Shots Fired At Connecticut Elementary School, Multiple Deaths Reported
Apparent tragedy at a Connecticut Elementary School.
An elementary school in Newton, Connecticut has been the scene of a mass shooting:
Multiple people, including children, have been killed in a shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
The number of dead is unclear, but there are at least 20 shooting victims. Many of the shootings took place in a kindergarten classroom, sources said.
A person believed to be a shooter is dead. Earlier reports of a second shooter are unconfirmed.
ABC News reported through federal, local officials that more than a dozen people, including children, were shot and killed.
Police were still searching the school at 11 a.m., and police dogs had been brought in. Around noon, the triage area was broken down, stretchers were taken away and the SWAT team left the building.
Shortly after 9:40 a.m., police reported that a shooter was in the main office of the school. A person in one room had “numerous gunshot wounds,” police said.
Groups of students — some crying, some holding hands — were being escorted away from the school by their teachers. Some students were still in the school at 10:30 a.m., parents said.
School and local emergency officials are accounting for the children, who will be released to their parents to get them home. A staging area has been set up at the Sandy Hook fire department, directly in front of the school.
Frustrated parents are trying to get information from officials, who are still actively searching the school.
Eight-year-old Alexis Wasik, a third-grader at the school, said police were checking everybody inside the school before they were escorted to the firehouse.
“We had to walk with a partner,” she said.
One child leaving the school said that there was shattered glass everywhere. A police officer ran into the classroom and told them to run outside and keep going until the reach the firehouse.
Dozens of state troopers are on the scene assisting local police. Heavily armed police gathered in front of the school around 10:45 a.m., and a number of stretchers were set up.
Further details from CBS News:
A shooting at a Connecticut elementary school Friday left several children and the gunman dead, law enforcement sources tell CBS News. At least one teacher was wounded in the shooting that sent frightened pupils into the parking lot.
It is unclear if there was more than one gunman at the school.
Law enforcement sources told CBS News senior correspondent John Miller that preliminary and unconfirmed information indicates that the shooter was the father of a student.
The shooter was killed and apparently had two guns, a person with knowledge of the shooting told The Associated Press. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation was still under way.
It wasn’t clear how many people were injured at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. CBS Hartford affiliate WFSB-TV reports around 600 students attend the school.
Connecticut State Police spokesman Lt. Paul Vance described the situation to CBS New York station WCBS-AM as a “very serious school shooting.”
A dispatcher at the Newtown Volunteer Ambulance Corps said a teacher had been shot in the foot and taken to Danbury Hospital.
Stephen Delgiadice said his 8-year-old daughter heard two big bangs and teachers told her to get in a corner. His daughter was fine.
“It’s alarming, especially in Newtown, Connecticut, which we always thought was the safest place in America,” he said.
Lisa Bailey, a Newtown resident with three children in Newtown schools, told CBSNewYork.com, “Newtown is a quiet town. I’d never expect this to happen here. It’s so scary. Your kids are not safe anywhere.”
Multiple news agencies are reporting different things and it’s difficult to know what’s truth and what’s rumor. The ABC report of more than a dozen dead is a relatively recent one and hasn’t been confirmed. Other reports have indicated that at least two of the dead include the school’s Principal and a school psychologist. Other reports have stated that the shooter, who has been killed, was the parent of one of the students at the school but that hasn’t been confirmed, and neither have the initial reports that there was a second gunman who was arrested on the scene.
Updates to follow as warranted.
Update: CBS News is now reporting that as many as 27 people are dead:
NEWTOWN, Conn. (CBSNewYork) - Twenty-seven people are dead including 14 children after a gunman opened fire at an elementary school in Newtown, CBS News reports.
Officials say the gunman was also killed and apparently had two guns. It happened around 9:40 a.m. Friday at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
At least three people were injured, two children and an adult. All three were taken to Danbury Hospital.
An 8-year-old student told CBS 2-s Lou Young he was on his way to the school’s office when he saw the gunman.
“I saw some of the bullets going down the hall and then a teacher pulled me into her classroom,” he said.
There is also a report that the gunman is believed to be a 20 year old man from New Jersey rather than a student’s parent. What connection he has to an elementary school in a relatively rural area of Connecticut is unclear. Also, the Hartford Courant is reporting that an entire classroom of children is unaccounted for, but this may just be students who ran off on their own rather than going to the fire station next to the school. Needless to say, this is just horrific.
Update: There was a Connecticut State Police news conference at 1pm today but very little information was released, including no confirmation of the number of dead and injured as of yet. That may be because families are still being notified. In any event, CNN is reporting that the shooting suspect is being identified as Ryan Lanza, a 20 year old former resident of Newtown who now lives in Hoboken. According to other reports, the suspects home in New Jersey has been searched and a body has been found that may or may not be his mother. Hoboken is about an hour and a half away from Newtown, although driving time would likely be longer if the trip were made in the morning rush hour.
Update: The New York Post is reporting that the shooter’s name is actually Adam Lanza and that his brother, Ryan Lanza, is the one being questioned by police. Additionally, it appears that Lanza’s mother, who was a kindergarten teacher at the school, may have been the initial target in that nearly all the deaths took place in her classroom. Also, there appears to be a dead body at the mother’s home in Newtown and the suspect’s home in Hoboken.
I live at the CT shore and read these reports an hour ago. I’m going to withold comment for the moment until we have more info it’s too shocking.
ABC news’ latest update:
“12: 47 a.m.: More than 20 people, most of them young children, killed in shooting, according to law enforcement sources.”
@Brummagem Joe:
Well I’m not: the easy availability of guns, and the attendant fetishization of guns in our culture, are a plague.
CNN is now also reporting “close to 20” people killed.
@Rafer Janders:
Otherwise I might say something I might regret.
This is so awful and so incomprehensible. I just can’t wrap my mind around how someone could do this. Murdering innocent people is always horrific, but I just can’t comprehend walking into a school and slaughtering children.
This is just a terrible, terrible situation. Just stomach churning.
No one mention guns. That’s not allowed.
Guns are needed so morons can fight the coming race war and resist the perfidious government. The government that is at the moment caring for traumatized children and cleaning up the bodies.
This is a sick obsession.
Welcome to 2nd Amendment America.
People kill people with guns in this country because they can.
I suspect Citizen Floreck and his ilk will blame the young, innocent victims of this bloodbath for not being armed as they have in the past.
Looks like 27 dead….18 children…..the massace of the innocents……another victory for the NRA
Kids… Man.
Kids…
Fucking kids…
@Brummagem Joe:
Go for it. Seriously. If not now, when?
Dr. Joyner, Doug and Dr. Taylor –
My apologies for the post being held up in Moderation.
Land of the free, home of the cowards.
I’ve been freaked out by this all morning, probably because I have a 2d-grader myself, not in CT however.
I don’t know what to do. Rounding up all the guns isn’t politically possible. Armed guards everywhere may be the best we can do.
But we need to support the anti-gun movement, however hopeless its stated goals are, because that’s the only way the NRA/GOP axis of death is going to get scared enough to agree to some reasonable reforms. Whatever those are. I can’t even think straight.
The same exact thing just happened in China, but without the guns. Current fatality count? Zero.
It’s a sick world, but sick people don’t need to have easy access to handguns at their moment of weakness.
It has been against federal law for 22 years for non-law enforcement to carry or discharge a firearm on school property. Well, except for a short time till an unconstitutional issue was repaired.
Tell me more about these criminals who obey the law…
Oh, and in an interesting quirk, the law prohibits anyone but on-dutylaw enforcement and contract security from acting in self defense or defense of others by discharging their weapon in a school zone. So it would be unlawful for a licensed carrier or off-duty police officer passerby to act to protect the children from a murderer.
@Rafer Janders:
Go for it. Seriously. If not now, when?
I’m saving it up.
@carpeicthus:
I don’t give a flying fuck about China or India or the Congo because I don’t live there. I do live here however and I presume you do.
@carpeicthus:
Apparently I’ve been placed in moderation because I’ve used a naughty word so I’ll give you the bowdlerised version
I don’t give a flying “possum” about China or India or the Congo because I don’t live there. I do live here however and I presume you do.
American society long ago decided that the lives of children were an acceptable price to pay for the preservation of our gun culture.
Cue the NRA gun nut crowd who will say the only solution is to require teachers to pack heat.
It is not strictly about gun control. Its all about changing the gun culture, and breaking down the fetishization of firearms. Although I’m still not sure how that would change the outcome in this situation, short of eradicating every weapon in the country. Obviously not going to happen.
I consider myself pretty thoroughly desensitized by mass media in general, but damn, this is shocking to the core.
@CB:
The problem is that the gun nuts–the millions upon millions of them–love guns more than they value the lives of other people’s children.
The most profound disappointment I have had as a proud American (born 1963) is the increasingly blasé attitudes conservatives have toward the children of other people.
Note to politicians/policy makers: Are your “thoughts and prayers” the best you can do?
@Geek, Esq.:
Well, im with everyone here spiritually on the issue, but the guns didnt make them do what they did. They made it easier, no doubt, but they hardly provided the motive, whatever it may be. Id just be careful with how we frame the issue, especially given how little is known.
@CB:
All you need to know is that amongst the rightwingers out there, the reaction to this incident is one of horror.
Horror at the prospect of gun control legislation.
The 18 dead children are much less disturbing to them.
It’s a sickness in our culture, and sadly it is never, ever going away.
Obviously if those six year olds had been concealed carrying Glocks, they would have defended themselves…
I’m wondering if there is such a thing as national insanity. Only an insane country would have a policy when things like this are allowed to happen routinely, because of a questionable interpretation of a 225 year old provision relating to an obsolete method of community defense.
Soon we will have some one turning up here to discuss the finer points of why assault weapons shouldn’t be regulated, you see, because assault rifles differ from battle rifles which differ from blah blah blah…
Eric Loomis posted this at Lawyers, Guns and Money:
I concur.
This is a hearts and minds campaign. It needs to be as unacceptable to own a gun as it is to run a dog fight. Society has to become intolerant of these people. They have to be made to feel outside the pale. We should not let our children visit homes where we know there are guns. When we hear people say they own a gun the reaction should be shock. Right now a cigarette smoker feels more ostracized than a gun owner, we need that to change.
It’s not just “gun culture.” American culture in general seems prone to default to violence in ways other places just don’t.
Something I noticed while living in Germany: television programs have far fewer guns and far more boobs than those in America.
I think this indicates something unhealthy on this side of the Atlantic.
@michael reynolds:
Having grown up in a gun-loving, deep red state, these people love their guns more than they love their own children.
They won’t care what us East coast liberal types think of us. They joke about shooting us.
You people are being stupid. Lets blame the tool and ignore the culture that glorifies violence and death. Lets focus on the inanimate object and not the sick loser behind the trigger.
The single biggest mass murder in this country didn’t involve a single gun. The second biggest mass murder in this country didn’t involve a gun either..
What will be enough for you people? England’s level of gun laws? Well sorry but there’s still LOTS of murders going on there. So many murders that the have moved on to banning samurai swords. The stab proof knife was revealed in England and is probably a short hop away from being required. Where does this stop?
@CB:
Well, im with everyone here spiritually on the issue, but the guns didnt make them do what they did.
Well we don’t actually know what made them do it but it hardly matters in the face of statistical probability. We have an estimated 6 million people (about 2% of the population) with serious mental health problems. This is conservative when one considers the number on mind altering drugs of one sort or another. There are then about 350 million guns in circulation and they can be obtained easier than candy. Then most states allow the concealed carrying of weapons. Thus it is a statistical certainty that mass shootings will occur at regular intervals…..there have been thousands of them during the last seven years…..Brady keeps a record. This is just the latest.
@Mikey: Be careful because you’re not allowed to bring logic into this discussion. If you’re not screaming BAN GUNS then you’re some mindless conservative…
I have also noticed the massive difference in culture between here and various places in Europe. Over here it’s fine to show someone getting shot in the head but you better not show a boob…I found the exact opposite situation in Europe..
@Brummagem Joe: I hate to bring facts in to interrupt your scare fest but less then 1% of those with a CCW will ever commit a crime.
Getting a CCW involves an investment of money and time to complete training requirements.
@Rafer Janders:
There are plenty of countries in the world that don’t have the right to bear arms in their constitution. This one does. You could always move elsewhere. I would hate to see the mess it would make to try to undo the 2nd amendment.
@michael reynolds: You’re an asshole. Seriously a complete and utter clueless asshole. You’re personifying the uptown limousine liberal with this post.
Live on a farm sometime and you’ll quickly find the need for a gun.
Seriously y’all acting like a bunch of loony rightwingers detached from reality in this thread.
@Geek, Esq.:
American society long ago decided that the lives of children were an acceptable price to pay for the preservation of our gun culture.
Basically this is it. We’ll live with these mass shootings because after all it’s not going to affect us….until it does of course. Then we have crocodile tears from the politicians who support the gun lobby, the endless rationalisations from the gun enthusiasts, and then it’s on to the next edition of American Idol. Who know this might be the straw that brakes the camel’s back but rest assured the NRA and its sympathisers are preparing push back.
The authors of the Second Amendment had no notion of widely-available, readily-affordable semiautomatic weapons that could fire 100s of times in just a few minutes.
What happened in Newtown, what’s happened at that Oregon mall and at Columbine and at literally more places than we can remember, is not what they sought to protect or enable.
The right for everyone to own a semiautomatic weapon is not a liberty worth protecting. This needs to stop.
@JKB:
It isn’t about criminals opening the law, moron. Its about crazy people having easy access to super deadly firearms because morons like you wouldn’t law reasonable restrictions on sale of those arms that would allow for background checks, registration, and regulations to assure that the people who acquire those weapons are sane and understand how to safely use and secure such weapons.
Its not like this is rocket science. There are plenty of countries ( Israel, Switzerland , for two) who have “well regulated militias” and also intelligent gun control laws.But, hey moron, keep f&*king that chicken-while children die.
@matt:
You need a lot of nine millimeter handguns on a farm? Moron.
How about the AR15 the guy in Portland used? Need that on the farm? Moron.
@matt:
but less then 1% of those with a CCW will ever commit a crime.
Of what relevance is this to the fact that we have about 6 million crazies and 350 million guns in circulation?
Congratulations NRA, you win again.
@Brummagem Joe: My god you sound like a right winger talking about libersl and abortion. THEM LIBERALS LOVE KILLING BABIES BECAUSE THEY LOVE DEATH MORE THEN KIDS!!!
You need to get a grip and try visiting with reality one of these days. Gun owners are just like you and we find this incident to be just as horrific as you find it. We don’t “love our guns more then our children” we just realize that personal responsibility has to start somewhere. We also realize that without guns people are still going to kill each other.
Like I stated earlier there are plenty of countries with far stricter gun control laws then ours and they still have murder and crime (sometimes almost as bad as the USA’s worst cities). We have mountains of data showing that gun control has little end effect on crime. Maybe we should start looking at effective methods of crime prevention?
@michael reynolds: A .45 is effective because you can utilize a holster while out on your land. If a wild animal attacks (which I have had happen) then you can quickly bring effective stopping power to bare. Now a rifle would technically be better but I wouldn’t want to carry around a 10 lb weapon while trying to do chores..
The .223 or 5.56 is a common round and is utilized by hunting rifles. So any attempts at banning the AR15 would result in many hunting rifles being banned. The AR15 itself is effective when hunting hog or other nuisance animals. I personally use a 7.62×39 AK clone for hog hunting because the round has similar stopping power as a 30 30 when used on targets closer then 150 yards. Past 150 yards the round loses effectiveness quickly where as a conventional hunting rifle’s round is deadly for potentially a mile or more.
@matt:
Guns seem to make it easier though.
@matt:
Live on a farm sometime and you’ll quickly find the need for a gun.
Actually I lived on a farm when I was a kid……admittedly something of a hobby farm……but I don’t remember my old man having handguns and AK 47’s. He had a couple of nice shotguns and one sporting rifle.
@David M: So do knives cars bows xbows swords fertilizer etc etc..
@michael reynolds:
So let me see if I understand your psyop correctly, we need to make gun ownership as unacceptable as dog fighting. Right?
And your method of choice here seems to be that guns are only for racist morons.
So we’ll use the tried and true method of demonising by false association. In this case the race card. I think you’re an idiot quite frankly. And oh how quickly you swooped in on this tragedy to push your anti-gun rhetoric. Why don’t you just move somewhere that is more in line with your ideologies?
@Brummagem Joe: That sporting rifle probably used the exact same action as an ak or ar or any number of scary looking guns..
Meaning anything banning the scary looking guns will also result in the banning of the sporting rifle. Much like the AWB succeeded in banning bayonets and some hunting shotguns due to the language of the bill..
@matt:
That’s pretty much my point. Killing 27 people is easier with a gun than with the things you mentioned.
Gun owners are just like you and we find this incident to be just as horrific as you find it.
Really? Prove it. Support a magazine cap. Support something other than the status quo that gave us 18 dead kids and counting.
Or maybe you’re just fine with how things are going. Tell us which it is.
@David M: Negative. The fertilizer alone has been used to kill hundreds with relative ease.
@Anderson: A magazine cap would have no effect on these shootings. I can change a magazine in seconds and even if you make a magazine lock mandatory the criminals won’t care.
If anything it’s actually dumb to use the larger capacity magazines because they tend to cause loading issues. There’s a reason why the military sticks to the 30 round magazines and that’s because anything larger tends to be far less reliable.
@Locke:
Nevermind your squeamishness. If repeal actually was in the cards you’d support a bloody mess, wouldn’t you? Seems to me half of the plain language of the 2nd amendment – the bit about a militia – is now precatory and to be ignored. Plain language + originalism = a right to walk around with a musket, halbard, mace, etc.
@Anderson:
This.
(Although they’ve already said they are fine with how things are going.)
@matt:
My god you sound like a right winger talking about libersl and abortion. THEM LIBERALS LOVE KILLING BABIES BECAUSE THEY LOVE DEATH MORE THEN KIDS!!!
Actually I’ve just stated reality…..you just don’t like it. And don’t try the crime sleight of hand…..we don’t have reams of information proving there no connection between tight gun regulation and gun death. I’m sure the crime rate in Britain is just as high as here but they don’t have around 9000 gun homicide and a mass shooting every two weeks.
This is just insane.
And I don’t understand the opposition to gun control. There’s already limitations to what weapons are allowed – even the NRA doesn’t seem to think that everyone should have a right to own their own nuclear weapon – so its just a question of where the line is drawn. Repeating firearms is clearly drawing the line too far on the mass destruction side.
@rudderpedals: A lot of modern things would suddenly be i illegal or impossible to regulate if we took your logic to the full extent.
@Brummagem Joe: MY god man did you not watch the sudden increase in crime rates in Australia after they passed the heavy gun control laws in teh 90s? Did you not notice that teh AWB had NO effect on gun crime? Or that when the AWB expired there was no noticeable effect on gun crime? Get a grip.
England has about 1/3rd the crime we do but there’s far more going on then just laws. There’s a different culture there where violence isn’t worshiped like it is here. Like I said in another post over there it’s fine to show boobs but violence is censored on the TV. Here you can show all kinds of horrible violence on TV but you BETTER NOT SHOW A BOOB!!!11
@matt:
Meaning anything banning the scary looking guns will also result in the banning of the sporting rifle.
Don’t be stupid that sporting rifle wasn’t remotely like a Glock or assault rifle ……and who said anything about banning sporting rifles other than you
@matt:
Which countries?
@matt:
Well, I for one salute you in your work in defending the culture of violence and the NRA.
@Brummagem Joe: You’re showing how completely and utterly clueless about guns you are. The action is actually VERY MUCH the same as some of the scary guns. Semi auto AKs and semi auto ARs are NOT assault rifles. No one in their right mind would want to take one of those into battle. An m16 or a m4 with 3 round burst capability is an assault weapon.
It’s blatantly obvious you don’t have a desire to educate yourself about guns. Despite this I’m going to offer a link to a video to you in the hopes that you WILL watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30
@matt:
I’m pretty sure you’re lying on this, but if you have such evidence by all means present it.
Japan has effective gun control.
They have as few as two handgun murders a year . That’s not a typo. TWO. And somehow they avoid being a Stalinist hellhole.
Folks, we don’t have to live this way.
@matt:
England has about 1/3rd the crime we do but there’s far more going on then just laws.
Untrue. Their crime rates per capita aren’t massively different than ours. Rapes, burglaries etc …..the difference is they have under a 100 gun homicides a year and we have around 9000
@stonetools:
I’m pretty sure you’re lying on this
He is of course….he’s relating it to overall crime rather than murders and particularly murders committed with firearms…..btw have you noticed how promptly he showed up here when this topic came……NRA boiler room?
@matt:
Your other comments are reasonable, but this statement is incorrect. There are lots of ways to restrict combat-grade weapons without affecting utility/home defense purposes. For just one example, if you actually need more than 5-10 rounds to defend yourself, either from an animal or a home invasion, you’re going to die no matter how big your clip is.
@stonetools:/facepalm. For the first part all you have to do is look at the publicly available crime statistics. Granted this will require you to invest a little of your time and to risk undermining your preconceived notions but I promise you it’s worth it.
As for Japan has an overall low murder rate due to a variety of reasons. But you are correct in that the vast majority of Murders committed in Japan do not involve a gun.
@Brummagem Joe:
In Matt’s defense — and to make sure we are all on the same page — people tend to use “assault rifle” and “assault weapon” interchangeably.
Assualt rifles (which means fully automatic) are already banned in the US. Assault weapons is a relatively modern category, typically used to describe semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines, currently include a number of hunting rifle models.
As I have suggested in the past on these sorts of threads, it’s of much more value to discuss firearms in terms of how they work, rather than using largely useless labels like “hunting rifle” or “Assault Weapon.’
They’re now saying that the shooter’s mother was a teacher at the school.
They’re also saying there is a dead body at the suspect’s house. Looks like the rampage started before the school.
@michael reynolds: Micheal,
I need a semi automatic be it Glock or AR-15 because F-U. That’s right I don’t need a reason. BTW I’m a smoker and a gun owner so in your eyes I’m probably worse than a child molester, yet none of my guns have ever killed anyone. They must be malfunctioning. It’s not the weapon A-hole. It’s the dipS^&t behind it. Blame the crazy. The Oregon guy stole his weapon, how in the hell do you prevent that?
@legion: Wrong the AR 15 is NOT a combat grade weapon and you show a great deal of ignorance by making such a statement. The action of what you’re calling “combat grade weapons” are standardized semiautomatic actions and are present in a wide variety of hunting rifles. ANy banning of those actions would result in the banning of all those hunting rifles.
@Brummagem Joe: So murder only counts when it involves a gun?
I’ve been posting here for over seven years so don’t start with that crap about me just now showing up as if that matters..
Hell I think it’s been longer then seven years. This was one of the first political blogs to become part of my daily read.
@matt:
You’re showing how completely and utterly clueless about guns you are..
Funny that…..I carried one professionally for awhile when I worked for the govt in the sixties and until a few years ago I used to do a bit game shooting.
@matt: So Matt, what do you suggest we do so that tragedies like this don’t happen? Or are we just supposed to wring our hands and pray that it never happens to “our” kids?
It seems the NRA won’t be satisfied until everyone is walking around with a gun.
There are societies like that. Somalia. Parts of Mexico. War zones…..
Ever notice that they don’t have that much in the way of GDP?
@matt:
So murder only counts when it involves a gun?
No we jsut have many more of them because guns are much more efficient killing machines than kitchen knives or spades.
@grumpy realist: What do we do when there’s a massive freeway pile up? what do we do when a plane crashes killing all aboard? What do we do when something terrible happens?
Do we jump out and go OMG BAN CARS PLANES PEOPLE!! No. I’d prefer we wait for all the facts to come in and then consider what could of been done to prevent or decrease this tragedy. The fact of the matter is that terrible things will happen.
@Brummagem Joe: Doesn’t matter I treat murder as murder. In your world someone being killed by a bomb or a knife doesn’t matter..
@mattb:
bollocks this isn’t about terminology ….there’s no comparison between my old man’s sporting rifle and what this guy is talking about
@grumpy realist:
You wrongly assume that matt, the NRA and a good portion of the country actually have a problem with tragedies like this. This is an acceptable outcome for them, as long as there aren’t any new gun control laws, however reasonable those laws are.
@Ben: These kinds of rampages seem to start before they reach their destination. I have no real statistics on this though.
According to available data England’s murder rate is about 1/3rd of ours.
@matt:
How so? It’s not clear why it would be a bad thing to give effect to the words “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state …”
@David M: You’re making all kinds of assumptions about me. Instead I suggest you actually read what I typed. I never once said I had no problem with this and your refusal to acknowledge such an obvious fact does not bode well for you.
@rudderpedals: The part about the militia is a dependent clause, it is prefacatory. Please read the following. A well educated electorate, being necessary being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed. Does this mean only those elegible to vote can read books? No. All the people read books, and that right shall no be infringed.
@legion:
“Combat-grade” is another useless term for this discussion. Military firearms — i.e. fully automatic weapons — are already illegal. A semi-automatic rifle can be cosmetically made to look either like a Military Rifle OR what most people would call a Hunting Rifle (i.e. wood or faux wood stock).
Now… on the other hand… the topic of restrictions to magazine size is completely on point and would be a much more productive discussion.
“I can change a magazine in seconds”
YOU are not a 20-year-old with mental health issues (or so I assume).
That’s great that gun experts can change magazines faster than they can fart.
But I’m not concerned about you. I’m concerned about the amateurs that are actually killing us.
And if I have to take away your “RIGHT” to a magazine that holds more than 6 rounds, then too bad for you, jacko.
@Brummagem Joe: Okay keep yourself enclosed in that secure ignorant bubble you’ve got going if you wish…
England has had WAAAY more then 100 murders a year lol. Try closer to 1000. The USA actually had more then 9000 murders BTW. The majority of which occurred in areas with heavy gun control and bans.
@matt:
Again, from earlier: “Really? Prove it. Support a magazine cap. Support something other than the status quo”
@David M: Support something just to make you feel better? I’d rather support something that is effective and not a feel good measure which is all your magical cap would be.
I support full background checks and age limits. I support the current laws and more as stated above.
f@Anderson: Liberty for you and screw the rest? How American of you..
@mattb: It wouldn’t be very productive as grandfather laws would keep the current magazines in rotation for effectively an infinite amount of time. You’d never effectively eliminate standard capacity magazines.
I have a relative who is a paranoid schizophenic. A few years ago, I found out he had a pistol among his possessions. Luckily I was able to confiscate it with a minimum of fuss. He has gone through periods where he wears a bulletproof vest and thinks Chinese secret agents are after him.
The though of him getting his hands on a gun has caused a lot of sleepless nights.
@matt:
“What do we do when there’s a massive freeway pile up? what do we do when a plane crashes killing all aboard? What do we do when something terrible happens?
Do we jump out and go OMG BAN CARS PLANES PEOPLE!! No.”
You’re right. We instead mandate seatbelts. And safety glass. And airbags. And other things to make vehicles less likely to kill. And what do you propose to make guns less likely to kill?
@Brummagem Joe:
Perhaps not you rifle — provided its a bolt action, pump action, or lever action model — but if, like many hunting rifles currently used today it’s a semi-automatic, then there probably is very little actual difference between the guns.
And that’s the core issue. Currently only fully automatic weapons are banned in the US. The assault weapons ban of (1994) was an attempt to regulate semi-automatics that in application made very little sense.
Beyond that, there are a slim number of options – either ban or heavily regulate the sale of all semi-automatic weapons OR restrict/ban the sale of certain accessories (i.e. extended magazines).
But talking about things in terms of “hunting” or “combat” as if they mean anything is a bad idea.
@matt: That’s our question: what do you suggest to do?
Unfortunately, the NRA doesn’t seem to have done anything that keeps these tragedies from happening. The only direction they seem to want is fewer and fewer restrictions. Open and concealed carry allowed everywhere. Guns allowed to people convicted of felonies. Guns allowed in churches, airports, theatres….
When will you be satisfied? And what sort of society do you think you are creating?
So what’s the point of that massive, Orwellian surveillance state we were reading about the other day if they can’t even prevent the horrific mass murder of children?
@matt:
What the “and more?” I, for one, would love to know.
@Anderson: Good luck with that. You don’t have the power, wherewithall, or ability to take away my magazines. You don’t get to take away rights dipshit. First they said high capacity (over 30). Then they said over 10, now you are saying over 6. Where does it stop? It’s never good enough for you libtards.
you’re showing how completely and utterly clueless about guns you are
There is no need to have any further expertise other than to know they’re killing machines. There’s certainly no need to wank on about 5.6mm that or 7.62 mm that. That’s just a bunch of big talk to intimidate people .
Let’s talk about a society that has a lot more to worry about the odd bear or coyote on a farm somewhere- Israel. That’s as macho and gun-competent a society as you would want. The average Israel 18 year old could kick the average American gun nut’s a$$. Does that mean they have lax gun laws? Here, suck on some truth:
@matt:
Without a doubt, grandfathering makes any regulation difficult. The fact is that the genie is already out of the lamp on most of these issues (hence why it would be almost impossible to ban semi-automatic weapons in the US).
That said, it’s still worth discussion. And, at least, in the case of extended magazines, I’m less swayed by arguments about the current number in circulation (especially when it comes to the really high capacity ones). That said, even if one were able to wave a magic wand and ban them ALL (i.e. no grandfathering at all), it would be years before the effects of such a move would be seen.
@anjin-san: I’m glad you were able to intervene in that situation before it became a large problem. I wish you luck with your relative. Something like that is a life long battle 🙁
@Moosebreath: Yes AFTER the fact. What we’re getting here is BAN ALL GUNS OMG BAN THE GUNS GUN OWNERS ARE TEH WORST PEOPLE EVER WHO HATE THEIR CHILDREN AND LOVE THEIR GUNS!!1
@mattb: Yeah I liked how the AWB took on such evil dangers as bayonets. Hell it inadvertently banned some hunting shotguns.
@grumpy realist: Uhh you do realize that crime is down right? Down a LOT since the 90s for that matter. The status quo has made us safer then we’ve ever been as a country.
@matt:
I have been vividly reliving all my emotions following the Dunblane school massacre of 1996.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre
The Hungerford massacre of 1987 brought in laws banning semi-automatic rifles in the UK. Dunblane brought in restrictions on handguns. It has not stopped all mass shootings, for example the Cumbria shootings of 2010, but gun deaths in the UK are now at a rate of 0.22 out of 100,000 versus 9 for the US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
The overall homicide rate is 4.2 in the US compared to 1.2 in the UK.
You think culture is solely responsible for the difference between the two?
@stonetools: Okay nutcase okay..You keep beating that straw.
@Jack: Obviously what’s good enough for Jack are the bullet riddled corpses of innocent children.
@Lynda: I clearly don’t but I guess a nuanced view of what causes violence is too difficult of a concept for people to understand here..
@matt:
And one reason violence is worshipped here is because of gun fetishists such as you.
@EddieInCA:
When this subject came up in response to the last mass shooting, I seem to remember that Matt agreed with stricter conceal carry certification than you find in most Southern States. And I also believe that he supported more regulation of sales at gun shows (though I might be wrong about that).
The thing is that most gun owners I know* have no objection to smart regulation. Likewise they don’t see guns as panaceas. And most actively train with their weapons.
What many of them oppose are “feel good” laws that have very little noticeable effect on these sorts of tragedies and tend to be overly onerous on gun owners.
* – again, for the record, I do not own a gun.
@Rafer Janders: Beat that straw buddy keep beating that straw. It’s hilarious how you people cannot realize that you sound just like right wingers when it comes to abortion. Anyone that is prochoice is a BABY KILLER WHO LOVES KILLING BABIES MORE THEN BABIES!!!.. Just like now anyone who enjoys shooting or has had to use a gun in self defense is suddenly someone that LOVES THEIR GUN MORE THEN THEIR CHILDREN AND WANT CHILDREN TO DIE BECAUSE WE ARE GUN FETISHESSSSS.,.
Get a grip son.
@Bernieyeball: No, unlike the left I don’t revel in every mass shooting in an effort to push an agenda.
@matt:
Protection against dangerous animals – the four-legged kind – is exactly why I decided to carry. I endured one attack, unarmed and thankfully uninjured, but by golly, I won’t be defenseless again. See here.
@mattb: You are correct I supported all those and more. I applaud your patient attempts to deal with these irrational arguments.
I don’t own a huge cache of weaponry or anything. I just have a couple guns that I enjoy hunting and shooting with. Fortunately I haven’t had a real life or death struggle for some time now. I practice regularly because I need to stay on top of my shooting and safety procedures.
BTW the Ruger LC9 is an excellent compact handgun for self defense. A solid round and a very reliable action with nice built in safety features such as the built in trigger lock.
I had a pack of dogs attempt to attack me on the farm many decades ago. Fortunately I had my rifle and after dropping a couple of them the rest ran.
@Jack:
Don’t have weapons available for him to steal. I could try to steal a gun in Japan, but would be unlikely to succeed, because there aren’t a lot of guns lying around in private homes.
@matt:
US homicide rates. 14,612 in 2011.
England+Wales homicide rates. It was about 550 in 2011/12.
About the 9000 and 1000 numbers. The England+Wales homicide rate has been above 1000 once, the US homicide rate was at 9000 back in the 1960’s…
England and Wales has a population of 56 million, if they had the same homicide rate as the US, they would have about 2600 murders each year…
Like you don’t have an agenda…
@matt:
“Yes AFTER the fact.”
And we are after the fact here as well. Your point being?
“What we’re getting here is BAN ALL GUNS OMG BAN THE GUNS GUN OWNERS ARE TEH WORST PEOPLE EVER WHO HATE THEIR CHILDREN AND LOVE THEIR GUNS!!”
From some, not all. You are dismissing out of hand what is being said by the ones who want something far less than that as well (such as Anderson and Brummagem Joe).
@matt:
That’s not an argument that I’m particularly sympathetic to. I have no issue with the idea of using guns (both hand and rifle) in self defense or home defense. I see little rational at all for civilian use of a bayonet.
And I say this both as (a) someone who regularly trains with edged weapons (and never wants to use one) and (b) someone whose father-in-law served in Patton’s army in WWII and repeatedly told me that “the worst order you were given before entering combat was ‘afix bayonets’.”
@matt:
Of course, unlike guns, cars and planes are necessary for a functioning modern industrial society, and are able to be used as intended without killing people.
Do we jump out and go OMG BAN CARS PLANES PEOPLE!! No. I’d prefer we wait for all the facts to come in and then consider what could of been done to prevent or decrease this tragedy. The fact of the matter is that terrible things will happen.
@Moosebreath: Barely after the fact with almost no real facts having been revealed people are just jumping to conclusions right now.
@mattb: I was being dismissive of the “effectiveness” of the AWB by clearly stating how one aspect of it effected something that is clearly NOT a problem. BTW people use bayonets for hunting. Either as a primary method of kill or as a final blow to hasten the animals demise.
After VA Tech everyone was screaming about closing the “gun show loophole”, which had nothing to do with Va Tech killings. After Aurora they screamed to the roof about high capacity drum magazines, yet the killer did most of the damage with a pump shotgun. After Oregon it was AR-15s, yet a rifle capable of shooting hundred of rounds per minute, only killed two before the killer turned the gun on himself. Too often people want to blame the tool. If someone is crazy and wants to kill enough people he will figure out a way to do it. As I recall, the Colorado guy had bombs in his apartment.
Stop blaming the tool and figure out how to catch these people before they go off the deep end.
@matt: Being capable of fully-automatic fire is not the only definition of a combat weapon. You don’t need a 30-round clip, or a 100-round drum for any non-combat purpose, and your insistence on conflating a AR-15 with the sort of weapon that might be useful in a either rural or home-defense situation belies _your_ inability to grasp the concept that gun _control_ is not the same as the _outright banning_ of weapons or weapon types.
As for cosmetic modifications, that’s simply ludicrous. Making something _look_ like an AK-47 (or whatever) does not make it _perform_ like one.
@Rafer Janders: Guns are required in large areas of this country and your complete ignorance of that fact shows where your perspective was formed.
@matt:
And yet you appear to be taking the opposite side now, like the GOP nutballs who object to any tax increase because it will invariably lead to everyone paying a rate of 95%.
Damn, blockquote fail:
Well, we might, if people started routinely using cars and planes to commit mass murders. Notice, for example, how we beefed up airport security after the September 11th attacks.
After several hundred of these mass shootings, how many more facts do we need?
Oh well then! That’s just life, I suppose! Sorry about that, parents of murdered little children!
@matt:
What, in case the Apache attack again? To protect against a Comanche raid?
@legion: You don’t need a car either because your feet work just fine. You don’t need a lot of things in life..
@mattb: Yeah bayoneting has to be one of the worst ways to kill someone. I was greatly surprised to find that when I moved down here that far more people are murdered by knives then guns despite guns being easy to buy.
@Rafer Janders: I see so you obviously are not interested in having a rational discussion. Please head to reddit or 4chan. I promise you that you can get your troll on a lot more effectively there.
@David MThat’s all you as I’ve been consistent this entire thread with my previous statements.
@Bernieyeball: My agenda is to protect rights. Just like every time someone wants someone banned from TV(Bob Costas) or radio (Imus) just because they say stupid things I stand up for the 1st amendment. Just like everytime I hear about warrentless searches of people or property I stand up for the forth amendment. And so on. I’m an equal opportunity offender when it comes to standing up for rights. All of them.
@Jack:
Um, really? I’m pretty sure the intrusive state powers required for that would be worse than whatever minor gun control laws most people here are supporting
@Moosebreath:
Again, in Matt’s defense, it’s not so much that he’s dismissing what Anderson and Joe are saying out of hand, as he’s tracing their arguments to an (acutal) logical conclusion. That’s why using actual terminology is so important.
For the record, part of the reason that I’ve educated myself about guns is so I can actually intelligently argue for regulation (not to mention understand the counter arguments).
The fact is that, whether they realize it or not, Anderson, Joe and others are arguing for a ban on all semi-automatic weapons (pistol and rifle). Not only would that be rather difficult, it has a lot of implications. Now to @Lynda’s point, it can be done. The UK did it, for example. But understand that we’re not the UK — there are far more semiautomatic weapons in the US than there ever were in the UK (we’ve always been more of a gun culture) and Law Enforcement in the UK has, generally speaking, far more powers than in the US.
@matt:
” Barely after the fact with almost no real facts having been revealed people are just jumping to conclusions right now.”
And we are days after the shooting at the Oregon Mall. And months after the one in the Colorado theater. And more than a decade after Columbine. And?
F*()@&#$R%!
Awful beyond belief.
I grew up not far from Newtown.
I see there are over 100 comments, so I suspect there’s been the usual squabbling over gun control.
Whatever. Violence is the problem. Guns are tools (admittedly, they’re quite effective tools). Unless you can, once the facts are actually in, point to a specific flaw in our laws that allowed this unhinged person (angry young man, apparently) to obtain weapons he otherwise would have been prevented from obtaining, you’re not actually adding anything. For all we know, the legal remedies people like to bring up would have done precisely nothing to stop this. That’s setting aside the constitutional issues, which, of course, you can’t actually just set aside.
F*cking awful. I confess to being teary-eyed in my car as I drove around today running errands and listening to the radio coverage.
@matt:
Which seems to me to argue for national-level gun control. After all, NYC’s gun control can never be that effective given that I can just drive down to Virginia, buy a gun, and be back in the city the same day.
@Bernieyeball: ” I suspect Citizen Floreck and his ilk will blame the young, innocent victims of this bloodbath for not being armed as they have in the past.”
At least he’s not one of those wingnuts who blame school shootings on the teaching of evolution.
@Rob in CT: Amen
“The Myth of the Armed Citizen“
@matt:
So gun control DOES work, since the percentage of gun related murders committed in Japan is , as you admit, tiny.
Since you wouldn’t ( or couldn’t ) present evidence that handgun control laws have no effect on the firearm-related gun murder , I used the Google ( you may have heard of it?) and in two seconds discovered a nice chart depicting a list of countries by firearm-related death rate. Guess what? It turns out that ALL the countries with effective handgun control laws have a much lower rate of firearm related death than the USA.You mentioned Australia? 2.94 murders per 100,0000 contrasted with 9.00. UK? 0.22. Germany? 1.03. Canada ( right next door?) 4.78
All of those countries do much better than the USA. Based on that chart and arithmetic, YOU.ARE. WRONG.
@Jack: So it’s OK for citizens to have an agenda? Or just the one you approve of?
@Rafer Janders:
Guns are required in large areas of this country
What, in case the Apache attack again? To protect against a Comanche raid?
Unfortunately, the matts of this world are beyond parody. Normally I favor satire as a response to total inanity but in circumstances like this it doesn’t begin to reach these people’s total absence of the most basic commonsense or imperviousness to human tragedy.
@Jack:
Having worked with a lot of crazy people….no, they won’t. You know why? They’re crazy. They are not very effective planners and aren’t that good at coming up with complicated work-arounds.
Give them a gun within easy reach, though, and hey. They’re off to the races.
If only the kids at that school had been armed…they could have defended themselves.
@mattb:
The fact is that, whether they realize it or not, Anderson, Joe and others are arguing for a ban on all semi-automatic weapons (pistol and rifle).
I’m not sure whose the more fatuouis……you or the other matt……I’m certainly not calling for an absolute ban on all semi automatic weapons…….I suggest you don’t take up mind reading as a career.
@matt:
I’ve heard that before and I’m unswayed. Those people can buy a hunting knife (or if they’re so close to the animal that they can bayonet it, they should carry a sword/machete).
@Rafer Janders:
Give them a gun within easy reach, though, and hey. They’re off to the races.
What’s the purpose of a Glock semi automatic handgun that can fire off five shots in as many seconds. Opening bottles of wine? Peeling potatoes? Cutting wood? Painting the wall? Killing people?
@Rafer Janders: Like the Colorado shooter who also had bombs in his apartment? Crazy doesn’t mean ignorant.
@legion:
No… it really is the key definition of a combat weapon.
The counter argument is that 30 round magazines (please don’t use the term clip… they are not the same thing) are useful at the range. It’s not one that I’m partcularly sympathetic to. But the point is, there’s no reason to bring “combat” into this discussion. Simply argue for restricting magazine size.
Actually there are a number of reasons that an AR-15 (or more to the point a semi-automatic weapon) is useful in bot rural and home-defense situations. And there is a real argument to be made that because there is no manual chambering, and because it can fire rounds that tumble and can stop very quickly (as opposed to going through walls), a semi-automatic rifle is a far more safe and reliable home self defense weapon than a manual revolver (yeah… that blew my mind too when I realized it).
But what do you mean by “perform like one?” Because if we’re talking about an AK-47, the key feature is that it’s fully automatic — i.e. keeps firing as long as the trigger is depressed. That is illegal in the US. Has been for years. And that’s what makes the AK-47 an assault rifle and a combat weapon.
So what do you want to ban or strongly regulate about currently legal guns in the US?
Look, I hate to say it, but Matt actually grasps this stuff far more than you do legion.
@Rafer Janders: It’s against federal law to buy a gun outside of your state of residence. The gun would have to be transferred from the seller to a federally licensed dealer in your state of residence, and you would have to complete a standard federal background check form before the dealer could legally transfer the gun to you.
EddieInCA @ 13:33 wins the thread…
@Rafer Janders: I think TImothy Mcveigh and about anyone who has killed someone would like to have a talk with you. History is full of crazy people pulling off crazy stuff. I would argue that someone would have to be crazy in order to go through with the cold blooded murder of a fellow human.
My current hunting rifle when I got it.
http://oi48.tinypic.com/zl8yn8.jpg
The same rifle after I did completely legal work on it.
http://oi48.tinypic.com/v2sgtl.jpg
@Brummagem Joe: I’ve already related to you a story about when I was attacked by dogs on my farm. I have a whole gaggle of stories involving four legged animals trying to kill me or my livestock.
My latest story involves the last time I went hog hunting. The hogs in Texas have been getting more and more aggressive as of late. So much so that combined with their numbers Texas has been forced into offering a bounty of 2 dollars a hog tail (pays for the bullet and the meat is usually good). Well I was out in a field which didn’t have much in the way of cover. Despite this we were able to close within 50 yards of a group of hogs at a feeder. After our first shots the hogs surprised us by actually charging us instead of running away. Having a group of +200 lb pissed off hogs charging you is a very scary and DANGEROUS thing. I had no tree that I could climb nearby so I had to stand my ground. Fortunately I was using my 30 round magazines that hunt and so I was able to drop several of the buggers before they got within 25 yards of me at which point they decided to make a break for it. I admit that in my pumped up state several of my shots were less then ideal resulting in the need for multiple hits per hog.
@matt:
You do actually need a car in our modern industrial society to do things like, oh, get to work, get to school, go to dinner, go shopping etc. You need a car to live in society on a day to day basis. You don’t, however, need a gun to do any of those things.
I might be wrong, but the state of Mental Care in the US is probably a bigger issue than guns. You know, National healthcare systems are perfect to deal with this people.
Ok, having read the thread… sigh.
The two matts are not monsters. They’re actually trying to have a sane conversation about reasonable regulation, and they’re being treated like the absolutists we’ve all met before on the web (e.g. That Guy who likes to assert that if everyone was armed, things like this wouldn’t happen).
Emotions run high when things like this happen. I’m upset too. But damn, fellas. I’m just shaking my head.
@mattb: Ever been bit while trying to slit the throat of a struggling animal? I guess I could just put more lead into the animal and ruin more meat 🙁
@Graham: It’s illegal to buy a hadgun, but yes you are correct.
@Jack:
Compare the population of people who are able to build a bomb against the population of people who are able to place their finger on a trigger and pull. I believe the second is larger, but I could be wrong.
@Rafer Janders: No you don’t You can walk
@Brummagem Joe:
Then what are you arguing for?
And, given the fact that you are making arguments like the one below, I have a hard time seeing how my assumption was particularly off base…
@Brummagem Joe:
@Andre Kenji: You’re right but that would be SOCIALISM or something evil… sigh..
Waiting to find out why the shooter was so angry that he thought it was necessary to kill 18 children to make his point.
I’m sure he had a good reason.
@Brummagem Joe: Again, I own sever handguns and none of them have killed anyone. You are projecting again.
@Jack: If you view it as prefacatory then you’ve reduced the plain language to mere precatory and might as well ignore it because it isn’t given any effect. You’ll be with in good company with Justices going along for the ride with you when you don’t have a problem simply ignoring inconvenient language.
@matt:
@mattb: Ever been bit while trying to slit the throat of a struggling animal? I guess I could just put more lead into the animal and ruin more meat 🙁
We have 20 children and 6 adults dead in the latest mass shooting and these mental giants are discussing the relative merit of how best to kill animals……as I said they are beyond parody.
@Jack:
So what is their purpose …..answer the question
@Brummagem Joe: Yeah rational discussions about reasonable limits is sooo stupid…
@Rob in CT:
But matt isn’t coming close to making that clear.
And by the way, show of hands of people who actually want to ban all semi-automatic weapons? Bueller? Bueller?
@mattb:
And, given the fact that you are making arguments like the one below, I have a hard time seeing how my assumption was particularly off base…
One addresses a simple issue of utility while the other is just your wild assertion…….you obviously can’t tell the difference
@Rafer Janders: Anyone who can read a book or use the internet can build a bomb. It’s not that difficult. So are all crazy people incapable of reading or using the internet?
What I’m saying is there were indicators of crazy for the shooters in VA Tech, Arizona, Colorado, and even this one. No sane person just decides to kill a parent and then shoot a room full of children. Someone somewhere new this guy was a few cards short of a deck and didn’t do their job. Hell, the police pulled over the KC lineback hours before he killed his girlfriend and himself for possible DUI and let him go.
I think that when you hear of an event like this, one wants to do something to solve it and to blame someone or something. It is very sad but saying that our thoughts and prayers are with you is inadequate. Given recent events in Arizona, Colorado, Conn, etc., the status quo is not working to protect society. This feels like an Emmitt Till moment. If one can agree that banning all guns is unlikely to occur and that the present status of gun control is inadequate to address these types of issues, it seems to me that more significant gun control that is reasonable is the answer. The rub is where is that line. The government in Washington does not seem up to cooperation but I suggest allowing persons who want to hunt or protect themselves to have guns for such use on one hand but making it more difficult for mentally ill people to easily get guns on the other hand. Outlawing open gun sales at gun shows and requiring investigation prior to sale to prevent gun ownership by felons or mentally ill individuals seems like a good place to start.
@David MThere’s plenty in this thread. Hell just read the first 30 posts and you’ll see several. You have no excuse for such a willfully ignorant statement.
@rudderpedals: I’m not ignoring it. It is what it is, an introductory clause giving an example of why the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It’s an incomplete sentence without the independent clause and the rights are clearly those of the people.
@Midwestern Dad: I’m not aware of any place that doesn’t use the NICS. If such a place exists then they certainly should change the laws there to require a NICS check.
@Brummagem Joe:
Aas happens in these sorts of discussions, Matt was following up on a discussion. Frankly most of this thread has had nothing directly to do with the suffering that took place in CT.
If people had heeded your plea in the first post, maybe we’d be discussing that. But the fact is that almost immediately, this became a discussion of gun control. In fact, within 10 posts you contributed this:
I’m not an NRA supporter. Hell, I don’t own a gun. And generally speaking, I support far tougher gun regulation. But I expect that regulation to be rooted in reality.
As far as Matt’s comment about killing animals, it was in response to the discussion we were having a bayonets. To the degree that bayonets were actually caught up in the entire Assault Weapons ban, it was perfectly on topic.
So no offense, but stop being a holier than thou a-hole. You and others wanted a discussion on gun control, this is part of it. Or are counter opinions not welcome?
@matt:
Quote them or STFU. I read the first 30 comments, and saw exactly zero. You have no excuse for such a willfully ignorant statement.
@Brummagem Joe:
Fine Joe. I’ll accept that.
So again, let me ask, what are your arguing for? I think we all can agree that continued regulation of guns is a good thing. And that it could be strengthened. The question is how?
So far, the only thing that’s close to a proposal I’ve seen on this thread is restricting the capacity of magazines (something I support).
What else?
I’m going to say it again because it bears repeating. We have an estimated 6 million people (about 2% of the population) with serious mental health problems. This is conservative when one considers the number on mind altering drugs of one sort or another. There are then about 350 million guns in circulation and they can be obtained easier than candy. Then most states allow the concealed carrying of weapons. Thus it is a statistical certainty that mass shootings will occur at regular intervals…..there have been thousands of them during the last seven years…..Brady keeps a record. This is just the latest. This is not emotion it’s math. The status quo means the carnage continues or you can get serious about regulating firearms which won’t entirely eliminate the problem but it would make a serious ding in it. I’m betting the carnage continues.
@David M:
Ok… so it sounds like no one here wants to ban semi-automatic weapons. Great… Then what practical regulations are people interested in?
Because talking about wanting to get rid of “Combat weapons” for example doesn’t frickin mean anything! As I said before, so far the only remotely actionable proposals we’ve seen on this thread were:
(1) Restricting magazine size
(2) Banning bayonet mounts (with some justification for keeping them)
What do other people have?
@David M: Trollololololol
Hmmm, if it does not help to regulate guns, couldn’t there be something that makes sure mental health therapies are universally available? Even if it is a bit expensive, is it not better than limiting constitutional freedoms?
@Jack:
Yes, it is, because you actually have to BUILD IT. You have to find instructions, learn how to do it, go to the store, buy the ingredients, build the bomb while not blowing yourself up in the process, and then successfully and secretly transport the bomb. But you don’t have to buildy your own gun — you can pull it out of the holster and use it within seconds.
You know how we know it’s actually fairly difficult and involved to build a bomb versus using a gun? People use guns all the time, every day, but bombs are very rare.
@mattb:
So again, let me ask, what are your arguing for? I think we all can agree that continued regulation of guns is a good thing. And that it could be strengthened. The question is how?
The Canadian system of regulation would be a good start.
@Xenos: One of the reasons I support a public option with strong treatment options. If people are able to get the treatment they need for mental health problems then there will be fewer tragedies overall. Also we as a country need to get past the stigmas associated with mental health issues. A more honest and open discussion about mental health problems would be a nice start.
@Rob in CT:
Well, the thing is, its actually pretty easy to point to flaws in the law that allow unhinged persons easy access to semi-automatic weapons. Have you ever heard of these kinds of mass shootings happening in Switzerland-a country that actually has a well regulated militia, where every able boddied man must serve in the military and possess and maintain a military grade rifle? That’s because they don’t happen there, or in just about every other country with effective gun control laNow is it because the Swiss -or Israelis or Australians or British- are so smart? Nope, its because they have better LAWS than us. Switzerland:
To buy a gun:
These requirements all seem common-nonsensical to me but NRA resists such requirements tooth and nail.
Here in the USA, you can go to any gun show and pretty much buy any kind and number of semi-automatic weapon you want and as much ammunition as you want, any kind of body armor you want , often with zero background checks.
You can buy guns at commercial shops with no background checks, except a cursory criminal record check. You can be barking mad and unless you have committed a crime , you can buy any kind and number of semi-automatic weapon you like most places, without going through any kind of testing or weapons training at all. You can order any amount of ammunition for those weapons you like, OVER THE INTERNET.
Not surprisingly, crazy people find it easy to get guns and slaughter people. Well, it doesn’t have to be that way.
@Brummagem Joe:
You’ve just said a whole lot of nothing there Joe. You essentially just punched out of the conersation with “current situation is bad, but I got nothing….” No offense, but I find that a little less than useful.
The thing is CCW isn’t a problem. It’s the lax standard that some states have for getting a CCW permit (looking at you Florida). Likewise, I totally agree about issues with mental health and guns. The question is how might that even begin to be addressed (especially in a post HIPPA world).
Much of this (like electoral problems) also comes down to our Federalist system. That’s something I have no idea about how to rectify. But it’s going to be a continued problem…
@Brummagem Joe:
What does Brady consider a “mass shooting?” Because Mother Jones–hardly a pro-gun, conservative outfit–puts the number at 61 in the last 30 years.
A Guide to Mass Shootings in America | Mother Jones
Something stuck out to me: six of those (seven, if you include today’s) occurred in 2012 alone. 11% of the mass shootings in 3% of the time span (again, including today’s).
And what’s more, as the overall incidence of violence in America has dropped, these incidents have become more common.
What the hell is going on?
@stonetools: In all fairness Switzerland has a population of 7 million and is about the size of a small state. The culture there is entirely different from what you see in most of the USA.
I do think that you are on to something with the well regulated militias and such. If more people received proper training in the safe handling of firearms there would be far fewer accidents.
Not always as it depends on if you’re buying from a dealer or an individual. Individuals are not required to do NICS checks on potential sales while dealers are required by law to do at least a NICS if not more (depends on the state).
@Mikey: Brady probably considers anything involving more then one death or injury to be a mass shooting. That’s probably where Joe is coming from.
I’m guessing the recent spat of insanity has to do with all the end times and crazy talk that’s been going on about this year in particular. EVerything from the unhinged right’s crazy screeds about Obama is going to destroy this country to the crazy mayan crap..
@Brummagem Joe:
Agreed.
But that, and other folk’s invocations of the British, Switzerland, Japan, all have to come crashing into the problem of federalism. So long as individual state governments (not to mention localities) have primary control over licensing and regulation then implementing any of those systems would be difficult at best.
Ironically this is the same problem with election reform.
@matt:
How about fixing that?
@David M: Quote me in full? Quote my earlier statement about needing to expand the NICS…You still going to claim micheal and crew don’t want guns banned?
@David M:
That’s an idea worth discussion. The issue is how to do that. Do we give every citizen access to the NICS database? And would that compromise people’s right to privacy?
Or do we limit or eliminate person to person gun sales and require a third (professional) party to be involved?
BTW — for the record, I’m asking these questions not to shoot down the idea, but to promote discussion of it and wrestling with these sorts of issues. To me, that’s far more productive than simply venting on how guns (or gun regulation) are bad.
@matt:
Um, the following quote by michael reynolds, explicitly rules out having the government ban guns. Pressure from society is not a ban. You are and the NRA are alone in your paranoia about banning all guns.
@mattb: I’ve maintained for a long time that the NICS should be available and required for all sales–gun shows, pawn shops (although they’re probably all federally licensed already), selling Grandpa’s old WW2 rifle in your living room, it doesn’t matter, NICS gets used.
I think the privacy concern is valid but can be addressed by simply returning a green check mark or a big red X rather than any specifics on the prospective buyer.
@mattb:
This isn’t rocket science. Most other industrialized countries have figured it out, including countries where citizens have lots of guns. I gave Switzerland above,. There’s plenty more.
Simply having someone submit to a medical examination and undergo basic weapons safety raining before buying a gun would stop most of the crazies from getting guns .
Mandating background checks everywhere, including at gun shows.
Making it illegal to buy ammunition over the Internet.
Having three people who know you well vouch for you in order for you to buy a weapon (Most lone whackos would fail this: most law abiding citizens will pass this easily)
Lots of reasonable ideas out there. Yet the NRA can be counted to oppose each and every one of these.
@mattb:
“BTW — for the record, I’m asking these questions not to shoot down the idea, but to promote discussion of it and wrestling with these sorts of issues. To me, that’s far more productive than simply venting on how guns (or gun regulation) are bad.”
I tend to agree, which is why I was pushing matt to actually suggest something additional he is willing to accept. And I’d vote for “Or do we limit or eliminate person to person gun sales and require a third (professional) party to be involved?”. The privacy issue is pretty strong for me. And I’d want the police to have the ability to trace a gun used in a crime, which this would enable doing.
Because the only thing that stops guns is more guns!
Because the only thing that stops terrorism is more terrorism!
Because the only thing that stops torture is more torture!
Because the only thing that stops fire is more fire!
Because the only thing that stops flooding is more flooding!
Because the only thing that stops poison chemicals is more poison chemicals!
Because the only thing that stops lying is more lying!
Because the only thing that stops oil spills is more oil spills!
Because the only thing that stops rape is more rape!
Because the only thing that stops fraud is more fraud!
Because the only thing that stops racism is more racism!
Because the only thing that stops evil is more evil!
Because the only thing that stops war is more war!
Because the only thing that stops cancer is more cancer!
Because the only thing that stops unemployment is more unemployment!
Because the only thing that stops poverty is more poverty!
Because the only thing that stops violence is more violence!
Because the only thing that stops insanity is more insanity!
Because the only thing that stops drinking is more drinking!
Because the only thing that stops wingnuts is more wingnuts!
Because the only thing that stops diarrhea is more diarrhea!
Because the only thing that stops disease is more disease!
Because the only thing that stops gambling is more gambling!
Because the only thing that stops sex is more sex!
Because the only thing that stops tragedy is more tragedy!
What’s funny is how many of these are actually VERY SERIOUS POSITIONS to have that invoke a lot of chin-stroking.
@mattb:
Germany, Switzerland, and Canada all have federal systems. Somehow they have figured it out. Are you saying Americans just aren’t smart enough? Well of course we are. NRA and general right wing propaganda has a lot more to do with why we aren’t passing this kind of common sense regulation.
Thanks for nothing God…
@stonetools:
Generally speaking, if you switch “buying gun” to “obtaining license” most of that sounds good.
Though one problem with medical issues is that mental health stuff can develop after you get your license. I’m not quite sure what’s the best answer there.
The other key thing would be to make it that all guns (pistol, shotgun, and rifle) required a license for purchase. At least in New York State, you can buy shotguns and rifles without a license.
@matt:
So it’s about twice the size of Connecticut in population and similarly sized in land mass. In what way is Switzerland’s culture so different from that of CT that mass murders of children are unacceptable there in a way that they do not seem to be in CT?
Seriously, for all those people who handwave “oh, it’s the culture, it’s different”, I’d like to ask how? Switerzland’s culture is “entirely different”? This isn’t Somalia we’re talking about, it’s another modern industrialized Western state.
@mattb:
Germany and Canada have federalism and also gun control.
@matt:
Gun shows:
Let’s face it, regulation of sales at gun shows is pathetic. Thanks, NRA.
@Brummagem Joe:
Except we have the same silliness up here, where guns are classified and regulated on the basis of their looks, rather than their actual capabilities. That said, overall I think our system strikes a reasonable balance between protecting individual freedoms and the public good.
This monstrous tragedy sickens me (my six year old is getting some extra special treatment tonight) , and there certainly needs to be debate about gun control in your country. But it needs to be rooted in logic, as the two Mattson suggest.
Off-the-wall idea:
We know the vast, vast majority of this is done by young men. It’s probably age discrimination, but… could we add hoops for 20-somethings, and ease it up as you age?
@David M: Doesn’t matter he’s fully advocating the removal of guns from private hands. I can acknowledge all kinds of things while still wishing for something else.
I can say though that you shouldn’t be surprised when someone who is part of a culture that worships violence decides to solve their problems with violence. You also shouldn’t be too surprised when a mentally ill person doesn’t receive treatment because the costs are too high due to a lack of universal health care (which the Swiss have). The demographics of the swiss are different too which is why they are intolerant towards immigrants and apparently Muslims (see the banning of Muslim towers).
@Rafer Janders: Sorry I cannot fully answer that as I’m only repeating what I have been told by a Swiss friend of mine. I’ll try to get a hold of him later today to see what exactly he means. I’d rather get exact quotes then try to paraphrase at this point.
@Mikey: ALL businesses have to run a check through the NICS before selling or transferring a weapon. I’m pretty sure you have to have a FFL to operate a business that sells guns.
@Galanti:
Right, but you do have some hard controls as well on things like magazine size, correct?
Also, before the new legislation did the provinces regulate and license guns in Canada? Or has that always been the feds?
@mattb:
In Switzerland you have to renew your license every five years. That means there’s a chance they can catch you if you develop mental problems after getting your license. Its not a silver bullet, but its better than a US system where there is essentially no check at all to see whether you are mentally capable of managing a firearm .
@matt:
You’re flat out lying here.
@mattb: The problem I have with the Canadian system is that they are also beholden to the “scary gun” syndrome where regulations are being written based on emotions and not logic.
@mattb:
But that, and other folk’s invocations of the British, Switzerland, Japan, all have to come crashing into the problem of federalism. So long as individual state governments (not to mention localities) have primary control over licensing and regulation then implementing any of those systems would be difficult at best.
Germany and Canada have federal systems. Look I don’t suggest the obstacles to proper regulation are not immense (you only need to read the comments of your name sake to understand that) but without it the carnage will continue. Personally I think it will although there’s a slight chance this might be the straw that breaks the camel’s back…. but only a very slight chance. Who knows we could have copycats by people who want their 15 minutes of fame. So we’ll have two weeks of crocodile tears, lot’s of prayers to god to come and help us (some hopes), a full court press by the NRA and bozos like matt, the kids will be buried, and it will be business as usual. SNAFU.
@matt:
“scary gun” syndrome
Well guns are scary unles you’re completely brain dead. Why not walk into your local grocery store and start waving one around and check out the reaction.
@David M: I can’t help but feel like I’m being trolled.. No one can be as blind as you about this..
@michael reynolds: alone is full of rhetoric about ending gun ownership. Holy god man spend a little of your own time and actually read this thread. I’m not going to do it for you.
While you’re doing that you’ll find out why something as “simple” as banning AR-15s would result in the banning of a lot if not most guns.
@Galanti:
Except we have the same silliness up here, where guns are classified and regulated on the basis of their looks, rather than their actual capabilities. That said, overall I think our system strikes a reasonable balance between protecting individual freedoms and the public good.
Yep the killing capacity of a O/U is equal to a semi auto Glock……are you serious?……and yep 9000 homicides a year is a small price to pay to protect individual freedoms…..of course it is.
@Brummagem Joe: Probably about the same reaction if you waved around a baseball bat or a knife or a sword or a 2×4 or…
@David M:
You’re flat out lying here.
Of course he is…….
@Brummagem Joe: 33000 people died last year in car accidents. About 3000-4000 people die via drowning a year of that about 1/5th are kids and a substantial amount of those occurred in pools. Deaths happen and while the numbers matter it isn’t the full story nor the end all of discussion.
What’s funny is your obsession over that number indicates that you’re assuming that
1. All of those homicides involved guns (they don’t only about half)
2. No one would be killed if guns disappeared.
@matt: And the same reaction if someone started throwing bullets around. Oh. No. Wait. You can’t kill people by throwing bullets at them, you need to fire them from a GUN to do that.
But of course the GUN doesn’t have any thing to do with it.
@matt:
Probably about the same reaction if you waved around a baseball bat or a knife or a sword or a 2×4 or…
Indeed they are….I have a collection of edged weapons……however they don’t have quite the same killing capacity although your comment is very typical of the sort of nonsense we’re used to from the gun crowd……entirely specious.
@Bernieyeball: Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
@Brummagem Joe: I responded to your statement with a clear counter and all you can do is respond with ad homin and insults..
According to government statistics guns were used in 60% of homicides in 2009. So when I said “About half” I was a bit off.
@matt:
Out come all the old fallacies…..auto accidents……drowning accidents……these are ACCIDENTS not the consequence of someone deliberately setting out to kill people with very efficient tool for the purpose
@matt: Of course it is since it doesn’t support your viewpoint.
@matt:
I responded to your statement with a clear counter
Actually it’s specious bs…..I generally do try to avoid ad homs but I’m going to make an exception in the case your exceptional stupidity and lying.
@Brummagem Joe: WEll 40% of all murders were committed without the usage of a gun. A large number of those were committed with items that weren’t built for such a purpose. That number alone is larger then what’s going on in the UK and feeds into my narrative about our society being overly violent.
Seriously if I’m waving around anything that could be used as a weapon people are going to be running away from me. So your “point” is just nonsense.
@matt:
All of those homicides involved guns (they don’t only about half)
9000 is not the total number of homicides…..it’s just the gun component of them…..
@matt:
So your “point” is just nonsense.
My point was that guns are scary whereas you claimed it was jsut a syndrome……..if you don’t realise this you’re bigger fool than even you appear.
@Brummagem Joe:
Joe, you are entirely correct that the killing capacity of a over/under, two shot gun is entirely different than that of a semi-automatic Glock. Where I’m getting lost is why that matters for the point you are making as, with the exception of short nosed models, my understanding is that licensed semi-automatic Glocks are legal in Canada.
I also see the points that you and others raised to counter my Federalism arguments. The points are well taken — though I think they gloss over a number of important socio-historical factors.
Admittedly, I have a hard time seeing a way to the US (and in particular the states) being open to a major change in gun licensing (or rather, I shudder to think about what sized tragedy will be necessary).
@mattb:
Well, you don’t get to make these definitions. I realize there’s no central definition of this, but I think a good starting point is that a combat (or “military” if you prefer) weapon is something designed primarily to kill as many people as possible. That implies a certain design philosophy that just doesn’t apply to weapons intended for hunting, personal defense, or target shooting.
That entire statement is crap. First of all, if your idea of using a gun in home defense requires rapidly dumping 10 or 20 rounds at your target, you are a deeply unsafe gun owner. Such a person has not been adequately trained in safely using a firearm of any kind, and handing them one is as irresponsible as giving the keys to a Testarossa to a 16-y-o kid who just got his license yesterday. Secondly, a .223 will _not_ start to tumble within the space of an interior house room. And unless you’ve got a short barrel and a folding stock, using a full rifle for home defense will fail tragically. Your realization is simply wrong – a medium-caliber pistol with low-velocity rounds is more effective _and_ safer (and probably a good deal less expensive, too, though YMMV).
I hate to say it, but you both are talking out your asses. But to address the substantive question you ask, what would help? I think a good step would be a gun license handled something like the way we use drivers’ licenses. You have to take a skills & safety test, and have it renewed periodically. Having a license has no connection the number or type of guns you own. I would even try to get the NRA behind the idea by offering them hella subsidies to manage the nationwide training/certification system – they already have chapters and gun training programs in the most rural of places, they’d be the best group to do this, too. they talk a good line about gun safety, let’s see them put their philosophy to the test.
@matt:
Ah, the “B” word, again. Look, buck, NO ONE is talking about banning your toys. We’re talking about background checks, safety training, having others vouch that you are mentally capable of managing a weapon that you can use to kill 30 people in a minute.
BTW, I know people who are military and former military and they all agree that no civilian NEEDS to have an AR-15 or battle rifle of any kind. The problem is that you WANT one, you want it now, and you don’t want the kind of pesky regulations that would prevent mentally ill people from getting these type of weapons. Those kids died today because gun owners put convenience for themselves over the safety of the community . When people propose regulations that reduce CONVENIENCE , then gun owners defend their convenience by spouting the “B” word. Its a bait and switch that is sickeningly effective, unfortunately.
@matt:
So if you accept that our society is overly violent…does that mean we should make it harder or easier for people to have guns? If the Swiss are peaceful and Americans are violent, say, shouldn’t there be much, much stricter gun control in America than in Switzerland?
@matt:
The one lying and changing of the subject by bringing up irrelevant non sequiturs is usually the one doing the trolling. And you are the only one talking about the GOVERNMENT ending gun ownership.
Matt is full of it and just making up crap. For instance, all of Great Britain over a two year period.
551 homicides (includes murder, manslaughter and infanticide) were reported in 2011/12, a considerable drop on the previous year’s total of 638. Homicides are now down to around half of the figure for 2001/2
Trust me, there’s a reason he tosses out assertions from his arse and then tells you to “just go look it up!”
He know’s he’s full of it.
@Brummagem Joe: You are correct there was a total of about 15000 murders in 2010 with about 9000 of those involving a gun of some kind in some manner. I cannot find exact details as to how the guns were used in those 9000 murders. I’m sure in most cases the gun was used as the killing weapon. We cannot assume that all these murders are solely because of a gun though
@Davebo: That’s not a two year period. One year constitutes starting in 2011 and the year of records ended on the same date in 2012. The source I saw had772 homicides for 2010 in the UK where as the USA had about 13000 that same year. Since 2010 is listed as a year the USA had almost 15000 murders from official government statics it appears I need to delve deeper into the UK statistics.
@mattb:
I also see the points that you and others raised to counter my Federalism arguments. The points are well taken — though I think they gloss over a number of important socio-historical factors.
I’m not glossing over anything….in fact I explicity said any change is unlikely. Basically you’re doing a legalistic tap dance and then capping it off with vague abstractions about socio-historical factors. Quite honestly I find your kind of equivocations as distasteful as the complete inanities of your namesake. There’s a massive problem…..there are remedies if we want to apply some commonsense to the issue……but on past evidence this is unlikely. Finis.
This.
@Davebo:
Two corrections.
The 551 homicidies are for England and Wales, not for the UK.
It’s not a two year period, for some reason the statistics is from April to March the next year, that’s why it’s 2011/12.
Still, per capita, the US has almost five times as many homicides as England and Wales.
@Bernieyeball: No those kids died today because of a terrible person who decided to do terrible things. I find it utterly abhorrent that you people are willing to give this mass murderer a pass because he used a tool you don’t like.
@matt:
You are correct there was a total of about 15000 murders in 2010 with about 9000 of those involving a gun of some kind in some manner.
I usually am correct about stats……..and it doesn’t matter why they happened they did happen and the murder weapon WAS as firearm.
I’d like to point something out as a part of this discussion. You know what else happened today? A guy in China also went nuts and decided to attack a school full of children. 20+ kids injured, but he was wrestled down & not one single person died. Why? Because when he lost his mind, the first weapon he grabbed was a _knife_. I’m not deluded enough to think banning guns is the answer here, but we simply cannot continue as a society where guns are easier to lay hands on than a goddamn box of Sudafed.
@matt:
I find it utterly abhorrent that you people are willing to give this mass murderer a pass because he used a tool you don’t like.
The last line of defense when all the lies and nonsenses have been blown away……WE…..WE are giving a mass murderer a pass because we don’t think mass murderers should be able to obtain tools that can whack 26 people in less than a minute.
@Brummagem Joe: Yet you don’t care about 40% of the people who were murdered because their murder didn’t involve a gun. How about instead of focusing on a tool we start advocating for a fix to our violence problem in general? We’re chasing symptoms instead of fighting the disease.
We need a public option with strong treatment options for mentally ill people (especially for the poor).
We as a society need to stop glorifying violence and insisting on using it to solve our problems (Iraq the drumwar for war with Iran etc).
We need to stop glorifying everything military even when clearly we shouldn’t be.
We need to close any NICS related loopholes and provide for a free easy way for private sales to involve a NICS. That will fix the gun show loopholes that do exist.
We need for some tightening in CCW requirements with training and background checks as a minimum requirement. It’s kind of odd though that despite the lax areas like Florida CCWs commit crimes at a far lower rate then the average population.
We need to stop militarizing the police and focus on community outreach. Removing the stigma of snitching will increase the chances of discovering a shooting plot before it happens.
We need to look at our culture and ourselves in an honest light.
@Rafer Janders: Yet in the middle east where guns are more prevalent, they use bombs because they are trying to kill more people. Someone is making them…lots of them.
@Brummagem Joe: Dead is dead, blaming the tool or method is stupid.
FTFY
@matt:
There’s nothing odd about it, since felons can’t obtain concealed carry permits. What you’re saying is essentially “It’s kind of odd though that despite the lax areas like Florida a group composed entirely of non-felons commits crimes at a far lower rate than a group that includes felons.”
@stonetools: Let’s apply his to freedom of speech. “Simply having someone submit to a medical examination and undergo basic literacy training before buying a pen would stop most of the crazies from getting pens .
Mandating background checks everywhere, including at newspapers.
Making it illegal to buy pens over the Internet.
Having three people who know you well vouch for you in order for you to buy a pen (Most lone whackos would fail this: most law abiding citizens will pass this easily)”
@Jack:
Yet in the middle east where guns are more prevalent, they use bombs because they are trying to kill more people. Someone is making them…lots of them.
Need I say more about the intelligence and value judgement of the gun crowd…..I’ve said it a couple of times already you cannot parody these people…..they are beyond parody.
@Jack:
How about screaming fire in a crowded theater?
@stonetools: I’m retired military and I have an AR-15 and would never suggest that they should be banned or not in civilian hands. Stop blaming the tool! It’s just a scary looking gun. My deer rifle can do so much more damage than my AR-15 and from a longer range.
Woah, Jack. Really?
@David M: Not illegal if there is a fire. Only punishable after you do it.
@legion:
All I can say is that you’re not up to date on the most recent thoughts on the issue of use of rifles in self defense and the relative safety of their rounds versus pistol and shotgun. Here’s one good article on the subject:
http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/02/10/long-guns-short-yardage-is-223-the-best-home-defense-caliber/
Again, I really have no horse in this game. Don’t own a gun, not planning on buying one. I’m simply stating that use of sporting rifles for home defense is not particularly off the wall.
I have other comments but they need to wait until tomorrow as I need to go make dinner.