Mass Shooting at Connecticut Elementary School

[Vlad n U 2]

The guy can't even define communism properly, but it is very common of those types.

[The_Pac_Mule]

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” — George Washington

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” — George Washington

As mentioned earlier, how would the average American defend themselves against bombs and drones? Who's to say the entire military will side with Americans against the government? Should Americans start learning how to launch bombs and keep a stock of current military weapons in their homes?

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” — George Washington

Is there no way to make an argument that maybe things have changed in our world since George Washington was making these kinds of statements?

[anitram]

Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule

but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” — George Washington

Nuclear warheads in every driveway then!

[FlyontheHorizon]

Just dropping this off here...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/us...n-on-guns.html

It's interesting to read everyone's perspectives on this thread. Not sure if this particular article would generate much debate, though.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” — George Washington

Muskets against muskets, yeah that made sense.

Assault rifle against machine gun, tank, or drone? Not really...

Lets try to make sense.

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think we should amend the Second Amendment to include the right to Bushmasters and Uzis too. Yeah Any kind of guns like that, cause that's what the founding fathers had in mind. They were clairvoyant. Maybe rocket launchers too.



Neil Heslin, the father of a 6-year-old boy who was slain in the Sandy Hook massacre in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14, stoically faced down pro-gun activists last night.

More than 1,000 people attended a hearing before the Gun Violence Prevention Working Group at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford on Monday to share their views on gun control, USA Today reported. Among them was Heslin, who held a large framed picture of himself and his son Jesse as he urged officials to consider strengthening gun laws in Connecticut.

But as he gave his emotional testimony, pleading with lawmakers to improve mental health options and to ban assault weapons like the one Adam Lanza used to murder his child and 25 other people, his speech was interrupted by dozens of audience members, The Connecticut Post reported.

“I still can't see why any civilian, anybody in this room in fact, needs weapons of that sort. You're not going to use them for hunting, even for home protection," Heslin said.

Pro-gun activists responded by calling out: "Second Amendment!"

Undeterred, Heslin continued. "There are a lot of things that should be changed to prevent what happened."

Heslin's son, Jesse McCord Lewis, was described by friends as a happy child, The Post reported. A "little cowboy," Jesse reportedly liked to play with the fake horses at a local Western-themed restaurant. After he was shot and killed by Lanza, a line of police officers on horseback joined the motorcade at the boy's funeral.

"He was a boy that loved life. Lived it to the fullest…He was my son, he was my buddy, he was my best friend." Heslin said.

[The_Pac_Mule]

Is there no way to make an argument that maybe things have changed in our world since George Washington was making these kinds of statements?

I don't think they have. Tyrants are gonna be tyrants, one way or another. Sure it's a lot less likely there will be another Hitler or Stalin in this country, but it's still very possible if you ask me.

As mentioned earlier, how would the average American defend themselves against bombs and drones? Who's to say the entire military will side with Americans against the government? Should Americans start learning how to launch bombs and keep a stock of current military weapons in their homes?

Nuclear warheads in every driveway then!

Muskets against muskets, yeah that made sense.

Assault rifle against machine gun, tank, or drone? Not really...

Lets try to make sense.

So you guys are saying, "fuck it, there's nothing we'd be able to do," if a modern day Hitler wormed his way into power in the United States?

No offense, but none of you guys really understand how modern warfare or combat works. Drones can't wipe entire armies out. Tanks are only as good as those supporting them. Machine guns aren't much more effective than assault rifles.

My point is that technology does not equate to military dominance. Almost half the population in this country are gun owners. Not all the drones in the world would be able to stop a mass revolt to dispose of a potential tyrannical government. At the same time though, any sort of people being armed with less than a semi-automatic rifles would have a serious uphill battle.

In my opinion we have a healthy balance on what civilians are allowed to own now. I'm also all for increased background checks and closing all sorts of loopholes. But banning "assault weapons" (which are responsible for less than 5% of violent crime) is not in this country's best interest. Nor will it stop mass shootings. Guess what? The VA tech shooter used a bunch of handguns with 10 round magazines. So if you want to ban high capacity magazine as well that's going to have little affect.

All this gun-control stuff is feel-good politics. It makes people feel better about shit that happens even though it realistically does nothing to prevent the occasional tragedy.

[The_Pac_Mule]

Assault Weapons Ban is Not Needed: U.S. Murder Rate is Near An All-Time Low

While the gun control debate rages on, we hear claims that U.S. gun violence is out of control. Pundits and politicians will make claims about our violent culture by pointing our attention to violent movies, violent video games, and maybe even the lack of religion. But the fact of the matter is this: despite the narrative being offered by media pundits and politicians, the numbers show that the U.S. is actually becoming less violent.

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), in 1991 the U.S. murder rate was 9.8 per 100,000 people. In 2011, that number dropped to 4.7, which is almost a 54% drop in our murder rate. During that same period the U.S. violent crime rate dropped from 758.2 per 100,000 to 386.3 (a reduction of almost 50%).

Also according to the UCR, firearm murders have declined every year since 2006 from 10,177 murders to 8,583 in 2011 despite the population increasing in the United States. Nonfatal firearm crimes are dramatically decreasing as well. The Bureau of Justice Statistic shows that the crime rate for nonfatal violent crimes involving firearms dropped from 5.9 per 100,000 in 1993 to 1.4 in 2009 (over a 66% decrease). All of this is occurring despite the fact that there are more guns in America than ever before.



One might ask, if the U.S. is actually a less violent society now than it was two decades ago, and guns are much less of a problem now than they were before, why doesn't it feel that way? At this point, we could focus our attention towards two culprits, the media and our politicians. With the advent of the 24-hour news cycle and the priority of news outlets to bring forth breaking news, our news media is constantly on the search for the next big story.

Take for example the Empire State Building shooting that occurred in late August of 2012. Some media outlets like Reuters were quick to label it as a mass shooting, and even Fox News went so far as to label it as terrorism. There is no question that media outlets are all competing for our attention because that is how they make money. Also, there is no doubt that horrific events such as shootings and violence grab our attention. Maybe that's also why we have video games and movies that are more violent and realistic than they ever were before.

Invariably though, the media pushes the narrative to gun control and we look towards our politicians for answers. However, is it wise to let our sensationalist media and news outlets determine where our attention should go when discussing public policy?

The same could be said of politicians. Politicians much like our media outlets thrive on our attention. Dianne Feinstein is the exemplar of this as it only took her two days after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School to get in front of a camera to push her new legislation, which I must reiterate is not only ridiculous, but would be ineffective at addressing mass shootings.

Whenever a tragic event occurs, our media and politicians will always push the idea that we have to do something. The Obama administration is looking to pass gun control legislation as quickly as possible, while the emotions following the Sandy Hook incident remain high, regardless of whether it would prevent the next mass shooting incident from happening. Much like how we witnessed the passage of the PATRIOT Act in the aftermath of September 11th, our politicians are doing exactly the same thing today. Are we once again willing to trade our civil liberties for a false sense of security (and yes, gun ownership is a civil liberty)?

Tragedies occur every day, and they will continue to occur. Admittedly, some of these will involve guns. But despite what the media, politicians, and gun control advocates would have us believe, going by the statistics, violent crime and gun violence is not out of control. We know politicians and gun control advocates can't pass gun control legislation if they actually recognized that our society is actually becoming dramatically less violent. So we must ask ourselves, after these tragic instances, why is there not the same fervor to help the mentally ill, and why are we so focused on passing more gun control laws?

Assault Weapons Ban is Not Needed: U.S. Murder Rate is Near An All-Time Low

[YBORCITY]

Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” — George Washington

Beyond laughable, beyond even posting a rebuttal.

[MrsSpringsteen]

That was about citizen militias. We don't have a need for those in 2013, unless of course people think we need them to protect ourselves from the Obama administration.

And I think everyone realizes at this point that we need better mental health care in this country. That alone won't work either, because of denial and a myriad of other reasons. Of course rather ironic that we have such an opposition to health care reform in general.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

But as he gave his emotional testimony, pleading with lawmakers to improve mental health options and to ban assault weapons like the one Adam Lanza used to murder his child and 25 other people, his speech was interrupted by dozens of audience members, The Connecticut Post reported.

“I still can't see why any civilian, anybody in this room in fact, needs weapons of that sort. You're not going to use them for hunting, even for home protection," Heslin said.

Pro-gun activists responded by calling out: "Second Amendment!"

I feel such anger toward those people. How could they look into the eye of that man who lost his young son, and literally say, "my right to own an assault rifle is more important than the fact your son was heartlessly killed."

And that's all that should be banned - assault rifles because there is no need for them for personal use. So many of these pro-gun people have this twisted belief that all guns will be banned, and they have it wrong.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule

So you guys are saying, "fuck it, there's nothing we'd be able to do," if a modern day Hitler wormed his way into power in the United States?

Of course we'd be able to do something, use the checks and balances that are put in place. If someone had infiltrated our government to the point where those didn't work then it would take something beyond a few people with assault rifles. Just think this through a little bit.

Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule

No offense, but none of you guys really understand how modern warfare or combat works. Drones can't wipe entire armies out. Tanks are only as good as those supporting them. Machine guns aren't much more effective than assault rifles.

You're kidding right? No offense but you're thinking in very limited 1700s thinking.

Drones can't wipe out armies? No but they can wipe infrastructure.
Tanks are only as as those supporting them? If I recall my history Hitler had the support of the army, right?
Machine guns aren't much more effective than assault rifles? Last time I checked the U.S. Military still used machine guns, right? Why do you think that is?

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by Pearl

I feel such anger toward those people. How could they look into the eye of that man who lost his young son, and literally say, "my right to own an assault rifle is more important than the fact your son was heartlessly killed."

And that's all that should be banned - assault rifles because there is no need for them for personal use. So many of these pro-gun people have this twisted belief that all guns will be banned, and they have it wrong.

My thoughts exactly.

No, Pac_Mule, you're right, I don't understand how modern warfare or combat works.

But the issue here has nothing to do with war situations. We're talking about whether or not someone has the right to carry an assault rifle through their park, or on public transit, or into a bar, or whatever. And sorry, but if anyone honestly thinks an average citizen NEEDS to have a high-powered rifle with armor-piercing bullets and multiple rounds or whatever in everyday places, the kind that took down people in the theater in Colorado or at the school in Connecticut, then they're kind of an idiot whom I'm inclined to believe has some weird inferiority/masculinity/tough person complex. There is no logical reason of any sort why anyone outside of law enforcement or the military should need or even want such weapons. I've yet to hear anyone justify those types of weapons existing among and being available to the public at large.

[Caleb8844]

Assault Weapon: "Any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine and at least two of the following five items: a folding or telescopic stock; a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor or threaded barrel (a barrel that can accommodate a flash suppressor); or a grenade launcher."

Other than a grenade launcher, which of those qualities qualifies an "assault weapon" as a weapon of war? Or is banning semi-automatic rifles in general the end goal people here desire?

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

Or is banning semi-automatic rifles in general the end goal people here desire?

I'm pretty sure that's been the consensus here.

[Dreadsox]

The only gun in a school belongs in the hands of a school police officer! Anything else is asking for trouble!!!!!

[Jive Turkey]

I don't believe that a gun ban will deter anyone from a mass killing if that's what they're determined to do; You can build a few pipe bombs and cause a lot of damage. You can blow up a building with fertilizer. But we also shouldn't make it easy for them. Owning a semi automatic rifle "because I want to" and "because I have the right to" is the laziest argument I've ever heard. It completely skirts around the issue. And the argument that they're needed in case the government turns on its people is fucking laughable. The pro gun people are right in that there's a lot of grey area when it comes to gun violence and gun ownership, but I've yet to hear one coherent argument as to why they should own semi automatic weapons

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

Assault Weapon: "Any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine and at least two of the following five items: a folding or telescopic stock; a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor or threaded barrel (a barrel that can accommodate a flash suppressor); or a grenade launcher."

Other than a grenade launcher, which of those qualities qualifies an "assault weapon" as a weapon of war?

Which ones don't? I grew up around guns and know each and everyone of these modifications.

I've gone through this definition point by point several times, every time I do the NRA types flee from the discussion so I'm not going to waste words this time. Why don't you tell me why you would need any of these qualities for hunting or self defense?