For those members who are in U.S. and are following the school shooting

[Rockwolf66]

Originally Posted by funkychinaman

I'm ticked off everyone is spouting off solutions when we don't even know all the facts yet. After Columbine, everyone immediately blamed the NRA, but now that we know the facts, is anyone blaming the NRA? Have the cops even completed their investigation yet?

Yes there are people blaiming the NRA. They are the same people who were spouting for gun control even before the bodies of children were even cool to the touch. Gun grabbers are in a feeding frenzy and while I have tried they are not listening to reason and they are simply dismissing facts from government sources out of hand.


No the police have not finished their investigation yet. Last I heard the FBI is still trying to get data off the kids computer as he smashed the hard drives so they couldn't be read. We know what the scum did we just don't know his motive. We do know that to him...THIS WAS A RATIONAL ACT.

[funkychinaman]

If this kid shot himself when he knew he was surrounded, then wouldn't that indicate that he understood the consequences of his actions?

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Jcordell

All they've done is villify gunowners and then push for more and more restrictions.

The vilification is not exclusive to one side. Gun owners are just as guilty of doing the same thing.

Originally Posted by Jcordell

Both sides need to meet in the middle. But so-far that hasn't happened. The NRA seems to be offering feelers, but they are feelers that come from strength. Unlike situation for British and Australian gunowners in 96 who had no strength. No organization and no voice.

That's the first reason why gun owners in America need to stop acting as though gun control laws here will inevitably lead to complete bans on firearms, as happened in both of those countries.

Originally Posted by Jcordell

All I can tell you is that the system is broken (I'm not sure it was ever working) and I have absolutely no idea how to improve it. Some of them are dangerous and most of them are just wrecks. And that is how it is in the United States.

In the past year it's been the mental cases who have been using the firearms to create the carnage. We need to also look at that situation as well.

Personally, I subscribe to the view that the issue is less one of mental illness and more of how the media glorifies these shootings. The vast majority of mentally ill people, including those prone to violent behavior, do not feel the urge to engage in mass shootings. The media, however, treats these events as a surefire way to gain eternal infamy and a place in the history books. The desire for fame (or, failing that, infamy) in our culture is, in my opinion, one of the most important reasons that these shootings take place. Mental illness and gun availability facilitate these crimes, but cannot be considered the causes.

Originally Posted by Jcordell

Dialogue? Sure. I'm okay with that. But I want us to be able to participate in the dialogue and negotiations. Not just have things thrown onto us like the old school European nobility did to the peasants. That won't fly.

I agree with you that we deserve to be able to negotiate from a position of strength, but in my opinion, the fact that there are so many gun owners is by itself a strength. Dialogue and negotiations cannot take place when both sides take part in the sort of demonizing each other that I am seeing.

Originally Posted by Jcordell

So I am sending the NRA fifty dollars becasue the NRA ensures that we are able to talk and negotiate from a position of strength. Not weakness.

The NRA also does not seem to be encouraging gun owners to keep cool heads. That has never been their tactic. They are more likely to get their constituents up in arms about bans and the "slippery slope".

Originally Posted by commando552

First of I just want to say that I am not trying to stir up anything here, am genuinely curious. How would the American gun owners on here feel about being required to have a firearms licence before buying firearms or ammunition? By this I don't mean like a license in the UK which is quite involved to get, I mean something like an hour or two classroom instruction on basic gun safety along with a background check. If you were required to show a license then the sale could be tracked if required, and would flag up instanced of criminals or the mentally ill trying to buy firearms or ammunition. If you need a license to drive a car, then it is my feeling is that there should be something along the same lines for you to be able to buy a gun which is potentially mush more of a danger to other people. I'm assuming that there has already been much discussion about stuff like this, just curious what the opinions on it were.

As an American gun owner, I think that your proposal is entirely reasonable. As Predator pointed out, the system you have suggested already exists for conceal-carry in many states. Also, what exactly is wrong with licenses like those issued in the U.K.? The system that the Brits had before the Hungerford massacre in 1987 seems to have been a reasonable one to me.

Originally Posted by predator20

I don't tell people this, but one of my older brothers is diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic. (Lanza may not have been schizo, but you have got to be seriously fucked up to shoot and kill kids like that.) He doesn't live with me, so I don't have to be watchful unless he's around. But I never turn my back on him, even if he is on his meds. While he's never been violent towards any family members, but when he's off his meds he believes people are going to kill him, particularly our father. It happened to him in his late teens, early twenties like most others. He was in a care center for about seven years, now he's out on his own with his girlfriend. He was never bad enough to be put into a hospital.

I am sympathetic to you, but I hope you would never compare your brother to someone like Lanza? As I told JCordell, the vast, vast majority of people with mental illnesses are not mass murderers.

Originally Posted by predator20

body armor? I thought they were just tactical vest. Even with body armor it's still going to hurt like a bitch, unless you're the North Hollywood guys. With Aurora I don't believe someone there with a CCL would have made a difference. It was a dark and packed theater. The chances of a clear shot would have been nill. Newtown, maybe.

I heard body armor, but it might have been negligent reporting. Holmes was wearing body armor, though, wasn't he? Also, my point still stands: Armed citizens carrying concealed handguns will be outgunned by somebody carrying an AR-15. So unless we advocate for schools to have armory rooms full of AR-15s and Kevlar vests, I don't think that the "more guns, less crime" argument is one that we should use in situations like this. It's just embarrassing for me to hear it.

Originally Posted by predator20

The biggest problem I have with an AWB is that most homicides that used a firearm are with handguns. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...es/10tbl20.xls http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...ables/table-20 Illinois homicide rate is actually higher I think, they don't give out complete info I guess. It's probably up there with Cali.

And? I don't support a new AWB (and I was quite relieved when the last one expired). You're preaching to the choir.

I do, however, want pro-gunners to stop claiming that AR-15s are not significantly more dangerous than hunting rifles and acknowledge that maybe they should require a somewhat higher level of regulation. I say this as somebody who owns both an AK and an AR-15 carbine.

Originally Posted by predator20

The thing about criminals (this is the way I think anyway). They don't want to pay retail for a gun, like a law abiding citizen would. Especially if they have to dump it later on. So they either steal them or buy one that they know to be stolen. Or have their girlfriend do a straw purchase for a Hi-Point.

You act as though straw purchases are something that we can't do anything about. You also talk about illegal guns as if they magically appear out of thin air (or from the same international arms trade which arms terrorists and insurgencies around the world). The vast, VAST majority of the illegal weapons used in the United States start out as legally-purchased firearms from gun stores. Illegal acquisition and illegal source are two very different things; as long as most illegally-acquired weapons come from a legal source, it is dishonest to act as though gun control has no ability to reduce illegal acquisition of firearms.

Originally Posted by Excalibur

We should always promote the right to bear arms everywhere and change the way anti gun advocates think with educations.

Did you seriously just say "educations", plural? *SIGH* I know people make typos, but the difficulty you seem to have with reading and writing (demonstrated repeatedly over the years) keeps triggering my cringe reflex. The absolute last thing I would want is for somebody like you to be considered representative of American gun owners. I think you would be better off not acting as though you have superior powers of logic and analysis; you are essentially degrading gun controllers as intellectually wanting.

[commando552]

Originally Posted by MT2008

As an American gun owner, I think that your proposal is entirely reasonable. As Predator pointed out, the system you have suggested already exists for conceal-carry in many states. Also, what exactly is wrong with licenses like those issued in the U.K.? The system that the Brits had before the Hungerford massacre in 1987 seems to have been a reasonable one to me.

The UK licensing system works here, but there are a couple of parts that would never be accepted in America. First and foremost is the fact that in the UK, self defence is not an acceptable reason to own a firearm which would make a lot of Americans very unhappy. Secondly, in the UK you need to obtain permission for each new firearm you want to acquire (with the exception of regular shotguns or antique weapons), and give justification for why you want it. There are a few other parts which I think the USA could benefit from adopting, such as the requirement that firearms are locked up with only the license holder having access to them, along with limits on the amount of ammunition that can be stored, or purchased in one transaction.

Any changes in legislation that come in the following months need to be well thought out and reasoned, and not the knee jerk over-reactions that followed Hungerford and Dunblane massacres. The Firearms Amendment act of 1988 which followed Hungerford was baffling, banning all semi automatic rifle above .22 regardless of purpose or capacity, along with pump action rifles above .22 calibre but doing nothing about lever action rifles. The first Firearms Amendment act of 1997 which banned all handguns above .22 was over the top but understandable, but when Labour came ino power and followed up with a second act banning .22 pistols as well this was ridiculous. The only reason it happened was as a popularity move based on a petition which only got so many signatures as it was one of the first things of its sort distributed over the internet, and was signed by a large number of people with no knowledge of the subject (likely not realising that there was already a ban on the kind of weapons used in the Dunblane massacre) fuelled by emotion rather than logic.

[Jcordell]

Some good points MT2008. Well thought out responses.

[Yournamehere]

I'm still not clear on the details of the shooting myself, but from what I heard A: he wasn't wearing body armor, and B: he didn't use his Bushmaster, just his pistols. If that's the case, then (even though in hysteria it doesn't matter) calling for an AWB in the wake of this shooting is really unfounded.

No matter what weapon he used, I don't necessarily agree that someone is useless in this situation with a concealed handgun. Outgunned, definitely, but it's reasonable to say that you can make up with a lack of firepower with proper tactics. I'm not saying it's easy, just that it's conceivably doable, especially if the CCW has a reasonable amount of training/skill, and the shooter doesn't. Yes this is semantic, but it seems to be the case in most respects. It's also why I personally don't approve of all these micro carry guns, since they are light and great for carrying all the time but they offer very little in terms of firepower in the event of a mass shooting. Just as well, they're miles ahead of the other people in the vicinity without a gun of any kind. They have the option to engage the shooter to distract or even take them down with a proper shot, as opposed to being forced to run away with everyone else. I really try not to undermine or overestimate the weight one carries along with their concealed weapon, but it's a grey area, and it's certainly capable given the right parameters, more so than an empty hand.

The other thing is the idea that mass shooters tend to quit at the first sign of resistance, because, again, they usually lack skill as well as coherence in the situation to understand that they can outgun a single person wielding a pistol with their rifle or whatever they are using, and just like in any other gunfight, they have to take in all this information at 200 miles an hour, where the shots are coming from, how many shots and with what, and given they're in a mass shooting solely to go out with a bang, they can come to the conclusion that they are beat (thats why they were there in the first place), and so they off themselves even if rationally they may have been able to win said gunfight against said concealed weapon holder.

That's really the point I wanted to get across though, cause I really don't agree that CW holders are useless in mass shootings, especially if they are a prime example of a CW holder and consider all the factors before making a decision to bust or run. I agree that they are certainly outgunned and not as tactically prepared as a SWAT officer, but a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush and being on scene or four minutes away means everything, and as long as they truly understand the weight they carry along with their gun and have proper mindset, they are an asset in the long run, especially compared to someone who is unarmed.

No, I don't think an AWB will do anything to prevent mass shootings, it will only serve to restrict law abiding gun owners. Yes, I am willing to negotiate on lets say background check reform, and I don't see it being too far fetched to ask that individuals take some sort of licensing course to own a gun, given the charge and time investment is appropriate and not ridiculously expensive or riddled with paperwork. Largely though, these incidents are caused by individuals making poor decisions and it's very hard to legislate against a mass of people due to individual bad decisions. Educating the public about firearms safety and use would ideally be the best course of action and leaving the choice of whether or not to carry the weight would be up to them, and they should have to suffer the consequences should they make a bad call. Mag capacity is also not correlative to any of these crimes either, especially since VTech, the most violent shooting happened with nothing but 10 round mags. Granted it reduces reloads, practically speaking, giving people the chance to rush the shooter but rarely do shooters get rushed and taken down anyway (the Arizona shooting is an exception). And again, a ban isn't going to delete weapons or mags or bullets from existence (even if it could, we shouldn't want to be stripped of our great equalizers anyway) and just as well, a CW with as many rounds on tap as possible is a pawn for a pawn in that situation.

Not as structured as I'd wanted it to be but I really needed an outlet for all my feelings on this shooting, and I really don't think that CWs holders are useless in a mass shooting. We always say guns are tools, and they are as evil as the person using them, and that means they are as good as the person using them too. The right for one to try and rein in that power and capability should be up to them.

[Excalibur]

Originally Posted by MT2008

Did you seriously just say "educations", plural? *SIGH* I know people make typos, but the difficulty you seem to have with reading and writing (demonstrated repeatedly over the years) keeps triggering my cringe reflex. The absolute last thing I would want is for somebody like you to be considered representative of American gun owners. I think you would be better off not acting as though you have superior powers of logic and analysis; you are essentially degrading gun controllers as intellectually wanting.

Did you just seriously corrected my grammar first? I want to talk about this and you're trying to be an English teacher to me? So I had a typo, so what? That means I shouldn't be taking and expressing myself? That I shouldn't represent gun owners because I wrote a couple of things wrong?

I don't claim to know everything nor do I have "superior powers of logic and analysis". I am learning more every day about laws relating to this subject, studying the politicians that are trying to suppress our freedoms and you want to be a grammar nazi about how I typed an extra letter and built on that to make me look like an idiot?

The fuck did I do to you? I don't know you know just as much as you don't know me. Yeah people make mistakes. What is your fucking grind with me?

I'm trying to say we should stand together. Let our voices be heard, educate others about guns and responsibility and you want to antagonize me?

[Yournamehere]

I agree with Matt frankly, you do consistently fail to use proper grammar or produce coherent thoughts or sentences, and it makes you seem uneducated and an easy target for those with whom you'd argue. I don't think he means to pick on you, he's just repressed the fair criticism to the point where it's just boiled over, and given the political climate at the time, we need both intelligent thinking and proper display of such to discuss these issues, that's all. It'd be worth it to either put the extra effort to make sure the voice you want heard is polished and coherent, or that you step aside from being a voice and do other things to benefit the collective cause.

[predator20]

Originally Posted by MT2008

I am sympathetic to you, but I hope you would never compare your brother to someone like Lanza? As I told JCordell, the vast, vast majority of people with mental illnesses are not mass murderers.

No I'm not comparing my brother to Lanza. Nor do I think most people with mental illness will commit mass murder. But I've been around my brother when he's in a bad place. I never knew what he was going do or how to talk him down. Basically you can't be rational with a crazy person.

Originally Posted by MT2008

I heard body armor, but it might have been negligent reporting. Holmes was wearing body armor, though, wasn't he? Also, my point still stands: Armed citizens carrying concealed handguns will be outgunned by somebody carrying an AR-15. So unless we advocate for schools to have armory rooms full of AR-15s and Kevlar vests, I don't think that the "more guns, less crime" argument is one that we should use in situations like this. It's just embarrassing for me to hear it.

They always say body armor at first, then it's usually a tactical vest. The first rule of a gunfight is have a gun! Yournamehere made some great points with his reasoning behind it.

Now I don't fall into that "more guns, less crime" bit either. The more guns out there, then there's more that could potentially be stolen and used in a crime. But if more non-gun people are getting into guns and being responsible that's great. Gun education is key.

Originally Posted by MT2008

And? I don't support a new AWB (and I was quite relieved when the last one expired). You're preaching to the choir.

I do, however, want pro-gunners to stop claiming that AR-15s are not significantly more dangerous than hunting rifles and acknowledge that maybe they should require a somewhat higher level of regulation. I say this as somebody who owns both an AK and an AR-15 carbine.

What kind of regulation would you propose? Registration? That seems like it would be one step closer to having them confiscated or "required to be turned in". (I don't buy into that confiscation bit either, but people are looking for something to blame.) There's so many of them out there right now in private hands, it would be impossible to track as well.

More dangerous than hunting rifles. My father has a Remington Model 750, semi-auto .308 "hunting rifle" it takes a detachable box magazine. Usually around 5 rounds I think, it will accept larger ones as well. Making it capable of doing just has much damage as my L1A1 in the wrong hands. (I don't even want to get into that hi-cap mag or "battle clips" they are sometimes referred as.) While the AR, AK and L1A1's etc manual of arms make for a better fighting rifle. A gun is gun at the end of the day no matter what it looks like.

Originally Posted by MT2008

You act as though straw purchases are something that we can't do anything about. You also talk about illegal guns as if they magically appear out of thin air (or from the same international arms trade which arms terrorists and insurgencies around the world). The vast, VAST majority of the illegal weapons used in the United States start out as legally-purchased firearms from gun stores. Illegal acquisition and illegal source are two very different things; as long as most illegally-acquired weapons come from a legal source, it is dishonest to act as though gun control has no ability to reduce illegal acquisition of firearms.

Thin air, come on! I figured you thought better of me than that. How does one go about checking a potential straw purchase? After a gun is purchased, the law shows up at your house a month or so later to see if you still have it? How do guns get stolen? By having them too accessible to others besides yourself. That seems to be the case with Lanza's mother and she paid dearly for it and so did a lot of kids and teachers.

When I first started buying guns, I kept them in a gun cabinet. It would keep a kid out but that's about it. As the collection grew I ran out of room and had to to keep several handguns in a dresser drawer. I thought to myself 'this is bad', it's not only bad, but irresponsible. So I bought a gun safe. Now I know not everyone has enough guns to warrant a large and expensive safe. But even just a simple metal cabinet would help a lot.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by predator20

Now I don't fall into that "more guns, less crime" bit either. The more guns out there, then there's more that could potentially be stolen and used in a crime. But if more non-gun people are getting into guns and being responsible that's great. Gun education is key.

Education is important, yes, but without an adequate regime for implementing such education (at the federal level, not state), what we have is basically an enormous proliferation of firearms and an increase in people who might not be mentally fit or sufficiently trained to use them.

Originally Posted by predator20

What kind of regulation would you propose? Registration? That seems like it would be one step closer to having them confiscated or "required to be turned in". (I don't buy into that confiscation bit either, but people are looking for something to blame.)

I'm not sure. But let's leave aside the question of whether gun registration would lead to gun bans: Is it really such a bad thing to require guns to be registered from a purely moral standpoint? We have laws requiring registration of many, many things that are potentially deadly in the wrong hands (such as cars). Assuming we could guarantee that registration did not lead to a ban, it would be a good way to ensure that fewer weapons are reaching the hands of those who should not own them, no?

Originally Posted by predator20

There's so many of them out there right now in private hands, it would be impossible to track as well.

Agreed, which is why I think that a new AWB is not feasible (as well as unfair to law-abiding gun owners).

Originally Posted by predator20

More dangerous than hunting rifles. My father has a Remington Model 750, semi-auto .308 "hunting rifle" it takes a detachable box magazine. Usually around 5 rounds I think, it will accept larger ones as well. Making it capable of doing just has much damage as my L1A1 in the wrong hands. (I don't even want to get into that hi-cap mag or "battle clips" they are sometimes referred as.) While the AR, AK and L1A1's etc manual of arms make for a better fighting rifle. A gun is gun at the end of the day no matter what it looks like.

But some guns require less training and patience to use in ways that are particularly dangerous. Moreover, what you are saying runs contrary to the intent of many AWs' designers. An AK-47 is not, unlike your Dad's Remington Model 750, a weapon that was meant to be aimed and fired at distant targets with a high degree of accuracy (a skill that is only honed after a great deal of practice and patience); it was meant to throw out a large amount of lead and hit multiple targets, and it was meant to achieve this effect in the hands of illiterate peasant draftees who had mere weeks worth of training. This is all common sense to almost anyone, regardless of whether they're a gun geek or not.

(And again, nobody is arguing that a guy with an AK-47 is guaranteed to kill lots of people, just as it would be fallacious to argue that it's impossible to kill lots of people with a Remington Model 750. I am merely arguing that this scenario is more likely with an AK.)