HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Assault weapons questions

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:28 PM

Assault weapons questions

Charles Whitman packed up a sawed off 12-gauge shotgun, a Remington 700 6mm bolt-action hunting rifle, a .35 caliber pump rifle, a .30 caliber carbine, a 9mm Luger pistol, a Galesi-Brescia .25-caliber pistol and a Smith & Wesson M19 .357 Magnum revolver, and over 700 rounds of ammunition, along with food, coffee, vitamins, Dexedrine, Excedrin, earplugs, jugs of water, matches, lighter fluid, rope, binoculars, a machete, three knives, a transistor radio, toilet paper, a razor and a bottle of deodorant, then headed to the tower about 11:00 AM on August 1st 1966.

Today some folks want to make weapons like that Universal carbine illegal. Would that have stopped Whitman?

It's already illegal to shorten a shotgun barrel to less than a prescribed length but we still sell shotguns and saws. As far as I can tell only the carbine with mags over 10 rounds would be outlawed by an "Assault Weapons Ban".

There were 16 killed (including Whitman's family members stabbed the night before) and 32 injured. At the time the country's response was rather universal. Police and sheriff's departments all over began forming SWAT Teams. I believe that was a wise decision.

Harris and Klebold had a TEC-9 during the last AWB. The TEC-9 was an "assault weapon". Did the AWB affect the shooters in any way?

At Virginia Tech that crazy nut shot 50 people including himself and killed 33. He used pistols which wouldn't be banned. What would an "Assault Weapons Ban" have changed?

68 replies, 4790 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 68 replies Author Time Post
Reply Assault weapons questions (Original post)
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 OP
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #1
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #3
ileus Jan 2013 #2
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #5
upaloopa Jan 2013 #4
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #7
upaloopa Jan 2013 #10
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #15
Scuba Jan 2013 #23
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #26
Scuba Jan 2013 #30
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #33
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #29
Scuba Jan 2013 #31
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #34
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #43
gejohnston Jan 2013 #16
ZombieHorde Jan 2013 #9
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #17
Lurks Often Jan 2013 #6
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #8
spin Jan 2013 #54
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #55
spin Jan 2013 #64
Bonhomme Richard Jan 2013 #11
Lurks Often Jan 2013 #13
Scuba Jan 2013 #12
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #18
Scuba Jan 2013 #20
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #21
Scuba Jan 2013 #22
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #25
krispos42 Jan 2013 #24
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #27
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #28
Scuba Jan 2013 #32
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #35
Scuba Jan 2013 #36
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #38
Scuba Jan 2013 #40
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #41
Scuba Jan 2013 #44
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #45
Scuba Jan 2013 #46
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #47
Scuba Jan 2013 #48
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #50
Scuba Jan 2013 #51
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #52
Scuba Jan 2013 #53
krispos42 Jan 2013 #37
Scuba Jan 2013 #39
krispos42 Jan 2013 #42
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #49
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #59
Scuba Jan 2013 #60
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #61
Scuba Jan 2013 #62
spin Jan 2013 #63
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #66
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #57
Scuba Jan 2013 #58
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #56
jmg257 Jan 2013 #14
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #19
iiibbb Jan 2013 #65
cohioan741 Jan 2013 #67
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #68

Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:32 PM

1. Awkward questions, which you will be attacked for asking...

...because GUNS!1!!...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:36 PM

3. re: "...you will be attacked for asking..."

Not to worry, I'm a tough old bird, at least according to my wife.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:34 PM

2. as you well know....it's just a start...once proven ineffective that's

when the real action will take place...


Give an inch they'll take a mile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:37 PM

5. What did Einstein say...

...about repeating behavior and expecting different results?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:36 PM

4. That's called begging the answer or something

isn't it? You set up a premise and ask people to shoot it down.
The idea behind an assault weapons ban is to try and slow the increase in gun violence not prevent all gun violence.
We have tons of laws that do not prevent every event that they were written to prevent but we don't just do nothing because we can't do everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:40 PM

7. I like that answer!

So if "...we don't just do nothing because we can't do everything." we do something, how do we know what we've done is working?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:08 PM

10. We review the data and make reasoned

assumptions. The CDC was not permitted to collect data on gun deaths. Now they will do that thanks to President Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:34 PM

15. re: "The CDC was not permitted to collect data on gun deaths."



2009 - http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf
See table 10 page 39.

2008 - http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_02.pdf
See table 2 page 20.

"We review the data and make reasoned assumptions."


How is it okay to legislate the impairment of a right based on assumptions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:33 PM

23. Where's the 2010 numbers? 2011?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:53 PM

26. They take time to release.

They are always a year or two behind. They were not prohibited from collecting that data. The FBI collects and publishes it as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:56 PM

30. You sure?

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/15/16532333-obama-plan-eases-freeze-on-cdc-gun-violence-research?lite


The move effectively reverses 17 years of what scientists say has been a virtual ban on basic federal research and is part of a package of new gun control policies aimed at reducing gun violence after tragedies such as the shootings last year in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn. It would encourage research including links between video games, media images and violence.

The action immediately was praised by scientists who said pro-gun advocates -- including the National Rifle Association -- had choked off funding for CDC firearms research starting in the mid-1990s and imposed a chilling effect on those who dared to pursue it.
"He's saying this is very important and I'm going to back you on this," said Dr. Mark Rosenberg, president of the Task Force for Global Health and director of the CDC's Center for Injury Prevention and Control from 1994 to 1999. "Basically, they've been terrorized by the NRA."

From the mid- 1980s to the mid-1990s, the CDC conducted original, peer-reviewed research into gun violence, including questions such as whether people who had guns in their homes gained protection from the weapons. (The answer, researchers found, was no. Homes with guns had a nearly three times greater risk of homicide and a nearly five times greater risk of suicide than those without, according to a 1993 study in the New England Journal of Medicine.)

But in 1996, the NRA, with the help of Congressional leaders, moved to suppress such information and to block future federal research into gun violence, Rosenberg said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #30)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:59 PM

33. Different issue.

That is original research quite apart from the numbers we were just discussing. This releases the CDC to study things like correlations between guns in the home and domestic violence, or likelihood of injury. Things like that.

Which I think is great, because some of the earlier studies on risk for guns in the home are quite flawed, and I would like to see the CDC re-visit those studies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:56 PM

29. Here's the link...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #29)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:58 PM

31. There's a difference between data and research. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #31)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:59 PM

34. I trust you on that. :) n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #31)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 05:13 PM

43. That's not what Upaloopa said.

"The CDC was not permitted to collect data on gun deaths."

That is false. That statement was challenged correctly. Your aim is off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:40 PM

16. they can collect data and have been all along, they do it all the time along with the FBI,

they just can't lobby.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:01 PM

9. Good catch. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:42 PM

17. No!

This is:



and maybe this:



and this:



and definitely this:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:37 PM

6. You neglected to point that

armed CIVILIANS using personally owned guns opened fire on Whitman forcing him to take cover, which resulted in fewer deaths and allowed police and an armed civilian to enter the building, proceed to the top and shoot Whitman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:50 PM

8. That just...

...a rumor. It's never been proven the civilians had any effect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 08:38 PM

54. According to the Dallas Morning News. ...

Shooting brings back memories of 1966 UT Tower killings for officer who stopped gunman
By MICHAEL E. YOUNG / The Dallas Morning News myoung@dallasnews.com
Published: 30 September 2010 06:55 AM


When Ramiro "Ray" Martinez heard news of Tuesday's shooting spree at the University of Texas in Austin, his mind snapped back 44 years to a far more tragic rampage on the campus.

***snip***

More than 300 feet below, at the base of the tower, Martinez found a civilian named Allen Crum, a retired Air Force tail gunner who had never fired a shot in combat. Together they worked their way to the top of the tower with another Austin officer, Houston McCoy, following them.
Martinez carried his duty revolver, Crum had an old rifle, and McCoy toted a 12-gauge shotgun.
At the door to the observation deck, Martinez told Crum to cover him and point his gun toward the southwest corner.

"I said, 'If the guy comes around the corner, shoot him,' " Martinez remembered. "Allen thought he heard him running, and he fired a shot."
news/state/headlines/20100929-Shooting-brings-back-memories-of-1966-4343.ece


While Crum may not have taken down the shooter he was there and fired a shot that may have had some impact on the eventual outcome. Hard to say for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #54)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:19 PM

55. perhaps...

...you missed the tag in my post???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #55)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:22 PM

64. Yup. Sure did. ...

Perhaps I should stop multitasking when posting on DU. It might stop some of my stupid replies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:17 PM

11. And...Who is taking your guns away?

You can change out your 10 round magazine for another while you are keeping the bad guy at bay.
Just saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonhomme Richard (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:22 PM

13. Thanks for that post

It had absolutely zero content.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:17 PM

12. An assault weapon ban would not have stopped any of them. But the background checks should have ...

... the assault weapon ban would have stopped (or at least greatly slowed) several others.

Just because an AWB wouldn't stop some killers doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:45 PM

18. re: "...the assault weapon ban would have stopped..."

I'm not following you on why you believe that. Please explain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:13 PM

20. Do you doubt the Newtown shooter would have been slowed/stopped if he had been ....

... carrying less firepower?

Are you really willing to pick nits when the lives of our citizens - our children - are at stake?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #20)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:23 PM

21. My single dominating thought...

...regarding every school shooting that I've read or heard about, is that these folks pick up weapons without regard for legality. There is nothing about an assault weapon (in several versions of the definition that I have read) that differ materially from other firearms that can cause equivalent death and injury.

There may even be, as I write this, an engineer hard at work somewhere designing a rifle that accepts more than one 10 round magazine.

Any AWB is a distraction, nothing more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:31 PM

22. And others argue that nit picking over definitions like "assault weapon" are a distraction ....

... so we might just as well ban everything with more firepower than a single-shot 22. I'd hate to see that happen, but that's where the intransigence is going to get us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:47 PM

25. Single shot 22s...

...are quite plentiful in the US. I believe a .22 revolver was used to kill RFK.

I don't believe bans will have any measurable impact on violence.
BTW .44 caliber black powder pistols are still available by mail order since the ATF doesn't class them as firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:35 PM

24. You mean like a quad-stack magazine?




Put two 10-rounders, presumably at an angle of some kind, and the gun alternately draws from each one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #24)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:54 PM

27. That's the idea

"...two 10-rounders, presumably at an angle of some kind..."


That's the idea, exactly. 10 round capacity satisfies the law (and some patentable functions) will not only get you lots of buyers for the guns themselves but royalties from after mag makers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #20)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:55 PM

28. His weapon was 1994 AWB legal, just an aside.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #28)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:59 PM

32. Nitpicking while people are dying. I feel sorry for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 05:02 PM

35. I know facts are inconvenient things.

I called it an 'aside'. Not primarily germane to the discussion. It DOES speak to the need for any forthcoming legislation to be intelligently targeted to ACTUAL PROBLEMS however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #35)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 05:03 PM

36. "ACTUAL PROBLEMS" instead of trivial details like dead children?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #36)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 05:06 PM

38. Nice try.

Extending the former 1994 CAWB would have done nothing to prevent those dead kids. Your problem, not mine.

Shame on me for wanting to actually address the real problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #38)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 05:07 PM

40. Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen you recommend anything, just whine about those who are trying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #40)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 05:10 PM

41. Actually, I've been posting in the gungeon in favor of registration since early DU2.

Started a couple threads on it, took my lumps, etc.
I've also been asking people to consider repealing the Hughes Amendment and 1986 GOPA, and extend the NFA registry downward to include semi-auto weapons, and defending that stance.

So uh... read more?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #41)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 05:54 PM

44. Glad to hear it. Perhaps you'll repost some of those recommendations now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #44)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 06:03 PM

45. I've been doing it as appropriate since Sandy Hook.

So have several other 'gungeonites'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #45)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 06:05 PM

46. Great, can you provide some links please?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #47)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 06:37 PM

48. Thanks. Your support for background checks and registration is a good start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #48)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 06:46 PM

50. I'm glad it meets with your approval.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #50)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 06:48 PM

51. I'm pretty sure you don't give a hoot about my approval. That's fine ......

... but I am glad to see another gun owner here who doesn't object to anything and everything being proposed to rein in our gun violence problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #51)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 06:59 PM

52. Let me take a step back.

I apologize for being sarcastic with you. I interpreted your posts upthread to be overly hostile, and I did that without considering context. This place has been absolutely overrun with trolls of late, and the discourse has become super-acerbic, so if you were short with me or others, I should take that into account.

So, I apologize, and look forward to working WITH you in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #52)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 07:49 PM

53. Thanks. I also apologize if I was antagonistic. I'm also exasperated with the trolls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 05:05 PM

37. Thought you wanted to come up with effective laws?

If you want to outlaw the gun the Newtown shooter used, and you cheer and clap when anybody proposes reauthorizing the expired 1994 ban, shouldn't it matter that the gun the Newtown shooter used was legal under the ban?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #37)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 05:06 PM

39. And your point is? Do you think the initiative the Prez announced today WON'T help?

Not even a little?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #39)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 05:11 PM

42. The 23-point initiative?

That's not what I'm talking about, really, but I can't see it hurting anything.


Of course, the devil is in the details. Insider knowledge and intimate knowledge of the bowels of the bureaucracy are what makes Wall Street and made BushCo so powerful. Who every heard of the Office of Legal Counsel until BushCo used it to legitimize torture and domestic warrantless wiretaps and preventive arrest and all the other Orwellian CRAP that they spewed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #42)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 06:45 PM

49. Ohh!

We don't need no stinking warrants. We can make up FISA warrants and put any date we want on them.

Haw, haw haw, hee, hee, hee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:40 PM

59. Law is made up of details and technicalities.

Screw up on those and you create huge loopholes. The 1994 AWB was a massive disaster because of anti-gun people not wanting to learn technical details.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #59)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:43 PM

60. Yes, it's the anti-gunners fault. They wont make that mistake again...

... they'll just ban everything with more firepower than a single-shot 22. That'll solve the problem of their refusal to learn how many twists are ideal for a 26 inch barrel in .308 caliber shooting 150 grain ammo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #60)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:49 PM

61. Gun-banners don't have that much political power.

Reports say that the NRA has gained 250K members in the past month. That's folks that are paying money to join. And membership is still skyrocketing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #61)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:50 PM

62. NRA has about 4 million members. Obama for America has about 100 million.

Read 'em and weep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:18 PM

63. Have you ever considered that firearms do save lives? ...

I might not be posting this if my mother would not have been carrying a .22 caliber S&W LadySmith revolver in her purse when she left a bus after work in the 1920s and started to walk home after work.

A man who had been hiding behind some bushes rushed her. Since she had her hand on the gun in the purse she was able to draw it and fire two shots over his head. He ran.

Had she been raped she might never met my father and I would have never been born. Rape is a life changing event and was even more so in those days. Obviously if she had been killed I would not be here. As it was she lived to a ripe old age of 89 and was the mother of three boys.

I greatly regret the fact that firearms have been misused recently to commit tragedies. I actually had a nightmare about the Connecticut shooting shortly after it happened and I rarely have nightmares.

Any honest discussion about gun control should mention that firearms are used by honest and responsible citizens to deter attacks from individuals who intend to seriously injure or kill them and have the capability to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #32)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:21 AM

66. Nitpicking? If you want a ban to do something, you had better pick a lot...

School deaths may be avoided by Sen. Barbara Boxer's plan of stationing national guard troops at schools; but that is an "NRA talking point" on steroids, and you don't hear it now since it does not comport with MSM/controller narrative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #20)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:32 PM

57. He would have used something else just as deadly. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #57)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:34 PM

58. What? A hammer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:30 PM

56. Background checks would not have stopped Whitman.

His was a rare case. Autopsy revealed that he had a brain tumor in the amygdala, the part of the brain that controls the strength of our impulses. People who knew him state that he behaved normally until a few weeks before the shooting. It is impossible to prove that the brain tumor cause the rampage, but I consider it highly likely.

A background check would not have found anything. However, I fully support background checks as they will catch most, but not all, of the dangerous people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:26 PM

14. 1) Apparently not. 2) Depends on how they redefine AW (and whether he would

have had to comply/would have complied).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:55 PM

19. Any AWB...

...is nothing more than SNL fodder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:59 PM

65. armed citizens helped stop Whitman

 

Approximately 20 minutes after first shooting from the observation deck, Whitman began to encounter return fire from both the police and other armed citizens. One Texas Ranger used a student as spotter to help calibrate his shots. At this point, Whitman chose to fire through waterspouts located on each side of the tower walls. This protected him from gunfire below, but limited his range of targets. Police sharpshooter Marion Lee reported from a small airplane that he had observed a single sniper firing from the observation deck. Lee tried to shoot Whitman from the plane, but the turbulence proved too great. Whitman shot at the plane, and it moved off to circle from a greater distance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 11:35 PM

67. Probably little difference

 

I tried to do a search as to which guns were used to shoot his victims, but didn't want to take the time to research each one. However, it seems pretty likely that most of the victims shot from the tower were with the scoped bolt-action rifle. Why? Because that would have been the most accurate of the guns he had with him. It would have required deliberate, relatively slow fire shots. At that range such shooting would be more effective than an untrained spray and pray approach with an "assault rifle." The M1 Garand is a high powered semi-automatic, but without a scope it would have limited effectiveness for all but the most skilled marksman. Even less so for the less powerful and less accurate Carbine.

I believe there were two victims of the shotgun. It's important to note that the shotgun and bolt-action hunting rifle would not have been banned by even the new, stringent NY state semi-auto and AW ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cohioan741 (Reply #67)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:13 AM

68. I concur

While I haven't read anything to confirm that the bolt-action rifle was used for the long range shots, I did read about the family that encountered him in his ascent up the stairs and a few of them were killed with the 12 gauge.

I have fired both Garand and carbine. The joys of M1thumb were explained in detail. These would not be my choice of rifles given the bolt-action with a scope.


IMHO, the most carefully formulated laws, which through the regulating of arms and ammo, seek to eliminate deadly shootings are sure to prevent all but the next deadly shooting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread