If you want to go out in a blaze of glory, get a gun and shoot up a (pretend) gun-free school.
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad