HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » 20 Good Reasons to push f...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:21 PM

20 Good Reasons to push for Gun Control - Can't be refuted

- Charlotte Bacon, 2/22/06, female
- Daniel Barden, 9/25/05, male
- Olivia Engel, 7/18/06, female
- Josephine Gay, 12/11/05, female
- Ana M. Marquez-Greene, 04/04/06, female
- Dylan Hockley, 3/8/06, male
- Madeleine F. Hsu, 7/10/06, female
- Catherine V. Hubbard, 6/08/06, female
- Chase Kowalski, 10/31/05, male
- Jesse Lewis, 6/30/06, male
- James Mattioli , 3/22/06, male
- Grace McDonnell, 12/04/05, female
- Emilie Parker, 5/12/06, female
- Jack Pinto, 5/06/06, male
- Noah Pozner, 11/20/06, male
- Caroline Previdi, 9/07/06, female
- Jessica Rekos, 5/10/06, female
- Avielle Richman, 10/17/06, female
- Benjamin Wheeler, 9/12/06, male
- Allison N. Wyatt, 7/03/06, female


And if you need 6 more......

- Rachel Davino, 7/17/83, female
- Victoria Soto, 11/04/85, female
- Lauren Rousseau, 6/1982, female (full date of birth not specified)
- Dawn Hochsprung, 06/28/65, female
- Anne Marie Murphy, 07/25/60, female
- Mary Sherlach, 2/11/56, female

96 replies, 6411 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 96 replies Author Time Post
Reply 20 Good Reasons to push for Gun Control - Can't be refuted (Original post)
boston bean Dec 2012 OP
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #1
Walk away Dec 2012 #5
Puzzledtraveller Dec 2012 #9
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #10
Walk away Dec 2012 #23
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #28
morningfog Dec 2012 #46
Sancho Dec 2012 #57
BainsBane Dec 2012 #69
Marr Dec 2012 #8
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #12
PA Democrat Dec 2012 #21
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #27
PA Democrat Dec 2012 #29
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #31
Zoeisright Dec 2012 #33
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #36
uppityperson Dec 2012 #62
ellisonz Dec 2012 #35
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #37
ellisonz Dec 2012 #38
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #42
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2012 #45
PA Democrat Dec 2012 #41
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #44
PA Democrat Dec 2012 #52
BainsBane Dec 2012 #70
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #77
BainsBane Dec 2012 #78
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #80
BainsBane Dec 2012 #81
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #83
BainsBane Dec 2012 #84
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #85
BainsBane Dec 2012 #87
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #88
BainsBane Dec 2012 #89
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #91
Zoeisright Dec 2012 #32
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #34
backscatter712 Dec 2012 #61
BainsBane Dec 2012 #68
cliffordu Dec 2012 #71
spanone Dec 2012 #86
ellisonz Dec 2012 #2
Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #3
thebard77 Dec 2012 #4
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #6
Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #7
spin Dec 2012 #13
Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #14
ellisonz Dec 2012 #20
cyberswede Dec 2012 #43
morningfog Dec 2012 #53
spin Dec 2012 #59
CokeMachine Dec 2012 #66
Mojorabbit Dec 2012 #67
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #15
ellisonz Dec 2012 #11
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #16
ellisonz Dec 2012 #19
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #25
ellisonz Dec 2012 #30
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #47
letemrot Dec 2012 #90
ellisonz Dec 2012 #92
letemrot Dec 2012 #93
ellisonz Dec 2012 #94
letemrot Dec 2012 #95
ellisonz Dec 2012 #96
morningfog Dec 2012 #51
freshwest Dec 2012 #56
The Straight Story Dec 2012 #17
Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #18
The Straight Story Dec 2012 #24
Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #48
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #73
Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #75
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #76
Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #82
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #22
The Straight Story Dec 2012 #39
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #50
libdem4life Dec 2012 #26
jody Dec 2012 #40
Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #49
The Straight Story Dec 2012 #54
Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #58
Kaleva Dec 2012 #60
NYC_SKP Dec 2012 #64
Kaleva Dec 2012 #65
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #74
morningfog Dec 2012 #55
lib2DaBone Dec 2012 #63
BainsBane Dec 2012 #72
Riftaxe Dec 2012 #79

Response to boston bean (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:22 PM

1. I'd argue that you are wrong

 

Instead, those 20 who've passed on are prima faciea (sp) for locking up the crazies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:30 PM

5. So you are suggesting that we should go around assessing the entire population...

for their mental health and locking up anyone who is anything from clinically depressed to autistic just so you can tote your big gun around?

Gun logic. Never makes any sense & can be deadly!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:37 PM

9. Minority Report ftw!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:38 PM

10. And here we go...

 

We already have implied consent for driving and sobriety check-points.

Your "logic" boils down to "you have to drink milk, because baby can't eat steak."

As for what I tote around...your prejudices are showing. When I need to defend myself, I carry aqua-net, a Xenon arc flashlight, and a 5 amp stun stick.

As for firearms and takings... as long as I can get electronic parts, I'm NEVER unarmed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:57 PM

23. So we will be having mental illness check points on street corners?

The best part of you reply is that you somehow think it is sane and reasonable! I think you need to go directly to your nearest "sanity check-point"!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #23)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:06 PM

28. As I've had to meet with FAA and ATFE personnel to maintain my LEUP and LEMP permits...

 

I DO regularly go to those "sanity checkpoints"

(It turns out, according to said checks, that I am gregarious, and like parties...)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #23)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:02 PM

46. I thin kall the gunners are suffering from acute lead poisoning. They have lost the ability to

have rational thoughts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:18 PM

57. Yes...

you should be evaluated for mental and emotional health in order to buy, possess, or use a gun or serious weapon. You should be evaluated on a regular basis. You should have proof of that evaluation PLUS that you have passed a course PLUS a criminal background check. Otherwise, you cannot have a gun or you go to jail on the spot.

If a non-violent person is denied use of a gun, it's a small price to pay to keep the rest of us safer.

(PS, I'm a gun owner).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #57)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:38 AM

69. That is fine with me

As long as it applies to everyone and not just those who have worked to improve their health through treatment. Some here are actually suggested large sections of the population be rounded up so they don't have to deal with something as simple as a background check. Just why would any law abiding person oppose background checks? The only logical explanation is that they intend to use those guns to commit crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:36 PM

8. Then surely you would be all for mental health screenings and waiting periods

before a person can purchase a gun.

If mental health screenings for the entire population seems reasonable and practical, surely targeting them at gun purchasers would be a thousand times easier. No?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:40 PM

12. I agree with you on this one

 

getting permits for my LEUP and LEMP, I had to pass a neuro-psych evaluation (It turns out I'm gregarious and "not in touch with my feminine side")

I'd make a case that passing health screenings would be a form of implied consent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:56 PM

21. And how do you predict who the "crazies" are?

Even the best mental health professionals will tell you that they cannot predict who is capable of this type of atrocity. Should all people with a mental illness be locked so people can have guns that are capable of firing 100s of rounds of ammunition in minutes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PA Democrat (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:02 PM

27. an inclined crazy person WILL find a way to cause harm...

 

Personally, I think that people with violent mental illness SHOULD be locked up. That simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #27)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:13 PM

29. So which mental illnesses are the violent ones?

You do realize that there is no record of Adam Lanza ever having committed a violent act prior to last week, don't you? So who should we lock up so gun nuts can keep their assault rifles with high capacity magazines?

Christ. The ignorance and bigotry toward people with mental illness is astounding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PA Democrat (Reply #29)


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:30 PM

33. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

So you can identify a mentally ill person from what they look like? That's insane.

But not surprising, coming from you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #33)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:34 PM

36. ah... the ad hominem... I was waiting

 

I was speaking of warning signs...

the classic is the presentation of the "unholy triad" (bedwetting, fire starting, and hurting animals)

Self defense classes talk about "pre-text behaviors" to look out for.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Given the "logic" structures here, we ought to ban aircraft, as someone might use one as a weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #33)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:12 PM

62. Sure can. They walk in his shop, pee on his bed, start a fire, hurt their pet. See?

It's easy peasy picking out them mentally ill peoples. Pertty wild.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:33 PM

35. Stop. Just stop. Please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #35)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:35 PM

37. open thread... "friend"

 

Why should the people here be allowed to determine the actions of the mentally healthy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #37)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:40 PM

38. I better be careful...

...the Sanity Police might get me and lock me up because of what I might do in the future, possibly.

*Runs from the Sanity Police*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #38)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:49 PM

42. up to you...

 

the smiley's pretty cool...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #37)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:55 PM

45. because the mentally healthy play with the same lethal toys that killed a lot of children last week

YOU need to move off the point you're on; we're not moving. We're advocates for keeping children alive, and wobetide the clueless gunhugger who gets in the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to PA Democrat (Reply #41)


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #44)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:13 PM

52. So which diagnoses should qualify for automatic incarceration hotshot?

Adam Lanza was diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome. Should we lock up everyone on the autism spectrum as well, bob?

Please enlighten us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PA Democrat (Reply #21)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:42 AM

70. If a guy owns an assault rifle and high-death count cartridges

I think chances of his being unhinged are far greater than the average person, including those actively seeking treatment for diagnosed mental illnesses. Those guns are suitable for combat and mass murder, nothing else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #70)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:05 AM

77. What is a high death count cartridge?

It is a term I have not seen before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #77)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:28 AM

78. The ones the mass killers use

With magazines ranging from 30-100 rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #78)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:08 AM

80. Could you be more specific?

5.56 NATO, which most ARs are chambered for is is the equivalent of .223 Remington, a long term civilian round that is used in bolt action and single shot rifles

7.62 NATO is the equivalent of .308, a very common hunting round these days

The point I am making is that there is no particular bullet that is used exclusviely by mass murderers.

I have suggested in the past that those who oppose firearms as vociferously as you do should learn a little about them so they can make articulate and effective arguments against them. They are no more complicated that your new computer.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #80)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:37 AM

81. 30, 31, 32

33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38. . . . 100. Anything over 10 bullets needs banning. No more specificity is necessary. Why would you need more than 10 bullets in a single clip? What are you planning on doing? Is whatever "blast" you get from playing soldiers more important than the lives of children?

My comment was on magazines, not the gun in particular. Feinstein's bill identifies types of weapons. I'll leave that designation of particular guns up to her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #81)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:57 PM

83. So there is not high death count cartridge or mass murder bullets?

You did claim there were earlier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #83)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 08:08 PM

84. Yes there is

Again, magazines with over 10 bullets and up to 100 or more, the kind used in all the mass murders du jo ur. There is no purpose for extended magazines other than war or mass murder. You can't hunt with them, but you sure can kill a lot of people, which is their design and purpose. So if gun owners are so law abiding, why do they fantasize about shooting 100 bullets into someone? Why do they feel the need to have that capacity. There is no legal or sane reason for it.

I must have missed the part of the second amendment that citizens must not be deprived of the capacity to commit mass murder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #84)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:34 AM

85. Bullets are not magazines

You do understand the difference? You claimed there were problems with both. I understand your viewpoint on magazines, but which bullets do you think need to be banned

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #85)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:40 AM

87. magazines hold bullets

this conversation is ridiculous. You're wasting everyone's time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #87)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:51 AM

88. So was your comment about Mass Murderer Bullets

still waiting for you to define them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #88)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:58 AM

89. high-death count magazines was my term

But regardless, you know exactly what I'm talking about. This isn't an intellectual exercise. It's sophistry.

I take it you take some sort of pride in your gun fetish, as though that somehow equates with intelligence. It does not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #89)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:24 AM

91. No your title was high death count cartridges

When discussing firearms, cartridges == bullets or rounds

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:29 PM

32. Completely fucking wrong.

That's unconstitutional, for starters. Second, it's impossible to predict what someone MIGHT do. And finally, that's another limp-wristed excuse for gun humpers to hold on to their little penis substitutes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #32)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:32 PM

34. your pop-psychology is showing

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #1)


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:34 AM

68. 70% of murders involve guns

While only 4.6% of violent crimes are committed by the mentally Ill, and the majority of those are self inflicted. But you're happy to ignore the 14th amendment so than gun nuts can continue stockpiling WMD and fantasize about public shootouts where they can shoot 100 rounds in an area dense with bystanders. There is a lot of crazy going around, for sure, only they refuse to recognize the fact they suffer from paranoid delusions and instead want to institutionalize bigotry against the portion of the population with the courage to seek help for their problems. Yes, guns should be kept out if the hands of dangerous people, but if you think they come principally from those seeking mentally health treatment, you are badly mistaken. The most deadly people in this country are male alcoholics and drug addicts, and men up to around age 38.

Please see this study on violence and mental illness: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525086/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:49 AM

71. If you can't spell prima facie

maybe you shouldn't advocate for locking up anyone you might think are 'crazies'.

You fucking schmuck.

NOW: Alert on my crazy ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:35 AM

86. i'd argue the op is right.

shame, shame, shame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:23 PM

2. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:27 PM

3. Yeah.

What you said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:28 PM

4. Brilliant

 

And sobering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:31 PM

6. Well, considering the guns the guy used were stolen...

 

and he didn't obtain them legally, it appears gun control laws are indeed working to keep guns out of the hands of criminal types.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:36 PM

7. So the answer is to not let ANYONE buy this shit. And to make them illegal to possess.



No one needs a fucking Bushmaster 223 to "hunt varmints" or for "self defense".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:43 PM

13. You might be able to pass another AWB but I doubt that any law can be passed ...

requiring all such weapons to be turned in. Considering the political make up of Congress and the fact that gun rights are very popular in the red states the votes just are not there.

The sad part is that the push to get another AWB will insure that millions of these weapons will sell before the ban can be implemented. In the year before the last ban, a 10 year supply of these weapons sold out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:45 PM

14. Then I guess the fans of these guns have nothing to worry about.

And they can stop bleating and whining.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:55 PM

20. +1

Loved that sort of backhanded threat - "The sad part is that the push to get another AWB will insure that millions of these weapons will sell before the ban can be implemented. In the year before the last ban, a 10 year supply of these weapons sold out." If you try to improve public safety, the gun crowd will undermine you as best they can. Real patriots, the lot them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:51 PM

43. +1

There you have it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:14 PM

53. You admit more of these weapons on the street is a bad thing. Good to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #53)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:59 PM

59. Prior to the last ban few gun owners I knew had any real interest in owning a "black rifle."

They were considered to be ugly, inaccurate and unreliable.

All the publicity over the banning of these firearms caused some of my friends to buy one and they were surprised with how accurate and reliable they were. Soon most of the regular shooters at my range had an assault style rifle and several hi-cap magazines for it.

Most people who are not into shooting think that the old assault weapons ban actually banned something. It banned the sale of some semi-auto firearms with certain cosmetic features such as bayonet lug or a flash suppressor. The manufacturers of these weapons merely removed these features and continued selling the basic firearm.

Also "banned" were high capacity magazines over 10 rounds, manufactured after a certain date. Magazine manufacturers ramped up production to 24/7 before that date and sold the magazines during the ban for double or triple the price. Hi-cap magazines were always available.

Yes I do agree that creating a market for these weapons by "banning" them is a bad idea. Few people have any real use for a black rifle but a few honestly do. It somewhat like the craze that resulted for the S&W .44 magnum revolver after the movie "Dirty Harry." All sorts of people who had little knowledge or interest in the shooting sports just had to have one of these handguns which had only been bought by hunters before.

(For some reason many people think that banning items is a great idea. It never seems to work and in fact usually backfires.)

As for myself, I have never owned a "black rifle" or a semi-auto pistol with a magazine greater than 10 rounds. The simple reason is that I see little need for such items for me personally. I don't target shoot rifles, I don't hunt (Yes, "black rifles are used for hunting but usually the size of the magazine is limited to 5 rounds or less.), I don't live in a rural area and I am far too old and my heath is too bad to fight the government if it becomes a tyranny.

Just as I thought a .44 magnum handgun was a dumb choice for a newbie shooter, I think a "black rifle" is an extremely expensive firearm for most people who will have little use for it. (In passing I should note that I have owned several .44 magnum handguns in the 45 years that I have enjoyed shooting. I enjoy shooting a hard recoiling handgun occasionally and it helps me cope with the lesser recoil of handguns like a .357 magnum.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #59)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:46 AM

66. I'm with you

 

I prefer the look and feel of a wood stock. To me they are much more of a craftsman like thing. .44Mag is nothing -- try the .357 super mag (MAX) -- Dan Wesson. Can't find much ammo but have plenty of brass and can reload-shoot until my I get tired. Mostly silhouette. Don't shoot at living creatures unless necessary. White Tail salami is tasty though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #59)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:36 AM

67. +100 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:49 PM

15. Actually, yeah...

 

that would be ideal.

I see no need (at least in my life) to own any gun(s), and certainly not that particular one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:38 PM

11. Is that supposed to be clever?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:50 PM

16. No, not really...

 

but no one seems to have noticed that the killer didn't actually buy the guns he used.

So, it appears that the gun laws already on the books worked in this case...they were stolen from a person who obtained them legally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:53 PM

19. He took them from his irresponsible mother...

...like it's some good thing. Also, you should probably consult the myriad of safe-storage laws this country has...and reflect on how we could improve them!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #19)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:59 PM

25. A good thing?

 

Huh?

He stole them.

The responsibility for this outrageous act of violence is with the killer, and since we don't know anything else about how his Mother stored the guns it seems a little ridiculous to blame her.

If you keep making those faces your face may just get stuck like that...be pretty silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #25)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:17 PM

30. "The responsibility for this outrageous act of violence is with the killer"

Sure thing, boss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #30)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:05 PM

47. You think the responsibility for this belong elsewhere?

 

Honestly, that is confusing.

Where does it belong if not with the person who stole the guns and pulled the trigger?

Seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #30)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:09 AM

90. So the blame lies elsewhere?

 

That's interesting to know. Could you please share where the blame should be placed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Reply #90)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:14 PM

92. The gun culture

Why weren't Nancy Lanza's guns secured? Well, the law doesn't require it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #92)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:28 PM

93. Then make the law require it.

 

That; however, doesn't remove any blame from Lanza.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Reply #93)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:35 PM

94. Then tell the NRA to get out the way!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #94)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:49 PM

95. I am not in or have ever been in the NRA

 

so I have no say in what they send out.. but I get what you are saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Reply #95)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:50 PM

96. Thank You

"but I get what you are saying."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:13 PM

51. That makes no sense. Your conclusion is a contradiction of your premise. Godalmighty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:16 PM

56. They were not illegal, they were part of the household arsenal. That dog won't hunt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:51 PM

17. Can anyone define what they mean when they say 'gun control'?

Ban em all, only some, tax bullets, etc and so on?

Was watching MSNBC a bit ago and they were talking about violent movies and how most all people can watch them and see them as a just a movie and not go and try to emulate it.

Most people can own a gun and not go shooting up others. Why punish those who don't because of what others do?

I don't see collective punishment as good - either in war by drones or by laws to control the many because of the few.

Background checks? Ok. Harsher penalties? Sure. What do YOU mean when you say gun control?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #17)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:53 PM

18. Yes.

No one needs a Bushmaster 223 to "hunt" or for "self defense".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:57 PM

24. I think many are put off by the picture/looks

This is one also:



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:06 PM

48. Im not going to get into one of these semantic gungeon debates. I know how this works.

If gun advocates cant figure out a way to distinguish something with a rate of fire approprate for hunting deer, from an AR-15, then we should ban all of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #48)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:26 AM

73. Good thing, since you usually get spanked

I have advocated for some time that those who are anti gun learn enough about them to articulate their position accurately. Otherwise you get things like Congresswoman Carolyn MaCarthy describing as barrel shroud is a "shoulder thing that goes up."

There have been semi automatic deer rifles with comparable rates of fire to an AR for over a century.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #73)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:30 AM

75. Mmm Hmmmm

See how long this "don't take my big shiny gun" bullshit works. People are waking up. It's not gonna fly this time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #75)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:47 AM

76. And I even support some serious changes, and have for quite some time

Please feel free to point out any NRA talking points.

Things I support

NICS checks or equivalent on all transactions, even private party transaction and gifts. My approach would be a Federal FOID that you would automatically get at 18yo so they are not a "firearms ownership licenses", a common objection to that approach. The check is then if the FOID is still valid for the sale to proceed. This is easy from the IT perspective. Note the NRA rejects the FOID approach.

Limitation of pistol magazines to what fits inside the grip of the gun. Require that new designs not support magazines that extend beneath the handle (BATF already has authority to force design changes). This is readily demonstrated by the Ruger line of .22LR handguns and the Astra 400/600. Grandfather or buy back at retail price non-conforming magazines. This approach also slows down magazine changes. Note that the NRA has rejected magazine limitations

All firearms must be secured when not in use, being cleaned, transported, etc. While California got stupid on parts of this, its the right thing to do. Some will miss their old time glass front display cases or wall rack, but proper security is a must. Would consider an exemption for non-functional devices. I believe the NRA has fought mandatory safes.

Somethings I have mixed feelings about/no definitive solution

Mandatory owner training. It is not required to exercise any other enumerated right, but I have seen some very scary stuff over the years. Not sure what the standards should be, but I come down on the side of some training being required. The NRA has fought this.

Mandatory safety training for children. Enough for them to overcome their natural curiosity and get an adult should they find an unsecured firearm. While some would find that more offensive than the fundies find sex ed, until things change, its basic safety and needs to be done. Not sure the best way, but it is clearly called for. NRA has not taken a stand on this but does offer such classes. I still don't see it as a talking point.

Waiting periods. For someone who already has firearms, not sure what purpose they serve. For first time owners I support them. Overall I think they are a good idea. Not sure what the right time length should be. 1 weeks seems good. There are reports that Lanza tried to buy a rifle but was stopped by the mandated waiting period (if the media reports are to be believed). NRA opposes waiting periods

Better mental health reporting and supervision. Seen a number of posts on that here. Clearly something is called for, but how to do it is not clear. Loughner never should have been allowed to have a gun. The NRA has fought additional reporting of some types of problems.

===============================================
That's my current working list. Still thinking about long guns, and have some thoughts, but not enough to post yet. There are other issues as well but this is what I have worked up so far. Some are clearly more ready than others. Open for comment and discussion.
===============================================

Some background:
My focus is in most of this is protecting the ability of those who need it to have access to effective self defense, and today that means a semi automatic handgun. There was a time I was much more pro gun control, not surprising given my background. What changed my mind was when my late wife was part of the shelter movement after she retired. She started teaching women only classes without any sanction or insurance. It was and remains controversial in the shelter movement. Later I became deeply concerned about GLBTs being bashed and killed. T*s are getting killed in our cities and damn few seem to give a damn, including the police. I have skin in that game. These are not people going into bad areas and doing questionable things, these are just people living their lives under threat. Sometimes it even follows them home. That is why they arm themselves and they will gladly disarm when the threat goes away. That is why I support handguns for self defense. Its not for the rude toters, it is for those facing real threats of violence that the police cannot abate and sometimes do not ever care about. Those who would disarm those under threat need to consider how they would tell someone lying there bleeding and bashed, tortured or shot that somehow that is better than if they had the ability to defend themselves and used it. I for one think it is the liberal and progressive approach to help them, not leave them to the predators, YMMV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #76)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:07 PM

82. Thank you for explicating. FWIW, I dont "usually get spanked" b/c Ive been politically neutral

On the issue-- until recent events. I dont like guns, but I have acquiesced to political reality. But this put me over the edge into "politics be damned, something needs to be done" territory.

I think magaine clip size and rate of fire are areas for potential legislative action. And ive never pretended to be a gun expert.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #17)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:57 PM

22. Great question...

 

I think that in order to obtain a license there should be testing (we do it for a driver's license), and you should be required to pass some sort of training in the handling and care of the gun...along with psych tests to see if there are any red flags; then you'd have to show why you need the gun.

But further, I just wish that people would show some of their own 'gun control' and ask themselves if they really need a gun in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #22)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:41 PM

39. Interesting

When my dad was a boy they had rifle/gun classes in school (as far as I know it was for the boys only, but don't quote me on that).

Hunters already need a license and in some states safety courses (depending on age IIRC).

I don't currently own a gun but would eventually like to have a few since I hope to be living out in the country in the next year and I do enjoy target shooting (my sister has 7 acres and we shoot clay pigeons there, etc). At her house they are locked up and not something people use on a regular basis except during hunting season (and we always have plenty of deer meat and sometimes a turkey).

Most people do not use their guns to harm others. I can see getting a license and a training course for first purchase.

I used to work in the gun reloading industry and sold reloading dies and such all over the world (including South Africa, Italy, Germany, Australia and even the UK). Many gun hobbyists out there who, like the rest of us, don't like people using guns for anything other than hunting, skeet, and defense if warranted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #39)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:10 PM

50. Huh, I didn't know about stricter requirement already in place in some areas...

 

but I think if we make it really difficult to obtain a gun there will be less folks interested in going through the process. Of course that won't help the illegal market and theft but it might be a (small) start.

As far as why someone would want one, at the moment I have no need for one but if I lived in an open area like the one you're moving to, I might get a small caliber one for target shooting and such. I'm not a huge gun fan, but I've shot a few now and again and it's fun as long as you are really careful and aware of the potential that you are holding in your hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:01 PM

26. RIP... precious ones. President Obama took me back to Calling the Roll in my First Grade Class.

I'm sure every teacher especially experienced that additional mourning.

But they weren't there to answer "Here".

Lord bless their souls...and those who gave their lives as they had given their hearts to each and every kid there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:46 PM

40. Rational debate is needed to prevent more tragedies. OP is not a useful place to start. Do you have

 

an intelligent proposal that balances an individual's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense with societies' right to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #40)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:09 PM

49. 6 bullets an hour maximum rate of fire.

That is plenty to hunt, or for "self defense".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #49)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:15 PM

54. Can you explain how the mechanics of that work? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #54)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:35 PM

58. Nope. The people who are the gun experts, and so invested in keeping them

Seem like bright people. They can figure it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #54)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:59 PM

60. Muzzle loader

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #60)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:58 PM

64. I can can skin gut and eat an intruder in less time that that reload rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #64)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:07 PM

65. I tried to find on youtube an old Bill Cosby comedy routine..

where he acts the part of a Continental Army soldier armed with a muzzle loader and he's shooting it out with a British Redcoat. Bill fires and misses and the Redcoat fires at him and misses and it was hilarious watching Bill go thru the motions of trying to load his musket as fast as he could before the Brit could reload.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #64)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:28 AM

74. I don't think the delicate flowers will appreciate your humor

Not sure I do either given the how tight the delicate flowers' hats are on right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #40)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:15 PM

55. Do you suffer from gun related lead posioning? Your callousness is disturbing. `

You could have just stayed out of this thread. Shame on you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:41 PM

63. What bothers me.. is Dems in Congress who support drone killing of young children..

 

Dems in CONgress have no problem with U.S. drones killing women and children in foreign countries...

Yet they are vocal about school shootings here? Hypocrits?

Congress is even allowing world-wide war without voting or authorization... allowing Obama to pass the NDAA on New Years Eve when no one was watching.

I wish CONgress worked for the American people.. and not the lobbyists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lib2DaBone (Reply #63)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:52 AM

72. Yeah

Only guns kill thousands more, including children, than drones do. Did you think this post was going to justify your indifference to the fact than twice as many preschool age children as police on duty die from gunshots?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #72)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 08:38 AM

79. So picky about deaths

consumer safety means nothing, the deaths of children mean nothing unless you can roll around in it.

Do you consider all gun owners murderers...(or as we have discussed, have you sobered up yet?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread