RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 2:33:59 PM)

quote:

None of those shooter in any of those instances were professional shooters, and they managed a high body count, I agree.

Lanza had to have had some practice at least in reloading. For someone that is not real familiar with a weapon, any weapon, reloading is awkward.

Until we know what size mags he was in possession of, we cant say for certain how many times he reloaded. Agreed?


Agreed. Something I have alredy stated was we dont know how many rounds he had in his possession.

quote:

As for your point about the fact he shot one woman in the foot. That does not prove or disprove his ability. I have missed the target after a fast reload or hit the target in a less than fair area.

It happens. It can happen in combat with even a seasoned trooper, not every shot is a kill. I have seen experts place a round in a bad area of the target, even miss completely on occasion.

Perfect performance does not happen in a biological unit, human or otherwise.



And put a 20 year old kid doing the shooting... just how proficient could he be?

quote:

Charles Whitman, the UT sniper was in a perfect position, was out of range of the local police, so he was not under fire, except by a few civilians that got into the act. He was a former marine who always scored high in his qauls.

For the first 20 minutes he was firing with no return fire, he killed 16 and wounded 31 after being on the tower for 96 minutes.

He had time to aim accurately, coolly squeeze off a round and then acquire a new target. By Marine corp standards, at least by their claim, he failed the standard.

For an expert with little or no distractions, he actually did a poor job for what his goal was.


in 1966.

Whitman then drove to Chuck's Gun Shop, where he purchased four further carbine magazines, six additional boxes of ammunition and a can of gun cleaning solvent, before driving to Sears, where he purchased a 12 gauge semi-automatic shotgun and a green rifle case. He then drove his purchases home.

Inside his garage, Whitman sawed off the barrel of the 12-gauge shotgun he had purchased, then packed the weapon together with a Remington 700 6mm bolt-action hunting rifle into his footlocker. The footlocker also held a 6mm bolt-action hunting rifle, a .35 caliber pump rifle, a .30 caliber carbine, a 9mm Luger pistol, a Galesi-Brescia .25-caliber pistol and a Smith & Wesson M19 .357 Magnum revolver and over 700 rounds of ammunition. In addition to the weaponry, the footlocker also held various items of food, a flask of coffee, vitamins, Dexedrine, Excedrin, earplugs, jugs of water, matches, lighter fluid, rope, binoculars, a machete, three knives, a transistor radio, toilet paper, a razor and a bottle of deodorant.[40] Before heading to the tower at approximately 11:00 that morning, Whitman dressed in khaki coveralls over his shirt and jeans. Once in the tower, he also donned a white sweatband.[41]

Not sure what you are trying to imply here. This case is almost 50 years old. The first civilian SWAT team wasnt established until after that incident.

quote:

Lee Harvey Oswald performed better in Dealey Plaza in the JFK assassination, with a low quality bold action rifle and firing at a moving target, one critical hit and one fatal hit.

I am using examples that are not quite the same as Friday, but the point is that even under the best of conditions, you dont always hit what or where you are aiming.

I therefore suggest we reserve judgement on Lanza's ability until all the facts are in.


Oswald, another Marine.

quote:

Like all Marines, Oswald was trained and tested in shooting, scoring 212 in December 1956[14] (slightly above the minimum for qualification as a sharpshooter) but in May 1959 scoring only 191[14] (barely earning the lower designation of marksman).[27]


These examples are of marksmen/sharpshooters. We are talking about kids killing kids.

I realize you want to keep your gun rights to play with them whenever you feel like it. But reality is, not everyone keeps them as safely as you described.

Why is restrictive access such an issue for you?



LaTigresse -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 2:39:24 PM)

Off topic.....FYI, Tazzy, in case you are like me and rarely visits the other side. I sent you a message over there that was off topic here.



tazzygirl -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 2:42:28 PM)

lol.. yeah.. I seldom look. Going now.



jlf1961 -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 2:50:14 PM)

Restrictive access where my weapons are stored in another location?

Uh, many shooting ranges provide guns for people to use for a fee. They also charge for storing guns.

So lets see if I understand you correctly.

You want me to be able to buy a gun, right?

You want me to store it at a range, and pay for that storage, right?

Remember I live in the country, really, so I dont have to go to the range to shoot.

You want me to have to drive to the range (gas cost) to use my gun, right?

What part of any of that sounds like unrestricted ownership? Hell, what part of that comes close to NOT infringing on my right of private ownership?

So far, you have me paying for the gun, paying for the ammo, paying for the place to shoot it, and paying to store the weapon at the only place I would legally be allowed to shot the damn thing.

Cheaper to go rent a gun at the range when I want to shoot.

Now what part of what you are suggesting even comes close to not violating this little item from history?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed



tazzygirl -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 2:54:28 PM)

quote:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed


Oh get off that kick. No one said to store ALL your weapons there... unless they are ALL semi's and fully automatic weapons. Is that all you own? How often do you take them out to play with?



jlf1961 -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 3:25:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed


Oh get off that kick. No one said to store ALL your weapons there... unless they are ALL semi's and fully automatic weapons. Is that all you own? How often do you take them out to play with?



Since you asked, here is what I own:

M1A, the semi automatic rifle that replaced the M1 Gerand, the mainstay of US forces in WW2. Caliber .308 max capacity 10 rounds
Model 70 bolt action winchester, caliber 7mm magnum, capacity 5 rounds.
Russian SKS rifle, semi automatic, reloaded by stripper clips. WW2 Mainstay of the russian army. simi auto.
CZ 550 bolt action rifle, 308 caliber.
Bushmaster .223 or 5.56 mm assault style semi automatic rifle, usually use a five round mag, have six 15 round mags.
DPMS Panther 3G1 Rifle RFLR3G1, 308 Winchester/7.62 NATO, this is an assault style rifle, normally use five round mag, own six 15 round mags
Glock 19 9mm semi automatic pistol
Colt model 1911 45acp pistol, semi auto
Smith and wesson 44 magnum revolver.
44 mag desert eagle, semi auto.
12 gauge pump shotgun

Now under your plan I have to pay someone to store 7 of my guns.

Now, you want to explain just how this is not infringement?

To avoid the little problem of the second amendment, you would have to make the damn things illegal for an individual to own, period.

What is wrong with responsible ownership? My weapons are secured, and if anyone wants to steal the gun safe as been suggested, if they can get it out of the house, I would be just as afraid to meet them in person without a weapon. The thing weighs 300 pounds. Took four of us to get it into my house in the first place.

Every time there is something like this, which is not the norm, although for some reason, more frequent this year than any other year since Columbine, you people come up with the most extreme, restrictive and costly plan to restrict gun ownership.

How has the ban on illegal drugs gone? The US has some of the strictest anti drug laws in the world.

For that matter, what about the Uzi's, tech 9's, full auto AK's and god knows what else that are presently in the hands of gang bangers who account for more innocent children killed in the inner cities in one year than all of the mass shootings since Columbine?

Before you decide to take away my right to keep my guns that I legally bought in my home, under lock and key, solve that one effectively and permanently.

When you do, I will be more than happy to entertain some of your suggestions.

Now, I have said I am in favor of reasonable gun laws. You and others on this board are talking unreasonable, and in the idea of a ban, completely useless gun laws.



Nosathro -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 3:30:01 PM)

Considering what has happened, I find it in poor tastes to argue this. To me both Pro gun and anit gun control are capitalizing on this as in previous cases, neither side seem to be intrenched on their view point, nothing will be done.



tazzygirl -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 3:34:23 PM)

quote:

Now under your plan I have to pay someone to store 7 of my guns.

Now, you want to explain just how this is not infringement?


Because you have the right to own guns... doesnt mean they have to be semi or fully automatic. You made that choice.

quote:

To avoid the little problem of the second amendment, you would have to make the damn things illegal for an individual to own, period.


Not at all. Your right to own a gun isnt infringed upon in any way.

quote:

What is wrong with responsible ownership? My weapons are secured, and if anyone wants to steal the gun safe as been suggested, if they can get it out of the house, I would be just as afraid to meet them in person without a weapon. The thing weighs 300 pounds. Took four of us to get it into my house in the first place.


I didnt say there was anything wrong with responsible ownership. But, the fact is, too many arent responsible.

quote:

Every time there is something like this, which is not the norm, although for some reason, more frequent this year than any other year since Columbine, you people come up with the most extreme, restrictive and costly plan to restrict gun ownership.


And every time its dropped the next killing is even worse.

quote:

How has the ban on illegal drugs gone? The US has some of the strictest anti drug laws in the world.


I never said ban.

quote:

For that matter, what about the Uzi's, tech 9's, full auto AK's and god knows what else that are presently in the hands of gang bangers who account for more innocent children killed in the inner cities in one year than all of the mass shootings since Columbine?


Many who stole them from legal gun owners... or idiots who bought the illegal ones through gun shows or private sales.

quote:

Before you decide to take away my right to keep my guns that I legally bought in my home, under lock and key, solve that one effectively and permanently.


Key... nope. Not good enough. Keypad and we are talking.

quote:

When you do, I will be more than happy to entertain some of your suggestions.

Now, I have said I am in favor of reasonable gun laws. You and others on this board are talking unreasonable, and in the idea of a ban, completely useless gun laws.


Again, since you are insisting that I said ban them.. show me where? I never said ban guns. I said restrict access. For decades we have waited for gun owners to wise up and do the "responsible" thing. And so far, all we get is whining about how your rights are infringed upon.

Well, my proposals of a locker system for semi's and automatics doesnt take away your right to own them. Just restricts access. Sucks that it means also access to you... but.. hey. Im done waiting.

Other weapons not of the types above, and yes, I am sure you can come up with ever more deadlier types of weapons, so lets not go down that road, you keep at home, in a gun safe.

With rights comes responsibilities. If you cant afford to act responsibly, then dont buy them. But it is your right to have a gun. No one is taking those guns from you. Just keeping them nice and safer than many gun owners in this country do.



jlf1961 -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 4:03:25 PM)

My guns are in a dual lock gun safe, keypad and key.

My ammo is in a separate hard locker, keypad and key.

I know the keypad combinations, my sister who lives with me has both keys to both the safe and hard locker.

The only weapon within easy access is my model 1911, loaded and where only my sister, niece, nieces boyfriend and I can get at it. Reason, simple, in the last four months five homes within six miles of my home have been broken into while the owners were home, intruders were not armed with guns, and the home owners did not own guns, and a bully club is nasty.

Granted my dogs will probably be on em first, but I am not going to let the dogs do all the work nor let em be hurt.

Of the people I listed, my niece is the worst shot, if she has to shoot, she is more likely to hit the guy or guys in the legs, crotch, foot anywhere but a killing area.

Might I suggest we make responsible gun ownership a legal necessity to owning guns? Subject to random inspections by law enforcement?

Now before you start on adding more work to the duties of the police or sheriff's department, in my town and county there is the city police, city marshal's office, city constable's office, the country sheriff, the county constable's office, and the sheriff's posse, reserve deputies used in crisis situations and searches.

Only the police department and sheriff's department are full time law enforcement, although every member of every unit I listed are Texas law enforcement officers. For the most part the other officers, aside from the sheriff's posse serve subpoenas, summons, and enforce noise ordinances. Yes the county has a noise ordinance.

Want to know how I found out about that? I used to have a working, full size replica civil war cannon. I loaded it and fired it once around midnight, just the powder charge, no round. A couple of my neighbors over a mile away complained. The citation cost me $395.00. After that I just loaned it out to the local civil war re-enactors and the local frontier days celebration, until the two groups raised enough to buy it out right.

In truth, in the United States have a number of local and state redundant law enforcement agencies. why not give them the duty to inspect the storage used by gun owners?



tazzygirl -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 4:05:14 PM)

Ok, then lets say we allow exceptions for those who are equipped like a shooting range. Would you be willing to go through the approval process? Or would that cause another argument? And then how do you track when someone is moving?



cloudboy -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 4:14:18 PM)


Sorry Aswad, I don't know what happened. I traced the post back to you (#37) and found "Gun control affects crimes of passion and accidents, not premeditation" but I don't know where "The problem with so many guns in the USA is that these massacres are becoming a norm. We can expect these rampages to happen with regularity" came from.

I thought I just did a cut-and-paste.

I do agree with: "Gun control affects crimes of passion and accidents, not premeditation" but I don't know where "



tazzygirl -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 4:17:45 PM)

quote:

Want to know how I found out about that? I used to have a working, full size replica civil war cannon. I loaded it and fired it once around midnight, just the powder charge, no round. A couple of my neighbors over a mile away complained. The citation cost me $395.00. After that I just loaned it out to the local civil war re-enactors and the local frontier days celebration, until the two groups raised enough to buy it out right.

In truth, in the United States have a number of local and state redundant law enforcement agencies. why not give them the duty to inspect the storage used by gun owners?


Because they have better things to do than to walk into people's homes demanding to see guns. Responsibility is on the gun owner



jlf1961 -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 4:24:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Ok, then lets say we allow exceptions for those who are equipped like a shooting range. Would you be willing to go through the approval process? Or would that cause another argument? And then how do you track when someone is moving?


Every weapon I listed I bought after the Brady Bill. So I had to go through a background check and the seven day waiting period for the handguns. I had no problems with that.

Might I suggest that we borrow a regulation from Greece? Over there, to purchase a gun you have to submit to a psych eval. It wont catch the normal person that suffers a psychotic break due to some trauma, but it will prevent emotionally unstable people from buying a gun.

As I admitted, I am bipolar and suffer PTSD, and the only violent acts I have committed was in the Army. I would be willing to submit to random blood tests to make prove the medications I am taking for those problems are at therapeutic levels, and sign a HIPA form to allow local leo's to check with my shrink.

When it comes to moving, gun owners must reregister their guns with local leo's. In most states this is already in place.

I would also suggest that anyone that had a history of violence, domestic, criminal misdemeanor, be restricted to the kind of gun they can buy. Someone with mental illness related violence incidents have to go through a year waiting period with monthly reports from a therapist to show that he/she is getting treatment before he/sh gets a weapon.

That sound good to you?



jlf1961 -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 4:28:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Want to know how I found out about that? I used to have a working, full size replica civil war cannon. I loaded it and fired it once around midnight, just the powder charge, no round. A couple of my neighbors over a mile away complained. The citation cost me $395.00. After that I just loaned it out to the local civil war re-enactors and the local frontier days celebration, until the two groups raised enough to buy it out right.

In truth, in the United States have a number of local and state redundant law enforcement agencies. why not give them the duty to inspect the storage used by gun owners?


Because they have better things to do than to walk into people's homes demanding to see guns. Responsibility is on the gun owner



I have already suggested criminal charges for unsecured firearms used in the commission of a crime or mass killing.



tazzygirl -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 4:36:29 PM)

quote:

That sound good to you?


Sounds great... but doesnt address the access to guns and those are arent mentally unstable at the moment, or those who might break into their homes, or live there, as with Lanza

quote:

When it comes to moving, gun owners must reregister their guns with local leo's. In most states this is already in place.


And how many dont?

My point was that with a locker system as I proposed, the locker would transfer, not the owner. Nothing lost.... nothing hidden. No possible way to get around that.

quote:

I have already suggested criminal charges for unsecured firearms used in the commission of a crime or mass killing.


You are addressing an after the fact incident. I am addressing the before it is attempted.



Aswad -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 4:52:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

It may be a case of, lost in translation, because to me, it's not a reason to permit them.


Actually, it was me misrepresenting you accidentally. Sorry about that. I read you correctly, but relayed you incorrectly.

quote:

As I've said repeatedly....I am not against responsible gun ownership. I simply believe that 'responsible gun ownership' needs to be determined, re-defined, and controlled better.


As I said, we agree in the main.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



Aswad -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 4:56:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Obviously not if so many are arguing against it because they want to be able to play with their toys at a moments notice.


Actually, while I don't have any desire to have my toys available at a moment's notice (quite the contrary, I'm trying to find a legal loophole to permit me to store the bolt at someone else's house, and the rifle at mine, because I know what a brain tumor or the like can do), I think you've turned this question on its head.

There should be no need to argue that they want to do something, so long as liberty means anything.

The burden is to prove that the restriction is necessary, effective and justifiable.

I think we can prove that some measures meet these criterion.

Storage requirements seem likely candidates.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



Aswad -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 5:01:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt

Well dang. Obviously I missed it. I wish they would put pulled discussions in there own special sub section so a person could read them.


Me, too. I'm sick of sinking time into things and having it pulled as collateral.

That's why I'm no longer writing anything I don't consider an entirely disposable post.

quote:

I thought the breakdown of location and choice of weapon in the list I posted was fascinating.


Yeah, there were a few surprises in there.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



tazzygirl -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 5:01:55 PM)

I truly believe its the only available alternative at this point. We can register all the guns, but if people arent responsible, they will be stolen, and it becomes an "after the fact". I just dont get the arguments about locking them up.

Gun ownership is a right in this country. Gun restrictions are at the discretion of the government and legal system. We already do it for felonies, domestic violence, mental issues.

Why do we have to wait for someone to kill someone else before protecting society as a whole... I really dont get it.



jlf1961 -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 5:02:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

That sound good to you?


Sounds great... but doesnt address the access to guns and those are arent mentally unstable at the moment, or those who might break into their homes, or live there, as with Lanza

quote:

When it comes to moving, gun owners must reregister their guns with local leo's. In most states this is already in place.


And how many dont?

My point was that with a locker system as I proposed, the locker would transfer, not the owner. Nothing lost.... nothing hidden. No possible way to get around that.

quote:

I have already suggested criminal charges for unsecured firearms used in the commission of a crime or mass killing.


You are addressing an after the fact incident. I am addressing the before it is attempted.


Alright we are back to prevention.

As for the punishment for not having re registered, is criminal and in some states a felony.

Unless you come up with something akin to "Minority Report" you are going to have mass killings, whether with a gun or IED.

In Columbine, two of the guns were bought for the shooters by one's girlfriend.

And at this point, I am going to point out the obvious fact, once more. Mass shootings are the exception to the rule not the norm. You want to adequately prevent them, or mass killings of any kind?

Forget gun control. Wont work and totally and completely impossible simply because if someone wants a restricted gun, they are going to get one.

But there is something that will work. And technically it is part of securing the public welfare.

Mandatory semi annual psych evals for the entire population, gun owners and non owners alike. I will guarantee that you will catch the people that commit these acts before they can commit them. And it will probably be cheaper in the long run that some restrictive gun control laws that have not worked to keep fully automatic weapons out of the hands of gang bangers, drug cartel operations in the states, and every other gun toting criminal organization in the states.



Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875