Breaking: Shooting at CT elementary school

[cronos]

Originally Posted by CVSiN

Not a valid argument.. if the targets are not fighting back I can kill them with a 22 cal bird rifle.. not exactly a challenge..

I guess I'm supposed to be happy and safe now to know that this is what you (and probably most of the weapon fans) are thinking?

the fact that is was a legal semi auto rifle that just happens to look military does not mean it was the soul reason for the shooting.

Read my post again. I don't care how it looks. In fact, I don't even know what it looks like.

Please get over yourselves..

Because I came to a logical conclusion over something?

There are literally MILLIONS of AR-15s and other legal Military looking weps out there in private hands.

There are but a handful of shootings world wide using those weapons.

So you want more shootings/assault with this weapon until you could finally say it's an 'assault rifle'? Sure.

Listen, read my post again, I was never trying to force my opinion on anyone. In fact I just said I understand that there's an intricate rule to these things, to what you're supposed to call these things (gun, pistol, rifle, etc). I don't know these rules, and at this point I consider it irrelevant. If I know that a rifle was used in an assault that killed 27 people, I will call it an 'assault rifle'. You are allowed to disagree with me.

[BladeVenom]

Originally Posted by Fanatical Meat

Let's tackle the easy stuff first, how about this guns bought at gun shows don't require the federal background check. Now I admit these guys were essentially entrapped and most of the people at the gun show refused but they really only made one show attempt and were sold weapons.
As as said start with the low hanging fruit that we all know needs to be fixed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...70U6WI20110131

The media is lying to you about gun shows.

Here is how it works. Private sales don't require a background check. A licensed dealer has to do a background check. It's not where the sale happens, but who does it.

Besides, only 2% or less of criminals get their guns at gun shows.

[sixone]

Originally Posted by JM Aggie08

Are most of us in agreement that if this woman had locked up her firearms, not giving access to her disturbed, that this all could have been avoided? A lot of you are bouncing all over the place and it's hard to keep track of who thinks what (other than the extremists on either side...ya'll are pretty clear).

I am. And I don't object to holding people criminally liable for how their weapons are misused, when they have failed to secure them properly.

[JM Aggie08]

Originally Posted by sixone

I am. And I don't object to holding people criminally liable for how their weapons are misused, when they have failed to secure them properly.

Couldn't agree more.

[bignateyk]

Originally Posted by Fanatical Meat

Bing! exactly my point how about no guns in homes where somebody could have behavioral issues or how about when you have a gun it must be on your person or locked in a secure gun safe?
Simple stuff guys. I'm not trying to solve this problem its gun violence in general that is out of hand.

And how exactly would you enforce this? There is no legal definition for "behavioral issue". They could ban all gun ownership in homes where a felon is present. But that wouldn't have done anything in this case as her son had no record of any kind.

[Imp]

Originally Posted by bignateyk

His mom purchased the guns and would have passed any background check. She also owned plenty of guns that aren't what you call "assault rifles". No amount of gun control other than banning all gun ownership would have stopped this tragedy. On the other hand, if has mom had simply locked up her guns this would have been avoided.

This (fact that guns were bought legally and "stolen") is why I find it funny when "experts" are interviewed on the news in Canada, and they keep saying that we have stricter gun laws/regulations, so we're much safer than in the US of A.

If the 20 year old son wanted the guns bad enough, I get the feeling that he would have found a way to get the keys. Or there may have been enough trust for him to just ask for them directly.

[Fanatical Meat]

Originally Posted by bignateyk

And how exactly would you enforce this? There is no legal definition for "behavioral issue". They could ban all gun ownership in homes where a felon is present. But that wouldn't have done anything in this case as her son had no record of any kind.

Not sure but its definitely a concern and I am sure there is an answer.

[bignateyk]

Originally Posted by Fanatical Meat

Not sure but its definitely a concern and I am sure there is an answer.

You could start a witch hunt for people with mental disorders. Then round them up and gas them.

[CVSiN]

Originally Posted by Imp

This (fact that guns were bought legally and "stolen") is why I find it funny when "experts" are interviewed on the news in Canada, and they keep saying that we have stricter gun laws/regulations, so we're much safer than in the US of A.

If the 20 year old son wanted the guns bad enough, I get the feeling that he would have found a way to get the keys. Or there may have been enough trust for him to just ask for them directly.

A locked combination gun safe ( not keyed) is the safest way around this.
She was shot.. so he took the weapons first and then used them on her.

If they had been locked up with the keys or combo secured where only the owner knew them then the chances of someone getting the weapons is far less.

I seriously doubt she would ever have given a combo to him as she knew of his issues.

But weapons should not be allowed in a household with someone that has been diagnosed with any disorder involving depression, (Bipolar, Skitzo, BPD, etc etc)
And those medical records should be a part of ANY weapon screening.
and if they don't have any records a mental screening should be given before any purchase of any weapon can commence.

[bignateyk]

Originally Posted by CVSiN

A locked combination gun safe ( not keyed) is the safest way around this.
She was shot.. so he took the weapons first and then used them on her.

If they had been locked up with the keys or combo secured where only the owner knew them then the chances of someone getting the weapons is far less.

I seriously doubt she would ever have given a combo to him as she knew of his issues.

But weapons should not be allowed in a household with someone that has been diagnosed with any disorder involving depression, (Bipolar, Skitzo, BPD, etc etc)
And those medical records should be a part of ANY weapon screening.
and if they don't have any records a mental screening should be given before any purchase of any weapon can commence.

That sounds good in theory, but in practice, mental disorders are very poorly diagnosed, often times over-diagnosed, and probably just as often not diagnosed at all.

If anything it would lead to more problems because people would be less likely to seek out help for their problems for fear of not being able to own guns. His mom was a crazy prepper. Do you think she would have sought help for her son knowing that it would prevent her from stockpiling guns? Doubtful.

[BladeVenom]

Originally Posted by bignateyk

You could start a witch hunt for people with mental disorders. Then round them up and gas them.

It did lower crime.

[DrPizza]

Originally Posted by CVSiN

Yup but it took almost 15 mins for him to get there. not to mention they would have come in with alot more than 1 both city and school cops would both respond.
if it had been a School Cop they would have already been on the premises and security would have been much tighter in the first place.

they most likely would never have been able to even get to their cars without being questioned by the Police since it was not during a period when people should be coming or going in the parking lots.

Here in Houston with the combination of CLOSED campuses as well as Police officers at the schools and high security you cant even leave or arrive at a campus without security/Police taking notice especially with the odd behavior these guys were having right before the shooting.

He was actively working at the school that day. He had gone out to his car for lunch, and was watching an area that students had been known to go to in order to smoke.

See 11:22 http://www.portalofdallas.com/columb...ime%20Line.htm

And, it's less than 5 minutes between the first shots & Harris shooting at the sheriff's deputy (resource officer) in the parking lot.

[kazaam]

Originally Posted by kazaam

My gosh, guys, relax for a second. Have you people who are so frightened of guns even handled one? I used to be freaked out too and then I actually used a gun. It's not that big of a deal...

Some of the things I'm reading are absolutely crazy. Not everyone who own guns are lunatics or preppers or any one thing. I know people who own Lamborghinis and Ferraris that own guns! Reading some of the stuff here, I'm starting to doubt myself because I own a gun! And I've never even been so much as pulled over.

Seriously, have all you guys so terrified of guns ever used one?

[Jaepheth]

Banning guns won't prevent kindergarten massacres.

Case in point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiguan...rgarten_attack

[Chinoman]

Originally Posted by Jaepheth

Banning guns won't prevent kindergarten massacres.

Case in point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiguan...rgarten_attack

This sums it up better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_...0%E2%80%932011)

It almost seems like the lack of access to firearms FORCES these guys to target those physically weaker, like children.

[SandEagle]

why can't we all carry swords like back in the medieval days? seems like that's the way we're heading

[shortylickens]

Originally Posted by cronos

I realize that all of you weapon fans have all these rules about what specific term to call each weapon. To me though, if a rifle was used to assault and kill 27 people, it seems like a legitimate reason to call it an assault rifle. I don't think I'd be the only person in the world who think like this.

I am a gun enthusiast and in my mind anything automatic (semi or full) with detachable box magazine is just fine being called an assault weapon. Its only purpose is in quick dispatch of humans. You damn sure dont need one for deer hunting, and our troops use such weapons all the time in war.

9 years in the Navy I never got bent out of shape calling a ship a boat, cuz in the grand scheme of the world it doesnt matter.

I will say differentiating between clip and magazine is actually kind of important, but I dont expect non-shooters to know or care. But on the range it is important to be specific and correct.

I also dont care for PC people making me say African-American when I really mean Black.
But thats actually a different issue now that I think about it.

Also, stop banning guns. It doesnt help.

Thank you.

[Farmer]

Originally Posted by shortylickens

I am a gun enthusiast and in my mind anything automatic (semi or full) with detachable box magazine is just fine being called an assault weapon. Its only purpose is in quick dispatch of humans....

I don't mean to be pedantic, but it's primary purpose is probably suppression, since I'd imagine it would be hard to aim with all that full auto.

Moreover, though having never fired anything full auto, it's probably fun to shoot recreationally. Is that a purpose?

[TallBill]

Originally Posted by Farmer

I don't mean to be pedantic, but it's primary purpose is probably suppression, since I'd imagine it would be hard to aim with all that full auto.

Moreover, though having never fired anything full auto, it's probably fun to shoot recreationally. Is that a purpose?

Full auto weapons would generally be less lethal than semi auto. Depends on a lot of factors. SF operators use m4a1 rifles which have full auto yet typically shoot single shots. The original m16 in Vietnam was full auto but was quickly changed.

The general idea is that the extra and constant recoil from continued fire makes aiming much more difficult, and despite misconceptions, aimed shots are what typically strike the target. This is magnified when the firearm is in the hands of an untrained shooter.

He'll, you can see it at the gun club that I go to. 90% of the full auto renters look like idiots.

[Doppel]

Originally Posted by Jaepheth

Banning guns won't prevent kindergarten massacres.

Case in point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiguan...rgarten_attack

That is not a case in point anymore than me finding an article of a guy with a knife who killed, in a fight to the death, a guy with a pistol and then saying that the knife is as effective in a fight to the death as a pistol.

[shortylickens]

Originally Posted by Farmer

I don't mean to be pedantic, but it's primary purpose is probably suppression, since I'd imagine it would be hard to aim with all that full auto.

Moreover, though having never fired anything full auto, it's probably fun to shoot recreationally. Is that a purpose?

Full auto is usually for suppression yes. It matters not. In semi-auto you can shoot for suppression and soldiers frequently do. And actually ideal suppression comes from something with multiple barrels and hundreds of rounds, like a belt fed gatling gun.