Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

[Hidden_Hunter]

I have been reading some other reports. Apparently this study was fast-tracked by Injury Prevention and was not subjected to appropriate peer review. Prof. Chapman is also an anti-gun campaigned, even prior to writing the paper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia


Apparently it is still under much contention, and not clear either way.

There is not really any contention about it here, a few minor groups but that's about it

 

[GerFix]

Violent crimes don't all involve guns.

So your logic is that since our media over sensationalizes things we should do something about it? I prefer seeing if there is an actual problem then acting on it if it exists. Emotions corrupt opinions and allow devastating things to be passed. The Patriot Act being a good example of evil riding on emotion.

Momentum57's post was "violent crime" stats. You are nit picking.

Also, there is no "logic" in my statement. It is just a statement of fact and observation. As for media sensationalizing these things, that is a highly subjective assessment on your part. That 20 something people were killed by a lone gunman is pretty much all one needs to know; a cold hard fact.

 

[jdwud]

Gun control, gun bans are not the answer. The answer is going to have to be multi pronged. I found a blog from a mother who is afraid that she is the mother of a future murder.


http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/

Also I was watching 60 Minutes tonight, they had two men who did a study on mass murders in prison. They stated that virtually all of them show warning signs weeks to months before the event.

 

[argatoga]

Momentum57's post was "violent crime" stats. You are nit picking.

Also, there is no "logic" in my statement. It is just a statement of fact and observation. As for media sensationalizing these things, that is a highly subjective assessment on your part. That 20 something people were killed by a lone gunman is pretty much all one needs to know; a cold hard fact.

I feel sympathy for those killed it was a ghastly act. It was fortunately not a common act. It is rare, which is why it is getting so much news coverage. There are also those out there who have an agenda who are now using the incident to promote it.

Please use logic and not emotions when arguing, otherwise you are clouding your judgment. Mob mentality is the demise of democracy.

I care deeply for democratic and pacifistic principles which is why I avoid emotion in debates like this. The emotional desire for revenge has led to over 100,000 Iraqi deaths. Keeping my emotions in check concerning policy and argument allows me to better understand the situation and avoid things like unnecessary wars. It allows also for me to be more open to other views, without emotional bias I can properly evaluate them.

 

[nomix]

While the need to avoid emotion running away with your rationale in making a political choice, it is never a good idea to completely ignore it.

 

[argatoga]

While the need to avoid emotion running away with your rationale in making a political choice, it is never a good idea to completely ignore it.

I will need to disagree. One of my fundamental beliefs is that killing should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. This means that I am against the killing of serial killers and the likes of Osama Bin Laden. My outrage against what they have done needs to be absent when dealing with these types of people.

 

[jack_christie]

Second Amendment right bear arms should really include MLRS as its about the only thing to keep one safe from the NRA

 

[nomix]

I have always maintained I don't believe in the death penalty. I had my belief challenged in July last year. I haven't been as emotionally devastated at any time I can remember.

I am happy to say I didn't change my mind. Part of that was certainly to put my emotional response to a mass killing to one side, and my rational principles to another. If I believed that the man who shot and killed two police officers in 1998 shouldn't be put to death, it was a logical concequence that mr. Breivik shouldn't be either.

But it still pays to keep the emotional side of it in mind. You may be able to keep to a rational response, but that doesn't mean everybody will be able to. Nor that their opinions are less worthy because they have their base in emotions.

It isn't emotion per se that should be left out of the principled debate, if one accepts that a debate is about the principle of what is right and what is wrong, then the discussion is based purely in the hypotethical, and no single case is debated.

But that's not realistic. Individual cases must be referenced, if for nothing else to put numbers in context.

 

[MadCat360]

No it isn't. The raw statistics (leaving out any contentious interpretation) are that the firearm related death rate in Australia is now less than half what it was before the National Buy Back Scheme (NBBS). It is true to say that the death rate was falling in the 10 years before the NBBS, but to suggest that it would have continued to fall is speculation. The fall since though is fact, as is the reduction in mass shootings (4 or more fatalities) which was 11 in the 10 years before and zero in the 16 years since.

Yes but the rate of falling is consistent with the data from before. The rate was unaffected. If the experiment does not change the data, you can't assume the data continues as it did before because of the experiment. Two other studies were conducted with the same statistics and they came to different conclusions, namely no discernible effect.

I am loathe to accept a paper that falls outside of 90% of the studies I have read (being somewhere in the hundreds) that has not been properly peer reviewed. That's not science. If it's such a clear cut case there would be consensus. There isn't. So unless there's more, I'm not going to talk about gun control any more, because it is scientifically obvious that gun control or lack of it doesn't do anything. Other factors cause violence.

 

[Rex Luther]

- - - Updated - - -

Things I have learned about reading this thread.
Owning weapons = Liberty.
Not being able to do what you want, when you want = Infringing on my personal liberties.

I have extensive experience with all manner of firearms and explosives (I was in the Infantry for four years) and yes, I agree shooting and blowing shit up is a god damn blast. But the kicker is, I had a fuckload of training and a thorough understanding of what they are used for. (pro tip: call them tools all you like, they are a killing tool. I can use a claw hammer to open a beer can but that doesn't change the fact that its something designed to hammer in nails)
I simply cant reconcile with the view that regular people should have access to these things.

I'm curious to see the views of those who espouse personal freedom so loudly on subjects like Class A narcotics and driving your car blind arse drunk the wrong way down the freeway.

TL;DR?
You guys scare the shit out of me sometimes.

 

[prizrak]

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Hmm, how about putting youre gun and ammunition in a safe in youre house or gun range so they don't ly open around and being protected of being missused ?

That's just basic good sense

I'm not gonna dictating anything, we don't have the 1930's anymore. It is more an open question that everyone has to answer for himself. In the End these are 2 Applications who do the same job(firing a projektile through a piece of cardboard) with the same results (penetrating cardboard). But one does can hurt you, even dangerously, the other one does kill you and other people. It is more a question of how responsible I'm and what kind of point of view I want to give as an role model.

I had way more fun with the high caliber stuff than the .22s that I started with. I also had more fun with firearms than CO2 powered BB guns. If you think that a small caliber rifle is not deadly then you know very little about firearms...

I also done archery, wasn't as much fun tho interestingly also quite deadly....

No - you can still own a gun, just not assault rifles. You can still protect your family with a simple pistol.

What makes an assault rifle special? AKs and ARs shoot smaller rounds than a 9mm pistol. Is it because they can be fully automatic? Well Glock 17 and the Stechkin for example are both full auto handguns and both can be legally purchased. There are high capacity magazines for handguns that hold more ammo than standard rifle clip does. Hunting rifles have similar effective distance.

I have proposed solutions in this thread already.
For example, stop the celebrity-stlye 24/7 coverage of these cases. Sure, it won't stop every madman, but it should reduce the motivation to aim for a huge event when going coockoo in the head. Investment? Zero. Return? Potentially huge.

I believe the same principle applies to the live helicopter coverage of car chases. Some get into one just to be on TV.





More guns don't sound like a reasonable solution to me either.

I didn't disagree with either of these so I'm not sure why you were responding to my post that was clearly an argument against more gun control... (cuz it don't work)

- - - Updated - - -

Things I have learned about reading this thread.
Owning weapons = Liberty.
Not being able to do what you want, when you want = Infringing on my personal liberties.

I have extensive experience with all manner of firearms and explosives (I was in the Infantry for four years) and yes, I agree shooting and blowing shit up is a god damn blast. But the kicker is, I had a fuckload of training and a thorough understanding of what they are used for. (pro tip: call them tools all you like, they are a killing tool. I can use a claw hammer to open a beer can but that doesn't change the fact that its something designed to hammer in nails)
I simply cant reconcile with the view that regular people should have access to these things.

I'm curious to see the views of those who espouse personal freedom so loudly on subjects like Class A narcotics and driving your car blind arse drunk the wrong way down the freeway.

TL;DR?
You guys scare the shit out of me sometimes.

I think you are misunderstanding our arguments...

What we are saying is that there are plenty of lawful reasons to own and operate firearms and that when taken as a whole firearm related crime is a fairly small percentage of violent crime in general. No one is saying that there should be no training in firearm use and no one is saying that guns should be available to anyone.

Also you were trained to use firearms for killing because you were in the military, it doesn't make a gun a killing tool. By the same token if you were trained to use a knife in the infantry (which I'm sure was part of your training) it doesn't make knives killing tools just ask chefs...

Also just because you personally don't see why people should be allowed to have guns doesn't mean that they should not be allowed. I don't understand why anyone would drive FWD but I'm not going to argue that they need to be banned...

Well, I dunno about the total numbers increasing but there recently was a killing spree at some smalltown US school - dunno if you heard about it -, where more than 20 children were killed, which to my knowledge was a first in an ever-increasing spiral of violent amok runners.

That's like saying that there was a World War epidemic because we had two of them relatively close to each other...

Your response is very emotionally motivated I suspect and reminds me of campus security taking away my box cutter (that I didn't even carry on me ever) a few months after 9/11. Tho they had no problem with me working in the cafeteria's salad department and handling a 7" knife among a bunch of other students....

 

[nomix]

They are singled out because they have a greater capability to accurately place lead or steel inside human flesh than a pistol like a Glock. I have to say I know quite a few hunters, people who hunt moose and smaller animals, none of them seem interested in high capacity small caliber semi-automatic rifles for anything, but then again, I'm no hunter.

Not that the AR-15 is any worse than any other semi-automatic rifle. It isn't. But it's got a great profile, and media wonks tend to love that.

 

[mpicco]

I don't see how an AR or any big rifle would qualify for home defense. Unless you're defending from a horde of zombies, or a gang of rapists, a big bulky military grade rifle like that is not even handy. Ask the special forces, not enough mobility in-doors, that's why they use MP5s and Uzis instead of M16s or such things with long stocks and long barrels which would just get stuck trying to turn around doorways. (I'm not advocating for people having MP5s in their homes, either.)

I don't think anyone should be kept from owning one of those things if they really want one for fun, to shoot at the firing range, target practice, whatever. But such weapons should, in that case, be registered as "sport" rifles or "hobby" types, kept under lock at your local firing range until you go there have fun with them and then return it to the lock, the same way racing cars are not street legal. Keep the rifles at the range, the race cars at the track.

The handguns issue is more complicated, though.

 

[IceBone]

No offence to the original topic of the thread, it's a horrible disaster, which could have and should have been prevented.

As for the rest of the thread:

 

[prizrak]

I don't see how an AR or any big rifle would qualify for home defense. Unless you're defending from a horde of zombies, or a gang of rapists, a big bulky military grade rifle like that is not even handy. Ask the special forces, not enough mobility in-doors, that's why they use MP5s and Uzis instead of M16s or such things with long stocks and long barrels which would just get stuck trying to turn around doorways. (I'm not advocating for people having MP5s in their homes, either.)

I don't think anyone should be kept from owning one of those things if they really want one for fun, to shoot at the firing range, target practice, whatever. But such weapons should, in that case, be registered as "sport" rifles or "hobby" types, kept under lock at your local firing range until you go there have fun with them and then return it to the lock, the same way racing cars are not street legal. Keep the rifles at the range, the race cars at the track.

Can't say I disagree, in practical home defense terms assault rifles are fairly useless. One issue with keeping them at the range is that there are plenty of people doing outdoor shooting, in some of the more southern parts of the US it's not a stretch for someone to have enough property for a gun range...

 

[narf]

I didn't disagree with either of these so I'm not sure why you were responding to my post that was clearly an argument against more gun control... (cuz it don't work)

Because I have not proposed more gun control in this thread. You doubting my proposals must somehow be linked to my proposals, so I can only address your doubt regarding my proposals, not something I did not propose.

Propose.

Also you were trained to use firearms for killing because you were in the military, it doesn't make a gun a killing tool. By the same token if you were trained to use a knife in the infantry (which I'm sure was part of your training) it doesn't make knives killing tools just ask chefs...

Chefs regularly kill using knives. Just ask those sliced mushrooms, for example.

 

[HatePersonified]

Can't say I disagree, in practical home defense terms assault rifles are fairly useless. One issue with keeping them at the range is that there are plenty of people doing outdoor shooting, in some of the more southern parts of the US it's not a stretch for someone to have enough property for a gun range...

Actually, a lot of people are coming to the conclusion that 5.56 is an ideal home defense weapon- Out of a 16+ inch barrel, milspec 5.56 will fragment when it hits pretty much anything, drywall included- the risk of overpenetration is much lower than previously thought, and indeed, safer than most handguns.

if you're using JHP 5.56, the risk is lowered even further.

- - - Updated - - -

- - - Updated - - -
But the kicker is, I had a fuckload of training and a thorough understanding of what they are used for.

Cool story bro.
>implying that licensing does not involve training

 

[prizrak]

Because I have not proposed more gun control in this thread. You doubting my proposals must somehow be linked to my proposals, so I can only address your doubt regarding my proposals, not something I did not propose.

Except that I didn't show any doubt in your proposal whatsoever...

That reply wasn't even to you but something TAG said...

- - - Updated - - -

Chefs regularly kill using knives. Just ask those sliced mushrooms, for example.

The mashrooms are generally dead by the time they make it to chefs...

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, a lot of people are coming to the conclusion that 5.56 is an ideal home defense weapon- Out of a 16+ inch barrel, milspec 5.56 will fragment when it hits pretty much anything, drywall included- the risk of overpenetration is much lower than previously thought, and indeed, safer than most handguns.

if you're using JHP 5.56, the risk is lowered even further.

Interesting, don't they have these new bullets that disintegrate when they hit anything harder than a human nowadays as well?

 

[HatePersonified]

Interesting, don't they have these new bullets that disintegrate when they hit anything harder than a human nowadays as well?

Sorry I got it slightly wrong. Milspec ball ammo will overpenetrate. (duh.) Varmint ammo like V-Max or TAP will be much less overpenetrating than a .45. (smaller bullet designed to fragment going at high speed.)

But yes 'frangible' ammo is around, but the comparable fragmentation to a standard 5.56 varmint round isn't worth the increased cost for most shooters.

 

[narf]

Except that I didn't show any doubt in your proposal whatsoever...

That reply wasn't even to you but something TAG said...

Everything I replied to was under a quote of my posts

The mashrooms are generally dead by the time they make it to chefs...

Use properly fresh ingredients. Chefs' knives might also be used to kill spices cut straight from the plant. Chefs buying live fish may also use knives or other kitchen tools to kill.