your premise that less kids would have died if he didn't illegally access this weapon is hypothetical
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/QUOTE]

So why did those cops storm the school with rifles instead of handguns?

Yes, I am hypothesizing. The fact that those cops entered the school with rifles instead of handguns, would seem to support my hypothesis. The cops did not know what they were facing. Yet just about every one of them chose a rifle instead of a pistol? Why?

If a rifle provides no tactical advantage over a handgun, why did they all have rifles?

So your arguing that in fact citizens need these weapons for defense against those that illegally aquire them ?
That's the NRA position also .
I'm saying without the rifle there is no telling how many might have died with the semi automatic hand guns he had also. Maybe more ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"So your arguing that in fact citizens need these weapons for defense against those that illegally aquire them ?
That's the NRA position also "

Right. That's also your position, at least that's what you posted before. I concede that in extremely rare situations, citizens might need these weapons for protection. We agree on that. I don't agree that it's common for citizens to need such a weapon, but I wouldn't say 'never' either.

Somehow, we disagree on the downside ogf these weapons, that in random mass murder killing sprees, these weapons will increase the body count compared to handguns. You seem to disagree that these weapons pose any greater danger than handguns, when in the hands of a would-be mass-murderer.

I asked this 3 times, and you seem to be dodging. Just in case you didn't see the question, I'll ask it yet again. If these rifles offer no tactical advantage over handguns, why did all the cops that stormed the school, who had no idea what they were facing, have rifles instead of their standard-issue handguns?

Please try to anser that question. My hypothesis, and I am certain that I'm correct, is that the cops chose rifles because they know that in most situations, it's easier for them to kill bad guys with rifles instead of handguns. And if that's true, it also holds true for bad guys.

There's that word "sensible" again. I noticed there was a focus on swimming pools and not my mention of alcohol and tobacco. "Sensible" would be outlawing tobacco because of the hundreds of thousands that die due to long-term use - most of which that I know started when they were under 18 years old. Not to mention the immense financial burden on society for their medical care.

"Sensible" would be to outlaw alcohol because children get access to it and drink themselves to death. Or irresponsible adults get access to it, get behind the car and hit a mother driving her 3 children head on.

What's my point? If you're really that emotionally invested in "saving even one child", then you should be at the front lines for seeing alcohol go the same way as those "assault weapons" and politically-defined high-capacity magazines. Why are 100 events with 1 or 2 people dying each time of less importance than 1 instance where 20 people die?

With all due respect, I'm not sure you understand what an "assault weapon" actually is or the contents of the 1994 law, resulting in a significant amount of conjecture. First, an AR-15 is not an assault weapon by definition. The media and liberals have created a misconception that just because a firearm come in black or has a synthetic stock, that it is a "military-style weapon". You are aware that the AR in "AR-15" stands for the original manufacturer "ArmaLite" not "assault rifle", right?

In drafting the original federal assault weapon ban, Diane Feinstein leveraged a made-up term and then stamped her own definition to it. The FAWB did rather clearly define how a rifle would be an assault weapon:
Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The law wasn't a failure at curbing gun crime because it had exceptions, the law was a failure because politicians focused on the hopes of a quick fix. Which of those alleged "900 exceptions" contributed to a lack of decreased deaths due do long guns?

Like most policies pushed through Washington, there was no actual research supporting the bill. It was merely a Democratic legislature, along with Clinton, trying to draft gun control - and a few months later, voters had their heads.

I read an excellent editorial posted on Forbes.com today that, with all due respect, would be perfect for someone like yourself - who supports a renewed AWB - should read.
'Assault Weapon' Is Just A PR Stunt Meant To Fool The Gullible - Forbes

The cops don't like to be out gunned either Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think buckman or anybody else disagrees that high capacity weapons can increase the body count compared to lower capacity handguns. There might be a disagreement that they pose a greater danger. All guns pose the danger of being used to kill. Greater numbers of killed does not increase the danger, it, as you say, increases the body count. I doubt that the parents of children killed by a handgun think to themselves that, "phew, it's a good thing the guy didn't have a high capacity weapon or he might have killed some other kids. Hey Jim, congrats, you're kid was not shot. I feel good for you." On the other hand, parents of kids who weren't shot might well be grateful. But the danger that they could have been the ones killed was there, by hand gun or rifle.

Your hypothesis is that cops chose rifles because they know that in most situations, [not just extremely rare ones] it's easier to kill bad guys with rifles instead of handguns. And that if that's true, it also holds true for bad guys. But then, as I believe buckman implied, that it would also hold true for civilians defending themselves against bad guys. Why would we allow police to defend with rifles but not allow civilians to do so? Aren't civilians killed in far greater numbers than police?

It would seem that if the number of kids killed in rare instances is enough to ban high capacity weapons, that there is an even greater need to ban hand guns which are used to kill, on an almost daily basis, many more people, including children.

You keep wanting to have a "serious conversation" on the subject, as if such conversations have not occurred. If the conversation is simply about the number killed, the acceptable number would have to be less than one. Which guns would be allowed under that number?

Hold on! You have repeatedly denied that rifles are going to result in more deaths than handguns. Therefore, you are denying a tactical advantage to using rifles. In that case, why would the cops be "out-gunned" with pistols?

You can't have it both ways. Which is it?

"I noticed there was a focus on swimming pools and not my mention of alcohol and tobacco"

Fine, let's talk about alcohol and tobacco all you like, because it plays into my argument, not yours. Just like with pools, there are all kinds of restrictions on alcohol and tobacco use that are designed to promote public safety. Is this news to you? Age restrictions, can't drink and drive, bars are required not to give you too much, can't smoke in public places where you can harm others...Notice a pattern here? These are all examples of society putting limits on our freedoms, in the interest of public safety. That's what I'm talking about here.

""Sensible" would be outlawing tobacco because of the hundreds of thousands that die due to long-term use "

Maybe, maybe not. Currently, as a society, we have collectively decided that the freedom to choose to smoke is more important than the lives that would be saved if we banned smoking. What I'm saying is, we should have that discussion with these weapons, without caving in to radical ideology or NRA lobbying pressure. Let's have a common sense discussion of the pros and cons. I agree thare are cons to banning anything. What I'm stunned by, is the resistance to the notion that there are potential pros to banning these things.

" If you're really that emotionally invested in "saving even one child", then you should be at the front lines for seeing alcohol go the same way as those "assault weapons"

Perhaps you're not reading well lately. Because I have said multiple times on this thread that we can't use public safety as an excuse to trample the constitution. I don't see anything in the constitution about what 'types' of arms we are entitled to bear. Do you?

I know the AR-15 isn't categorized as an assault weapon. What I'm saying is, we should look to see if there are things that serve no legitimate societal need (like, maybe, high capacity magazines) which if banned, might save a few lives.

"Why are 100 events with 1 or 2 people dying each time of less importance than 1 instance where 20 people die?"

I would not support unconstitutional bans to save 100 lives. I might support constitutional bans that save 1 or 2 lives. I can only assume that you can't differentiate between those two things, because you keep trying to refute me by citing inane hypotheticals that would be broadly perceived as trampling the constitution.

If you want to refute me, explain why banning high capacity magazines is in violation of the second amendment.

I never said banning these weapons would save more lives than any other possible bans of other actions or products. I never said banning these weapons would allow all of us to live forever. I have repeatedly said that the impact would be minimal. That doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

Show me how it's blatantly unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. We have collectively decided that banning machine guns and mortars is not a violation of that clause. I feel one could make a compelling case that banning things like high-capacity magazines (or anything else designed for military capacity, not civilian use) is similar.

I agree that banning rifles that look scary, but in fact operate exactly like a small-game hunting rifle, is not accomplishing much. I'm talking about banning things that are significantly more lethal, yet which serve no significant need except to make guys with small wee-wees feel macho enough.

The type of ban I'm talking about might not have had any impact to the Newtown tragedy. But it might help mitigate the next one.

"I don't think buckman or anybody else disagrees that high capacity weapons can increase the body count compared to lower capacity handguns"

ThenI can only assume you aren't reading his responses.

"If the conversation is simply about the number killed, the acceptable number would have to be less than one. "

Wrong. You need to read what I'm actually saying. It isn't only about reducing deaths. It's about reducing deaths in accordance with our constitution. That's a big difference. I'm not saying that any ban that reduces deaths is good. I'm saying that if it's not trampling the constitution, let's talk about it.

Automatic machine guns are banned. That ban has been deemed constitutional. What's so crazy about extending that ban to, say, high capacity magazines?

"Greater numbers of killed does not increase the danger, it, as you say, increases the body count."

If it increases the potential body count, it certainly increases the danger to society as a whole. I'm shocked you'd miss that.

"I doubt that the parents of children killed by a handgun think to themselves that, "phew, it's a good thing the guy didn't have a high capacity weapon or he might have killed some other kids"

Why, then, are families of victims so often leading the charge to ban military-style weapons? If what you say is correct (that they don't care about any other kids), and their kid is already dead, why should they give a rat's azz. Wow. You're saying that parents who lost their kids, have zero vested interest in making sure it doesn't happen to someone else's kid. That's one of the stranger things I have seen you post. I could not disagree more.

I survived a war. Using your logic, I have no reason to be concerned about what happens when other teenagers are sent into compat? I have no reasons to call for rules to help future soldiers? That's what you think?

Seems unbelievably self-centered to me.

And finally somebody hits the nail on the head. The violence that has resulted from societal issues combined with the proliferation of hand guns is by far the much more serious problem. Some argue it's a racial issue that's ignored because the majority of victims and perps are black.

Incidents of mass shootings tend to involve mental health issues combined with assault weapons if not hand guns. I don't see how anyone can refute Jim's point that an assault weapon as defined under the 1994 law isn't more deadly. They don't just "look scary" their characteristics were designed with a specific purpose. Perhaps it's the line drawn in the sand that's the issue. Is it arbitrary? Does that really make a difference?

Jim made a number of good points in the post above. The most important being, why can't there be a rational discussion on the subject that doesn't fall back on an absolute belief that's fuzzy at best?

I'm certainly not for banning all guns and have no problem with responsible hand gun owners, but the stats on gun violence in our country put us alongside a list of unsavory nations. More guns isn't the answer, there's a huge difference between a concealed carry for personal protection (when justified) and vigilante justice.

As an aside, The Specialist's story about the three load limit for duck hunting was ironic as it was citing a federal law that restricts the use of firearms :hihi:

-spence

First off, I never said anything about banning machine guns and mortars not being a violation. You've made the statement more than once now that automatic weapons are banned. However, your statements are repeated incorrect, which demonstrates you're either operating under assumptions or are misinformed. Fill out a Form 4, pay your $200 tax to the ATF and shell out $20k and many people could own a machine gun or grenades in a couple months.

Don't believe me, here's a select-fire M16A1 with full-auto capability, legally transferable and available today: Colt M16a1 US prop marked Transferable ! : Machine Guns at GunBroker.com

Second, I never stated there are not potential pros to certain bans. What I have stated is that any ban is unacceptable - just as another ban on alcohol would be unacceptable. A ban does not do anything to keep these things out of the hands of criminals, it merely limits the access to law-abiding citizens. How did the "Gun Free Zone" work out at Sandy Hook? That was the law and it did nothing. How about the fact that both Connecticut and New Jersey have active assault weapon bans - how well did that prevent the crime? How well are drug laws doing at preventing drug addiction? I could go on for pages and pages.

When has a sweeping federal ban on citizens ever worked?

You keep saying that people are refusing to have a conversation about what society wants. What do you think the last 3+ pages of posts have been about?

Collectively banning rather than doing so by ammendment is the type of danger that the Constitution attempted to avert. Collective banning of constitutional rights is the tyranny of the majority over the minority. Collective rule rather than the rule of law is the reason the Founders chose a republic rather than a democracy.

Jim, I understand very well your objections to private ownership of certain weapons. But, even though you have not given any credence to it, the expressed reason for the second ammendment was none of the things you cite. You are, apparently, reluctant to include that reason in what you consider a "serious discussion."

See this is what I mean, lack of knowledge. Just because the gun can accept different magazines doesn't mean that it cant be used for hunting. It is quite often used for predator control, and yes you can hunt deer with it in states where rifle hunting is legal. Again since you don't hunt deer you have no idea what you are talking about. Now Just so we are clear the 2nd amendment is not about hunting rifles. So please go educate yourself a little.

For 30 grand? I think you're missing the point.

Correction, I think you just made Jim's point!

-spence

I thought it was about the shooter and not the weapon. We've also established that any gun in the right hands is deadly.

So why should there be a difference?

-spence

Since 9-11 and the LA bank heist most police departments have issued patrol rifles or carbines with homeland security money so that the cops are never outgunned again. That said if you were in your house and an armed intruder broke in, with say a shotgun, you would be more comfortable going up against him with a pistol? I know I would want a semi automatic carbine made for CQB, the best chance for myself and my family to survive. This is why they went into the school with "rifles" up against a "kook" armed with pistols.

You absolutely can in instances where one party is armed and the other is not, such as Newtown.

BTW the media falsely reported that he used the bushmaster, it was found in the trunk of the car, he used 4 handguns to kill 20 something people, now what do you say about that?


He killed all of them with handguns, and the medical examiner either has no idea what he is talking about, or has a bull#^&#^&#^&#^& political agenda

Gun Inconsistencies in Sandy Hook School Mass Shooting... - YouTube

I've been trying to find anything aside from this video to confirm the claim. It's impossible to get any concrete info from media sources (I refuse to call them news outlets) that are constantly pushing an agenda. I, too, have heard that the Bushmaster was found in the car, but I have also heard it was a pump shotgun in the car, and he brought the Bushmaster and two pistols into the school.

On scene, it's quite easy to know the difference. Either they found .223 casings all over the place or they didn't. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a reliable source through Google.

Ok schools is in:

Here in lies the problem, in the south, for the most part you can buy a gun, any handgun with a drivers license. So some people buy a bunch and remove the serial numbers, then they come up to NY, Boston, Hartford< Chicago and such under the guise of visiting relatives, only to hook up with their "Homies" and sell the guns illegally. I see it all of the time. This is what is called a straw buyer, now knowing this how would you fix it. An AWB will do nothing.

This is how I would handle it:

Force all states to require a permitting system for the purchase of all firearms.

Require background checks, and safety courses to all who apply

Require that all sales have an instant background check.

Require all private sales to be done at a gun shop, so that an FA 10 form and background check are done first.

Track all large purchaser of firearms, IE some buys 3-10 guns a month or a week and they are not a dealer, then maybe a spot inspection at their residence to rquire that they produce all of the firearms.

Any state that refuses loses all highway safety funding, and public roadway funding until it is implemented.

Now you will have eliminated a large chunk of illegal guns.

I wonder why ? NBC is not exactly a gun loving station like say Fox news, and I have been searching for it too. I think the Newtown chief is waiting for the entire investigation to be complete before he releases any details. This was leaked by the Feds supposedly. The medical examiner is a dope...

You see there is no difference, we want any gun we can have, just like you guys wan your 900 VanStaal reels :D

I'd agree, and perhaps even require ballistics with weapons registrations. You could also require reregistration after 3-5 years.

Unfortunately, none of this is permitted under the Constitution.

-spence

I only have one Van Staal. Good thing you didn't ask about English handmade shoes :devil2:

This Christmas I gifted myself a nice SOG tactical knife. Opens and closes as fast as a switch blade. I didn't even realize it when I bought it that it's illegal to carry in RI due to the size.

Oh well, I'm not losing any sleep over it.

-spence

In Massachusetts every gun you own is on a list at the Department of public safety. Ballistic databases won't work because there are too many variables....


New National Database Of Ballistic Markings From Guns Not Recommended

Lawbreaker......
:rotf2:

No, you don't use my logic or the Constitution that I prefer. And, I can understand how soldiers view body counts as being crucial to winning, and by winning, how lives can be "saved." And I don't mean to say even a single death is emotionally acceptable on the battlefield.

Only if I decide to carry it. Legal to own :jump1:

-spence

How does the Constitution stop states from such regulations?

I believe in reading his post he a) made a statement of why lax or inconsistent state laws are a big part of the hand gun problem in cities and b) how a Federal law could help remedy.

-spence

The Constitution does not require the states to be lax, nor does it stop them from having similar regulations. The problem with Federal laws solving state problems is that it makes states irrelevant. It tends to destroy the whole concept of federalism and of a republic. It constantly encroaches on constitutionalism (all of the above which I assume is OK with you?). And the problem with Federally mandated uniformity as a one-size-fits-all solution is the destruction also of the states as laboratories of experiment. Some may come up with better solutions to a problem than others, and the rest may adapt the solution or even improve on it. When the Federal Government regulates, its solution has no competition and becomes far more frozen in time.

If someone buys a large number of hand guns down south to then sell them illegally in a more lucrative market up north how is this an isolated "state" problem?

Not even sure it's a Second Amendment issue any more.

-spence

No it is not a Second Amendment issue. What I was questioning is your comment that none of this was permitted by the Constitution.

I'm sure this is been answered already Jim and you know the answer.
Rifles are a better weapon at longer ranges
Hand guns are a close proximity weapon
Cops entering a building to engage a man with a weapon don't intend to shoot him from close proximity .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I found this to be a pretty interesting read...
America has an As#$%@ Problem

Really?

JimCT...
what weapon did you guys carry when clearing rooms/buildings during your tours? I assume that was quite often close quarters...

interesting thread so far and some good points made. Its intersting given that I live in gun heaven. I find myself going through the bass pro and cabelas adds drooling over all kinds of combat style rifles for the very reason Nebe highlights, they're cool and I would love to mess around with them. I've never owned a gun and dont trust having one in the house. I was in cabelas last week and they have a specialty room with high value weapons, they had this sick looking rifle, very modern looking. I asked and its a 50 cal. rifle, military use them for sniper rifles and the guy said each bullet is $7 a shot to fire! Crazy but very cool. I can understand both sides to this argument. I dont see how banning high capacity magazines would be an issue, i think thats a good thing.
For the newtown shootings I have repeatadly read that he had 2 pistols and an AR. In the car was a shotgun. The amount of rounds he fired (11 in one baby) would be a challenge with 2 pistols. I am pretty certain of this.

I guess I should have stated that a rifle would be better in multiple situations where a hand gun is not .
And don't forget the intimidation factor... They look scary
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good article. Maybe a bit too rational to be included in "serious" or "reasonable" discussion.

Oh great...just what America needs...another nutjob with an Assault Knife....what are you going to do with that thing?...open oysters?.....throw it at trees and squirrels in your backyard and try to get the right end to stick in?.......next Christmas you might ask Santa for a Ninja outfit and a pair of Nunchucks to complete the ensemble :)