Arapahoe HS Shooting

[Mumbles140]

When the Boston Marathon massacre happened earlier this year, everyone blamed the bombers; not the bombs. No one proposed a ban on pressure cookers.

So why is it that whenever there is a shooting everyone wants to blame the gun instead of the shooter, and start asking for a gun ban?

Frequency - that is the only real reason. If we lived in a society where car bombs, IEDs, and suicide bombings were more common, I’m sure we’d see a crack down on these.

Incredibly valid point

 

[Mumbles140]

-“no one needs to own guns designed for war zones” pretty much eliminates every handgun, shotgun, and most rifles from the picture. I can walk into a gun store and buy the very same sidearm (pistol) I was issued by the US Army (though I’d be smarter to buy a civilian model as the pistols we use the in military aren’t that great when compared to what civilians can go out and buy).

OCG, I’ve been nodding a lot as I’ve read your posts on this topic, but this one is a bit troublesome to me, and it could easily be over-interpreting it, but I want to address it. The argument about ‘eliminating pretty much every gun’ does little to address (what I believe) to be a valid concern. I don’t hunt, and I don’t own a gun for home protection, so I may be ignorant of an actual reason why someone needs a semi-automatic AR-15. But I think I’m pretty smart, and I can’t find a hunting or home defense reason this is necessary.

So, the problem I had with your post is that it glazes over something that I feel the majority of gun owners and pro-gun people I have spoken with about this agree on: there are guns for hunting, there are guns for home defense, and then there are other guns that should not be in the hands of civilians. I think this point is critical in determining real solutions for gun control (going forward - obviously, halting production of certain guns does nothing to control those that are already owned, whether legally or illegally).

By grouping ‘pretty much every gun’ into one category, it takes away the ability to say “yes to hunting weapons, yes to home defense weapons, no to assault weapons”. I get the point that some police/military issue weapons may be similar to weapons available for hunting and home defense, but I don’t think those were the weapons that Cricket was targeting. I think we can all come together and reasonably say certain weapons currently available are so excessive for hunting and home defense that it would be like fishing with dynamite, and therefore not necessary for that usage, and so it should not be available.

Sorry if I read too much into this, but I do hate when this point is glossed over, as I believe it is at the crux of both sides coming together for a real solution.

 

[Crossbones]

-Would you like me to go back and quote your past comments which mention nothing about how gun owners need to have an additional burden placed upon them for the benefit of society, but because you feel that as a non-gun owner you shouldn’t have your “right” to property limited in order to make schools safer? Up to this point, your entire argument has been about how it’s unfair you should have to pay for your kids’ schools to be safer because of rare (yes, gun violence at schools is actually rare) attacks on schools.

-If you wish to now argue its a benefit to society thing, you’ll need to first prove a) the government has determined that children are a benefit, b) the government has determined gun ownership isn’t, and c) our rights as codified in the Constitution are dependent on them being a benefit to society and not because they are inherent rights the government can’t take away (good luck proving this).

-Government limitations on rights are specifically for those who have done something illegal or violated said rights. The government can’t limit the rights or place an unreasonable burden on someone who hasn’t done anything wrong. Felons can’t have firearms and can’t vote, ordinary Joe Citizen who has done nothing wrong can’t have his rights to own a firearm or vote removed. Last I checked, owning a firearm isn’t a crime.

-The government can regulate rights- hence background checks, requirement for a permit, conditions on how the weapon is carried in public, no automatic weapons without a lot of checks, registration, and control.

-But, the government can’t place an unreasonable burden on someone through regulation or penalize someone for exercising their right. Your idea of making gun owners pay for security upgrades to schools is a)unreasonable given the already existing need for security at schools (or are you going to argue everything was Mayberry security wise before these recent gun attacks?) and b) its a penalty in line with people having to pay in order to exercise their right to vote.

I think you have brought up good points that have helped me evolve my thinking and I appreciate that. I still think that the burden of cost on ‘resource officers’ should be on the gun owners because larger society gets no tangible benefit from other’s right to gunownership. I am not talking about taking away someone’s right to gun ownership; I am talking about placing the full costs of that ownership on the owners.

There are many examples of government curtails right codified in the Constitution and placing tax burdens for specific needs. You point out a few here, which I would assume that you would argue does not place an unreasonable burden on the gunowner. So we agree that government has a role in curtailing rights. Now, the difference comes in here: I suggest that gunowners paying for resource officers would be an reasonable burden and you suggest it would be unreasonable. That’s fundamentally the entire difference in our views and I don’t see how we will resolve this. I will ‘agree to disagree’ with you on this issue as I do believe that you are trying to see this in good faith as I am as well.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

I may be ignorant of an actual reason why someone needs a semi-automatic AR-15.

“Why” someone “Needs” an AR-15 is irrelevant.

First, other than food, clothing and shelter, there are very few things in this world people actually “need.”

Second, the Constitution grants you the right to own an AR-15; a person exercising that right does not have to justify that to anyone.

This is no different than a person having a super-powerful Ferrari or Porsche when a Toyota or Honda can get them from point A to point B just as easily. The answer is, because a person is allowed to have one. Why, is a moot point.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I think you have brought up good points that have helped me evolve my thinking and I appreciate that. I still think that the burden of cost on ‘resource officers’ should be on the gun owners because larger society gets no tangible benefit from other’s right to gunownership. I am not talking about taking away someone’s right to gun ownership; I am talking about placing the full costs of that ownership on the owners.

There are many examples of government curtails right codified in the Constitution and placing tax burdens for specific needs. You point out a few here, which I would assume that you would argue does not place an unreasonable burden on the gunowner. So we agree that government has a role in curtailing rights. Now, the difference comes in here: I suggest that gunowners paying for resource officers would be an reasonable burden and you suggest it would be unreasonable. That’s fundamentally the entire difference in our views and I don’t see how we will resolve this. I will ‘agree to disagree’ with you on this issue as I do believe that you are trying to see this in good faith as I am as well.

You mean like how we make parents who use prescription drugs pay the full cost of resource officers and law enforcement investigations into the rampant drug problems we have at schools (you do realize prescription drugs are one of, if not the, top drug of choice to abuse/sell among school aged children right)? Or how we make all parents pay for the need to have resource officers at schools for the non-gun related violence and non-drug related crimes at schools? Or how we make parents of boys pay the full cost of safety programs at schools in regards to sexual assaults (boys are by far the majority in regards to those who sexually assault others)? Or how we make teachers and adult school employees pay the full cost of protecting students from sexual abuse/assault by teachers and adult school employees? Or how we make parents of students in school sports programs pay for the additional security at school sporting events, additional utility and facility costs for said events, additional insurance for said events and programs?

As for examples I’ve given of additional tax burdens placed on citizens for exercising their Constitutionally protected rights, please refresh my memory. What I remember is me presenting a list of things the government can’t do (poll taxes, special taxes on women and minorities for equal protection/treatment, special taxes for African Americans for their freedom, etc) that you pretty much ignored. The only response I remember you giving to these was that a State issued ID card is somehow the same as a poll tax.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

OCG, I’ve been nodding a lot as I’ve read your posts on this topic, but this one is a bit troublesome to me, and it could easily be over-interpreting it, but I want to address it. The argument about ‘eliminating pretty much every gun’ does little to address (what I believe) to be a valid concern. I don’t hunt, and I don’t own a gun for home protection, so I may be ignorant of an actual reason why someone needs a semi-automatic AR-15. But I think I’m pretty smart, and I can’t find a hunting or home defense reason this is necessary.

So, the problem I had with your post is that it glazes over something that I feel the majority of gun owners and pro-gun people I have spoken with about this agree on: there are guns for hunting, there are guns for home defense, and then there are other guns that should not be in the hands of civilians. I think this point is critical in determining real solutions for gun control (going forward - obviously, halting production of certain guns does nothing to control those that are already owned, whether legally or illegally).

By grouping ‘pretty much every gun’ into one category, it takes away the ability to say “yes to hunting weapons, yes to home defense weapons, no to assault weapons”. I get the point that some police/military issue weapons may be similar to weapons available for hunting and home defense, but I don’t think those were the weapons that Cricket was targeting. I think we can all come together and reasonably say certain weapons currently available are so excessive for hunting and home defense that it would be like fishing with dynamite, and therefore not necessary for that usage, and so it should not be available.

Sorry if I read too much into this, but I do hate when this point is glossed over, as I believe it is at the crux of both sides coming together for a real solution.

I used to be an XO (among other things the guy who keeps track of all the property of a unit) for a combat troop (around 100 soldiers). Never once in all my days of being an XO did I see “assault rifle” or “assault weapon” on any of my property books. Not once. Not even in Iraq. Plenty of shotguns, rifles, pistols, machine guns, and grenade launchers, but not one “assault rifle” or “assault weapon.” It’s a made up word to make some guns sound scary because they “look military.”

Want to know the biggest difference between an AR-15 and a .22 caliber semi-automatic hunting rifle? Looks. That’s it. Try this, take two standard 6 cylinder cars. Put a NASCAR body on one of them. Does that mean you now have 1 standard “not really going to win any races” car and 1 multi-million dollar “step on the gas to fast and you’ll be flying” race car; or does it mean you have 2 standard cars of which one looks like its a race car?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

“Why” someone “Needs” an AR-15 is irrelevant.

First, other than food, clothing and shelter, there are very few things in this world people actually “need.”

Second, the Constitution grants you the right to own an AR-15; a person exercising that right does not have to justify that to anyone.

This is no different than a person having a super-powerful Ferrari or Porsche when a Toyota or Honda can get them from point A to point B just as easily. The answer is, because a person is allowed to have one. Why, is a moot point.

Actually its very different since owning a vehicle isn’t a right, let alone an expressly protected one. Hence the legality of states requiring car insurance.

 

[Mumbles140]

“Why” someone “Needs” an AR-15 is irrelevant.

First, other than food, clothing and shelter, there are very few things in this world people actually “need.”

Second, the Constitution grants you the right to own an AR-15; a person exercising that right does not have to justify that to anyone.

This is no different than a person having a super-powerful Ferrari or Porsche when a Toyota or Honda can get them from point A to point B just as easily. The answer is, because a person is allowed to have one. Why, is a moot point.

So following your logic, it seems you are arguing that the right to bear arms is limitless in the type of arm, correct? Then how are there restrictions on RPGs, flamethrowers, etc? Aren’t those considered ‘types’ of firearms? All rights have restrictions, so why should the right to bear arms be any different? The truth is that there aren’t restrictions on what cars we could have, but if the national speed limit was 10 mph (an example of something that is heavily regulated and restricted), you may wonder why someone continues to stock up on cars that can go 0-60 in under 3 seconds…

You have to break away from the ‘what’ and focus on the ‘why’. Why is it necessary to own these types of weapons, and does the benefit to society (including safety) of banning these weapons outweigh the functionality of civilians owning them? For this argument, I think you have to look at the utility of why civilians need them, and that’s what answer I’m waiting on.

 

[Mumbles140]

I used to be an XO (among other things the guy who keeps track of all the property of a unit) for a combat troop (around 100 soldiers). Never once in all my days of being an XO did I see “assault rifle” or “assault weapon” on any of my property books. Not once. Not even in Iraq. Plenty of shotguns, rifles, pistols, machine guns, and grenade launchers, but not one “assault rifle” or “assault weapon.” It’s a made up word to make some guns sound scary because they “look military.”

Want to know the biggest difference between an AR-15 and a .22 caliber semi-automatic hunting rifle? Looks. That’s it. Try this, take two standard 6 cylinder cars. Put a NASCAR body on one of them. Does that mean you now have 1 standard “not really going to win any races” car and 1 multi-million dollar “step on the gas to fast and you’ll be flying” race car; or does it mean you have 2 standard cars of which one looks like its a race car?

I understand the terms ‘assault rifle’ and ‘assault weapon’ aren’t in use, but are machine guns and grenade launchers used much in hunting and home defense? That’s what we are talking about - semi-automatic weapons, high-powered, weapons, etc. I’m not in the military and I’ve never owned a gun, so correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t find it implausible that the military uses weapons that are more powerful than ones necessary for hunting. For example, does the military use armor-piercing rounds? And I’m sorry if that is a “Law and Order” term and I sound foolish, I just really don’t know about guns, specifically military issued ones.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

So following your logic, it seems you are arguing that the right to bear arms is limitless in the type of arm, correct?

I suppose I am, yes.

Then how are there restrictions on RPGs, flamethrowers, etc? Aren’t those considered ‘types’ of firearms?

Certainly.

All rights have restrictions, so why should the right to bear arms be any different?

I personally don’t believe there should be any restrictions on any types of firearms; military-types included.

The truth is that there aren’t restrictions on what cars we could have,

Actually, there are. Cars driven on U.S. highways have to meet certain government regulations such as safety, fuel economy, emissions etc.

but if the national speed limit was 10 mph (an example of something that is heavily regulated and restricted), you may wonder why someone continues to stock up on cars that can go 0-60 in under 3 seconds…

Maybe the person just likes cars and has an appreciation for fine automobiles.

Why is it necessary to own these types of weapons, and does the benefit to society (including safety) of banning these weapons outweigh the functionality of civilians owning them?

It is none of your business why. If I want one, I should be allowed to have one.

For this argument, I think you have to look at the utility of why civilians need them, and that’s what answer I’m waiting on.

Do you know why the 2nd Amendment is ratified in the first place? Because the American Colonies hand just come off of 300 years of tyrannical rule under the British. The only way to ensure that the new American government would not become another tyrannical entity was to give the citizens a way to keep that government in check. That’s what a “well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State” means.

THAT is why civilians need them.

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” -Benjamin Franklin

 

[freeRadical]

Now, you can say, as you do below that I should pay for that, after all, I have kids. And that’s great. What I really appreciate is how quickly these arguments degenerate into why you should have all the rights and I should burden all the costs of your rights.

You act like he has rights you don’t have and you are being made to bear the costs of the rights he has that you do not have. However, the right to own a firearm applies to everybody equally. You have the right to own a gun, whether are not you choose to exercise that right is your business, just like I have a right to own a gun. Therefore, the cost of that right should be borne by all people equally. Whether or not you choose to exercise that right should have no say on whether you should or should not bear the cost of said right because you have the option of exercising said right at any time.

Furthermore, in order for the government to tax people that own guns you would have to know how many people own guns in this country and how many guns they own. Good luck with that.

 

[Mumbles140]

I suppose I am, yes.

Certainly.

I personally don’t believe there should be any restrictions on any types of firearms; military-types included.

Actually, there are. Cars driven on U.S. highways have to meet certain government regulations such as safety, fuel economy, emissions etc.

Maybe the person just likes cars and has an appreciation for fine automobiles.

It is none of your business why. If I want one, I should be allowed to have one.

Do you know why the 2nd Amendment is ratified in the first place? Because the American Colonies hand just come off of 300 years of tyrannical rule under the British. The only way to ensure that the new American government would not become another tyrannical entity was to give the citizens a way to keep that government in check. That’s what a “well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State” means.

THAT is why civilians need them.

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” -Benjamin Franklin

So if you don’t believe gun rights should be restricted at all, then do you believe that someone should yell “Fire” in a crowded movie theater without punishment? If so, I’d say you are well on your way to anarchy.

Regarding your statement of tyranny, the first lasting British colony in the United States was at Jamestown, VA in 1607. The Bill of Rights were ratified in 1788. Just shy of 300. And, while I think the Founding Fathers had wisdom, understanding, and foresight, the truth is that the average citizen had the right to bear arms because we did not have well-established military branches at that time. Branches of the federal military were in existence, but if invading forces came, the expectation was that every able man would throw down his plow, take up his gun, and defend his country. Now, with a well-established, well-armed military, this is no longer a necessity for defense of country as it was 225 years ago.

 

[Monkey1976]

So if you don’t believe gun rights should be restricted at all, then do you believe that someone should yell “Fire” in a crowded movie theater without punishment? If so, I’d say you are well on your way to anarchy.

Regarding your statement of tyranny, the first lasting British colony in the United States was at Jamestown, VA in 1607. The Bill of Rights were ratified in 1788. Just shy of 300. And, while I think the Founding Fathers had wisdom, understanding, and foresight, the truth is that the average citizen had the right to bear arms because we did not have well-established military branches at that time. Branches of the federal military were in existence, but if invading forces came, the expectation was that every able man would throw down his plow, take up his gun, and defend his country. Now, with a well-established, well-armed military, this is no longer a necessity for defense of country as it was 225 years ago.

It isn’t about defense of the country, but defense of the citizenry against a tyrranical government.

 

[Brendan]

I’m not in the military and I’ve never owned a gun, so correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t find it implausible that the military uses weapons that are more powerful than ones necessary for hunting.

Generally speaking, the firearms used for hunting are actually substantially MORE powerful than the common military ones.

The round used in the AR-15 for example, was originally created to hunt small game, such as raccoon and coyote. It’s not even legal to hunt deer with in Michigan, it’s too underpowered.

The rounds more commonly used, the .,30-06 and .308 were used in the military, for single shot bolt actions in WW-I and semi-autos in WW-II. But they were dropped by the military for standard infantry as a solider could carry a LOT more of the smaller rounds, which was useful when the infantry were issued assault rifles like the M-16, which fire fully automatically.

The difference comes in with military machine guns, which DO use the larger calibers.

And yes, the military does use armor-piercing, high explosive and\or incendiary ammo that is generally prohibited to civilian use.

So while the average hunter carries a gun that is more accurate and more powerful that what your average solider carries, the solider does have ammo that goes through brick walls and then explodes.

 

[Brendan]

So if you don’t believe gun rights should be restricted at all, then do you believe that someone should yell “Fire” in a crowded movie theater without punishment? .

I think your average gun owner recognizes that the using a firearm in a reckless way deserves punishment.

But I presume that you would also agree that if a person DOES see a fire in a crowded theater, the person should not have to apply 30 in advance and undergo a background check for a permit to actually shout ‘Fire’ either.

 

[Mumbles140]

It isn’t about defense of the country, but defense of the citizenry against a tyrranical government.

And pistols, shotguns, and rifles are insufficient to aid in this matter? And defense of country was not my argument, either - I was responding to a point made by someone else.

 

[Mumbles140]

I think your average gun owner recognizes that the using a firearm in a reckless way deserves punishment.

But I presume that you would also agree that if a person DOES see a fire in a crowded theater, the person should not have to apply 30 in advance and undergo a background check for a permit to actually shout ‘Fire’ either.

No, but not having a felony of record isn’t a requirement for freedom of speech. I feel the same way about background checks as I do about cutoff dates for voting registration - when you commit certain actions, they have consequences, and so we need checks in place to make sure that someone who has lost a right is not still able to practice it.

 

[Mumbles140]

Generally speaking, the firearms used for hunting are actually substantially MORE powerful than the common military ones.

The round used in the AR-15 for example, was originally created to hunt small game, such as raccoon and coyote. It’s not even legal to hunt deer with in Michigan, it’s too underpowered.

The rounds more commonly used, the .,30-06 and .308 were used in the military, for single shot bolt actions in WW-I and semi-autos in WW-II. But they were dropped by the military for standard infantry as a solider could carry a LOT more of the smaller rounds, which was useful when the infantry were issued assault rifles like the M-16, which fire fully automatically.

The difference comes in with military machine guns, which DO use the larger calibers.

And yes, the military does use armor-piercing, high explosive and\or incendiary ammo that is generally prohibited to civilian use.

So while the average hunter carries a gun that is more accurate and more powerful that what your average solider carries, the solider does have ammo that goes through brick walls and then explodes.

Thank you for the weapons information - obviously, I was not aware. But you touch on what I was hoping to stay targeted on, and I’m sorry if my wording or assumptions were incorrect. But the thought is we agree we don’t need armor piercing incendiary rounds in the hands of civilians. So let’s keep building from that.

The safe and legal use of guns typically revolves around three activities - gun ranges, hunting, and home defense. Gun ranges are great for practicing targeting, which are vital in hunting and home defense. I’m not sure, though, how helpful it is for me to practice firing a semi-automatic rifle in regards to those activities - I think it could be classified as ‘enjoyment’ or prepping for the worst-case scenario, and I’m not sure the benefits of those acts outweighs the public risk of producing these weapons for civilian use.

So, let’s focus on hunting and home defense as reasonable uses where excessive guns could be cut back. And, when I use the term necessary in the following cases, I mean in the sense that a typical gun (standard pistol, rifle, or shotgun) is insufficient, thus requiring something more. Is a sawed off shotgun necessary for hunting or home defense? Is a sub-machine gun necessary for hunting or home defense? Is a semi-automatic rifle necessary for hunting or home defense? If any of these answers is a ‘No’, we have something we can build on. I’m not looking for broad sweeping reforms, but just acknowledging these things is a good place that I feel 80% of the country could get behind.

 

[Crossbones]

You mean like how we make parents who use prescription drugs pay the full cost of resource officers and law enforcement investigations into the rampant drug problems we have at schools (you do realize prescription drugs are one of, if not the, top drug of choice to abuse/sell among school aged children right)? Or how we make all parents pay for the need to have resource officers at schools for the non-gun related violence and non-drug related crimes at schools? Or how we make parents of boys pay the full cost of safety programs at schools in regards to sexual assaults (boys are by far the majority in regards to those who sexually assault others)? Or how we make teachers and adult school employees pay the full cost of protecting students from sexual abuse/assault by teachers and adult school employees? Or how we make parents of students in school sports programs pay for the additional security at school sporting events, additional utility and facility costs for said events, additional insurance for said events and programs?

As for examples I’ve given of additional tax burdens placed on citizens for exercising their Constitutionally protected rights, please refresh my memory. What I remember is me presenting a list of things the government can’t do (poll taxes, special taxes on women and minorities for equal protection/treatment, special taxes for African Americans for their freedom, etc) that you pretty much ignored. The only response I remember you giving to these was that a State issued ID card is somehow the same as a poll tax.

You didn’t give examples of tax burdens specifically. You gave examples of restrictions placed on gunowners by the government (for example, type of weapon, where you can carry the weapon). I consider this a burden; an interruption of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution as I think you would. So, I said that the government could impose an additional burden and this burden would be reasonable and I believe that you would think it unreasonable.

Now, I understand you are also saying here that you believe it to be unconstituional, which, again, I don’t really know which way this Supreme Court would rule. I was surprised that the so-called ‘ObamaCare’ was upheld as a tax (not so much that I thought it was unconstitutional, but because I thought the politics of the Justice Roberts would incline him to find that legislation in particular distasteful). It seems like we can agree this would be in the gray area, where we really wouldn’t know which was the justices would rule.

Again, thank you for the interesting discussion.

 

[freeRadical]

Thank you for the weapons information - obviously, I was not aware. But you touch on what I was hoping to stay targeted on, and I’m sorry if my wording or assumptions were incorrect. But the thought is we agree we don’t need armor piercing incendiary rounds in the hands of civilians. So let’s keep building from that.

The safe and legal use of guns typically revolves around three activities - gun ranges, hunting, and home defense. Gun ranges are great for practicing targeting, which are vital in hunting and home defense. I’m not sure, though, how helpful it is for me to practice firing a semi-automatic rifle in regards to those activities - I think it could be classified as ‘enjoyment’ or prepping for the worst-case scenario, and I’m not sure the benefits of those acts outweighs the public risk of producing these weapons for civilian use.

So, let’s focus on hunting and home defense as reasonable uses where excessive guns could be cut back. And, when I use the term necessary in the following cases, I mean in the sense that a typical gun (standard pistol, rifle, or shotgun) is insufficient, thus requiring something more. Is a sawed off shotgun necessary for hunting or home defense? Is a sub-machine gun necessary for hunting or home defense? Is a semi-automatic rifle necessary for hunting or home defense? If any of these answers is a ‘No’, we have something we can build on. I’m not looking for broad sweeping reforms, but just acknowledging these things is a good place that I feel 80% of the country could get behind.

Before we move forward with this discussion:

Do you know what semi-automatic means?

Do you know the difference between single action, double action, and single action only?

My problem with the gun control debate is that most people who are in favor for more gun control usually don’t know anything up firearms and usually don’t know or understand the thousands of laws we already have in place regulation gun ownership and gun purchase.