CT school shooting - Horrible

[Jester]

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.

The other upside is that it takes forethought and skill to make such devices, rather than the ease with which one can just go get a gun.

Honestly I would be ok with them mandating all weapons can only fire one or two shots before needing to be reloaded.

The standard magazine in a semi-automatic pistol is 8-10 rounds, and I really don't have a problem with that. I feel that is a good balance between the two extremes.

[wolfie]

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'.

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).

Censorware in general is infamous for being stupidly "twitchy". Cases of blocking searches on "breast cancer" due to the first word are too common to count, people have been blocked from looking up "Essex" or "Scunthorpe" (first is a region in Britain, second is a street in Toronto, probably named after somewhere in Britain). The Risks digest mentioned (some years back) a case where it broke code stored in RCS by censoring something along the lines of:

#define MENU_ROWS /* Number of rows in the menu */
#define MENU_COLS /* Number of columns in the menu */

Boldface shows what it didn't like. In the drivers' lounge at work, I can't look up the operating hours for the parts and service department at my local dealership because trying to access peterbilt.com generates a "naughty-naughty" message, since the computers are only supposed to be used for work-related purposes, and "vehicles" is a category not considered to be work-related - but one time when I used the computer, I had to close at least a dozen windows of extreme fetish porn that the censorware didn't object to.

--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.

Don't forget (C) in a domestic violence case, when one ex-spouse calls up the other and threatens to kill them, it delays the threatened person from getting a gun for self-defense without affecting the person who made the threat, who either already owned a gun, or went through the waiting period before making their threat, and therefore has a gun at the time they make their threat.

(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.

Please re-read my post that you quoted - the second section of that post dealt with the multiple-gun issue, while the first brought up the same issue you're mentioning here. Also, you might want to fix the spelling of "quote" at the end of the quotation (I substituted round brackets to keep VBulletin from even trying to interpret the tags).

[Greenday]

--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.

So basically if the government becomes tyrannical, we should just suck it up and deal with it? We should make no effort to resist?

[protege]

Don't forget (C) in a domestic violence case, when one ex-spouse calls up the other and threatens to kill them, it delays the threatened person from getting a gun for self-defense without affecting the person who made the threat, who either already owned a gun, or went through the waiting period before making their threat, and therefore has a gun at the time they make their threat.

Yep, that too. These new laws currently being pushed for...will only delay legit (that is *responsible*) people from being able to defend themselves. As-is what is the current waiting period, 14 days? The victim might not be *alive* in 14 days! The victim would either be dead, or have to resort to more "interesting" ways of defense. They're either totally fucked, or they have to get creative.

Also, what if someone is trying to break into your place? Most of the time--at least locally--such assholes aren't armed. They're not looking for a kill. Instead, they're looking for things like TVs, tools, electronics, cash, and anything else they can easily carry and resell. A quick "get in, and get out" crime, in other words. They want to steal what they can, and GTFO.

I've posted about the time someone tried to force their way into my grandmother's place. There weren't any firearms in the house, so I grabbed a pitchfork and went after the asshole. I wasn't about to become a victim of a possibly nasty home invasion (cops being too far away and all that). Nor was I willing to take the chance that the asshole wouldn't return if Grandma was there alone. Even though a pitchfork isn't nearly as deadly as Grandpa's shotgun, it could have still been used to kill someone. So could the long metal rod I used as a fire poker. So could the heavy Crescent wrench I had in the garage. So could one of the wooden fence rails...or even the Buick parked nearby. None of those items are hard to get or require a waiting period. They're all readily available, and totally legal.

[crashhelmet]

I've been wanting to comment on this thread and have typed in three different responses only to delete them. What I will say is the rifle being in "assault mode" is a term of ignorance. Assault Mode is meaningless in regard to the rifle the nut-job used. He used a run of the mill semi-automatic rifle. One shot for each pull of the trigger, he did not have an actual assault rifle as defined by the BATFE. I have similar rifles and none are full-automatic or "machine guns." Operationally they are very very similar to the old Remington 740 rifle. Cosmetically they're world's apart but that's all. Another difference the Rem 740 fires a much more lethal round than the AR-15.

I'll just leave this video right here

The AR-15, commonly referred to as the "Civilian M16" (Even though the M16 is really the militarized AR-15) is very popular because of the seemingly endless customization options. They can be special ordered in any number of configurations or you can purchase mod kits a la carte.

Armalite made the original, but sold the designs to Colt. They are now making them again, but like the Bushmaster XM-15 (DC Snipers) and the S&W M&P15 (Aurora Massacre), they're considered clones. They are just as customizable and indistinguishable if you don't see the MFR stamp. They can also be modified to fire any number of calibres as well.

AFAIK, it's not illegal to own a modified AR-15 with burst fire capabilities. It's only illegal to do the actual modification yourself unless you're a Tier 2 or higher licensed manufacturer. So Joe Shooter can't buy the kit and modify it himself. He can buy it an have someone licensed to do it, but he cannot. One of the many loopholes in the gun laws.

[crashhelmet]

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.

Penny Arcade had a great take on this

[crashhelmet]

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.

Are you seriously trying to say that an M16 doesn't have a switch that changes it from a single shot to burst mode or fully automatic?

The M16A2 & M16A4 has a fire selector for "Safe," "Semi," or "Burst"

The M16A3 has a Fire Selector for "Safe," "Semi," or "Full"

Or are you just refusing to accept the "common vernacular" of the function?

[Greenday]

Or are you just refusing to accept the "common vernacular" of the function?

I'm pretty sure Tanasi is just pointing out that the media is making up random terms to keep the fear mongering going.

[crashhelmet]

Well then...

U.S. Army Document FSTC-CW-07-03-70 defines an "Assault Weapon" as:

"Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."

and

"Assault rifles have mild recoil characteristics and, because of this, are capable of delivering effective full-automatic fire at ranges up to 300 meters."

That doesn't even get into the cosmetic definitions set forth in the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994

All variations of the M16 meet these functional definitions and are classified by the U.S. Army as an Assault Weapon. All it takes to make an AR-15, or any of its other civilian clones, meet these definitions is a selector switch for burst or fully automatic fire.

[Greenday]

We are talking about this "Assault Mode" that the media is talking about. Before this incident, I have never in my life heard the phrase "Assault Mode" used. It is a made up term to make people scared about guns.

Now, there ARE assault rifles, but assault mode is absurd. Is there a defense mode? Perhaps an ambush mode or nuclear annihilation mode?

[crashhelmet]

Could it be possible that what they're referring to as "Assault Mode" is having the fire select switch set to burst mode?

Or are you trying to find anyway to dispute and invalidate their reports?

EDIT TO ADD

It was reported that most of the victims were shot more than once. Could it be possible that the reason they were shot more than once was because of the the 3 shot burst from it's "assault mode"?

While "Assault Mode" might not be a legitimate term, these aren't industry or LEO/Military professionals making the statement

[Andara Bledin]

Just an FYI, but the term used in the post that lead to this tangent was "assault type" not "assault mode" and despite what the post says, I can't find any articles that reference the rifle having been in "assault type configuration" anywhere on the net in the last year. So, either the post was a paraphrase or based on some broadcast medium that doesn't keep a text copy online, and either way, that makes it impossible to determine, sans Gravekeeper telling us who he heard it from, who used the term and if that was the actual term they used.

^-.-^

[Jester]

Don't forget (C) in a domestic violence case, when one ex-spouse calls up the other and threatens to kill them, it delays the threatened person from getting a gun for self-defense without affecting the person who made the threat, who either already owned a gun, or went through the waiting period before making their threat, and therefore has a gun at the time they make their threat.

As anyone who is familiar with me and my postings knows, I am all too familiar with domestic violence and the effect it can have on people, as I've lost a friend to it.

Domestic violence is a vicious cycle, and it generally escalates as the relationship goes on. That being said, if the victim of said domestic violence or someone in an abusive relationship wants to get a gun, it is likely that they will have plenty of time to arm themselves, as the escalation tends to be gradual.

"But what if that person needs a gun RIGHT NOW?" Well, ignoring the potential problems with that for a moment (I address them below), such a person should be able to borrow a firearm from a friend or relative if it is that dire. Just as nut jobs and criminals can get around the law, so can people in need, if it's that desperate.

But back to the problems with that. First of all, if the abuser is armed, chances are good that he is well-trained in firearm use, as many armed abusers are. Chances are also good that the victim or threatened person is not. So arming someone without training who feels threatened by someone with training does not exactly sound like a recipe for a happy ending. I am a strong advocate for people who are victims of domestic violence or who are in abusive relationships to learn self-defense techniques, including (but not limited to) firearm training. But to suggest that Jane, who has never been trained in firearm useage or safety, should go right out and buy a gun to defend herself from her boyfriend, Violent Vic, because he has an arsenal of guns, is simply folly. The best defense with fireams is knowing how to use them. Just having a gun without the appropriate training is dangerous to the person with the gun.

Honestly, the best defense in domstic violence/abuse cases is for the victim/threatened party to get as far the fuck away from the abuser/threatener as they can.

All of the above being said (and I stand by all of it), this is so far the only vaguely convincing argument I've heard against waiting periods. It's not THAT convincing, but it's better than anything else I've heard.

So basically if the government becomes tyrannical, we should just suck it up and deal with it? We should make no effort to resist?

No, of course not. As a big fan of Thomas Jefferson and a huge fan of freedoms in general, something I see the government systematically and methodically stripping us of over the last few decades, I am all for resisting and revolting. I am a fan of overthrowing tyranny and revolution in general.

But I reiterate my original question: what good will your gun arsenal be, no matter how impressive, against tanks, flame throwers, grenade launchers, fighter jets, nuclear submarines, bombers, and missiles, not to mention nuclear warheads and biological and chemical warfare?

And I pose another question to you: how many tyrants, to date, have armed American civilians overthrown? And how many innocent lives have been snuffed out by some whack job shooting up a public place? The scoreboard of that right now is 0 to way too fucking many.

Yep, that too. These new laws currently being pushed for...will only delay legit (that is *responsible*) people from being able to defend themselves. As-is what is the current waiting period, 14 days? The victim might not be *alive* in 14 days! The victim would either be dead, or have to resort to more "interesting" ways of defense. They're either totally fucked, or they have to get creative.

Back to domestic violence, and a point I meant to make above: can you cite any case where a threatened party or domestic violence victim who was trying to get a gun and had to go through the required waiting period was killed because they had to wait, and had not yet gotten their gun? I am not saying such situations don't exist, I am just saying I am not familiar with them, and have not heard of them.

See also my commentary on firearm training above.

Also, what if someone is trying to break into your place? Most of the time--at least locally--such assholes aren't armed. They're not looking for a kill. Instead, they're looking for things like TVs, tools, electronics, cash, and anything else they can easily carry and resell. A quick "get in, and get out" crime, in other words. They want to steal what they can, and GTFO.

And so you need a gun right now...why, exactly?

You are familiar with my general mindset. How well do you think someone would fare trying to break into my place, even though I do not possess a firearm? Hell, I'm not even sure where my baseball bats are at the moment, and honestly, those are my preferred weapons of choice.

But forget me for a moment; your example shows that you don't need a firearm to deal with intruders.

And, if you feel like you live in an unsafe area, or you do need a firearm to defend your home, well, don't you think you should be proactive and start the process of getting a gun? You would be an intelligent, responsible citizen, looking to arm themselves intelligently and responsibly, and for good reason. Thus the laws would still work in your favor, allowing you to purchase a firearm, while also preventing many nut jobs from getting them RIGHT NOW.

Even though a pitchfork isn't nearly as deadly as Grandpa's shotgun, it could have still been used to kill someone. So could the long metal rod I used as a fire poker. So could the heavy Crescent wrench I had in the garage. So could one of the wooden fence rails...or even the Buick parked nearby. None of those items are hard to get or require a waiting period. They're all readily available, and totally legal.

And not one of them has been used in mass killings in recent times. Nor has any of them been involved in an epidemic of such killings. Nor, for that matter, is any one of them as efficient or effective for killing many people quickly from a distance as a gun is.

But as you point out, we have many weapons at our disposal to deal with intruders. Ignoring for a moment my roommates, I have at my own disposal the following items that are either weapons or could be used as weapons, to either subdue, injure, disable, disarm, or threaten a would-be burglar or intruder:

A sword (a piece of crap, really, but it LOOKS vicious).
A dagger (actually very sharp and deadlier than it looks, unlike the sword).
A butterfly knife (which I DO know how to use, thank you very much).
A pocket knife (very sharp).
Kitchen knives beyond belief (I like to cook).
Frying pans (would YOU want to be hit by one?).
Lamps.
Liquor bottles. (Which would be tragic, but safety first, right?)
Hammers.
Wrenches.
Screwdrivers.

ME. No, I am not trained in martial arts. I am, however, one scary motherfucker when I want to be, and I have no problem going batshit crazy on someone trying to break into my house or take my stuff. And I don't believe in "rules" of fighting when it comes to such situations: I will punch someone square in the nuts if I need to, or choke them, or smash their kneecaps, or whatever.

If I felt like I needed a gun, I would go out, get trained in appropriate firearm use, use the local gun range for practice, and purchase a gun. And if that meant going through a waiting period, then I would go through a waiting period.

Because as a responsible citizen, I have no problem going through the appropriate process to acquire a gun, especially if that process will help prevent or reduce tragedies such as Newtown, Aurora, and Columbine.

[Jester]

One more brief comment regarding the domestic violence aspect: domestic violence victims are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if said abuser owns a firearm.

But of course, let's make it easy for the abusers to get those guns.

[Tanasi]

I'll just leave this video right here

The AR-15, commonly referred to as the "Civilian M16" (Even though the M16 is really the militarized AR-15) is very popular because of the seemingly endless customization options. They can be special ordered in any number of configurations or you can purchase mod kits a la carte.

Armalite made the original, but sold the designs to Colt. They are now making them again, but like the Bushmaster XM-15 (DC Snipers) and the S&W M&P15 (Aurora Massacre), they're considered clones. They are just as customizable and indistinguishable if you don't see the MFR stamp. They can also be modified to fire any number of calibres as well.

AFAIK, it's not illegal to own a modified AR-15 with burst fire capabilities. It's only illegal to do the actual modification yourself unless you're a Tier 2 or higher licensed manufacturer. So Joe Shooter can't buy the kit and modify it himself. He can buy it an have someone licensed to do it, but he cannot. One of the many loopholes in the gun laws.

I can tell you for a fact that if you are in possession of either a full-auto or a burst-fire as you call it without the approving paperwork and tax stamp from the BATFE you are BREAKING the law. Punishment could be a fine of $250,000 and 10 years Federal PMITA prison. It doesn't matter who did the modification. Heck BATFE could do the mods and give it to and you would be in violation. IOW it's very very illegal to own such a modified AR-15. Now here's a twist if you do not own an AR or varient you can actually own the necessary parts for full-auto, but if you do own an AR then BATFE considers it a full-auto rifle regardless if it's been modified or not. Also it's not near so simple as putting the parts in to convert a rifle. All lower AR receivers made since 1994 have to manufactured in such a manner that the lower receiver can not accept the parts. Colt receivers are left solid in that area and other have been partially machined out but it would still require lots of knowledge, blue-prints and a three-axis milling machine to finish.

Yep AR can easily be changed from one caliber to another providing the magazine for the next caliber will fit in the mag-well. Then again so what??? Does that make it deadlier or safer??? I can change the top half of my rifle from a standard AR-15A1 to an AR-15/M4 by pushing out two pins and swapping. I can also change it from .223 Rem/5.56 to .22 LR by changing the bolt, bolt carrier and magazine.

The AR-15 was invented/developed by Eugene Stoner. He was working for Armalite which was owned by Fairchild an Air Force aircraft vendor. The AF was looking into replacing the M1-Carbine with another carbine when the AR-15 or varient was presented to Gen Curtis LeMay at a party. He liked it and pushed it to the top of the heap for the AF. When it was selected it was only to be an AF rifle but with McNamara and his Whiz-kids it was pushed to replace the M-14 and M1 rifles. McNamara wanted to close the Springfield Armory in favor of vendors developing small arms instead of the Army/Navy. Colt won the contract to build the rifle but Colt never owned the patent for it.

I don't claim to be the most knowledgeable person here about AR-15/M-16s but I do own a few and I know what I'm talking about.