CT school shooting - Horrible

[Tanasi]

assault mode is another name for burst fire, I think. You're right it's not an assault rifle though.

I've been around firearms my whole life and I carried a M-16 in a professional manner for over 25 years and I can say "assault mode" is a new term to me.

[Greenday]

I've been around firearms my whole life and I carried a M-16 in a professional manner for over 25 years and I can say "assault mode" is a new term to me.

I had never heard that term used until this incident.

[Gravekeeper]

Apparently, now it's Jon Stewart's fault.

[Dreamstalker]

My mom teaches some darkroom photography classes at the local high school. One of the classes is titled Art of the Snapshot. Yesterday, she sent an email to the Adult Ed director about the classes...it was bounced back by a filter due to 'banned content'.

We're guessing that it keyed on the word 'shot'...after a few minutes of pondering an alternate word for 'snapshot' she just said 'darkroom classes'. So far the email hasn't come back...

[s_stabeler]

I've been around firearms my whole life and I carried a M-16 in a professional manner for over 25 years and I can say "assault mode" is a new term to me.

it's anew term to me, too- it's just what I think they mean by assault mode. it's still scaremongering.

dreamstalker: you are joking aren't you? please? that's absolutely ridiculous.

[Tanasi]

My mom teaches some darkroom photography classes at the local high school. One of the classes is titled Art of the Snapshot. Yesterday, she sent an email to the Adult Ed director about the classes...it was bounced back by a filter due to 'banned content'.

We're guessing that it keyed on the word 'shot'...after a few minutes of pondering an alternate word for 'snapshot' she just said 'darkroom classes'. So far the email hasn't come back...

Snap shot is a term used in conjunction with firearms. In effect it means popping out from cover and snapping off a shot. Usually snap shots are meant to keep the targets head down while either you or someone else moves to better cover or a better position. Snap shots aren't meant to be accurate mostly just meant to be the same general direction.
I first heard it used while in basic infantry training in 1971 @ Fort Jackson. When used today that's what I think of instead of photography. I think it's used more prevalently is regards to photography.

[Tanasi]

it's anew term to me, too- it's just what I think they mean by assault mode. it's still scaremongering.

You're correct it nothing but scaremongering just like hanging the term "assault" on semi-auto rifles. Scaremongering for political purposes.

[Tanasi]

For those that have LEO friends, family, acquaintances ask what it takes to get someone added to the national criminal database to prevent them from buying firearms. Please post their answers.
From what I'm finding it's very very difficult unless the person commits a crime or a judge orders the action.

In another thread I was asked what I thought would be reasonable regarding firearms laws. I think it would be reasonable to make it easier to add mentally unstable folks to the
FBI's and other state's criminal data base file, providing the person is question has a means of appealing that decision.

[bara]

A few years back a guy was trying to buy a shotgun from a Wally-World. But his address came back as having a violent offender living there so they denied that sale. (the person attempting to make the purchase was not the offender).

Now we need to the same to apply to homes that have mentally unstable people living in them and for all that is holy people need to learn to LOCK the things in a safe that requires a combination to open.

A good friend of mine has a small armory. He kept all his weapons in the locked safe and kept rounds in a separate safe. Even his hand guns. Former Marine Sniper, so he was well acquainted with using them. He keeps them locked up because he didnt want his son to get to them and play with them, doesnt matter that his son knew not to touch any of them. It was a precaution.

[lordlundar]

So the NRA has made their first official statement. Said Statement?

"Stop looking at us! Video games are the ones who you should be blamed! It's their Fault!"

Is it wrong that I want these people to suffer a very debilitating accident that they can't blame on anyone else?

[bara]

So the NRA has made their first official statement. Said Statement?

"Stop looking at us! Video games are the ones who you should be blamed! It's their Fault!"

Is it wrong that I want these people to suffer a very debilitating accident that they can't blame on anyone else?

The issue is that some people simply are unable to accept responsibility for their own actions or look at the actual causes for something happening.

Video-games, comic books, dime novels, all scapegoats.

Not just the most recent, but many atrocities are due to mental illness. It would be nice if health care was more affordable.

Better gun control would certainly help. But we do need to also look at the root causes and how to fix that. Guns are certainly part of the problem, but not THE problem.

[Dreamstalker]

Agreed completely. I'm for responsible gun ownership, which includes not letting unstable people get their hands on them. Stricter gun laws may or may not help; I feel that one of the first things that should be addressed is the state of mental health care in this country.

dreamstalker: you are joking aren't you? please? that's absolutely ridiculous.

Nope, I'm dead serious. She was able to send emails containing the word 'snapshot' (one word) back in September with no problems whatsoever... I think I know what 'brand' of filter the school uses; it was infamous when I was in the high school for hitting on words with no context (and infuriating a LOT of students when they were unable to do research).

My grandfather kept his old service revolver in his desk drawer (unloaded of course, and I never knew where the ammo was kept until after he died). Sure, I found it a few times, but the minute Grandpa knew I had he sat me down and explained what it was and why I should never play with it. I grew up with toy guns and violent video games...turned out fine.

[Jester]

Before I address some of the comments, I'd like to point out that in earlier posts I said that no one was looking to ban guns, and no one was talking about taking away the Second Amendment rights enjoyed by Americans. But since I posted those comments, there have been people who have done just that, including some folks who have called for the repeal of the Second Amendment.

I'd like to state unequivocally here that I am completely against that idea, and that in my opinion it is a kneejerk reaction to a great tragedy, and not an actual attempt at an intelligent address of the problem.

The Bill of Rights, which includes the First and Second Amendment (along with lesser known rights that are still quite important), is a core part of American law, and should stay as such. Yes, we should adjust our various laws according to changes in times and technology, but the basic rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights should continue to be guaranteed. The idea of repealing them, these rights that the Founders found do important that they drafted them up to go right along with the Constitution, is to me both absurd and offensive.

So while I can no longer say that "no one" is looking to ban guns or repeal the Second Amendment, I can say that no one I consider to be offering intelligent ideas is doing so.

Stricter gun laws would most likely turn it from an epidemic of mass shootings to an epidemic of some other violent crime. All it's doing it slapping a band-aid on a slashed artery; it'll slow things down a bit, but won't really have much effect beyond making the people who made it happen feel better, leaving us just as wounded as we were beforehand.

Upon what do you base this evidence? Empirical date from other countries that have enacted such laws seem to contradict you.

And you say it "would most likely" result in other violence. Should we base our laws and our society on what we feel MAY happen?

Those two points aside, let's say for the sake of argument you are right on this. (I don't think you are, but let's entertain the idea for the moment.) Other violent crime is far less likely to cause the number of casualties or the damage to each victim that guns can and do. Someone walking into a school with a knife (the most often cited "alternative" weapon) might well attempt to kill 25 people. His likelihood of success in doing so seems far less likely, for several reasons:

--He would have to get closer to each victim, rather than attacking them from a distance.
--The damage inflicted with each wound is less likely to cause as much damage as a bullet would.
--Disarming a knife-wielding assailant, while in no ways a safe venture, seems far more likely to be successful by the average person than disarming someone with a gun. Also, I dare say that more people would attempt such a disarming procedure against a person with a knife than against a person with a gun. Again, range and potential damage come into play in the mental calculations one would make when weighing the odds of success of disarming said assailant.

(And I don't speak without some experience: I had the very unpleasant experience of disarming a drunk suicidal friend at a party. He had a semi-automatic handgun. Not something I ever want to repeat. And in case you are wondering, my method was verbal and psychological, not physical.)

Unless a person has a private seller available right where they are at the time they snap, they have to jump through hoops to get a gun...

Not necessarily. Gun laws vary from state to state, and a good portion (I believe 40% or so) of gun sales are done via "gun shows" or from gun sellers that pose as "private sellers" but are in reality are just sidestepping gun store laws. Guns are readily available to a good number of people, often without any background check being done.

Otherwise, they've taken the time to plan, meaning that unless it's known that they're crazy, I'm not sure how stricter gun laws aside from a total ban are going to stop them.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: more intelligent gun laws will NOT prevent all such incidents. They can't. The human mind is too devious and capable of evil. What such laws WILL do is prevent SOME of these incidents, and will reduce the number of them by preventing such easy access to guns to so many unstable people.

Define "intelligent gun control laws."

Gladly.

While I believe many people have done so, I will give you what I believe are intelligent gun control laws. Keep in mind, I am in no way an expert, nor a policy maker, nor a legislator. These are simply my opinions, although some of them have been drawn from suggestions I've read or heard from people far more knowledgeable about such things than I.

--Federal laws regarding guns, rather than state laws, so that a nut job denied in one state can't simply take a road trip to a nearby neighboring state to get the guns he seeks.
--Age restrictions, though I believe such things already exist in many places. We have age restrictions on alcohol sales, tobacco sales, drivers licenses, taxi cab licenses, massage therapy license, beautician licenses, military service, food service, etc. It seems only intelligent that something as serious as guns should also be age-restricted.
--Waiting periods. Many gun rights advocates are against these. I would like a sane and rational explanation as to WHY these are bad things. Waiting periods allow for (A) the seller to conduct a background check, and (B) the purchaser to "cool down," so you get less crimes of passion.
--Background criminal checks. Again, I have no idea why there are so many loopholes to this requirement, nor why so many gun rights advocates are against them. Yes, criminals can (and do) get guns illegally. But do we really want to make it EASY for ANY criminal to get ANY gun whenever they want?
--Background mental health checks. Yes, it sounds draconian to some people. But considering that just about every single one of these mass shootings has been done by people with mental health issues, and not career criminals, it makes sense. Is it an invasion of privacy? Perhaps to a degree, but so are many other laws that are part of our lives, including obtaining drivers licenses and drug testing for various jobs, some of them government jobs.
--A restriction on certain types of weapons. It can be argued what the average person can or should "need" for themselves. I am not enough of a gun expert to get very specific, but I find it hard to believe that the average person should be allowed to have military-grade firearms at their disposal. The argument that it's to defend oneself against the government if needed kinda falls flat when you consider the fact that the government has flamethrowers, tanks, bazookas, jet fighters, bombs, missiles, and thermonuclear warheads. I'm sorry, but you are NOT defending yourself against the United States military with an automatic rifle. It's just not happening.
--More intelligent penalties for violating gun laws. Currently the penalties for trafficking guns illegally are pathetically weak, which is why so many gun sellers do go around the laws that exist; even if they get caught and convicted, they are not facing very stiff penalties.

By the way, I will say it here again, at the risk of repeating myself too many times: many of these laws would NOT have prevented the Newtown tragedy. But they may well have prevented other tragedies, or lowered the ridiculously high number of such tragedies.

One more thing: many people against intelligent gun laws and/or regulations scream about their Second Amendment rights. Well, the Second Amendment reads as follows:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Anyone arguing against regulations and using the Second Amendment as their basis is going to have a bit of a problem, as it clearly states the security of the free state is depending on "a well regulated militia." While militias really aren't that prevalent any more (and that's a whole different argument I won't bother with, since I think it's silly), it says right that that such things can and should be "well regulated."

It is not "infringing" on someone's rights to regulate things. As an example, I have the right to free speech under the First Amendment. I cannot, however, use my cell phone on an airplane to talk to people and freely express myself to them. This is an example of a regulation that somewhat curtails but does not deny me that right. And why does it somewhat curtail that right? For safety.

Safety is the very reason we are having this debate, as guns clearly can and do pose a dire threat to people's safety when not "well regulated."

Defined "massive loopholes."

As well as I can, I shall attempt to do so.

As I mentioned above, approximately 40% of gun sales circumvent the requirement of background checks by being at gun shows or being from "private sellers" that really aren't private sellers, i.e., it's not Bob down the street selling you a gun he has that he wants to get rid of, either to get out of the house or to make some needed money on, but Bill who sells guns to lots of people for profit, but hides behind the "private seller" label to avoid the pesky task of conducting background checks.

And then, of course, there are the sellers who will sell online or to someone from another state, conveniently ignoring or circumventing various laws. (A reason I think gun laws should be federal, not state-by-state.)

These loopholes need to be addressed. Are they the only problem? Of course not. Are they part of the problem? I would say so.

(continued...)

[Jester]

(...continued)

Like hell it is. YOU try getting a gun legally in New Jersey. Getting my license and getting mental health care was easy as hell.

Getting a driver's license in most states isn't that tough, and honestly, should probably be tougher. Other countries have tougher driving laws and considerably less traffic fatalities. But the point with comparing guns to DLs is that a gun should be at LEAST as tough to get, not easier.

Getting mental health care was easy for you in NJ. Great. It is not so easy for everyone across the country, and not every state is as good as NJ in this area.

And that brings us to the point that, while getting a gun is not that easy in NJ, NJ is but one state in 50, and not all of those states have as strict laws as NJ. It probably would not be that difficult for a NJ resident to obtain a gun from another state or online.

I can't think of any way a limit on the number of guns would have any effect unless you think every mass shooting involves a Matrix-esque trenchcoat-filled-with-30-gun shootout with techno music in the background.

Perhaps not limiting the number of guns per se (and that's a smaller part of the much larger debate), but many people believe that limiting the capacities of magazines could definitely reduce the deadliness of such attacks.

I think increasing the licensing requirements and training might help, but at least where I live they're already quite restrictive in that sense, and I can't think of any reasonable way to make it more restrictive to prevent what happened in CT.

Increasing the licensing and training would naturally help, as many gun tragedies are caused by people with little or no training, and requiring a license would definitely force gun owners to show that they had the knowledge and skill to not only wield but safely store and own firearms, much as such licensing and training shows the DMV that you can drive a car.

And as I've said, it is definitely a possibility that Newtown could NOT have been prevented, even with the most intelligent laws.

The sad reality (and I've said this ad nauseum) is that no matter what we do, no matter what laws we enact, there are still going to be people who manage to get around those laws and commit heinous acts such as Newtown. We cannot realistically prevent all of them. But having more intelligent laws regarding guns (and better access to mental health care, the other half of this whole equation) WILL reduce the number of such tragedies, and possibly even reduce the deadliness of each attack that does happen.


[QUOTE=wolfie;130029]The problem with limits is that there are legitimate reasons to own multiple guns (for example, collectors).[/qote]

Since we are discussing licensing, why not have different licenses for different categories? The average licensed driver, for example, is NOT licensed to drive an 18 wheeler. We can have different categories of gun licenses, including a license that allows collectors to obtain collectible or historic guns, which by your very examples are NOT the kind that unleash death and destruction at 30 rounds a second. We can also have special licenses for "gun wranglers" (excuse me if I have the term completely butchered) who work on movies and other theatrical presentations.

There is nothing inherent about the idea of licensing and other proposed limitations that precludes such categorization or specialization.

an archer could have a killing spree from a bell tower or roof top, but without a scope they would have to be well skilled, I guess that and the guns are cool factor are why mass archery deaths are low.

Well, just as a knife is not as easily lethal as a gun, an arrow is not as lethal or damaging to the body as a bullet from a high-powered rifle. Yes, an arrow can be lethal. But it takes less skill to make a rifle lethal than it does a bow, and bullets are, generally speaking, more traumatic in the damage they cause to flesh when they enter the body, especially from a high-powered rifle. You see, the average arrow from a long bow travels at a velocity of about 200-300 feet per second, while the average bullet from a rifle travels at over 1,000 feet per second. The speed of the bullet causes shock waves in the body when it enters, damaging flesh behind just the trajectory of the bullet through the flesh. The slower arrow does not cause such shock waves, so one needs to be far more skilled, generally speaking, to cause serious damage with a bow than with a rifle.

Most people who have guns aren't known to the general public to be gun owners. There's not a database, and there shouldn't be.

Why not?

Keep in mind, I am not coming at this as a proponent of such a database. I think I can see the pros and cons of both sides of this argument. But I am wondering why YOU think there should not be such a database.

The problem with the cry for "more regulations" is that the vast majority of the regulations that might be put into place are either so repressive as to be unconstitutional (we have a Constitutional right to have guns, there is no right to drive a car, which is why licenses are a thing, and despite cars being big and obvious, we still have problems with people driving while unlicensed) or they require invasions of privacy (also prohibited) to function, or they are redundant or so resource-intensive that they would cause more problems than they would solve.

A constitutional right is not an absolute right, as I have mentioned before.

Also, you say such things would cause more problems than they would solve. Specifically, what problems would they cause that are somehow worse than the problem we are attempting to solve, i.e., the ease with which people can go on lethal shooting sprees in schools, churches, theaters, malls, etc.?

Once you honestly weigh the feasibility against the potential for gain, most new regulations aren't worth the paper it would take to write then out on.

I have seen arguments along this line many times in debates such at this. "It won't change anything, so we shouldn't bother." So, we should just throw up our hands and surrender to the idea that we can't change anything? I'm sorry, but not only is that lazy, that is a dereliction of our duty to society to provide both liberty AND security.

And it's an argument that's been used in historical debates before, and it's generally been wrong. It's been used to fight against the abolition of slavery and against civil rights, for example. To be fair, it was also used against alcohol prohibition, and in that case, it was correct. But to use it here, against intelligent regulation of deadly firearms, is simply irresponsible. And anyone that would compare an American's right to bear arms to their thirst for alcoholic beverages probably has a problem with one or the other.

And there are other solutions in other areas that would yield massively higher returns on the investment spent to make them happen. You know, such as making it so that people could seek out mental health solutions that don't require threatening (or attempting, in some cases) suicide before being taken seriously.

Agreed. There are two sides to this equation: better access to mental health care, and intelligent gun laws. To address only one, EITHER one, is to ignore the larger problem. BOTH need to be looked at and addressed if we hope to effect any meaningful change in this epidemic.

[Mytical]

First..in my kitchen and bathroom there are things that could do more damage then a gun..in a lot shorter of a time. The only up side is, that in preparing it..the crazy person might very well off themselves, saving everybody the trouble. That would be a good thing. I do think certain things should be more controlled. I agree with the clip size proposal. While a gun can be used for hunting, tell me a hunting scenario that needs a 100 round clip? Or even a 30 round clip?

Honestly I would be ok with them mandating all weapons can only fire one or two shots before needing to be reloaded. Hunters could still hunt, and at least the crazies would need to reload more often giving people a chance to get away or to tackle them (or such).

Meh I am rambling so I best stop there lol.