HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Police: Shooter carried ‘...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:51 PM

 

Police: Shooter carried ‘numerous’ high-capacity magazines for weapons used in Connecticut massacre

Source: Washington Post

The gunman who stormed into an elementary school here Friday carried “numerous” high-capacity ammunition magazines for his semiautomatic rifle, as well as multiple magazines for two other guns, police said Sunday afternoon.

In all, 20 year-0ld Adam Lanza had hundreds of bullets with him when he shot out a pane of glass and entered Sandy Hook elementary school at 9:30 a.m. Friday. Police said that Lanza had used one gun--a “Bushmaster” brand rifle, whose design can be traced the M-16 weapon developed for U.S. troops in Vietnam--to kill 20 children and six adults inside.


Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-once-again-cast-in-role-of-comforter-in-chief/2012/12/16/661f183c-4791-11e2-820e-17eefac2f939_story.html

82 replies, 8930 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 82 replies Author Time Post
Reply Police: Shooter carried ‘numerous’ high-capacity magazines for weapons used in Connecticut massacre (Original post)
michigandem58 Dec 2012 OP
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #1
digonswine Dec 2012 #2
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #3
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #5
John2 Dec 2012 #10
pediatricmedic Dec 2012 #30
intaglio Dec 2012 #33
alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #60
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #21
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #34
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #39
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #43
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #44
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #45
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #46
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #50
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #52
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #53
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #56
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #57
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2012 #54
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #55
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2012 #58
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #59
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2012 #61
kooljerk666 Dec 2012 #76
John2 Dec 2012 #9
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #25
uppityperson Dec 2012 #23
Flatulo Dec 2012 #28
PavePusher Dec 2012 #65
Flatulo Dec 2012 #72
PavePusher Dec 2012 #79
Flatulo Dec 2012 #82
kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #31
snooper2 Dec 2012 #37
treestar Dec 2012 #68
Blandocyte Dec 2012 #80
Cha Dec 2012 #4
Crunchy Frog Dec 2012 #7
sheshe2 Dec 2012 #6
ragemage Dec 2012 #8
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #11
SunSeeker Dec 2012 #13
RC Dec 2012 #15
krispos42 Dec 2012 #26
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #47
krispos42 Dec 2012 #74
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #75
krispos42 Dec 2012 #78
PavePusher Dec 2012 #66
primavera Dec 2012 #35
SunSeeker Dec 2012 #41
A Simple Game Dec 2012 #14
SunSeeker Dec 2012 #17
A Simple Game Dec 2012 #19
primavera Dec 2012 #36
PavePusher Dec 2012 #67
ProgressiveEconomist Dec 2012 #16
NCarolinawoman Dec 2012 #12
Throckmorton Dec 2012 #18
kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #32
Flatulo Dec 2012 #42
kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #49
Flatulo Dec 2012 #62
kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #64
Flatulo Dec 2012 #71
PavePusher Dec 2012 #81
PavePusher Dec 2012 #69
Flatulo Dec 2012 #63
iandhr Dec 2012 #20
Mojorabbit Dec 2012 #24
primavera Dec 2012 #38
CBHagman Dec 2012 #22
krispos42 Dec 2012 #27
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #51
krispos42 Dec 2012 #73
lovuian Dec 2012 #29
NickB79 Dec 2012 #40
PavePusher Dec 2012 #70
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #48
MrYikes Dec 2012 #77

Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:53 PM

1. High capacity magazines should be illegal.

And by high I mean greater than 5 rounds. And the penalty for possession should be five years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:32 PM

2. Simple-I agree

Not a person can make a viable excuse for more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:53 PM

3. OK what about my replica 1858 New Army Remington revolver?

 

It's black powder. You have to load each chamber individually, and cap it off with a percussion cap. The cylinder holds 6 rounds. You can pop out the cylinder and replace it with a fresh one. It's not nearly as quick as a modern weapon, but it still has a "removable magazine".

Is this 150 year old design on the chopping block, too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:00 PM

5. Collector items could be separately regulated.

See Canada's laws for an example of, and the details of, how this can be done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:52 PM

10. Live rounds are

 

collector items huh? I wonder when Adam purchased all those rounds or did he just collect them over a period of time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:16 AM

30. He didn't purchase any ammo or firearms, they were not his property

He had access to them, but they were not his, he didn't pay for them, he didn't have to undergo a background check.

He bypassed all the safeguards we have to acquiring firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pediatricmedic (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:20 AM

33. Let's take this slowly and simply

So that even the enablers of mass murder, like you, can understand.

The mother was a survivalist

She owned many guns - these guns should have been kept locked away from her disturbed child

She owned more guns than she needed - she could have been stopped from purchasing those guns

She owned guns of a military type - she could have been stopped from purchasing those guns

She purchased extended 30 round magazines - that type of magazine should be banned

She purchased very large amounts of ammunition - she should have been stopped from so doing

She trained her child to use these guns - he was a seriously disturbed child who should not have been so trained.

Now take your NRA inspired talking points and vanish

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #33)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:25 PM

60. Exactly

Nicely done.



The gun nuts lack imagination. They scream that the current laws, even "the toughest in the nation" couldn't have prevented this.

Oh, we agree.

That's why we need laws 1000 times as restrictive as the current toughest in the nation, and then some. The reason they can't comprehend even this simple counter-argument that any child could anticipate is because they've been allowed to spew their bullshit pretty much unopposed for 15 years, when we struck a Devil's bargain with the gun nuts, trading away our principle and common sense for their stupidity and their votes. No more. Now they're like defenseless rabbits: they've never actually had to fight people who fight back, and they're howling mad that they're getting hit over and over again.

They're arguments are trash.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:57 PM

21. How about we have the NRA to add an amendment exempting guns older than 100 years?

Will that work for you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:32 AM

34. I don't own any originals.

 

I can't afford originals in shootable condition. I buy replicas.

I think black powder weapons at least should be exempted from any bans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:08 PM

39. No exemption would be my vote.

Go to the NRA museum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #39)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:59 PM

43. Why?

 

So I can own an original, but not a reproduction that is identical?

Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #43)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:03 PM

44. Not Historical or Worthy of Grandfathering

Would become an easy out to avoid compliance by making ever historical gun a 'replica.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #44)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:45 PM

45. But if there is no functional difference, what is gained?

 

It's a black powder muzzle loading cap-and-ball revolver. The replica is physically and functionally identical to the original.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #45)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:47 PM

46. One is ACTUALLY Historical

The other is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #46)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:05 PM

50. I don't own them for thier historical attributes.

 

I own them for competition shooting. I own them for their function, not their history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #50)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:12 PM

52. Exactly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #52)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:23 PM

53. OK, so what about single-shot muzzle loading rifles?

 

What about those?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #53)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:33 PM

56. Is that related to the start of the thread?

?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #56)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:44 PM

57. I'm just watching my collection vanish.

 

I'm down to my muzzle loaders now. Wondering if they are on the chopping block, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #46)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:30 PM

54. Your ideas...

...are historical.

Oops. I mean hysterical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #54)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:31 PM

55. The Intellectual Discourse is So Overwhelming

Not.

I feel better....how about you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #55)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:07 PM

58. Think of it...

...as a stress reliever.
Sorry for hijacking the thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #58)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:16 PM

59. OK

Then I get a Pass from You next time!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #59)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:43 PM

61. Deal

Can others join this Pollyanna?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:51 AM

76. if ya go with 10 rounds max in clip or mag

 

you know that is more than 6.

That is also a big hefty gun, hard to hide even under a big coat.

I remember Ayoob Mosad (sp) book in the gravest extreme (from 35 years ago). A 7 shot .45 ACP is all you need for anything.

.357 mag winchester silvertips allmost 90% fatal in 1 shot.

These two calipers can handle anything up to polar bears.

Many cap & ball revolver can shoot .45 long colt and other cals. but changing cylinders still takes a minute, time enough for someone to attack with a bat or axe. No black powder massacres have occurred in the last 100 years i know of.

I like guns, but have had it with sickos with semis, it is time to end it.

FBI gunbattle

The above is interesting take on pistol cal. development. As far as I am concered the 10mm & .40 s/w are junk & I would talk a 1911 style singe action .45 acp or s/w .357 mag before any of this new junk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:48 PM

9. Seriously,

 

having that many live rounds of ammunition was not illegal? There wasn't even a city statute against that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:31 PM

25. 200 rounds is 10 boxes of 20 rounds each.

200 rounds would be 10 20-round mags or 7 30-round magazines. Bulky to carry, but that is what the vest with all the pockets was for.

The normal cost-saving "bulk" purchase is a "case", 25 boxes for 500 rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:43 PM

23. Yes. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:01 AM

28. Absolutely. You can defend your home or hunt with a five-round magazine.

I would go a bit further and limit ownership to 2 such magazines per weapon.

Ya gotta turn 'em in folks. Get caught with a high capacity mag and do 5 years courtesy of Uncle Sam.

If gun owners cannot accept this compromise (and I am a gun owner), then it will have to be pushed through against their will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #28)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:01 PM

65. No.... and no. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #65)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:48 PM

72. If we don't give on something meaningful, we're going to lose them all. There's a sea change comin'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #72)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:21 AM

79. If we give up something, what's the quid pro quo? What do we get in return? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #79)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:54 PM

82. If what gun owners give up is in fact meaningful (the Clinton AWB was not) and effective,

We will get back two things:

1) A dropping off of these horrific mass killings

2) The right to continue to own and use firearms

Item 2) is dependent largely on gun owners. We have to keep our weapons, clips and ammunition very secure. If Mrs. Lanza had done so, we would not be having this conversation.

I'm getting the sense that you and a few other pro-gun posters are simply not getting that the mood of the country has turned against gun ownership. Literally every other shooter that I know has let their NRA membership expire. All the old arguments are invalid. The Aurora shooter as well as Adam Lanza had no criminal records. Most of the current crop of young male shooters are slipping through all the safety nets erected to stop this kind of horror. They're simply not working.

In addition to a number of other measures, like improved access to mental health and beefed up school security (safe rooms, steel doors, metal detectors, possibly armed guards), what almost everyone except some hard-core RKBA types seems to understand is that if Adam didn't have access to high capacity magazines, he may not have been able to achieve such a terrible death toll.

I have owned guns my entire adult life, and other than a tearing through a 30 round clip for the fun of it, I see absolutely no useful purpose for a clip exceeding 5 rounds. Shit, our guys fucking won WWII with the M1 Garand and it's 8 round clip. In Vietnam the grunts used primarily 20 round clips.

Any RKBA argument based on the need for civilians to own 30 round clips is absolutely, positively guaranteed to completely and utterly fail.

Bet on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:22 AM

31. No, the penalty for possession should be 20 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:56 AM

37. perfect! They can share a cell with the guy busted for selling a little cocaine!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:06 PM

68. +1 I have no problem with this

Nobody needs one of those.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:25 AM

80. Why 5? Maybe just single shot for civillian sporting arms

Five seems a bit high. Why 5?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:55 PM

4. Yes, he was a

Vicious Blood-sucking Bully who killed Women and tiny children. Taking his insane anger out on the totallly defenseless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:20 PM

7. It would be awfully nice if people like that

didn't have such an easy time getting their hands on "‘numerous’ high-capacity magazines".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:06 PM

6. The hatred and maillficence that stood behind that gun friday and...

brutally murdered the children and adults, it makes my blood run cold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:31 PM

8. why does the average person need these weapons?

So tell me, why does the average hunter/collector need these weapons? If you cannot take down a deer/bear/elk within two to three shots you are not a very good hunter. Try bow hunting, much more enjoyable and challenging.

Seriously, why does the average citizen need a semi-automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine? What is the purpose of owning it? Once you buy it you know you want to try it out. So you go down to the range and shoot off 20, 30, 60, 90 rounds. And then what? Did it make you feel good? Empowered? Better self esteem? Could you not do that with a few 5 or 10 round mags?

I am an optimist but also a realist. I know we cannot get rid of all semi-auto weapons currently out there. But c'mon already, limit the large capacity mags. Stop selling them. Stop selling military looking weapons to average wannabe GI Joes and Janes. Make the rules much much harder to get a semi-auto weapon, rifle and handgun.

For you 2nd amendment types and overall gun lovers, please tell me do you really plan on stopping a home invasion with your gun? You better sleep with that piece locked and loaded at all times, 24/7. Otherwise it will not work. Having them in a safe is going to do you no good. Will the thief wait for you to unlock your safe and retrieve your firearm? That is the part that truly baffles me. Are there that many paranoid, scared people that they think they need a weapon with them at all times? Protection you will say...home/family/country...Protection from what? What are you so afraid of? Rhetorical I know...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ragemage (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:54 PM

11. Understand, the second amendment is not about hunting.

 

So tell me, why does the average hunter/collector need these weapons? If you cannot take down a deer/bear/elk within two to three shots you are not a very good hunter. Try bow hunting, much more enjoyable and challenging.

Seriously, why does the average citizen need a semi-automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine? What is the purpose of owning it? Once you buy it you know you want to try it out. So you go down to the range and shoot off 20, 30, 60, 90 rounds. And then what? Did it make you feel good? Empowered? Better self esteem? Could you not do that with a few 5 or 10 round mags?


The simple reason is that the second amendment is not about hunting or collecting. It's about making sure that the citizenry owns weapons that enable them to serve as infantry troops in an emergency.

We can like this or not, and we can debate how effective citizens may or may not be as emergency troops, but that is what the second amendment is about. It's about killing people who threaten the security of free states.

It's ugly, but there it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:16 PM

13. The days of our country relying on a citizens' militia went the way of the buggy whip.

The founders did not want a standing army, so they thought we could get by with "a well regulated militia." Obviously, we chose to disregard that particular idea of our founders. We have a standing army with drones, tanks and all manner of bombs. Citizens armed to the teeth hurt our security, they do not enhance it.

I agree, the "emergency troops" rationale is "ugly," and it should be relegated to the dustbin of our history like slavery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:32 PM

15. With our standing army, what purpose does the well regulated militia serve? You know the part the

 

gun nutz ignore? Why does a hunting rifle need to look like a military weapon? Ego? Member enhancement? Testosterone for a weak libido? What?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:41 PM

26. Ask the National Guard

If they're done preventing looting in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, or the Rodney King riots, or any of dozens of deployments they've made in recent history.


But here's the thing about military versus non-military weapons... there isn't really that much difference between them.


The features that make a weapon desirable to be issued to soldiers also in large part apply to civilian users.

Rugged.

Reliable.

Accurate.

Comfortable to shoot.

Ergonomic controls.

Weatherproof, no-glare finish.

Good sights.

Easy to disassemble and reassemble.



So it makes perfect sense for a militarily-proven design to be adapted for the civilian market. It's not like an infantryman's rifle shoots mini atomic warheads or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:57 PM

47. Nonsense

You are describing what arguably every gun should be as if there is absolutely no difference between guns.

There are differences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #47)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:57 PM

74. Yeah, there are differences

Of course there are.

They just aren't as vast as perhaps you think.

Chambering is one factor. The military favors moderate-power, light recoil rounds for their rifles. Good for tactical use (which includes self defense) but not good for hunting big game. So a rifle that shoots .223 Rem would be good for tactical use, while a .270 Win would be good for deer and a .375 H&H would be good for bear.

Chambering also affects rifle action. The big thumpers for taking down big game are not generally found in semi-automatic rifles; the recoil system would be large and heavy and expensive. So they tend to be bolt-action or break-action double rifles with traditional straight grips. I think they don't put pistol grips on bolt-action rifles because you have to move your hand back and forth a lot, but that's just a guess.


Barrel length is another. While a longer barrel imparts more velocity on a bullet and reduces flash, it also makes a rifle more awkward to handle, especially in confined spaces like a house. So tactical rifles tend to have shorter barrels of a bit more than 16 inches. These are commonly called "carbines". Hunting rifles have barrels that are generally between 22 and 26 inches long.


But regardless of the purpose of the rifle, you still want things to be rugged and reliable and comfortable, etc. There's a reason that a huge number of bolt-action rifles are based on the German Mauser design, originally a weapon of war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #74)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:32 AM

75. Any others?

Any other differences?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #75)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:54 AM

78. Some designs let you add on more stuff.

Your basic bolt-action hunting rifle generally doesn't have a provision for mounting anything but a rifle scope, while a tactical rifle generally has a rail or set of rails to mount things like flashlights or laser sights. Typically they are located near the muzzle of the rifle.

Not that there's no technical reason you can't put a laser sight or a flashlight on your bolt-action deer rifle, but you generally can't hunt big game with a flashlight, and lasers generally aren't visible at anything past close range. Also, there's no magnification, so trying to see the little dot on a deer 200 yards away would be very difficult. So people don't generally bother. However, "varmint" guns might have a flashlight or laser on them because there are often no restrictions on the hours you can hunt them.

Rifles used hunting sometimes have a portable bipod on them, to stabilize the gun while taking long-range shots while prone. Not surprisingly, military and police sniper rifles use this as well.

An AR-15 optimized for deer hunting will be different from one optimized for tactical use, of course. You're generally looking at a more powerful chambering, rifle scope instead of a close-range red-dot sight, and a longer barrel. They also might not have rails on the fore-end, but just a regular hand grip, as this is more comfortable. And the finish might be some fancy tree-pattern camouflage instead of matte black.



This is all independent of the operation of the gun, by the way. Lever action, semi-auto, whatever. But in either case, you want rugged, reliable, accurate, comfortable, easy-to-use, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:03 PM

66. All hunting rifle designs can be traced directly to previous military-issue rifles.

 

Every. Single. One.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:53 AM

35. Did the founders actually not want a professional army?

I seem to recall reading in the historical analysis section of the Heller opinions that the issue wasn't that they didn't want a professional army, but simply that they couldn't afford it, so they had to rely upon the next best thing, a militia. Since militias had a reputation for being untrained and unreliable, the founders hoped to have a "well regulated" militia, that wording that the gun community found so inconvenient until the five right wing extremist justices on the Court chucked it out the window.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #35)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:25 PM

41. As I understand it, they thought a standing army was dangerous.

But they thought slavery was fine. Go figure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:29 PM

14. You make an excellent point.

It's about making sure that the citizenry owns weapons that enable them to serve as infantry troops in an emergency.


And to show these citizen warriors how much we appreciate their patriotism we should provided armories for them to ensure their weapons are safe and well cared for until the time they may be needed.

We could even provide target ranges for them to keep at the peak of readiness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:10 PM

17. We already do. It's called the Army reserve. And Navy Reserve. And Coast Guard Reserve....

If these citizens really wanted to be citizen warriors, there is already an apparatus for their patriotism. But I suspect patriotism is not what many of them have in mind. They don't want to fight for our government, they want to fight against our government, in the mold of Timothy McVeigh or David Koresh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:19 PM

19. And if you are going to fight a 40 ton tank a 5 shot clip just won't do.

Pass the 100 shot banana clip please. That'll do the trick.

What a bunch of dreamers, must have their VCR tape of Red Dawn almost worn out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:55 AM

36. Lmao!

Good one!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:05 PM

67. Why would anyone attack a tank with a rifle?

 

You attack it's fuel truck, parts transport, and mechanical repair personnel.

Soon, out of fuel, out of parts and ammo, and broken.

Wars are every bit as much about logistics as about tactics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:42 PM

16. Are you repeating an NRA-zombie talking point? Do you have recent USSC opinions to

back up what you're saying?

I doubt even the most right-wing extremist in Congress would repeat your point in earshot of any reporter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ragemage (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:59 PM

12. ****

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ragemage (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:17 PM

18. Change the second amendment, it is broken and a relic from another era.

It is as out of date as slavery and male only suffrage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ragemage (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:23 AM

32. They are penis extensions or artificial spines for cowards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:26 PM

42. That's somewhat of an insulting misunderstanding of gun ownership.

Most of my friends are gun owners, and they are not cowards. It is more the case that they take the defense of their property and family very seriously. They recognize that this country has a very large amount of violent crime, and they are determined to not become a victim of it.

In the area I live in, which is fairly rural, there has been an alarming increase in home invasions, both in my town and in the surrounding towns.

If you rely on the police for protection, you are a fool.

This may strike you as cowardly and small-dick syndrome, but if your so tough and your cock is so enormous that you don't feel the need to protect your family with anything other than your gigantic penis, well, absolutely no one is forcing you to arm yourself.

In the meantime, as long as you don't try to harm my family, you will most certainly never see or hear my gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #42)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:02 PM

49. I don't own a penis. And I won't see your gun until your teenager's friend

comes over to your house, finds it, and decides to come over to my house to rob and kill me.

I bet you're like most gun owners and don't keep them locked up tight when not in use. It's only a matter of time before somebody dies for YOUR negligence, if that's the case.

I don't care how many guns somebody has, but when they aren't secured properly, they are not YOUR problem but rather your entire community's problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #49)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:42 PM

62. Then you would assume wrongly. My guns

are in a very robust safe with a combination lock that only I know.

Like 100,000,000 or so of my fellow citizens, I am not part of the problem. If you tried just a but harder you might get people like me to come to the table to support sensible restrictions, like magazine capacity and quantity.

I think a 5 round magazine for all semi-autos are a perfectly reasonable regulation, but I don't support traditional AW bans because they are not a solution to the problem as they only speak to the aesthetics of the gun.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #62)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:53 PM

64. Good for you. Why are you and others like you not working from within the gun

community to police yourselves better so WE don't have to????????????????????????

I applaud your willingness to limit magazines to 5 rounds. Are you actively working to achieve that limitation? If you are a NRA member, your elected representatives are more likely to listen to you than someone like me who doesn't even own guns.

It's my understanding that assault weapons can fire off rounds much faster than, say, a traditional hunting rifle. That's NOT OK.

If people want home and personal protection, shotguns are fine for that (close quarters ease of hitting a target). If assault weapons are not optimal for personal protection or hunting, and were designed specifically for maximum rapid battlefield killing power, who on earth other than military or LEO or sociopaths needs them???????

And WHY on earth are gun owners not required to store their weapons in combination safes at all times except when in use??? What's with the casual attitude about leaving them lying around for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to pick up and go off on a killing spree with??? Gross negligence like that MUST STOP, and we can go a long way by prosecuting negligent gun owners as accessories to whatever crime is done with their gun. This is how it's done in Germany and apparently it works very well to prevent such inexcusable recklessness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #64)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:29 PM

71. Well now we're talking. I dropped my NRA membership back in the day of the Clinton AWB

when they were just completely intransigent over gun show sales and volume purchase limitations. My gosh, why on god's green earth would a person be buying more than one gun per month unless they were involved in straw man purchases. I've bought something like four guns in my life, and I feel very well protected. I mean, its not like theyngo bad or anything. As you note, any shotgun is an extremely effective, even ideal, home defense weapon. I did buy an AR-15 about 20 years ago, but sold it after a few years because it was quite a bit of work to clean after shooting, plus once I dropped my NRA membership I could no longer go to the only 200 yard gun range near me to shoot it. It was fun to fire off a 30 round clip, but once you've done it a few times it loses its luster. I just took it off the bucket list and moved on. And I would respectfully disagree with other gun advocates here who have argued that the Remington .223 that it fires in it's most common cndiguration is a relatively weak round. The muzzle velocity is quite high, somewhere around 3500 ft/sec. Since kinetic energy foes up with the square of velocity, it actually packs quite a punch. Yes, it's a small bullet, but when steel jacketed they fragment when they hit bone and tissue and do horrific damage. We intruduced this round in Vietnam, primarily to inflict massive trauma on the enemy.

As far as working for some restrictions that might actually work, it's very difficult to educate politicians as to what might be effective, since they seem to prefer going for restrictions that they think will make them *look* like they're doing something rather than anything meaningful. My congressman in Jim McGovern, who is a good man and a solid F from the NRA, and my US Senators are Kerry and Warren. My state legislature is 90% dem and has passed very strong regulations which are then promptly ignored by the courts. For example, we have the Bartley-Fox law here in MA, which mandates a one year prison sentence for possession of an unregistered pistol. It's been invoked only a handful of times, even though literally hundreds if not thousands of charges have been filed. They almost always plea the charge down to felony assault and then suspend the sentence. Good laws that are not enforced weaken other laws. In effect, no one fears walking around with a stolen 9mm pistol because they know they'll just get a wrist tap.

It's very frustrating. I've written all my pols expressing my ideas on what would be effective, but you just get back a form letter thanking you for your concern and informing you that they strongly support the <insert current useless proposal here>.

I'm aware that if mainstream gun owners don't join in the effort to keep all guns (not just high capacity semis) out of the hands of the mentally ill and criminals, then we'll lose the whole enchilada. A future progressive court could, under public pressure, reinterpret the 2A and confiscation could happen, as it has in England and Australia.

In the wake of Friday's horror, I've even gone as far as to state that I would turn in all my firearms as long as everyone else does. And I mean everyone, including the bad guys. The only way to get the bad guys to comply would be with severe, no-strikes, long mandatory prison terms for possession. Confiscation would be a disaster if only good people complied.

I don't hold much hope of this happening, but I believe that what would sell is the following:

1) Magazine capacity limited to 5 rounds. First violation -> 5 years in prison
2) Magazine quantity limited to 2 per weapon. First violation -> 5 years in prison
3) No grandfathering of pre-ban magazines, turn them in to a FFL dealer for melting
4) No transportation or carrying of more than 10 rounds, or 2 mags, for any weapon
5) All firearms to be secured at all times except transport in a suitable safety enclosure, unless under direct control by the owner (i.e., concealed carry or transporting a gun to a range or a hunt.)
6) Increase the age for obtaining a firearms permit to 25. Sorry kids, but you can't buy cigarettes either until this age. Exception for active duty military, National Guard, police and reservists.

I think there may be some other meaningful restrictions that would not kill all the fun for gun enthusiasts while having a measurable effect on gun violence, like lowering the bar for confidentiality between mental health providers and patients who are indicating a capacity for violence. The ACLU might have a problem with this, but I think it needs to be on the table. Chiefs of police should also have a say in the licensing process, like they do here in MA, because they tend to be aware of the kids who are showing antisocial behavior, as well as households where spousal abuse is occurring.

Sorry for the long post, but I think this can be solved with dialogue without outright confiscation, which will happen at some point if this madness continues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #64)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:30 AM

81. A common misperception:

 

If people want home and personal protection, shotguns are fine for that (close quarters ease of hitting a target).

In Real Life(tm), shotguns require exactly as precise aiming as any other firearm. They do not project some mystical cone of death that need be only in the right area code.

At average across-the-room ddefensive distances, a load of shot will spread to less than the diameter of a fist.

Even if you were correct, implying/endorsing any kind of spray'n'pray methodology is absolutely wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:06 PM

69. Projection, eh?

 

Interesting, but... unuseful.

I bet you get that a lot....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ragemage (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:52 PM

63. There is a small pistol safe called Gun Vault that uses a tactile locking system.

You press a pattern of keys and the door pops open. You can retrieve a pistol very quickly in the dark and still be sure that your kids or their friends will not get access to it.

As far as firing off a 30 round clip, yes, it is actually a lot of fun. But I'm willing to give that up if everyone else will. That means no more Internet sales, no gun show sales, no private sales and some penalties with teeth in them. Possession of a magazine clip of larger than 5 round capacity gets you a mandatory 5 years prison term.

It will take a few generations, but eventually they'll be purged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:00 PM

20. When will these senseless acts of violence end?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iandhr (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:48 PM

24. Never. Our species has been violent since the beginning it seems. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:59 AM

38. I have more hope than that

The developed world has uniformly embraced vastly stricter gun control laws and they have far, far, FAR fewer gun deaths than we do here in the land of Guns-R-Us. It can be done, we just have to get around the gun nut neanderthals in order to join the civilized majority of nations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:37 PM

22. What had shocked me the most was...

...that the attacked lasted minutes and yet some of the victims were shot 11 times. Eleven times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:50 PM

27. Of course he did

He had to have reloaded many times to do that much carnage. This nut was in an unholy range.

I live about a half-hour from Newtown; my kid is in second grade. I have been unable to come up with any way to explain to him how crazy this person was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:12 PM

51. So

What are your thoughts on the NYT article yesterday about the unlicensed ranges, the dispute between the local gun advocates in the area and the unwillingness of the local community to enact recent gun control ordinances despite police support?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #51)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:41 PM

73. Give me a link and I'll be happy to discuss it with you tomorrow.

I'm nearing the end of my rope for today; I get up at 5am during the school year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:04 AM

29. I find the name of the gun he used Bushmaster interesting

Michael Moore quote

And thank you, Bushmaster Firearms, Inc., for providing the gun used to shoot the 13 people in the DC area. Bushmaster's president, Richard E. Dyke, was the Maine finance chairman of George W. Bush's 2000 Presidential campaign. According to Business Week, Dyke had to step down as Bush's finance chair "after reporters began quizzing him about his business dealings. Bushmaster Firearms Inc., is notorious for using loopholes to sidestep a 1994 federal ban on assault rifles." Bush and Bushmaster. Too tragically perfect.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikes-letter/yes-it-was-a-bushmaster









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:10 PM

40. I don't think the magazine side made a difference here

From what I've read, he entered a classroom, blocked the doorway, killed the teacher, and shot each child 3 to 11 TIMES EACH as they cowered in corners and under desks! For such a little body, only one bullet would have been more than enough to prove fatal.

He could have walked in there with 10-rd magazines and still did the same amount of damage. His attack took several minutes; in only takes about 5-10 seconds to switch magazines in an AR-15.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #40)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:09 PM

70. 3 seconds or less. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:01 PM

48. ACT NOW MR. PRESIDENT

Best quote from article

“No single law, no set of laws, can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society,” he said. “But that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely we can do better than this.”


Can't wait to hear your ideas!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:07 AM

77. my continuity of thought

A person will be quickly put to death upon conviction of a crime while in possession of a firearm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread