Thread: Connecticut school shooting: Reports say more than 20 dead

Originally Posted by motownbear

Well every weapon purchased comes with a gun lock and I admit those just collect dust in a cabinet. But all my firearms except the one I always keep around me for protection is all locked up in my gun safe which is dead bolted to the ground.

Even if people don't believe in the safety part guns aren't chump change I can't see how there is anyone who doesn't keep them secure and locked up. If you can afford a 500 dollar handgun you can afford a 100 dollar safe and if you can afford a 2000 dollar rifle you can afford a 700 dollar safe.

I have conceal carried for years, and rarely carry open. If you ever met me, you would never know I'm carrying. They way I store my guns, it is impossible to get to them, and put them into operation. However, I can do it in about 3 minutes. I have a good friend who is retired police, former Marine, and current MP Army Reserve officer, and have had him try to get at my weapons, and put into operation. He can't. And, if he can't neither can my kids, which is the whole point.

I'm former Infantry, and been shooting since I was young. I still go to the range at least once a month. While shooting is fun, I go to remain proficient because it is a highly perishable skill. Beyond that, one needs training on how to properly employee your weapon for self-defense. That also is a highly perishable skill. It's all about personal responsibility.

I'm the last guy that wants a bunch of yahoos running around with a rack full of rifles in their pickup window that they just bought at the gun show fixin' to go shootin'. F that! I want more people properly trained in firearm use so they can enjoy the sport of shooting, while at the same time respect guns and not live in fear of them.

Originally Posted by loki520

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:





But this will:



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':



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.

Yes, I agree with almost everything you just said…I didn’t make myself clear…my comment(s) regarding not "care about technical definitions" were in regard to the old, ridiculous, woefully and infamously inadequate definitions of past bans…I totally agree we should not be banning anything simply because they look all scary and shit…I know the difference between something that looks scary and something that is actually scary…dangerous, deadly, kill 20 people in the blink of an eye scary…I said I don’t care about technical definitions because (I assumed) you, me, BDM, and many others in this thread know what kind of guns I/we are talking about, regardless of stupid technical definitions of past laws…its like have a conversation about banning porn…do you we really need a long winded discussion on what is and isn’t porn, or do we pretty much know what we’re talking about already?…anyway, I agree, WHEN we ban these weapons this time, we better get the freakin' definition right this time…

Wolf, my apologies for misreading your intent. Glad to know we are on the same page.

Having said that... I'm not against the ban including large capacity mags, just pointing out that all they really do is save a determined shooter about 2 or 3 seconds, which might seem like a long time... but not when someone barges in a school and everyone is panicking.

As to my personally-owned weapons interest in this issue.... non-existent, as lever action long's aren't "evil". I only own ONE weapon. It's at my dad's house, has never been fired or even taken out of the box, and is a Winchester model 94 Bicentennial .30-30 with the octagon barrel. It sits in a safe next to my dads .32-40 John Wayne carbine. Both collectibles, combined worth a whopping... maybe... $2500.00. Would be twice that, but the .32-40 has been fired once (raises hand and not-so-fondly recalls the ass whopping my dad laid on me for that...).

Originally Posted by Rakk

I cringe whenever these events occur, and not just at the lost of innocent life. Because all we hear about is gun control, and not the root causes of why we have a generation of young people who are so disillusioned with life, in this country, that they go and do these crimes.

Not only do is all we hear about gun control, it's a complete and utter failure to realize that gun control is not working.

We have ALREADY socially engineered specific areas to be gun-free. The school in CT was a gun-free zone. The theater in Colorado was the ONLY theater, out of 7 showing the same movie and at least three closer to the shooters residence, that was gun-free. The mall. The airport. The colleges. On and on. With the exception of the Giffords incident, every single mass-shooting since the early 1900's has occurred in a gun-free zone. EVERY.SINGLE.ONE. (note 1)

That should be one of the main statistics discussed right there. 99.9% of the time, the ONLY gun in a gun-free zone where there was a mass-shooting, was taken there by someone who was often mentally unstable. There was no cop. No armed citizen. There was only the armed perp... and victims. These places were CHOSEN specifically because there was nobody there to fight back.

I would much rather my grandson's school had licensed and trained administrators, or even a teacher(s), who was allowed CCW than to have the school designated "gun-free". A sign on the school building advising that is the case would seem to be a much better barrier to tragedy than the "fish in a barrel" advertisement that a "gun-free" sign equates to.

I willingly note that none of the above addresses the actual root issues that CAUSE these things. No... but they do put in place an obvious barrier to help PREVENT these things.

One other thing.... if you’ve ever smoked a joint, you are disqualified from arguing that prohibition works.

Note 1: Ft. Hood is no exception to this. I've seen the meme floating around from the left. No... Hasan wasn't able to kill all those people even though he was on a military base with firearms and trained individuals. He was able to kill all those people because he was also in a "gun-free" zone as personal firearms are BANNED on base, all military weapons are locked up in the armory, and all the trained individuals were as unarmed as elementary school children.