Mass Shootings the last six months

[Gaspar]

These AR-15's?

What is it that separates them from a Winchester, Veper-M, Remington Woodmaster, Browning auto, or even a Barrett M82 (that only carries 10 rounds)?

This was the problem with the Assault Weapons ban.  It only banned cosmetics. The weapons pictured look scary because they are designed to be rugged, but with their puny .223 or 5.56mm rounds they are mosquito guns when compared with any of the weapons mentioned above.  In fact, if you slide off a couple of items the weapon pictured is perfectly legal under the assault weapons ban.

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

In fact, the gun the officer is holding in the image above has a 10 round clip, so all that would need to be done is remove the flash supressor, and swap the stock (it twists off with a click) for a rigid one, and POOF! legal!

I guess this irks me so much because it is such a blatant abuse of logic designed to appeal to the uninformed and unknowledgeable.  If Lanza and the Colorado nut bag had orchestrated their crimes using a .375 hunting rifle I seriously doubt there would be a push to ban medium caliber hunting rifles.

[DolfanBob]

The right to bear arms. At the time when the 55 Delegates wrote this, The Second Amendment, into The Bill of Rights.
What was the firearm of that day? Without the use of a crystal ball. They had no idea that mankind would at a later date. Be manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. Or more on point. Multiple killings from a single firearm.
I'm not sure but, were they using flint lock rifles and hand guns? The Second Amendment if written today would most assuredly come with updated stipulations on what type of firearms could be owned by the general public.

I would still like someone to explain to me. The need for a assault rifle in the hands of anyone other than Police or Military individules. And please, no more Feral Hog examples. I've seen two hot women catching them with dogs and their bare hands.

[AquaMan]

The right to bear arms. At the time when the 55 Delegates wrote this, The Second Amendment, into The Bill of Rights.
What was the firearm of that day? Without the use of a crystal ball. They had no idea that mankind would at a later date. Be manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. Or more on point. Multiple killings from a single firearm.
I'm not sure but, were they using flint lock rifles and hand guns? The Second Amendment if written today would most assuredly come with updated stipulations on what type of firearms could be owned by the general public.

I would still like someone to explain to me. The need for a assault rifle in the hands of anyone other than Police or Military individules. And please, no more Feral Hog examples. I've seen two hot women catching them with dogs and their bare hands.

You are way too logical and also naive in believing that your questions will be addressed with the same logic.

Puny .223 is just hilarious too. Take a few hits from one Gas then come tell us how puny.

But, I will be naive as well. Just what regulatory changes to law would be acceptable to those who yell SA rights as the only answer? Or is the amendment simply too holy to ever be touched? If it is not then stop fighting against the changes and help effect intelligent, meaningful changes that address everyone's concerns, not just yours.

[nathanm]

Puny .223 is just hilarious too. Take a few hits from one Gas then come tell us how puny.

Someone doesn't understand muzzle velocity, I think. Also, who the hell "typically" hunts with a .50 caliber rifle? Are they hunting elephants? A NATO round out of any decently long rifle will easily stop a bear or any other animal found in North America. (If carrying a handgun, just lay down and prepare to be eaten, even a .50 with a hot load will merely annoy the bear)

[Gaspar]

You are way too logical and also naive in believing that your questions will be addressed with the same logic.

Puny .223 is just hilarious too. Take a few hits from one Gas then come tell us how puny.

But, I will be naive as well. Just what regulatory changes to law would be acceptable to those who yell SA rights as the only answer? Or is the amendment simply too holy to ever be touched? If it is not then stop fighting against the changes and help effect intelligent, meaningful changes that address everyone's concerns, not just yours.

Finally you ask the appropriate question. As I stated previously on this thread:

A. We could have legislation restricting the style and color of weaponry available for sale to the public.  Of course this wouldn't prevent either of these tragedies.

B. We could have education, outreach, and mental health policies that promote identification and treatment of such individuals, and coordinate with law enforcement.  i.e. If you are prescribed psychotropic drugs or treatment for depression, psychosis, or other disorders, part of that prescription requirement is that the prescribing physician consult with local law enforcement, and perhaps have an officer remove any and all weapons or other items in your home that are no longer legal for you to have access to.  This takes advantage of existing laws and simply provides the tools necessary to enforce them.  Imagine all of the suicides that would also be averted.

Both individuals were under treatment for forms psychosis which means that a physician knew that dealing with reality was difficult for them.  Reason would dictate that it's a physician's responsibility as part of the care plan for a patient, to identify risks to that patient's health.  They do this anyway by asking the patient if they are taking any other medications that may complicate their condition or react with other prescriptions. The presence of environmental factors (weapons in the home) should naturally be of equal or greater concern for the physician. It should be within his/her duty to coordinate the removal of such items.

Changes or limitations on 2A wouldn't address a single factor related to the Sandy Hook, or Aurora massacres.  Perhaps it would change the photos of the weapons that the media would display on your TV screen as you are wracked by nausea and disgust, but there is no evidence to suggest the outcomes would be any different.

I think we are all of a singular mind when we want legislation that will avoid future tragedies like this, right?  So why not stop focusing on one of liberalism's favorite political targets and start focusing on real world non-political legislation that everyone agrees would make a difference?

I have a feeling we may actually see some of that, of course it will be peppered with politics (because no liberal administration is going to give up the chance to take pot shots at the Second Amendment) , but I'm hopeful something good will come of it.

[AquaMan]

Re-read.

"...meaningful changes that address everyone's needs, not just yours."

Typical "no compromise" T-party bs.

[Gaspar]

Someone doesn't understand muzzle velocity, I think. Also, who the hell "typically" hunts with a .50 caliber rifle? Are they hunting elephants? A NATO round out of any decently long rifle will easily stop a bear or any other animal found in North America. (If carrying a handgun, just lay down and prepare to be eaten, even a .50 with a hot load will merely annoy the bear)

You probably shouldn't go hog or bear hunting. 

[Gaspar]

Re-read.

"...meaningful changes that address everyone's needs, not just yours."

Typical "no compromise" T-party bs.

Articulate "everyone's needs."

I was under the impression we were trying to prevent similar tragedies from happening in the future.  It seems "everyone" (you) have other intensions.

[nathanm]

Perhaps it would change the photos of the weapons that the media would display on your TV screen as you are wracked by nausea and disgust, but there is no evidence to suggest the outcomes would be any different.

What is the greatest number of people killed in a single incident by an armed assailant in the US in the past 40 years who was armed with only one or more handguns? I think you're making things up again.

That said, handguns are a much bigger public health problem than long guns are, even the scary looking long guns.

[heironymouspasparagus]

The right to bear arms. At the time when the 55 Delegates wrote this, The Second Amendment, into The Bill of Rights.
What was the firearm of that day? Without the use of a crystal ball. They had no idea that mankind would at a later date. Be manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. Or more on point. Multiple killings from a single firearm.
I'm not sure but, were they using flint lock rifles and hand guns? The Second Amendment if written today would most assuredly come with updated stipulations on what type of firearms could be owned by the general public.

I would still like someone to explain to me. The need for a assault rifle in the hands of anyone other than Police or Military individules. And please, no more Feral Hog examples. I've seen two hot women catching them with dogs and their bare hands.

Just like they created the 1st Amendment before television, radio, and twitter....same thing.  Exactly.  That's why there is a Code of Federal Regulations and there are certain restrictions put upon the possession and ownership of firearms.  It is not, nor has it ever been an "unlimited" right.  You cannot legally be crazy or a drug addict.  You cannot own machine guns or rocket launchers without an extensive background check and paying a big fee.  You can't take a tank through town shooting off its cannon without expecting consequences.  Any more than you can shout "fire" in the crowded theater scenario without expecting consequences.


As for hogs, well, that's the only circumstance I could foresee for me to ever use a 30 round magazine...have thought about it quite a bit and they just aren't practical to me.  Some of the reasons I feel that way have been detailed before and relate to dependability versus capacity versus spreading the risk of an equipment malfunction over several magazines.  And I haven't hunted hogs in a long, long time.  It is more fun to watch the "girls in Daisy Dukes" catching them on tv....

[heironymouspasparagus]

But, I will be naive as well. Just what regulatory changes to law would be acceptable to those who yell SA rights as the only answer? Or is the amendment simply too holy to ever be touched? If it is not then stop fighting against the changes and help effect intelligent, meaningful changes that address everyone's concerns, not just yours.

You still haven't addressed the question about why change any regulation?  There are thousands in place right now that do a good job.

ESPECIALLY when the very one being advocated today HAS been tried for 10 years and found to be completely ineffective at effecting those "intelligent, meaningful changes".... in other words - proven to not work at achieving the stated effect.  But then, it really isn't about that at all - it's about power and control, not anyone's safety.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Articulate "everyone's needs."

I was under the impression we were trying to prevent similar tragedies from happening in the future.  It seems "everyone" (you) have other intensions.

That's the hidden agenda they don't want to talk about....the Brady Bunch agenda.

[AquaMan]

Articulate "everyone's needs."

I was under the impression we were trying to prevent similar tragedies from happening in the future.  It seems "everyone" (you) have other intensions.

You're like talking to an upholstered chair. Try someone else. I like to converse with people who are able to think outside of their own world and welcome me to theirs. I've seen your world. Fox broadcasts it each night.

Modified to add H to the comment. If the current laws aren't doing the job, your suggestion is that no further changes would be effective either. So, dump them all and label opponents as Brady Agenda devotees.

The laws will be changed because we are a democracy where a 70-80% view will usually trump a minority view. You can either help make the new laws more effective, fight for secession or educate the public to your point of view (good luck). Either way, change will happen.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Someone doesn't understand muzzle velocity, I think. Also, who the hell "typically" hunts with a .50 caliber rifle? Are they hunting elephants? A NATO round out of any decently long rifle will easily stop a bear or any other animal found in North America. (If carrying a handgun, just lay down and prepare to be eaten, even a .50 with a hot load will merely annoy the bear)

Why does anyone use a muzzle loader?  Or a bow and arrow?  A NATO round will easily do the job....

Or why play soccer?  Or rugby?  Or football?  When a Playstation 2 will easily play the same game better for you....and a WII will let you play it in the comfort of your very own living room.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Someone doesn't understand muzzle velocity, I think. Also, who the hell "typically" hunts with a .50 caliber rifle? Are they hunting elephants? A NATO round out of any decently long rifle will easily stop a bear or any other animal found in North America. (If carrying a handgun, just lay down and prepare to be eaten, even a .50 with a hot load will merely annoy the bear)

I have a .50 caliber single shot rifle that is just perfect for deer.   .50-90 trapdoor.  Built in late 1800's.  Used by General Custer and the boys...it's a military weapon...oh, my!!