Newtown, Conn

Quote: FarFromVegas

A guy slashed 22 kids with a knife in China. All 22 lived.

My s-i-l is active with SafeKidsUSA and no one fights against keeping kids safe in cars. My kids have to wear helmets when riding bikes. We worry about everything worth worrying about. But cars are transportation and bikes are toys (for a kid) and guns are weapons. Assault weapons are weapons meant to kill a lot of people quickly, not hunt with or use in self defense. You bet they're something worth worrying about.

You can keep building straw men to fight against but I will continue fighting against real things.

So guns are weapons. So what? Your kids still have a multitude higher chance of being hurt in your car or on their bikes. The reason shootings make big news is because they are rare. If you think just taking away the guns takes away the violence then you need to join the real world.

I realize helicopter parents think any danger no matter how small should be eliminated. Won't happen and in the meantime we raise a generation if kids afraid to leave the house.

And I still do not understand why you spend all your time blaming the gun and not the nutcase who used it. Instead if trying to explain why you want to take away my rights could you please explain that next time?

Quote: AcesAndEights

Worth noting is the definition of "assault rifle" vs."assault weapon".
The former seems to have a hard definition (capable of fully-automatic or burst operation). The latter seems much more mungible and I have seen many news articles refer to Lanza's primary weapon as an "assault weapon" as opposed to rifle. Are those accounts incorrect? Are they technically correct but attempting to sensationalize the issue?

An "assault weapon" is one with several modifications, to include a pistol style grip, folding stock, flash suppresor, silencer, bayonet attatchment, "masterkey" or grenade launcher attachment, and select fire. The difference between "a gun", which 99% of civilians own, and an assault rifle is mostly the select fire. The difference between "a gun" and an assault weapon is much more. At the very least it's misleading. Although I refer to my DPMS and Del-Ton as assault rifles, they're not. When randomly shooting the breeze, it doesn't matter. In the case of journalism, I kind of expect facts. Maybe it's a "close enough, doesn't matter" thing. Or maybe, it's "gun is boring, let's use ASSAULT WEAPON!" Who knows. But the use of "assault rifle/weapon" is completely false.

Quote: AcesAndEights

Is the wooden gun above capable of accepting a high-capacity magazine? I ask because the picture makes it unclear. The lower gun is depicted with a magazine attached.

Also, for reference, Lanza rigged his magazines "jungle style" to ease reloading. This article doesn't have a definite answer on the number of rounds contained in each magazine.

The "wooden gun" is an M1 Garand. The original military spec was a 7+1 ammo configuration, and is what is shown in the picture. The M1 saw many years of service, and the later models readily accepted 20 round Browning Assault Rifle (BAR) magazines. Configuration of an old one just takes the desire to do so. Or tape 2 mags together and make it 40. Or make your own to whatever amount you want...

I'm not super familiar with the 30-06 round, but the mag on the plastic gun appears to be 20.

It is clear that I am completely biased in this conversation. I am 100% pro-gun, this I don't deny. But I'm not a whack job, I'm not adverse to common sense, and I'm not unable to be objective. As a father of a 4yr old who began school just this year, I share the same worries, fears, and concerns we all do. But my knowledge of guns and SD reveals problems with what I've seen suggested. Simply, what's been suggested will not work. My constant picking isn't to troll for kicks, rather it's to reveal the issue we face. And the issue's a damn sight bigger than types of guns available.

Quote: AZDuffman

[And I still do not understand why you spend all your time blaming the gun and not the nutcase who used it. Instead if trying to explain why you want to take away my rights could you please explain that next time?

Okay, we blame him, we beat his dead body with sticks, we curse his name for generations...

Now what?

Wait around for the next shooting?

Quote: rxwine

Quote: AZDuffman

[And I still do not understand why you spend all your time blaming the gun and not the nutcase who used it. Instead if trying to explain why you want to take away my rights could you please explain that next time?

Okay, we blame him, we beat his dead body with sticks, we curse his name for generations...

Now what?

Wait around for the next shooting?

Go on about your life. Watch for bad guys. Practice situational awareness daily. Notice what is out of place.

Realize being aware is your best chance. But realize your chances of being in such a situation are lower than winning the lottery. Don't live in fear because of it. And don't live under the illusion that getting rid of guns makes the USA a quiet place where we all just get along. There will still be bad people who want to hurt you.

Quote: AZDuffman

Go on about your life. Watch for bad guys. Practice situational awareness daily. Notice what is out of place.

Realize being aware is your best chance. But realize your chances of being in such a situation are lower than winning the lottery. Don't live in fear because of it. And don't live under the illusion that getting rid of guns makes the USA a quiet place where we all just get along. There will still be bad people who want to hurt you.

Conservatives lost their street cred on the probablility argument back when 9/11 happened.

Almost 3 to 4 times the number of people die of gun homicides per year than 9/11 killed off. Of course, there's many more maimed or injured than killed.

I have fixed my posting on page 5. sorry about the confusion.

Quote: AZDuffman

I realize helicopter parents think any danger no matter how small should be eliminated. Won't happen and in the meantime we raise a generation if kids afraid to leave the house.

And I still do not understand why you spend all your time blaming the gun and not the nutcase who used it. Instead if trying to explain why you want to take away my rights could you please explain that next time?

I absolutley blame the nutcase that committed this atrocity, please go back and read my prior posts. But I think that having a reasonable discussion about limiting the types of weapons that create the most destruction is sensible. I've yet to hear why citizens need semi-automatic weapons with 30 round clips for self defense or hunting. And if not those reasons, why? Because some framer of the constitution 232 years ago said so? And in fact I agree that there should be a right to bear arms, but degrees of firepower are warrented. Frankly I don't care if this infringes on the thrill you get by shooting a powerful weapon.

Guns (and consequently the people who use them for heinous deeds) offer the greatest opportunity to kill scores of people both up close and from a distance, both indoors and outdoors, with maximum damage.

The last I checked cars and bikes aren't weapons.

Quote: Face

It is clear that I am completely biased in this conversation. I am 100% pro-gun, this I don't deny. But I'm not a whack job, I'm not adverse to common sense, and I'm not unable to be objective. As a father of a 4yr old who began school just this year, I share the same worries, fears, and concerns we all do. But my knowledge of guns and SD reveals problems with what I've seen suggested. Simply, what's been suggested will not work. My constant picking isn't to troll for kicks, rather it's to reveal the issue we face. And the issue's a damn sight bigger than types of guns available.

I also think I'm able to be objective as I don't live in fear and think there is reasonable arguements on both sides of the gun control issue. If you read my prior posts you will see that I think this problem of mass murdering nut jobs needs to be addressed on several fronts, but I can't get with the concept that putting controls on guns isn't one of the issues.

Quote: AZDuffman

Go on about your life. Watch for bad guys. Practice situational awareness daily. Notice what is out of place.

Realize being aware is your best chance. But realize your chances of being in such a situation are lower than winning the lottery. Don't live in fear because of it. And don't live under the illusion that getting rid of guns makes the USA a quiet place where we all just get along. There will still be bad people who want to hurt you.

I completely agree with all of this and it's sound advice. I don't live in fear at all. I sent my kids to school this morning with no more qualms than I have everyday. I'm 1000x more concerned about them geting hit by a car crossing the street than getting shot at school.

I have no illusion that we'll become a Cleaver society by getting rid of or reducing guns. But I do think this is one measure to help reduce what is an unacceptable amount of gun violence across this country.

Quote: MidwestAP

I absolutley blame the nutcase that committed this atrocity, please go back and read my prior posts. But I think that having a reasonable discussion about limiting the types of weapons that create the most destruction is sensible. I've yet to hear why citizens need semi-automatic weapons with 30 round clips for self defense or hunting. And if not those reasons, why? Because some framer of the constitution 232 years ago said so? And in fact I agree that there should be a right to bear arms, but degrees of firepower are warrented. Frankly I don't care if this infringes on the thrill you get by shooting a powerful weapon.

Guns (and consequently the people who use them for heinous deeds) offer the greatest opportunity to kill scores of people both up close and from a distance, both indoors and outdoors, with maximum damage.

The last I checked cars and bikes aren't weapons.

I also think I'm able to be objective as I don't live in fear and think there is reasonable arguements on both sides of the gun control issue. If you read my prior posts you will see that I think this problem of mass murdering nut jobs needs to be addressed on several fronts, but I can't get with the concept that putting controls on guns isn't one of the issues.


I completely agree with all of this and it's sound advice. I don't live in fear at all. I sent my kids to school this morning with no more qualms than I have everyday. I'm 1000x more concerned about them geting hit by a car crossing the street than getting shot at school.

I have no illusion that we'll become a Cleaver society by getting rid of or reducing guns. But I do think this is one measure to help reduce what is an unacceptabel amount of gun violence across this country.

First if all YES because "some framer of the Constitution said so." The constitution is our law and not some inconvenience. Second the second amendment is meant to apply to bearing Murray weapons for security. "Need" is not a criteria. It is for protection. From both invasion and our own government.


The fact is most "gun violence" is criminal to criminal and not these random things. A person killed by a gun or any other means usually knows his or her killer


Sorry, we do not need to give up even more rights because people think there is some nut behind every corner with a gun when that is not the case.

So I did a little checking and there are 10 states in which you are more likely to die from a gun than from a car. I live in one of them. Nevada (home of the Wizard) is one of them. And this came out back in May, not last week.

Nationally, gun deaths are only 5000 behind car deaths. And more households own cars than guns (somewhere around 90% vs 47% or so.)

Quote: AZDuffman

First if all YES because "some framer of the Constitution said so." The constitution is our law and not some inconvenience. Second the second amendment is meant to apply to bearing Murray weapons for security. "Need" is not a criteria. It is for protection. From both invasion and our own government.


The fact is most "gun violence" is criminal to criminal and not these random things. A person killed by a gun or any other means usually knows his or her killer


Sorry, we do not need to give up even more rights because people think there is some nut behind every corner with a gun when that is not the case.

I don't minimize the importance or the power of our constitution. The men who drafted it were extremely wise in the rights that are granted, and for the most part, these rights have stood the test of time. But as society evolves so should the laws that govern that society. After 232 years and the advances in firearms from colonial times, I for one think this is the time to review this right and limit (not prohibit) certain types of weapons.

I'm not taking this position as a knee jerk reaction to the events of last Friday, but as a response to number of the homicides and accidental shootings committed in this country on an annual basis. Just because a person knows his or her killer doesn't somehow make it OK.