Maybe Cattleherder Joe thinks he needs a rocket launcher or a tank, but those are illegal for him to own. I don't care want he thinks he needs.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2013 2:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/22/2013 2:18:00 PM (view original):
It's beside the point. The goal is not to prevent school shootings. The goal is to improve public safety in all settings. 

I think we all agree that a police state/TSA screened life would be horrible. It's a much bigger infringement on our freedom to have to deal with that type of security than to outlaw certain types of weapons.

I was in Nairobi last spring and going anywhere in that city sucks. For example, the grocery store near airport is inside a mall. To get into the parking lot we had to stop at a gate manned by armed guards. You stop and one guard asks where you are going and makes you open the trunk, while another guard uses a mirror to look under your car for explosives and inspects your now open trunk. Then you walk through a security checkpoint to get into the mall, they wand you with metal detectors and look through any purses or bags you have. After you get through that check, you go through an identical one to get into the grocery store inside the mall. And even with all that security, Nairobi is still a dangerous ******* place.

There is no magic bullet. As tec said, waiting for a comprehensive solution will result in nothing getting done. The best we can hope for is an incremental improvement in public safety.

I'd feel pretty safe if I was packing a loaded weapon regardless of where I was.

Public safety, hard at work.

And no one is trying to stop you from owning any gun.

god is not part of the solution...it is apparent he wasn't anywhere near Sandy Hook...and as for prayers, I can't be certain cause I wasn't there but I would bet someone was praying when they heard the first few gunshots go off...

While I tend to agree with the people who support an assault weapons ban, I don't think you guys are winning this debate at all.  You all keep acting as if the burden of proof is on the people who oppose the ban.  It's not.  Trentonjoe just said:

"Owning an M16 so you can walk your dog in a swamp isn't a good enough reason in my opinion."

Fine.  It doesn't have to be.  The 2nd Amendment is a good enough reason NOT to enact a ban.  As I pointed out in the other thread a week ago, the use of the word "infringed" in the amendment says to me that, objectively, any law banning the ownership of weapons by private citizens is, technically, unconstitutional.  The 2nd Amendment isn't the tagline "right to bear arms," it says "shall not be infringed."  An assault weapons ban is absolutely an infringement on access to arms, so in order to enact one you need to carry some burden of proof.  It absolutely is not the other way around.

I would argue that there has never been a major shooting in the United States using an assault weapon which could not be perpetrated reasonably with weapons not banned under any proposed law.  That being said, that doesn't rule it out.  I continue to lean on the example of how easily someone could carry an automatic weapon into Times Square and kill hundreds before being gunned down by police.  MikeT will probably come in like a broken record here and tell me you could do the same thing with a bomb.  It's a stupid example.  Most of the big massacres are NOT long-term planned - some are, but most are not.  Most are perpetrated by either badly depressed to suicidal individuals or deeply disturbed individuals.  In many, probably the vast majority, really, of cases these people would have time to pull out of their extreme depressive cycles before they had finished building a bomb.  Building a bomb big enough to kill hundreds of people takes a lot of time and a lot of money.  Even if they have the money, they may get their meds fixed before they have all the time.  An assault weapons ban makes the potentiality of a massive spontaneous killing far less likely.

@swamphawk in particular - just because I can't give you a specific example of a time in which an assault weapon HAS been used to kill hundreds of people where another gun wouldn't have worked doesn't mean it isn't possible.  That's a stupid argument.  Why wait until it happens to try to stop it from happening?  Why don't we just let cracks grow in the Hoover Dam until it starts breaking and flooding people because until we actually see leakage we don't have a problem?

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2013 2:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/22/2013 2:18:00 PM (view original):
It's beside the point. The goal is not to prevent school shootings. The goal is to improve public safety in all settings. 

I think we all agree that a police state/TSA screened life would be horrible. It's a much bigger infringement on our freedom to have to deal with that type of security than to outlaw certain types of weapons.

I was in Nairobi last spring and going anywhere in that city sucks. For example, the grocery store near airport is inside a mall. To get into the parking lot we had to stop at a gate manned by armed guards. You stop and one guard asks where you are going and makes you open the trunk, while another guard uses a mirror to look under your car for explosives and inspects your now open trunk. Then you walk through a security checkpoint to get into the mall, they wand you with metal detectors and look through any purses or bags you have. After you get through that check, you go through an identical one to get into the grocery store inside the mall. And even with all that security, Nairobi is still a dangerous ******* place.

There is no magic bullet. As tec said, waiting for a comprehensive solution will result in nothing getting done. The best we can hope for is an incremental improvement in public safety.

I'd feel pretty safe if I was packing a loaded weapon regardless of where I was.

Public safety, hard at work.

I would say that would make you more of a target in certain places than feeling safe.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2013 10:07:00 AM (view original):
BTW, I'm all for both of these:

"Wouldn't registering all firearms be a massive overhaul?
Wouldn't an extended prison sentence for possessing an unregistered firearm be a massive overhaul?"

However, if you mention better securing of schools to a gun control advocate, he wants nothing to do with it(see: trentonjoe).   It's unreasonable and, as they say, anyone wanting access to school grounds will gain access to school grounds.   And they can't fathom that the same applies to illegal firearms.

It's almost comical.  And would be if not so stupid.

Goes back to this.

I've said:
1.  Require registration of ALL firearms because even the little, single shot ones can kill.
2.  Impose heavy prison sentences on anyone caught with an unregistered firearm.
3.  Cease the manufacture and sale of all AW-type weapons.

The ONLY thing I've disagreed with is the confiscation of any legally purchased firearms already in the possession of a US citizen.   They would STILL be required to register them but they just wouldn't have to turn them over.

Not good enough for any gun control advocate.    They're too busy worrying about how making schools secure would be just too costly.   Rounding up newly illegal guns would obviously be free.

Posted by winnetka1 on 1/22/2013 2:45:00 PM (view original):
god is not part of the solution...it is apparent he wasn't anywhere near Sandy Hook...and as for prayers, I can't be certain cause I wasn't there but I would bet someone was praying when they heard the first few gunshots go off...

I'm not suggesting God was the answer at Sandy Hook, but God might have been the answer for Lanza. Maybe if he would have had more of God in his life he wouldn't have done what he did.

Big massacres.   Please list them.

Sandy Hook
Va Tech
Boulder, CO
Aurora, CO

These come to mind.    SH is the only one that wasn't planned.   Or, at least, there's been no evidence that it was.  The other three were painstakingly planned. 

1 You seem to agree with my basic concept. The burden of proof is on the government. Not just to show a problem but to show the validity of the solution.

2 Colorado guy set up bombs in his apartment. Very intricate bombs. I realize that it is possible that a shooter could be hampered by a AW ban. I just dont think it is a slam dunk.

Slippery slope time.

If we assume the AW ban will work and it doesnt what is the next step? Do we need to ban more weapons? Do we need to start seizing guns? And if not what are the other solutions and why not try them now?

Posted by bad_luck on 1/22/2013 2:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2013 2:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/22/2013 2:18:00 PM (view original):
It's beside the point. The goal is not to prevent school shootings. The goal is to improve public safety in all settings. 

I think we all agree that a police state/TSA screened life would be horrible. It's a much bigger infringement on our freedom to have to deal with that type of security than to outlaw certain types of weapons.

I was in Nairobi last spring and going anywhere in that city sucks. For example, the grocery store near airport is inside a mall. To get into the parking lot we had to stop at a gate manned by armed guards. You stop and one guard asks where you are going and makes you open the trunk, while another guard uses a mirror to look under your car for explosives and inspects your now open trunk. Then you walk through a security checkpoint to get into the mall, they wand you with metal detectors and look through any purses or bags you have. After you get through that check, you go through an identical one to get into the grocery store inside the mall. And even with all that security, Nairobi is still a dangerous ******* place.

There is no magic bullet. As tec said, waiting for a comprehensive solution will result in nothing getting done. The best we can hope for is an incremental improvement in public safety.

I'd feel pretty safe if I was packing a loaded weapon regardless of where I was.

Public safety, hard at work.

And no one is trying to stop you from owning any gun.

I disagree. 

Gun A is off the table today.
Gun B is off the table tomorrow.
Gun C, D and E are off the table next month.

You and I both know where guns bans will lead.    Don't pretend you don't.

Not necessarily. Slippery slope arguments are fallacies for a reason.

What has happened is there wasn't enough public outcry about Giffords.  BTW, 9mm handgun was used to kill 6 people, wound 13 others.    There wasn't enough public outcry about the Aurora theater shooting.  He used a shotgun, a AW that jammed after 30ish rounds and a handgun to kill 12 and would 60.   However, there was plenty of outcry about Sandy Hook.   6 year olds getting shot unites a nation.   However, the GCA groups have managed to divide it again by being unclear about what they hope to prevent.   Anyone who believes in the 2nd amendment knows what they want. 

Posted by bad_luck on 1/22/2013 2:56:00 PM (view original):
Not necessarily. Slippery slope arguments are fallacies for a reason.

Not in this case.   The "objective" is to stop another Sandy Hook.   When the next Sandy Hook happens, and it will if school security isn't addressed, that type of firearm will come under fire.  

You and I both know it.    I'm just willing to say it.

Yeah, Gun A killed today. Ban it.
Gun B kills tomorrow. Ban it.
Gun C kills next week. Ban it.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Has happened since Cain killed Able. God even let his only son be killed. Do any of you really think banning guns will change anything? Guess again!

This bears repeating.  I do not own an AW.  I have no use for an AW.   I have no plans to buy an AW.    I have an old .22 rifle.   At least 50 years old but probably older.




I have a handgun.  I think the clip holds 9 rounds but I'm not sure.  Neither gun has been fired in over 20 years.  So I'm not Charlton Heston.

But I don't like the government becoming bigger and ignoring the rights Americans were given 200+ years ago.   Tax the hell out of gunmakers for making AW-type guns.   Price the Average Joe out of the market.   Outlaw the manufacture of AW-type guns.   I don't care.   But don't send American Nazis around to round up weapons.