Connecticut school shooting: Reports say more than 20 dead

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blinddeafmute

You can view it as being a smartass, but it is what it is. You are completely ok with the loss of children's lives because it would harm our mass transit system to impose legislation to stop arson, yet you want to ban assault rifles simply because it would make you feel better eventhough the result would be neglegible.

This is what gets me. We have everyone pretending to be worried, but nobody actully thinking about effective ways to do things.

---

Yes, I am "completely ok" with not outlawing gasoline do to the impracticality and greater negative impact of such a ban...

Banning assault rifles entails no impracticality nor greater negative impact...even IF the results are merely negligible...

Is banning assault rifles the perfect solution...probably not...but what gets me is this intellectual circle jerk of trying come up with the perfect, most effective, magical solution only to end up doing nothing...it's simple a ruse to stop any government action at all...

I'll jump in the fray. Gun rights/ownership is always great for some light, after-dinner dinner conversation, especially after an event like this. Here's where I come down on how to protect our kids. Some may agree or disagree, that's cool. If you have a better solution that has a proven track record of greater success, then let's hear it.

Here's the link

http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/how-to-st...the-innocents/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rakk

I'll jump in the fray. Gun rights/ownership is always great for some light, after-dinner dinner conversation, especially after an event like this. Here's where I come down on how to protect our kids. Some may agree or disagree, that's cool. If you have a better solution that has a proven track record of greater success, then let's hear it.

Here's the link

http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/how-to-st...the-innocents/

---

Living in an armed camp, with the ever present threat and possibility of extinction, where every adult is required out of fear to receive military training is not a proven track record of success I would choose to emulate...

Israel is forced to live the way they do...we have more options; we can do better...

Although after further review, gun ownership in Israel is actually pretty low, really low...due in large part to very strict licensing requirements...maybe they do have some good ideas after all...

I don't care about banning assault weapons. It's not like the citizens can keep up with the military or the militarized police nowadays. However, aren't when most of these guys bodies searched aren't they armed with regular old pistols, rifles, and shotguns anyway? So instead of a bushmaster you have 2 glocks with 2 more in your pants. You learn to speed reload if your real dedicated (or fanatical). It just changes the manner of death by which weapon not exactly slow it down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfman

Living in an armed camp, with the ever present threat and possibility of extinction, where every adult is required out of fear to receive military training is not a proven track record of success I would choose to emulate...

Israel is forced to live the way they do...we have more options; we can do better...

Although after further review, gun ownership in Israel is actually pretty low, really low...due in large part to very strict licensing requirements...maybe they do have some good ideas after all...

---

We aren't Israel true. In the '70s the PLO was targeting schools, and such, so they're reaction was to arm the schools. At first, parents and even grandparents would show up with their weapons taking turns watching the schools. Once the terrorists realized the schools were no longer soft targets they moved on.

That's really my point. Our schools are soft targets and need to be hardened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rakk

We aren't Israel true. In the '70s the PLO was targeting schools, and such, so they're reaction was to arm the schools. At first, parents and even grandparents would show up with their weapons taking turns watching the schools. Once the terrorists realized the schools were no longer soft targets they moved on.

That's really my point. Our schools are soft targets and need to be hardened.

---

We live in a heavily armed, soft society...we can either harden that society as you suggest starting with our schools or we can disarm a bit...I don't think either suggestion is a 100% satisfactory on their own...maybe we need a bit of both...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfman

We live in a heavily armed, soft society...we can either harden that society as you suggest starting with our schools or we can disarm a bit...I don't think either suggestion is a 100% satisfactory on their own...maybe we need a bit of both...

---

We have to remove the extremist view from both sides to formulate a solution. How many gun laws local, state and federal did this nut job violate? Evil people don't care about laws. Look at Chicago right now? On the books it's one of the most gun restricted cities in the world...but I felt safer in Baghdad than I did driving in/out of the city.

So, yeah, the solution lies somewhere between Ban All Guns and Everybody Must Be Strapped!

I don't see any problem with armed guards in all schools. Trained, ready, but unobtrusive. If that's certain teachers, and admin, or something similar to our Air Marshalls, I'm all for it.

Wolf, I'm like you, I don't own a gun, I see no practicallity in owning an assult rifle. But I also know that you make owning that gun illegal you create a bigger issues.

If you make these guns illegal or any guns then you are also removing the govt's ability to track them....and not b/c they no longer exist in our society that is an ignorant lofty thought to think if the govt makes it illegal it will no longer exist. A black marekt WILL arrise, we already have problems w/one now coming from Mexico and that market will increase 1000x's what it is now as people move to get them.

And as someone else point out you will see people buying conversion kits and other ways of arming themselves as they see fit. The way you see guns as dangerous and should be illegal is how people see drugs as dangerous and illegal; but the same thing will happen as w/pot. A black market opens up and it's impossible to stop. The danger is always going to be there. That's the reality, you cannot legislate out the danger of society.

What needs to be done, is more protection at our schools, and better processes to diagnose and treat mental illnesses.

oh and btw, don't act like you haven't used the classic over reaction/put words in the mouth of the opponent it's a well used way to negate someones point, and everyone does it. I was hardly serious, but as flimsy as your point was, my flimsy counter was accurate. The real question is you need to ask those parents not if they'd take their kids being shot or stabbed, but would you rather have your kids attacked in school or not attacked. The root of the issue is their childeren were attacked in what was presumed as safe place, not that they are shot dead or maimed w/a knife.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

Wolf, I'm like you, I don't own a gun, I see no practicallity in owning an assult rifle. But I also know that you make owning that gun illegal you create a bigger issues.

If you make these guns illegal or any guns then you are also removing the govt's ability to track them....and not b/c they no longer exist in our society that is an ignorant lofty thought to think if the govt makes it illegal it will no longer exist. A black marekt WILL arrise, we already have problems w/one now coming from Mexico and that market will increase 1000x's what it is now as people move to get them.

And as someone else point out you will see people buying conversion kits and other ways of arming themselves as they see fit. The way you see guns as dangerous and should be illegal is how people see drugs as dangerous and illegal; but the same thing will happen as w/pot. A black market opens up and it's impossible to stop. The danger is always going to be there. That's the reality, you cannot legislate out the danger of society.

What needs to be done, is more protection at our schools, and better processes to diagnose and treat mental illnesses.

oh and btw, don't act like you haven't used the classic over reaction/put words in the mouth of the opponent it's a well used way to negate someones point, and everyone does it. I was hardly serious, but as flimsy as your point was, my flimsy counter was accurate. The real question is you need to ask those parents not if they'd take their kids being shot or stabbed, but would you rather have your kids attacked in school or not attacked. The root of the issue is their childeren were attacked in what was presumed as safe place, not that they are shot dead or maimed w/a knife.

---

Both points are spot on. There's an organization National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) that's doing great work trying to destigmatize mental illness. An associate of mine, very successful, suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, got treatment and is doing well now for 9 years. Too many people out there are "on edge", and either A) they feel outside society and have no hope, or B) those close to them are embarrassed, or given up on them as well. This is especially true, I believe, with our young people.

BDM is right... if we are going to attempt any regulation, it needs to be EFFECTIVE. Any "scary looking weapons" ban is simply a bullshit piece of legislation intended to make people FEEL better in the "We've done something" way. The earlier law banned a whole host of weapons for reasons entirely unrelated to ease of use or lethality. People don't die because something looks scary shot them. They die because they've been fatally shot. If we are going to try and regulate tragedy out of existence by regulating the firearms that cause them, you'll need a total ban. And we all know that is impossible to not only implement, but also to enforce or maintain.

This conversation needs to happen BEFORE they decide to regulate weapons. If they can't adequately regulate what should, or should not, be allowed then what's the point other than to make you feel better? It is important that it be done correctly. I don't think anybody is trying to make a point to do "nothing", but it's time to quit doing "something" and instead do "something effective". I'm pretty sure that you would agree Wolf... "effective" is better than "something".

And we can't start having that conversation, no matter how much you would like to... scrolling down for reference... not "care about technical definitions". If you're unwilling to discuss what is and what is not an assault rifle under government definitions, when any ban would be ONLY on assault weapons, then you are simply looking for the "have done something" feeling and not actually trying to do something effective. If we really need to do something NOW, and we do, the definitions need to be part of the early conversations. If not, all you're intending to do is shut down rational debate on the facts with an appeal to emotion. That will not be effective. That will NOT protect our children.

Here are images of "technical definitions". Unless they change the definition they used in the past, these will NOT be banned:

http://assets.academy.com/mgen/67/10...jpg?is=500,500

http://assets.academy.com/mgen/94/10...jpg?is=500,500

But this will:

http://i.imgur.com/K4eFZ.jpg

All are semi-auto, all are .22 and all can be obtained in larger caliber. But, only one of them will be banned based on the definition used last time (and probably this time), and that is for no other reasons than it looks scary. The top one can be reloaded in about 2 seconds using either 10 or 15 round magazines. The 2nd one only gives you 14 shots before you have to reload, and reloading takes a minute or two due to the tube magazine. Of course, the 3rd one has mag capacity ranging from 10 to 30. Unless your argument is that mass shootings are acceptable when the number of victims is kept to under 10, which I'm pretty sure it's not, magazine capacity is less relevant than lethality and function if the idea is to actually protect people.

Or... for more firepower in an actual .223 caliber, you could purchase this in "hunting" mode (i.e, wooden stock). You'll be allowed. And you will STILL be able to purchase the modification kit (the ban won't stop that) to change it to 'scary mode':

http://i46.tinypic.com/5oe3c4.jpg

You simply won't be able to purchase it, from a vendor, in scary mode.

The point of all this is to show the exact same functionality and lethality, and how one would be allowed and one would not. We are not scaring our kids to death... regulating the appearance of a weapon does absolutely nothing to stop these tragedies.

And they DO need to stop. We simply can't address irrelevant issues (appearance) and fail to address actual issues (firearms security, mental health, background checks, security at schools, teacher/staff CCW, whatever..) and honestly believe we've accomplished anything worthy of our children.