Opponents Protest in Face of NRA Silence on Sandy Hook Shooting

[Ridgerunner]

The real issue is the danger presented when a shooter picks a specific type weapon. Look at a major sporting event, or concert, and let’s allow concealed weapons. How many people could still die from an AR15 with multiple 30 round clips. They shoot about 45 per minute, and in an extremely congested area.

These guys aren’t afraid of getting killed, evident by the suicides afterwards.

You could have the same rate of fire from 2-3 pistols with ten round clips. Probably faster. You can get 20 round clips for the much more devastating 30-06, the standard deer rifle, and even if you were limited to 5 round clips, how long does it take to change one out? 2 seconds? If you were good with it, you could get off nearly as many rounds with a lever action .38 or .45, and those have been around for 140 years. There are .223 sport rifles, so what difference does it make if the AR-15 is banned because it looks like a military rifle? A .22 magnum is little different from a .223, so will we ban those guns too? There are semi-automatic shotguns too, though they don’t “look” military.

Lanza could have killed the whole school full of children if he had devised a bomb, and he was clever enough and technically knowledgeable enough to do it. It’s a wonder he didn’t. McVeigh was not a very bright man, possibly quite sane but evil, but he killed 168 people with fertilizer and gasoline in a fraction of a second, and didn’t even enter the building to do it.

And lots of those assassins do not commit suicide. McVeigh didn’t. The Aurora killer didn’t. The Arizona killer didnt’. Hassan didn’t.

It is simply an ideological tenet of the left that populaces should not have guns. No other line of reasoning will do for them. No arguments will persuade, however meritorious. They just don’t want people to have guns, period. That’s why the administration is going to pretend to have a blue-ribbon panel “look into it”. But they already know what they are going to try to do under pretense of “saving school children” that will be just as vulnerable with an “assault rifle” ban as without it, given nothing more. Hopefully the people won’t allow it, but emotions might move sufficient numbers of the ignorant to do it.

And mental illness? So this government is going to look into that too? Sure, and they’ll conclude that there are mentally ill people and they can steal guns from sane people, and so nobody should have guns, starting with the ones that look like military rifles.

“never let a crisis go to waste”. That’s what’s going on with this administration, like the tribe of ghouls they are, using this tragedy to get something done the people would not otherwise let them do.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Perfect post, RR.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Perfect post, RR.

Still would amount to a mass killing, with some possibly being ‘friendly fire’.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You could have the same rate of fire from 2-3 pistols with ten round clips. Probably faster. You can get 20 round clips for the much more devastating 30-06, the standard deer rifle, and even if you were limited to 5 round clips, how long does it take to change one out? 2 seconds? If you were good with it, you could get off nearly as many rounds with a lever action .38 or .45, and those have been around for 140 years. There are .223 sport rifles, so what difference does it make if the AR-15 is banned because it looks like a military rifle? A .22 magnum is little different from a .223, so will we ban those guns too? There are semi-automatic shotguns too, though they don’t “look” military.

Lanza could have killed the whole school full of children if he had devised a bomb, and he was clever enough and technically knowledgeable enough to do it. It’s a wonder he didn’t. McVeigh was not a very bright man, possibly quite sane but evil, but he killed 168 people with fertilizer and gasoline in a fraction of a second, and didn’t even enter the building to do it.

And lots of those assassins do not commit suicide. McVeigh didn’t. The Aurora killer didn’t. The Arizona killer didnt’. Hassan didn’t.

It is simply an ideological tenet of the left that populaces should not have guns. No other line of reasoning will do for them. No arguments will persuade, however meritorious. They just don’t want people to have guns, period. That’s why the administration is going to pretend to have a blue-ribbon panel “look into it”. But they already know what they are going to try to do under pretense of “saving school children” that will be just as vulnerable with an “assault rifle” ban as without it, given nothing more. Hopefully the people won’t allow it, but emotions might move sufficient numbers of the ignorant to do it.

And mental illness? So this government is going to look into that too? Sure, and they’ll conclude that there are mentally ill people and they can steal guns from sane people, and so nobody should have guns, starting with the ones that look like military rifles.

“never let a crisis go to waste”. That’s what’s going on with this administration, like the tribe of ghouls they are, using this tragedy to get something done the people would not otherwise let them do.

While a 30 06 is more ‘powerful’ it is not as effective in killing, or else the military would use them instead. Then we have to look at what our most recent shooters have chosen.

Fertilizer is under more controls now.

In a crowded situation, even with armed people, it could be a shoot out situation and still a mass murder, including the possibility of friendly fire.

For the record, I am against bans, but can’t see the harm in controls, and am confused at the objection of pro gun rights people who are law abiding citizens. We, as Catholics, speak of a culture of death, and to prefer an armed public to shoot it out with murders seems to be a part of that culture, in my honest opinion.

 

[Bill_Martin]

While a 30 06 is more ‘powerful’ it is not as effective in killing, or else the military would use them instead. Then we have to look at what our most recent shooters have chosen.

Fertilizer is under more controls now.

In a crowded situation, even with armed people, it could be a shoot out situation and still a mass murder, including the possibility of friendly fire.

For the record, I am against bans, but can’t see the harm in controls, and am confused at the objection of pro gun rights people who are law abiding citizens. We, as Catholics, speak of a culture of death, and to prefer an armed public to shoot it out with murders seems to be a part of that culture, in my honest opinion.

edit: I am puzzled as to why you think that requiring students and faculty to be totally defenseless victims waiting to be slaughtered is not part of the culture of death.

 

[iamrefreshed]

While a 30 06 is more ‘powerful’ it is not as effective in killing, or else the military would use them instead. Then we have to look at what our most recent shooters have chosen.

Fertilizer is under more controls now.

In a crowded situation, even with armed people, it could be a shoot out situation and still a mass murder, including the possibility of friendly fire.

For the record, I am against bans, but can’t see the harm in controls, and am confused at the objection of pro gun rights people who are law abiding citizens. We, as Catholics, speak of a culture of death, and to prefer an armed public to shoot it out with murders seems to be a part of that culture, in my honest opinion.

Maybe honest but misguided.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

edit: I am puzzled as to why you think that requiring students and faculty to be totally defenseless victims waiting to be slaughtered is not part of the culture of death.

Nice, but I have not said anything like that. I have proposed gun controls, and even supported the idea of trained people on campuses. Why does it have to be personal? Is the view so weak discussions have to go that way?

Even though it’s been almost a week, I fail to find the topic something to roll on the floor laughing at.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Maybe honest but misguided.

It’s an opinion. Mine is the same towards people who refuse an idea of any controls on certain type weapons, and potential owners. But personal characterizations aren’t constructive and don’t add any solution to the discussion.

 

[Bill_Martin]

Nice, but I have not said anything like that. I have proposed gun controls, and even supported the idea of trained people on campuses. Why does it have to be personal? Is the view so weak discussions have to go that way?

Even though it’s been almost a week, I fail to find the topic something to roll on the floor laughing at.

When you say that you think an armed public shooting back at murderers is part of the culture of death, most people assume you are against it. But if you do support concealed carry, then I apologize.

The laughing smiley is in response to you saying the .30-06 is not as effective at killing as the 5.56. That is completely false.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

While a 30 06 is more ‘powerful’ it is not as effective in killing, or else the military would use them instead. Then we have to look at what our most recent shooters have chosen.

Fertilizer is under more controls now.

In a crowded situation, even with armed people, it could be a shoot out situation and still a mass murder, including the possibility of friendly fire.

For the record, I am against bans, but can’t see the harm in controls, and am confused at the objection of pro gun rights people who are law abiding citizens. We, as Catholics, speak of a culture of death, and to prefer an armed public to shoot it out with murders seems to be a part of that culture, in my honest opinion.

The military switched to the 5.56 due more to logistics and advancements in firearm design than due to the killing power of the 30.06. You can carry more 5.56 rounds for the same weight of 30.06 rounds with a smaller and lighter firearm.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

When you say that you think an armed public shooting back at murderers is part of the culture of death, most people assume you are against it. But if you do support concealed carry, then I apologize.

The laughing smiley is in response to you saying the .30-06 is not as effective at killing as the 5.56. That is completely false.

In my life, there was a time I used an M16. The military taught us the design was specifically designed to traumatize as many internal organs as possible.

I am not against legally armed people, who are sufficiently trained. It’s not for me, but I do enjoy hunting; small game, hogs, and deer. I had an expert ranking with the M16 in the military, and have always been a very good shot. Of course with age, I squint a lot more than I use to, and take more time before squeezing the trigger.

I don’t see the harm and can’t help but see good from certain controls; e.g. stricter registration with required documentation of transfers of weapons, similar to car titles. I have always made buyers of any cars, boats, trailers, or motorcycles, go to the court house so we could change the ownership legally. It releases me from any liability or insurance requirement.

I don’t see a problem with requiring gun safes for storage, when one is not carrying, or if they have multiple weapons. I believe if you fail to properly secure your weapon, and it falls into the wrong hands, a stiff liability should fall to the owner.

I don’t see a problem with certain weapons requiring insurance, for accidents, or negligence.

I am for mental health disclosures including anyone in a household, that might have access to a gun. People now say, no I’ve never had, or been treated for any mental health issues, and neglect to tell that their son/uncle/brother/etc. has been, and he lives in the room next to mine.

I am also for research into video games, and movie ratings.

There’s a lot that can be done, and law abiding citizens should be glad to make a sacrifice of some inconvenience if it could save lives, and lessen the amount of people they arm themselves for, in case of a chance encounter.

Whatever they do, I can’t see it having much affect on me, and the guns I use to hunt, which also provide home protection. I hope I never have to point one at a person. As I said, I am a very good shot, especially at close range.

 

[Dawnia]

I don’t see a problem with requiring gun safes for storage, when one is not carrying, or if they have multiple weapons. I believe if you fail to properly secure your weapon, and it falls into the wrong hands, a stiff liability should fall to the owner.

I think proper storage is just common sense. But, I’m curious how that would be enforced exactly?

I am for mental health disclosures including anyone in a household, that might have access to a gun. People now say, no I’ve never had, or been treated for any mental health issues, and neglect to tell that their son/uncle/brother/etc. has been, and he lives in the room next to mine.

The application only asks if you’ve ever been committed or been adjudicated mentally defective. Just having mental health issues does not disqualify you from owning a gun. thundertek.net/documents/4473.pdf

 

[_Abyssinia]

Apparantly they are gaining 8000 members a day

youtube.com/watch?v=82ov9Goifj4

NRA Sees Membership Surge Since Sandy Hook Massacre

 

[scipio337]

In my life, there was a time I used an M16. The military taught us the design was specifically designed to traumatize as many internal organs as possible.

I am not against legally armed people, who are sufficiently trained. It’s not for me, but I do enjoy hunting; small game, hogs, and deer. I had an expert ranking with the M16 in the military, and have always been a very good shot. Of course with age, I squint a lot more than I use to, and take more time before squeezing the trigger.

I don’t see the harm and can’t help but see good from certain controls; e.g. stricter registration with required documentation of transfers of weapons, similar to car titles. I have always made buyers of any cars, boats, trailers, or motorcycles, go to the court house so we could change the ownership legally. It releases me from any liability or insurance requirement.

If you are familiar with FFL transfers with dealers, a good idea would be to require FFL transfers for private sales.
Prodigal Son1:

I don’t see a problem with requiring gun safes for storage, when one is not carrying, or if they have multiple weapons. I believe if you fail to properly secure your weapon, and it falls into the wrong hands, a stiff liability should fall to the owner.

Sad but true. Not to blame the mother for this inhuman act, but every pistol sold in the US comes with either a trigger or slide lock. It doesn’t take much to secure magazines or ammo. A weapon without bullets is a very expensive club. I have small children in the house, so all of mine, except the one on my person is very secure.
Prodigal Son1:

I don’t see a problem with certain weapons requiring insurance, for accidents, or negligence.

Seems like a good idea, but it could make gun ownership cost-prohibitive, especially when you consider the people who might need it the most live in low income/high crime neighborhoods.
Prodigal Son1:

I am for mental health disclosures including anyone in a household, that might have access to a gun. People now say, no I’ve never had, or been treated for any mental health issues, and neglect to tell that their son/uncle/brother/etc. has been, and he lives in the room next to mine.

True, and I hate to use the analogy, but it could be a slippery slope.

I’m currently taking wellbutrin for smoking cessation. Other midications like chantrix mess with my sleep cycles too much. Would someone like me with no record of mental disorders, depression, etc, be banned from owning because of the pills I’m subscribed? We live in a heavily medicated society.
Prodigal Son1:

There’s a lot that can be done, and law abiding citizens should be glad to make a sacrifice of some inconvenience if it could save lives, and lessen the amount of people they arm themselves for, in case of a chance encounter.

Whatever they do, I can’t see it having much affect on me, and the guns I use to hunt, which also provide home protection. I hope I never have to point one at a person. As I said, I am a very good shot, especially at close range.

If we were only talking about “convenience” I would agree. Longer waiting periods, closing gun show loopholes, number of gun purchase limits, private sales tracking, etc. What many are talking about now is a ban on certain types of weapons (with your military background, can you tell me how a flash suppressor makes a rifle any more deadly?) and large magazines. CT has such a law on the books last Friday (sans the mag size limit), and short of confiscating every “assault weapon” currently owned, wouldn’t do anything to curtail crime, and we’re talking about “assault weapons” constituting 2% of violent crimes.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Compare it to one tank shell…

Want a more fair scenario? 5 snipers and a crew with fully automatic ‘assault weapons’.

Actually it would be more like 76 ATF agents storming in with automatic weapons blasting indiscrimately at women and children so they could serve a search warrant. Then sieging those same women and children for 50 days until, ultimately, using tanks, pyrotechnic devices, .50 MM rifles and armored vechiles they kill 76 men women and children in a ghastly fire while firing upon the exits as they attempt to flee.

Nah, our government could never do that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

While a 30 06 is more ‘powerful’ it is not as effective in killing, or else the military would use them instead. Then we have to look at what our most recent shooters have chosen.

Fertilizer is under more controls now.

In a crowded situation, even with armed people, it could be a shoot out situation and still a mass murder, including the possibility of friendly fire.

For the record, I am against bans, but can’t see the harm in controls, and am confused at the objection of pro gun rights people who are law abiding citizens. We, as Catholics, speak of a culture of death, and to prefer an armed public to shoot it out with murders seems to be a part of that culture, in my honest opinion.

A 30-06 is extremely effective as a weapon. That’s why deer hunters use them and don’t use AR-15s. In hunting, an AR-15 is a “varmint rifle” used for such things as coyotes, groundhogs, armadillos, etc. There are also “sport” .223 semi-automatics that are different from an AR only in appearance, though many “off the shelf” ARs have better iron sights than many “sport” .223s.

The military considers the weight of a large number of rounds, whereas hunters don’t. Rounds of the old M-1 were heavy, like those of a 30-06. But it can be observed that many armies and assassins in the world carry the much heavier AK rounds. Different militaries have different ideas of what is the most efficient ammunition for soldiers to carry. Some U.S. armed forces snipers carry and use 30-06. Some carry and use .50 cal.

Possibly fertilizer is under more control somewhere or other, but I can, and do, buy tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer every year (the kind you can make bombs out of) from a number of places without any more controls than there are in buying a candy bar.

If you are not in favor of gun bans, but favor controls, what controls do you have in mind?

I don’t think most people are against controls of some kind, like the background checks one goes through to buy a pistol.

I can certainly see how being an armed assailant could be considered part of the “Culture of Death”, but I don’t see where protecting oneself against an armed assailant makes one part of that culture. Neither does the Church, which recognizes a right to defend oneself or others against death at the hands of a wrongdoer.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think proper storage is just common sense. But, I’m curious how that would be enforced exactly?

The application only asks if you’ve ever been committed or been adjudicated mentally defective. Just having mental health issues does not disqualify you from owning a gun. thundertek.net/documents/4473.pdf

I would suggest it be enforced on violation. If someone steals your gun and shoots someone, a person would have to show a broken into safe, or have reported the safe, or gun stolen, if they had used due regard.

 

[SamH]

I would suggest it be enforced on violation. If someone steals your gun and shoots someone, a person would have to show a broken into safe, or have reported the safe, or gun stolen, if they had used due regard.

So now you will prosecute victims of property crime?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So now you will prosecute victims of property crime?

If they did not use the required safety precautions as prescribed by law, why not?

 

[Dawnia]

I would suggest it be enforced on violation. If someone steals your gun and shoots someone, a person would have to show a broken into safe, or have reported the safe, or gun stolen, if they had used due regard.

It looks like some states already have a law in place requiring reporting lost or stolen guns. Connecticut is one of those. Wouldn’t have done any good in this case. The owner got a far greater penalty than the fine the government would have levied on her.

smartgunlaws.org/reporting-lost-or-stolen-firearms-policy-summary/

I think being held civilly liable is far scarier than a $50-$100 fine.