Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

  • Edit/rename discussion
  • Make sticky
  • Archive discussion
  • Move discussion

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    posted at 12/17/2012 2:49 PM EST

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    In response to ccsjl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Where did I say Im taking away your firearms? Just saying owners of these high capacity military weapons should be subject to Class 3 restrictions. I know a class 3 owner of an MP 44 - the German sub gun you see in the WW2 movies. Every once in awhile the doorbell rings, and there is an ATF representative to inspect the storage of it. Intrusive yes - but thats part of Class 3 ownership, at any time you are subject to the weapons storage.




    And, as a law abiding citizen - why should I be handicapped by not having access to high capacity firearms when defending myself.  Seems like you're unfairly penalizing law abiding gun owners and handicapping us. Is it fair for a "criminal" who obtains a high capacity firearm - and me being limited to 5 rounds - as an example?



    How often to you have the need to "defend yourself" with a high-capacity semiautomatic weapon? Is this something that happens daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, once a decade . . . ever?

    /QUOTE]

    that's not the point though, is it? It only has to happen once - and noone wants to have it happen. But if it does, I want that ability to defend myself.  I'm sure you would change your mind tomorrow if people invaded your home, raped your wife and daughter, and killed them with a gun.  You really think the police will get there in time?

     

  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from vertigho. Show vertigho's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    posted at 12/17/2012 3:20 PM EST

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    I always just shake my head when the libs cry that they must take away the guns to stop the killing, then stamp their feet until their face is red defending the right to kill an unborn human being. Don't get much more hypocritical than that.

     

    Moral of the story: get out of that womb, it's open season on you from the morally upright libs who want to stop that 2 per 100k more killings with guns!

     

    God is right. This world is full of sickos. I suspect He will have the same level of mercy on you as you offer for the unborn.



    Gotta love the Repubs and Tea Party'ers fighting with every ounce of energy to deny personal freedoms to gay and lesbian couples, and attempting to tell women what they can/can't do with their bodies, only to turn around and scream 'hands off my healthcare!', and 'hands off my taxes!'. 

    Republicans are the party of small government? Yeah right. They're the party of small government where they want it. 

    The life of a human being is sacred, unless we're talking about the death penalty... right?

     

  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccsjl. Show ccsjl's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    posted at 12/17/2012 3:27 PM EST

    AGAIN - I never said to CONFISCATE these guns, just subject them to Class 3 restrictions, and if you seriously use any of the type of weapons you really should reconsider...As you are emptying the 30 round mag, these .223s or 7x39 rounds are going through the "bad guy" then the walls and killing family members as well in the next room, or neighbors next door. A shotgun loaded with birdshot at home defense range is a one shot putdown on the attacker anddoesnt go through walls....

     

  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from CablesWyndBairn. Show CablesWyndBairn's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    posted at 12/17/2012 3:28 PM EST

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to CablesWyndBairn's comment:

    I'd like to agree that some sort of higher form of gun regulation in the USA is the answer.  And then I read that there are upwards of 200+ million guns out there in the country, a lot of which are on the black market.  So if you want a gun, chances are you can get one.  For lawful gun owners, it should come down to responsible gun ownership -- keeping your guns where other people cannot get them.  But who can say that a lawful gun owner will never be involved in such a tragedy?  Even lawful gun owners have used them for wrong in the past -- and not just owners of assault rifles.   That being said, guns that this CT kid got, even though they were lawfully owned, were too readily accessible to him.  If they were the mom's guns, how about trigger locks, locking them in a safe, etc? 

    I am not convinced that this country has the wherewithal or the stomach to do something about guns.  There are a lot of people who like to hunt, target shoot, etc., who are responsible people and who keep their guns out of reach from those who shouldn't have access to them.  And then there are those who see guns as all bad and want to outlaw them.  How do you get those polarized groups together to have a productive dialog around the 2nd amendment and the fact that there may need to be some kind of change needed to keep movie theatre, mall and school shootings from happening?  Even if there was a dialog, are the solutions that easy?  

    I see no panacea, and I firmly believe as soon as one political faction moves to open a dialog the other politcal faction will move as fast to reject it.  We are a polarized country in lots of ways, and gun control is right up there.  Look at the backlash that Obama got in some circles for speaking on the CT tragedy.  He was accused of using the camera time for political gain.  I see it as he is the President of the USA and HAD to address it and let the families know WE ARE ALL mourning with them.  

    The reason nothing will happen is because both sides are entrenched and neither will give on this issue.  Either that, we'll get another Brady Bill or some other token legislation to appease everyone but that will have minimal effect and will not change things at all.  



    Yeah the country is polarized.  But please, let's not use that as an excuse for apathy. If people like you (and there are millions of them) who are "resigned" to things not changing actually put pressure on the people who represent you, things could change.  But you can't start with the assumption that nothing will ever change and then decide that therefore there's nothing you can do. You have more power than you think . . . if others who think like you also give up on giving up. 

     



    I agree to a point, but for every guy like me that wants to see some kind of change to the status quo there is another who thinks we're fine the way it is.  I know quite a few gun owners whose mantra is that if guns are outlawed then only outlaws will own guns.  People aren't going to just give up their rights without a fight, and I have little faith that government can find common ground.  I think I'm being realistic, and I don't think an incident even as shameful and hideous as this will move certain people even an inch toward gun control.  My overall larger point is that there is no magic bullet and that guns are ingrained in the culture of the USA.  I like to hunt and respect gun rights, but I don't think the average person needs an assault rifle never mind an arsenal.  Are there many like me out there?  Not so sure. 

     I'd love to be proven wrong on all this and that somewhere there is an answer to stopping the next tragic event and that the government can figure it out without enacting a window dressing piece of legislation.  

     

  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from crasheb. Show crasheb's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    posted at 12/17/2012 4:02 PM EST

    In response to ccsjl's comment:

    In 1934 the National Firearms Act, (NFA), severely restricted all fully automatic weapons, (which are machine guns, and sub machine guns) as well as sawed-off shotguns, pen pistols, cane pistols, etc. from ownership by the general public. These weapons since then have only been available to Class 3 Federal firearms license holders, which requires extensive background checks, secure gun vaults in the home, as well as expensive taxes to be paid on the weapons themselves. Since the NFA not a single legally owned machine gun  has been used in a crime. Lets all call our Senators and Congressmen today DEMANDING that any firearm above 22 rimfire caliber and capable of accepting any clip or magazine above 10 round capacity IMMEDIATELY be upgraded to class 3 status.




     

  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    posted at 12/17/2012 4:08 PM EST

    In response to ccsjl's comment:

    AGAIN - I never said to CONFISCATE these guns, just subject them to Class 3 restrictions, and if you seriously use any of the type of weapons you really should reconsider...As you are emptying the 30 round mag, these .223s or 7x39 rounds are going through the "bad guy" then the walls and killing family members as well in the next room, or neighbors next door. A shotgun loaded with birdshot at home defense range is a one shot putdown on the attacker anddoesnt go through walls....



    And again, why should there be restrictions.  How about personal responsibility and choice.  If YOU choose not to own a gun, then don't. I hardly want someone like YOU taking away MY choice to own. I'm pretty sure that YOU won't be around to protect ME and MY FAMILY from harm's way.

    How about this, those who DONT want to possess a firearm is required to pay for all of the fees and costs for implementing this idea of yours on behalf of those who do want firearms.

     

  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from seymonster. Show seymonster's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    posted at 12/17/2012 4:31 PM EST

    it has been proven over the past several days that the most powerful weapon out there is the boxcutter, which was, of course, the weapon of choice in the 9/11 attacks.  you can get those very cheaply at your local hardware store.  i have seven of them placed in strategic locations around my home, as well as a sign in my front yard reading "BEWARE BROWN PEOPLE I WILL CUT YOUR FACE"  if anyone even comes near my property i will channel every single ounce of my xenophopia into a master attack which will leave my many enemies quivering in a glistening pile of  their own organs.

    ifyou come for my boxcutter, you better bring yours!

     

  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    posted at 12/17/2012 4:38 PM EST

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    In response to ccsjl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Where did I say Im taking away your firearms? Just saying owners of these high capacity military weapons should be subject to Class 3 restrictions. I know a class 3 owner of an MP 44 - the German sub gun you see in the WW2 movies. Every once in awhile the doorbell rings, and there is an ATF representative to inspect the storage of it. Intrusive yes - but thats part of Class 3 ownership, at any time you are subject to the weapons storage.




    And, as a law abiding citizen - why should I be handicapped by not having access to high capacity firearms when defending myself.  Seems like you're unfairly penalizing law abiding gun owners and handicapping us. Is it fair for a "criminal" who obtains a high capacity firearm - and me being limited to 5 rounds - as an example?



    How often to you have the need to "defend yourself" with a high-capacity semiautomatic weapon? Is this something that happens daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, once a decade . . . ever?

    /QUOTE]

    that's not the point though, is it? It only has to happen once - and noone wants to have it happen. But if it does, I want that ability to defend myself.  I'm sure you would change your mind tomorrow if people invaded your home, raped your wife and daughter, and killed them with a gun.  You really think the police will get there in time?



    It's exactly the point.  Such an event is highly unlikely ever to occur.  The reality is, the likelihood of your wife or daughter committing suicide with the gun is much higher.  There are all sorts of rare probabilities you could try to protect yourself against.  The problem, though, with protecting yourself against the rare probability of a murderous home invader with a gun is that your gun itself brings risks of all sorts of actually less uncommon fatalities.  Suicide is the biggest, but accidental injury or the possibility of the gun being used in a crime (by you, a family member, or a criminal who steals your gun) are also at least as high probabilities as the probability of your actually having the opportunity to "defend" your family with the gun.  Also, using a gun in self-defense isn't exactly a simple matter.  An armed robber is more likely to shoot at you, too, if he knows your armed.  And often the robber is more prepared to kill than you are.  It's a bit of a crap shoot once you get into a shoot out with another armed person.  

    I was mugged once at gun point. Quite honestly, I think I was better off not being armed.  I didn't get hurt.  If I had been armed, though, I think the mugger would have shot me before I could have shot him. 

     It's also worth pointing out that Ms. Lanza apparently had her guns at least in part for "self-defense."  I guess that didn't work out quite as intended.  She and her son both died with their own guns . . . and 20+ other people were killed along with them.  But the guns, at least if reports are true, were partly there to protect a single woman from the (low) probability of a home invader. 

     

     

  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from seymonster. Show seymonster's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    posted at 12/17/2012 4:41 PM EST

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    In response to ccsjl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Where did I say Im taking away your firearms? Just saying owners of these high capacity military weapons should be subject to Class 3 restrictions. I know a class 3 owner of an MP 44 - the German sub gun you see in the WW2 movies. Every once in awhile the doorbell rings, and there is an ATF representative to inspect the storage of it. Intrusive yes - but thats part of Class 3 ownership, at any time you are subject to the weapons storage.




    And, as a law abiding citizen - why should I be handicapped by not having access to high capacity firearms when defending myself.  Seems like you're unfairly penalizing law abiding gun owners and handicapping us. Is it fair for a "criminal" who obtains a high capacity firearm - and me being limited to 5 rounds - as an example?



    How often to you have the need to "defend yourself" with a high-capacity semiautomatic weapon? Is this something that happens daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, once a decade . . . ever?

    /QUOTE]

    that's not the point though, is it? It only has to happen once - and noone wants to have it happen. But if it does, I want that ability to defend myself.  I'm sure you would change your mind tomorrow if people invaded your home, raped your wife and daughter, and killed them with a gun.  You really think the police will get there in time?



    It's exactly the point.  Such an event is highly unlikely ever to occur.  The reality is, the likelihood of your wife or daughter committing suicide with the gun is much higher.  There are all sorts of rare probabilities you could try to protect yourself against.  The problem, though, with protecting yourself against the rare probability of a murderous home invader with a gun is that your gun itself brings risks of all sorts of actually less uncommon fatalities.  Suicide is the biggest, but accidental injury or the possibility of the gun being used in a crime (by you, a family member, or a criminal who steals your gun) are also at least as high probabilities as the probability of your actually having the opportunity to "defend" your family with the gun.  Also, using a gun in self-defense isn't exactly a simple matter.  An armed robber is more likely to shoot at you, too, if he knows your armed.  And often the robber is more prepared to kill than you are.  It's a bit of a crap shoot once you get into a shoot out with another armed person.  

    I was mugged once at gun point. Quite honestly, I think I was better off not being armed.  I didn't get hurt.  If I had been armed, though, I think the mugger would have shot me before I could have shot him. 

     




    sorry no enlightened wisdom allowed here, only rhetoric.

     

  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    posted at 12/17/2012 4:43 PM EST

    In response to CablesWyndBairn's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to CablesWyndBairn's comment:

    I'd like to agree that some sort of higher form of gun regulation in the USA is the answer.  And then I read that there are upwards of 200+ million guns out there in the country, a lot of which are on the black market.  So if you want a gun, chances are you can get one.  For lawful gun owners, it should come down to responsible gun ownership -- keeping your guns where other people cannot get them.  But who can say that a lawful gun owner will never be involved in such a tragedy?  Even lawful gun owners have used them for wrong in the past -- and not just owners of assault rifles.   That being said, guns that this CT kid got, even though they were lawfully owned, were too readily accessible to him.  If they were the mom's guns, how about trigger locks, locking them in a safe, etc? 

    I am not convinced that this country has the wherewithal or the stomach to do something about guns.  There are a lot of people who like to hunt, target shoot, etc., who are responsible people and who keep their guns out of reach from those who shouldn't have access to them.  And then there are those who see guns as all bad and want to outlaw them.  How do you get those polarized groups together to have a productive dialog around the 2nd amendment and the fact that there may need to be some kind of change needed to keep movie theatre, mall and school shootings from happening?  Even if there was a dialog, are the solutions that easy?  

    I see no panacea, and I firmly believe as soon as one political faction moves to open a dialog the other politcal faction will move as fast to reject it.  We are a polarized country in lots of ways, and gun control is right up there.  Look at the backlash that Obama got in some circles for speaking on the CT tragedy.  He was accused of using the camera time for political gain.  I see it as he is the President of the USA and HAD to address it and let the families know WE ARE ALL mourning with them.  

    The reason nothing will happen is because both sides are entrenched and neither will give on this issue.  Either that, we'll get another Brady Bill or some other token legislation to appease everyone but that will have minimal effect and will not change things at all.  



    Yeah the country is polarized.  But please, let's not use that as an excuse for apathy. If people like you (and there are millions of them) who are "resigned" to things not changing actually put pressure on the people who represent you, things could change.  But you can't start with the assumption that nothing will ever change and then decide that therefore there's nothing you can do. You have more power than you think . . . if others who think like you also give up on giving up. 

     



    I agree to a point, but for every guy like me that wants to see some kind of change to the status quo there is another who thinks we're fine the way it is.  I know quite a few gun owners whose mantra is that if guns are outlawed then only outlaws will own guns.  People aren't going to just give up their rights without a fight, and I have little faith that government can find common ground.  I think I'm being realistic, and I don't think an incident even as shameful and hideous as this will move certain people even an inch toward gun control.  My overall larger point is that there is no magic bullet and that guns are ingrained in the culture of the USA.  I like to hunt and respect gun rights, but I don't think the average person needs an assault rifle never mind an arsenal.  Are there many like me out there?  Not so sure. 

     I'd love to be proven wrong on all this and that somewhere there is an answer to stopping the next tragic event and that the government can figure it out without enacting a window dressing piece of legislation.  



    Yeah, but if you and the millions of others who feel the same as you, just give up, you hand victory to the other side.  Attitudes do change.  Lots of things once seemed impossible, but became possible once enough people stopped being resigned to the status quo. Resignation and apathy are obstacles as large as the opposition sometimes.  Hopefully, this massacre will be a tipping point that helps those who have been resigned get some backbone and stand up and say, "wait a minute, we don't have to take this if we don't want to."

     

  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    posted at 12/17/2012 5:01 PM EST

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    In response to ccsjl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Where did I say Im taking away your firearms? Just saying owners of these high capacity military weapons should be subject to Class 3 restrictions. I know a class 3 owner of an MP 44 - the German sub gun you see in the WW2 movies. Every once in awhile the doorbell rings, and there is an ATF representative to inspect the storage of it. Intrusive yes - but thats part of Class 3 ownership, at any time you are subject to the weapons storage.




    And, as a law abiding citizen - why should I be handicapped by not having access to high capacity firearms when defending myself.  Seems like you're unfairly penalizing law abiding gun owners and handicapping us. Is it fair for a "criminal" who obtains a high capacity firearm - and me being limited to 5 rounds - as an example?



    How often to you have the need to "defend yourself" with a high-capacity semiautomatic weapon? Is this something that happens daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, once a decade . . . ever?

    /QUOTE]

    that's not the point though, is it? It only has to happen once - and noone wants to have it happen. But if it does, I want that ability to defend myself.  I'm sure you would change your mind tomorrow if people invaded your home, raped your wife and daughter, and killed them with a gun.  You really think the police will get there in time?



    It's exactly the point.  Such an event is highly unlikely ever to occur.  The reality is, the likelihood of your wife or daughter committing suicide with the gun is much higher.  There are all sorts of rare probabilities you could try to protect yourself against.  The problem, though, with protecting yourself against the rare probability of a murderous home invader with a gun is that your gun itself brings risks of all sorts of actually less uncommon fatalities.  Suicide is the biggest, but accidental injury or the possibility of the gun being used in a crime (by you, a family member, or a criminal who steals your gun) are also at least as high probabilities as the probability of your actually having the opportunity to "defend" your family with the gun.  Also, using a gun in self-defense isn't exactly a simple matter.  An armed robber is more likely to shoot at you, too, if he knows your armed.  And often the robber is more prepared to kill than you are.  It's a bit of a crap shoot once you get into a shoot out with another armed person.  

    I was mugged once at gun point. Quite honestly, I think I was better off not being armed.  I didn't get hurt.  If I had been armed, though, I think the mugger would have shot me before I could have shot him. 

     It's also worth pointing out that Ms. Lanza apparently had her guns at least in part for "self-defense."  I guess that didn't work out quite as intended.  She and her son both died with their own guns . . . and 20+ other people were killed along with them.  But the guns, at least if reports are true, were partly there to protect a single woman from the (low) probability of a home invader. 

     




    The odds DON'T matter. You are saying that I have NO RIGHT to defend myself with a gun OF MY CHOOSING.

     Sorry if you had a bad experience with the mugger. Personally, awareness of your environment may have prevented you from being mugged at all.  In addition, shooting in self defense is the LAST resort one takes. But you know what, if I find myself with no alternative - you bet your bottom dollar that I want to be armed with everything I need to prevent harm to myself or family.

    Again, the odds are not material in this discussion.  What it amounts to is people like YOU elminating MY right to protect me and my family. Period. 

    Like I said, you wan't those who want to possess a class 3 license for owning firearms - then it should be law that those who don't want to own guns should pay the whole shebang.

     

  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    posted at 12/17/2012 5:06 PM EST

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    In response to ccsjl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Where did I say Im taking away your firearms? Just saying owners of these high capacity military weapons should be subject to Class 3 restrictions. I know a class 3 owner of an MP 44 - the German sub gun you see in the WW2 movies. Every once in awhile the doorbell rings, and there is an ATF representative to inspect the storage of it. Intrusive yes - but thats part of Class 3 ownership, at any time you are subject to the weapons storage.




    And, as a law abiding citizen - why should I be handicapped by not having access to high capacity firearms when defending myself.  Seems like you're unfairly penalizing law abiding gun owners and handicapping us. Is it fair for a "criminal" who obtains a high capacity firearm - and me being limited to 5 rounds - as an example?



    How often to you have the need to "defend yourself" with a high-capacity semiautomatic weapon? Is this something that happens daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, once a decade . . . ever?

    /QUOTE]

    that's not the point though, is it? It only has to happen once - and noone wants to have it happen. But if it does, I want that ability to defend myself.  I'm sure you would change your mind tomorrow if people invaded your home, raped your wife and daughter, and killed them with a gun.  You really think the police will get there in time?



    It's exactly the point.  Such an event is highly unlikely ever to occur.  The reality is, the likelihood of your wife or daughter committing suicide with the gun is much higher.  There are all sorts of rare probabilities you could try to protect yourself against.  The problem, though, with protecting yourself against the rare probability of a murderous home invader with a gun is that your gun itself brings risks of all sorts of actually less uncommon fatalities.  Suicide is the biggest, but accidental injury or the possibility of the gun being used in a crime (by you, a family member, or a criminal who steals your gun) are also at least as high probabilities as the probability of your actually having the opportunity to "defend" your family with the gun.  Also, using a gun in self-defense isn't exactly a simple matter.  An armed robber is more likely to shoot at you, too, if he knows your armed.  And often the robber is more prepared to kill than you are.  It's a bit of a crap shoot once you get into a shoot out with another armed person.  

    I was mugged once at gun point. Quite honestly, I think I was better off not being armed.  I didn't get hurt.  If I had been armed, though, I think the mugger would have shot me before I could have shot him. 

     It's also worth pointing out that Ms. Lanza apparently had her guns at least in part for "self-defense."  I guess that didn't work out quite as intended.  She and her son both died with their own guns . . . and 20+ other people were killed along with them.  But the guns, at least if reports are true, were partly there to protect a single woman from the (low) probability of a home invader. 

     




    The odds DON'T matter. You are saying that I have NO RIGHT to defend myself with a gun OF MY CHOOSING.

     Sorry if you had a bad experience with the mugger. Personally, awareness of your environment may have prevented you from being mugged at all.  In addition, shooting in self defense is the LAST resort one takes. But you know what, if I find myself with no alternative - you bet your bottom dollar that I want to be armed with everything I need to prevent harm to myself or family.

    Again, the odds are not material in this discussion.  What it amounts to is people like YOU elminating MY right to protect me and my family. Period. 

    Like I said, you wan't those who want to possess a class 3 license for owning firearms - then it should be law that those who don't want to own guns should pay the whole shebang.



    What is material is public safety.  And if gun ownership compromises it (as a great deal of evidence suggests it does), then the public is well within its rights to limit access to large-capacity weapons. And probabilities are important in determining public policy.  There is no reason the public at large should shoulder a comparatively large risk because you feel like you should be able to protect yourself against a negligible risk.  

    Simply, put, we have the right to protect the safety of our families as much as you have the right to protect the safety of your family.   

     

     

     

  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    posted at 12/17/2012 5:14 PM EST

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     



    What is material is public safety.  And if gun ownership compromises it (as a great deal of evidence suggests it does), then the public is well within its rights to limit access to large-capacity weapons. And probabilities are important in determining public policy.  There is no reason the public at large should shoulder a comparatively large risk because you feel like you should be able to protect yourself against a negligible risk.  

    Simply, put, we have the right to protect the safety of our families as much as you have the right to protect the safety of your family.   

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No, what your talking about is a group of non-gunowners trying to determine who should have a gun or not.  If YOU choose a different path to protect YOUR family - That is ON YOU. But YOU have no right to tell ME how to protect MY CHOICE on how to protect MY FAMILY. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR POSITION AND MY POSITION.

    If you feel so strongly, then why would you be so against having NON-GUN owners paying for GUN owners application fees and costs for background checks, ect? Since it's in line with YOUR choice on how to protect YOUR family.

     

     

  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from seymonster. Show seymonster's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    posted at 12/17/2012 5:25 PM EST

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     



    What is material is public safety.  And if gun ownership compromises it (as a great deal of evidence suggests it does), then the public is well within its rights to limit access to large-capacity weapons. And probabilities are important in determining public policy.  There is no reason the public at large should shoulder a comparatively large risk because you feel like you should be able to protect yourself against a negligible risk.  

    Simply, put, we have the right to protect the safety of our families as much as you have the right to protect the safety of your family.   

     



    No, what your talking about is a group of non-gunowners trying to determine who should have a gun or not.  If YOU choose a different path to protect YOUR family - That is ON YOU. But YOU have no right to tell ME how to protect MY CHOICE on how to protect MY FAMILY. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR POSITION AND MY POSITION.

    If you feel so strongly, then why would you be so against having NON-GUN owners paying for GUN owners application fees and costs for background checks, ect? Since it's in line with YOUR choice on how to protect YOUR family.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    because YOUR CHOICE puts us ALL at unneccessary RISK.  just like YOUR CHOICE put the children at Sandy Hook to DEATH.

     

  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    posted at 12/17/2012 5:25 PM EST

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     



    What is material is public safety.  And if gun ownership compromises it (as a great deal of evidence suggests it does), then the public is well within its rights to limit access to large-capacity weapons. And probabilities are important in determining public policy.  There is no reason the public at large should shoulder a comparatively large risk because you feel like you should be able to protect yourself against a negligible risk.  

    Simply, put, we have the right to protect the safety of our families as much as you have the right to protect the safety of your family.   

     



    No, what your talking about is a group of non-gunowners trying to determine who should have a gun or not.  If YOU choose a different path to protect YOUR family - That is ON YOU. But YOU have no right to tell ME how to protect MY CHOICE on how to protect MY FAMILY. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR POSITION AND MY POSITION.

    If you feel so strongly, then why would you be so against having NON-GUN owners paying for GUN owners application fees and costs for background checks, ect? Since it's in line with YOUR choice on how to protect YOUR family.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I am a gun owner, but the way (though I only own hunting guns, none of which has a capacity of more than two rounds).  But I don't see gun regulation as any different from regulating safe use of automobiles.  Yeah, you have a right to drive, but you can't drive 140 mph in a school zone.  And maybe you shouldn't be allowed to keep weapons that can hold 30 round magazines that allow you (or anyone who gets his hands on your gun) to kill 20 or 30 people in a few seconds.  

    Your "right" to protect yourself and your family against a negligible risk may not supersede my (and millions of others') rights not to have our children shot to death in school. About 100,000 people are shot every year in the US.  More than 30,000 die.  A lot of that has to do with far too easy access to high-capacity weapons designed primarily for killing people.   The one in a million chance you might need to defend yourself against a home invader simply doesn't tip the balance in your favor when weighed against the regular carnage happening every year all across America. 

    At some point, common sense needs to prevail over emotion.  

     

     

  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    posted at 12/17/2012 5:28 PM EST

    In response to seymonster's comment:

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     



    What is material is public safety.  And if gun ownership compromises it (as a great deal of evidence suggests it does), then the public is well within its rights to limit access to large-capacity weapons. And probabilities are important in determining public policy.  There is no reason the public at large should shoulder a comparatively large risk because you feel like you should be able to protect yourself against a negligible risk.  

    Simply, put, we have the right to protect the safety of our families as much as you have the right to protect the safety of your family.   

     



    No, what your talking about is a group of non-gunowners trying to determine who should have a gun or not.  If YOU choose a different path to protect YOUR family - That is ON YOU. But YOU have no right to tell ME how to protect MY CHOICE on how to protect MY FAMILY. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR POSITION AND MY POSITION.

    If you feel so strongly, then why would you be so against having NON-GUN owners paying for GUN owners application fees and costs for background checks, ect? Since it's in line with YOUR choice on how to protect YOUR family.

     



    because YOUR CHOICE puts us ALL at unneccessary RISK.  just like YOUR CHOICE put the children at Sandy Hook to DEATH.

    [/QUOTE]

    At some point, people who refuse to allow sensible gun control are responsible for the deaths the lack of gun control cause.  They'll deny it vigourously of course . . . but if you allow an unsafe situation to persist (or, more signficantly, prevent it from being eradicated), even if you don't directly cause the fatalities, your contribution to preserving the unsafe situation makes you partially responsible for the consequences. 

     

     

  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    posted at 12/17/2012 5:42 PM EST

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     



    because YOUR CHOICE puts us ALL at unneccessary RISK.  just like YOUR CHOICE put the children at Sandy Hook to DEATH.

    [/QUOTE]

    At some point, people who refuse to allow sensible gun control are responsible for the deaths the lack of gun control cause.  They'll deny it vigourously of course . . . but if you allow an unsafe situation to persist (or, more signficantly, prevent it from being eradicated), even if you don't directly cause the fatalities, your contribution to preserving the unsafe situation makes you partially responsible for the consequences. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Really? Have I hurt you or your family with my firearm? The answer is NO.  NOR did my gun ownership have ANY affect on the Sandy Hook. Absolutely ZERO.

    The person to blame is the boy who shot those children. NOBODY ELSE.

    To show you how rettarded your logic and reasoning is. Maybe it was all YOUR fault - as a non-gun owner because - Maybe if the Principal Dawn Hochsprung was armed she would have shot Lanza and prevented the whole catastrophe.


    So, maybe I'm thinking it was really YOUR fault all those people died because YOU didn't arm her so she could defend herself or the children.


    See how bad your logic and offensive accusations are?  It was really YOUR fault.

     

     

  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    posted at 12/17/2012 5:55 PM EST

    Yes, if you prevent a danger from being removed and people die as a result of that danger persisting, you are indeed responsible in part for the fatalities that occur.

     

     

  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from seymonster. Show seymonster's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    posted at 12/17/2012 5:55 PM EST

    serious question... do you think it is within your rights to own a nuclear warhead?

     

  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from vertigho. Show vertigho's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    posted at 12/17/2012 6:01 PM EST

    In response to seymonster's comment:

    serious question... do you think it is within your rights to own a nuclear warhead?



    Well course it is cuz my daddy had lots of guns and so did his brother, and the foundin' fathers who wrote that there constitution said so, and no Kenyan, socialist, unamerican Obami is gunna take my here weapons!

     

  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    posted at 12/17/2012 6:11 PM EST

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Let me rephrase that . . .

     




    no, the cat is out of the bag. You meant exactly what you wrote. To accuse anyone else other than Lanza for being even partially responsible for the terrible thing he did was truly offensive.

    As with any controversial subject it always boils down to someone forcing his/her own personal beliefs onto someone else and tries to take another person's choice away - LIKE YOU.  You see, MY CHOICE has no bearing on YOUR choice.

    Am done.

     

  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    posted at 12/17/2012 6:18 PM EST

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Let me rephrase that . . .

     




    no, the cat is out of the bag. You meant exactly what you wrote. To accuse anyone else other than Lanza for being even partially responsible for the terrible thing he did was truly offensive.

    As with any controversial subject it always boils down to someone forcing his/her own personal beliefs onto someone else and tries to take another person's choice away - LIKE YOU.  You see, MY CHOICE has no bearing on YOUR choice.

    Am done.



    No, what I was rephrasing was a further explanation of my point.  You can read the rephrased statement above. 

    And yes, I do believe that those who continue to resist reasonable gun control are responsible in part for the fatalities that follow. Particularly in a democracy, you are responsible for the policies you advocate. If those policies lead, directly or indirectly, to the massacre of 20 first-graders, then you are responsible for the consequences of those policies.  This doesn't mean you should go to jail.  What it does mean, though, is you should be man enough to take responsibility for the failed policies and work to change them. 

    And one more point, then I'm done too, because I don't want to get into a fight about this and the purpose of this site isn't to discuss gun control or politics.  But your choice has bearing on my own safety and on the safety and sanity of the society we all live in. So yes, it is my right to stand up and defend what's important to me even if it limits your choices. 

      

     

  23. This post has been removed.

     

  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from SFBostonFan. Show SFBostonFan's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    posted at 12/17/2012 7:52 PM EST

    In response to COMMIE-CONTRARIAN's comment:

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    Ban ALL Assault Rifles. You wanna shoot, go the range and rent one! Mental Illness is being cured all over the U.S. with pscho-tropical drugs that cause horrific nightmares and caused them to lash out unexpectidally and there is no rhyme or reason, but noone wants to solve it, just make money off it and thats why it will keep happening. I watched a Documentary from the 70s called "the drugging of our children" on youtube. Since then they have been drugging them and wrongly diagnosing these children with ADHD which aint even a real disease.


    +1.. as the morons would say "guns dont kill people, people kill people.." but of course sik people with a gun tend to kill a lot of people.. limit the access and the pool of guns, and common sense the probability goes down. lived in a house with a dommsdayer who had 12 guns incl assault ones.. you know whats more likely to happen by statistics.. you are most likely to be shot to death by someone living in your house (often a ticked off spouse) or being dearmed by the criminal and having it turned on you. ther only thing unusual here is that this CT sicko went on to kill innocent kids.. not unusual at all that he would kill his mom or the gun owner or home occupant.. sadly! people should own pistols or basic handguns or shotguns though up to a registered max (if they want more, can apply for a collectors license and pay special fees and undergo special background checks)...



    I agree with you as prior to this tragedy, I did not subscribe to gun control in any form. I think the US government already has far too much control over its citizens.

    However, I see polls asking should the 2nd amendment be repealed and shouldn't people have a right to defend themselves. Naturally 97% are affirmative & the other 3% are "turn your other cheek" idiots. Yup, by the time one calls 911 they could be dead. But protect your self from rape, robbery etc, with a pistol, and not a rapid fire one either,  and shotgun. A high powered assault weapon is not necessary. But don't take the pleasure away from gun enthusiasts, let them fire them at gun clubs.

    I think this nightmare deals with a far sinister issue - that of indescribable pain in an individual. This young man was himself (perpetrator) barely older than a child. We have a society so quick now to condemn him as evil but where were they? Where were the people who knew the family and knew of their suffering but did nothing? Let me elaborate, please. This young man who killed all of these innocent children committed a truly evil act, but I believe he was incredibly sick - and that is not meant as an excuse. I heard a conversation on Hannity how this young man was a sociopath - haha! How funny, aren't most of these teenagers and young 20's men sociopaths and any other BS title we can bestow upon them? Think about it...unrelenting violence on every show, in every movie, on every billboard. Outrageous sex everywhere we all turn, breakdown of family structure and morays, the decided end by many to take religion out of our lives.  Broken homes everywhere. Stressed out parents...need I go on? Young adults and teenagers are disconnected from any sort of feeling almost as a survival mechanism. I am surprised this doesn't happen every month with the way our country has gone downhill. Does this justify a heinous act? Of course not, but where were all of the people in this little tight community to help a mom raising a difficult son? We need to stop turning a blind eye to others in need because of our selfishness and start to step up to the plate and reach out to help. We need to change the way our communities our structured. Think of many Mothers  afraid to tell anyone about their sons’ trials and tribulations. Many become a  poorly adjusted adult with much pain and hurt in their hearts and no where for that to go. By God's grace more have not done anything crazy, but don't we all know someone when pushed to the end of their emotional limits who is capable of insanity? 

    I am confused by why everyone goes to the least common denominator - that of more controls. Why are we so afraid to examine the depth of what really happened here to this young man and now these poor little children who will never have the opportunity to grow up?

    Look around you the next time you are out...say Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to everyone you see. What you will see if you truly look in their eyes, is pain, unspeakable pain. No, they all don't go out and commit atrocities, but their pain leads to illness and unhappiness.

    I just wanted to quickly weigh in on this horrific moment in our nation's history. May God grant the families the strength to believe on and cling to one another in the time of this great tragedy.

     

  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from seymonster. Show seymonster's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    posted at 12/17/2012 8:15 PM EST

    god forbid if Nancy Lanza was a boxcutter enthusiast.  the death toll might have reached the hundreds or even thousands.

     

LOG IN TO COMMENT
Already registered? Just log in:
E-mail:
Password:

Forgot your password?

Please note, if you've previously registered with Facebook on Boston.com, for security reasons, you will be required to create a Boston.com password to access the area of the site. Please click here to create your password.
Not registered? Signing up is easy:
Please take a minute to register. After you register and pick a screen name, you can publish your comments everywhere on the site. Posting Policy .
Register