Sandy Hook familes sue...well, pretty much everyone

Witcher

Jawgap wrote: »

It's arguable that the 'right to bear arms' does not extend to the individual, but to the community - in other words it's a right to raise a militia.

Maybe some of the other aspects of gun ownership could be better regulated - I was in Delaware and Vermont in the summer where there is permissive open carry and it was mad seeing people window shopping with a pistol strapped to their hip!! It seems the trend is towards allowing more people in more situations permission to carry a pistol both as an open carry or as a concealed carry.

Under US law the populace is defined as a national militia. People have already tried using that avenue to overturn the 2A...doesn't work. If it was that easy it would have been done decades ago.

You're Irish I presume so I understand that it may have been frightening seeing someone carrying a gun...most people here will never even see a gun but you have to remember that for the people in the areas you visited...seeing a firearm is part of life. For them someone carrying a firearm doesn't automatically equal danger. I'm Irish myself..and I own and use firearms so it wouldn't fluster me if I visited the US and saw someone carrying a firearm...it's all a matter of perspective.

Jawgap

Strider wrote: »

Under US law the populace is defined as a national militia. People have already tried using that avenue to overturn the 2A...doesn't work. If it was that easy it would have been done decades ago.

Yes, I know that's why I said 'it's arguable' - it's not definitive and to get it through would require a sea-change in the cultural phenomenon that is American gun ownership.

Strider wrote: »

You're Irish I presume so I understand that it may have been frightening seeing someone carrying a gun...most people here will never even see a gun but you have to remember that for the people in the areas you visited...seeing a firearm is part of life. For them someone carrying a firearm doesn't automatically equal danger. I'm Irish myself..and I own and use firearms so it wouldn't fluster me if I visited the US and saw someone carrying a firearm...it's all a matter of perspective.

It's not frightening - it's mad, that's why I said it was 'mad.' If it was frightening, I would have said it was frightening.

I own and shoot guns myself (including a .303 rifle) both here and in the US, and my work takes me into contact with people who are both routinely and heavily armed - and as I said it's mad seeing ordinary people / citizens out doing everyday things like browsing shop windows on a main street in a small town with a 9mm Glock strapped to their hip (or in a tactical holster on the thigh as one guy had it).

Witcher

Jawgap wrote: »

I own and shoot guns myself (including a .303 rifle) both here and in the US, and my work takes me into contact with people who are both routinely and heavily armed - and as I said it's mad seeing ordinary people / citizens out doing everyday things like browsing shop windows on a main street in a small town with a 9mm Glock strapped to their hip (or in a tactical holster on the thigh as one guy had it).

Again, all a matter of perspective...the people there probably don't share your view on it.

Jawgap

Strider wrote: »

Again, all a matter of perspective...the people there probably don't share your view on it.

Well good for them, and I really don't care whether they do or not. I understand the gun culture and the historical and political rationale underpinning it, but it's still mad to see a citizen out and about with a lethal weapon that they may or may not be trained to use walking down the street.

It's their country and their rules, and it doesn't stop me looking forward to my next trip there.

The Diabolical Monocle

Strider wrote: »

You can buy grenades...rpgs etc. Destructive devices according to the BATF... pay $200 a piece and you can have them. You'll still find people on the US that say everything should be legal..missiles, the lot.

They did set limits...on items people don't want or have any use for..now lets see them push to outlaw firearms in their entirety...that would go well.

Can I buy an anti aircraft missile from this BATF thing for $200.
.... Im guessing theres more to that story.


Never said outlaw firearms in their entirety.


You'll still find people in the US that say the earth is flat.
They should be put in the same category as the people you mention.

So yes as you concede the US gov did set limits on what could be owned, because to not do so is obvious stupidity.

That means the 2nd amendment isn't a holy licence to own any weapon you like. Isn't an untouchable document governing above all others.

So make another change to whats legally available - you can still find a happy medium where people can own a weapon good for hunting or defense of their home yet not very good for spraying up a school.


Keep in mind that no matter how great a constitution is its a man made document and in this case was written in a time when bearing arms meant a bag of black powder, a flint and probably 20 seconds between each shot.
They couldn't foresee present day weapons... obviously its not written with them in mind.

Also - bragging that the situation wont be changing any time soon is not a win ... it just means that the rest of the world will be watching another public slaughter in a couple of months. Congrats - epic win, hope its not one of your friends or family.




Strider - thank me if you admit Im right and you're wrong in everything you've said.

Witcher

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Also - bragging that the situation wont be changing any time soon is not a win ... it just means that the rest of the world will be watching another public slaughter in a couple of months. Congrats - epic win, hope its not one of your friends or family.

I should probably just let you know...I'm not American...just incase you think I am.


I could get into the rest of your points but I won't, I've debated the same points to death on similar threads, no disrespect to you.

kylith

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Keep in mind that no matter how great a constitution is its a man made document and in this case was written in a time when bearing arms meant a bag of black powder, a flint and probably 20 seconds between each shot.
They couldn't foresee present day weapons... obviously its not written with them in mind.

I would pay an unseemly amount of money to see the faces on some hardcore gun nuts if the US government decided that that amendment applied to period weapons only, and all those blokes with personal armouries had to trade all their semi-autos and pump-action shotguns for flintlock pistols.

The Diabolical Monocle

Strider wrote: »

I could get into the rest of your points but I won't

no, no you couldn't. Because theres no realistic argument against them.

Witcher

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

no, no you couldn't. Because theres no realistic argument against them.

Ok, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. As I said, these threads have been done to death and they never go anywhere, I'm going to take my leave.

lazybones32

timetogo wrote: »

Why?

Since manufacturers are being sued for how people use a product, why not? Let's sue car companies the next time someone is knocked down by a drunken or careless driver. Or sue Diageo?

The Diabolical Monocle

Strider wrote: »

Ok, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. As I said, these threads have been done to death and they never go anywhere, I'm going to take my leave.

Its fact too. Bye.

Manic Moran

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

Conversion kit is easily purchased unofficially as you well know and fits in an envelope.

I don't know about other weapons such as AUGs, which strike me as being much simpler if you can find the kit, but for the common AR, it requires such machining tools and knowledge that if you can machine a semi-auto AR receiver to accept a full-auto sear, you're quite capable enough to just machine your own full-auto sear in the first place.

ike making the gun as obvious as possible, maybe even making it a glow in the dark high viss type affair

Why on Earth would you choose to give up a tactical advantage and make yourself more visible?

What always surprises me is hearing of criminals with unregistered new guns. How do they get them? Is the gun company fined for every unregistered gun that shows up in the hands of a criminal? It kind of implies they're either dealing with criminals directly or are losing guns all over the place.

Bit of both. A number of weapons are being purchased from shady dealers. Some are being purchased illegally from legitimate dealers. Some are brought North over the border. And some are just sold off the books legally, no questions asked, through gaps which should be sealed. The deputy director of the ATF testified last year that it does not go after people who lie when purchasing their firearms as they don't think it's worth the effort and money. (And what's our normal mantra about actually enforcing the laws on the books instead of making new ones?)

I was in Delaware and Vermont in the summer where there is permissive open carry and it was mad seeing people window shopping with a pistol strapped to their hip!! It seems the trend is towards allowing more people in more situations permission to carry a pistol both as an open carry or as a concealed carry.

Not a 'seem'. In the last thirty years, the vast majority of States have moved from "No concealed carry" to "concealed carry allowed." No particular bump in shootings has resulted. That said, so what? Did any of those folks with weapons threaten anyone?

It's arguable that the 'right to bear arms' does not extend to the individual, but to the community - in other words it's a right to raise a militia. Saying that, the toothpaste is out of the tube so arguments over the meaning / application of the Second Amendment are somewhat academic.

It's also academic because the Supreme Court has ruled on the matter, saying there is an individual right to firearms.

So make another change to whats legally available - you can still find a happy medium where people can own a weapon good for hunting or defense of their home yet not very good for spraying up a school.

There already is a happy medium. Try buying a submachine gun, a tank, a rocket launcher...

The problem with legislating specific weapons is twofold. Firstly, that much objection is founded simply on aesthetics. Some people just don't like the -look- of an AR, but don't mind the -look- of a Remington 750. But their mechanical operation is identical. Centre-fire, gas-operated, semi-auto. This is the basis for much recent legislation in the US which determines which firearms you can or cannot own.

The second problem is that the firearms which are best or most popular for hunting or defense of home, by their very nature, are also best or most popular for shooting up a school. Changing -that- is arguably going to be a Constitutional matter, not just Federal, but also at the State levels, where a number of States make hunting and self defense a Constitutional right. If you're going to limit the ability to exercise a Constitutional right (eg prohibit the use of semi-auto handguns for home defense), you need to have a damned good rationale for putting law abiding homeowners at a disadvantage. Otherwise, it's not going to pass muster in the courts, let alone politically.

Jawgap

Manic Moran wrote: »

......

Not a 'seem'. In the last thirty years, the vast majority of States have moved from "No concealed carry" to "concealed carry allowed." No particular bump in shootings has resulted. That said, so what? Did any of those folks with weapons threaten anyone?

Did they brandish a weapon? No, they didn't.

Did I feel threatened? No, I didn't.

Is it 'mad' that people need (?) to 'tool up' to go shopping? Well maybe if you're from Dexter, Maine it's not, it's normal; or as a citizen you feel you should regularly assert your constitutional rights. That's cool with me - as I said, their country their rules.

Having been brought up in Ireland with different (not necessarily better) traditions I don't feel the need to sling my shotgun to go shopping (an exaggeration I know, but there's not many handguns in circulation).

Having spent some years living in the States I kind of get it. I never found the idea of having a gun in the apartment appealing - although i did enjoy the occasional trip to the range. Other people feel different and again, that's their decision and I'd assume they feel they're making the right decision to suit their circumstances.

My brother still lives there (getting on for 20 years now) and refuses to have a gun in the house (not something his in-laws readily agree with). Probably because we have a similar upbringing I'd agree with his logic - the more there are in circulation and the easier they are to access, the more likely something is to go wrong and someone get hurt.

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's also academic because the Supreme Court has ruled on the matter, saying there is an individual right to firearms.
.

Yes, I know, that's why I said there would have to be a a sea-change in the cultural phenomenon that is American gun ownership - any change is not going to be judicially driven, it'll have to come from the bottom up.

ScumLord

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why on Earth would you choose to give up a tactical advantage and make yourself more visible?

What does the average joe know about tactical advantages? From the point of view of protecting your home from intruders most normal people just want the bad people to go away. If they actually have to shoot someone it can lead to long term mental problems, most humans aren't equipped to deal with killing another person whether it's justified or not. So a big bright shiny gun, maybe one that glowed in the dark would highlight to any intruders that the occupant is armed and looking to shoot someone. I would guess 90% of the time burglar will run once they know the owner of the house their robbing is aware of them. The other 9% will run once they see a gun.

If it's for home protection make a gun specifically for home protection, don't give them a gun that's designed for invading countries.

Hunting is different, it's a different task with different needs but even so why not make them high viz? Don't they require hunters to wear high viz while hunting in the states? It's not like the animal will know the difference.

The reason for doing this would be to make guns look like a dangerous tool that's easy to spot. If the gun is for hunting or home defense then it doesn't have to look cool it just has to do a job. Making the gun look a bit more stupid is going to kill the guns inherent coolness too.

Bit of both. A number of weapons are being purchased from shady dealers. Some are being purchased illegally from legitimate dealers. Some are brought North over the border. And some are just sold off the books legally, no questions asked, through gaps which should be sealed.

I think every time the police in the states get a gun that can't be traced back to a registered user they should go to the gun company and demand to know how the gun got into the hands of a criminal. It's not like it's a lot to ask, most companies do tend to trace their products and can usually tell you exactly where it went and how it got there. Make them responsible for who they sell their products too.

Beano

ScumLord wrote: »

What does the average joe know about tactical advantages? From the point of view of protecting your home from intruders most normal people just want the bad people to go away. If they actually have to shoot someone it can lead to long term mental problems, most humans aren't equipped to deal with killing another person whether it's justified or not. So a big bright shiny gun, maybe one that glowed in the dark would highlight to any intruders that the occupant is armed and looking to shoot someone. I would guess 90% of the time burglar will run once they know the owner of the house their robbing is aware of them. The other 9% will run once they see a gun.
...

i cant believe i actually just read that rubbish.

timetogo

Beano wrote: »

i cant believe i actually just read that rubbish.

I thought it made sense. If my house is being burgled and I have a gun, I don't want t a "tactical advantage", I want the burglar to get the hell out preferably without having to shoot him.

Jawgap

timetogo wrote: »

I thought it made sense. If my house is being burgled and I have a gun, I don't want t a "tactical advantage", I want the burglar to get the hell out preferably without having to shoot him.

Except if the burglar brings a non-luminescent gun and you're stood there with your big glow in the dark weapon (ooooooh, Matron ) - the burglar knows where to shoot!!

Better to have the gun and when you here the noise cock it as loudly as possible and warn them if they come up the stairs your shooting them......and that you've called the police. (That's my plan!)

ScumLord

Jawgap wrote: »

Except if the burglar brings a non-luminescent gun and you're stood there with your big glow in the dark weapon (ooooooh, Matron ) - the burglar knows where to shoot!!

Why wouldn't he know where to shoot if the homeowner had a normal gun? If it's dark maybe he'll get freaked out by a floating ghost gun. Put a very powerful light on the end of the gun and he won't be able to make out the exact position of the homeowner. He'll know a general direction but with a powerful light shining in his face he won't be able to be all that accurate in the heat of the moment.

Either way an assault rifle doesn't make the best home defense gun. It's going to be awkward indoors and it's round could end up going through walls and injuring people in other rooms or houses.

MadsL

ScumLord wrote:

Either way an assault rifle doesn't make the best home defense gun.

It does if you weigh less than 90 lbs or so and cannot accurately fire a pistol or handle the recoil of a shotgun.

Gael23

The defendants have no case to answer.

Case closed.

MadsL

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Keep in mind that no matter how great a constitution is its a man made document and in this case was written in a time when bearing arms meant a bag of black powder, a flint and probably 20 seconds between each shot.
They couldn't foresee present day weapons... obviously its not written with them in mind. .

Yet at the time it was written a repeating gun capable of 63 shots in 7 minutes was in existance for 73 years.

A liitle bit more firepower than "a bag of black powder, a flint and probably 20 seconds between each shot" but surely the framers of the constitution coud not concieve of such a thing nor apparantly that the citizens would be armed rather than a standing militia.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."Thomas Jefferson ...

Got any more myths needing debunking?

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."Thomas Jefferson ...

Got any more myths needing debunking?

The US is already ignoring its own constitution in that case then as there is no mandatory 24 hour gun carrying legislation.

MadsL

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The US is already ignoring its own constitution in that case then as there is no mandatory 24 hour gun carrying legislation.

Thomas Jefferson's letters are NOT the constitution. Do keep up.

Manic Moran

Keep in mind that no matter how great a constitution is its a man made document and in this case was written in a time when bearing arms meant a bag of black powder, a flint and probably 20 seconds between each shot.
They couldn't foresee present day weapons... obviously its not written with them in mind.

That argument has been dealt with by the courts as well. The Internet wasn't in mind when they wrote the right to free speech, but the First Amendment applies just as much. Similarly, wire taps were probably not in the minds of the framers when they came up with the 4th Amendment, but it applies. On this basis, the courts have rejected the "it wasn't invented yet" concept as being a very bad idea.

timetogo wrote: »

I thought it made sense. If my house is being burgled and I have a gun, I don't want t a "tactical advantage", I want the burglar to get the hell out preferably without having to shoot him.

Three things. Firstly, Joe Homeowner is probably somewhat untrained and a bit scared. You want to hamper him as little as possible. Giving the guy he's worried about the advantage of being able to easily see Joe is probably not going to help his case. Secondly, if you have a glowing gun right in front of your eyes, you won't be able to see anything beyond it in a dimly lit situation. Thirdly, what will it actually achieve? You can already buy bright pink ARs with daisies and Hello Kitty on them, they're just as dangerous as black ones.

Either way an assault rifle doesn't make the best home defense gun. It's going to be awkward indoors and it's round could end up going through walls and injuring people in other rooms or houses

Which is why more and more SWAT teams are using them to go into houses? You see the rifles that the Australian police were using two days ago? Yep... ARs. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/141215071307-07-sydney-1215-horizontal-gallery.jpg

If you have even a vague idea what you're doing, they are actually the -best- home defense gun, popular myths notwithstanding. They are less likely than pistols to go through walls, more likely to hit the target and only the target than either pistols or shotguns, do not provide a bigger signature and are not more awkward than a handgun or shotgun, are easier to retain and use in physical altercation.

See, for example, http://www.corneredcat.com/article/choosing-firearms/a-long-gun-for-home-defense/ or http://www.theboxotruth.com/educational-zone-143-what-is-the-best-weapon-for-home-defense-a-serious-discussion/

I use a pistol because I've a young daughter and it fits in my quick-release safe, not because I think it's actually a better weapon for the job than one of my carbines.

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

Thomas Jefferson's letters are NOT the constitution. Do keep up.

Oh, this discussion was about the US constitution. You'll have to apologise for me assuming in error that you were able to follow the conversation when you started quoting random things.

MadsL

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Oh, this discussion was about the US constitution. You'll have to apologise for me assuming in error that you were able to follow the conversation when you started quoting random things.

Yeah. I can see how me quoting one of the framers of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights confused you. Like I said, do keep up.

MadsL

Manic Moran wrote: »

easier to retain and use in physical altercation.

This made me chuckle. If all else fails swing it like a bat.

The Diabolical Monocle

Manic Moran wrote: »

There already is a happy medium. Try buying a submachine gun, a tank, a rocket launcher...

The problem with legislating specific weapons is twofold. Firstly, that much objection is founded simply on aesthetics. Some people just don't like the -look- of an AR, but don't mind the -look- of a Remington 750. But their mechanical operation is identical. Centre-fire, gas-operated, semi-auto. This is the basis for much recent legislation in the US which determines which firearms you can or cannot own.

The second problem is that the firearms which are best or most popular for hunting or defense of home, by their very nature, are also best or most popular for shooting up a school. Changing -that- is arguably going to be a Constitutional matter, not just Federal, but also at the State levels, where a number of States make hunting and self defense a Constitutional right. If you're going to limit the ability to exercise a Constitutional right (eg prohibit the use of semi-auto handguns for home defense), you need to have a damned good rationale for putting law abiding homeowners at a disadvantage. Otherwise, it's not going to pass muster in the courts, let alone politically.

Disagree.

If the only reasons for owning firearms are hunting and defense of the home then many weapon designs available for Americans to buy go well beyond what is required for these roles.

What is needed over there is legislation which will permit the public to buy a weapon which WILL allow a hunter a fair shot at his/her prey yet WONT be easy to work with when trying to shoot up a public area.

That logic has already been put in place up to a point.
Ideally publicly available weapons should be slow to operate and re-load and difficult to conceal.

That would probably on occasion inconvenience some inept hunters, and stop some gun nuts from playing rambo, but that huge god awful burden would be worth it.

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

Yeah. I can see how me quoting one of the framers of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights confused you. Like I said, do keep up.

But as you admit, what you quoted isn't actually in the constitution, which was the topic of discussion.
Sorry, aren't you supposed to at least try to prove your side of this instead of just repeating that you were off topic?

V_Moth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#2010s

75 school shootings since Sandy Hook with 54 people killed.

MadsL

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But as you admit, what you quoted isn't actually in the constitution, which was the topic of discussion.
Sorry, aren't you supposed to at least try to prove your side of this instead of just repeating that you were off topic?

I fail to see how quoting one of the Founding Fathers and one of the framers of both the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights is off topic. How can you possibly not see that, unless you are being deliberately disingenuous.

As to the topic of discussion, that is the lawsuit, is it not? Again your reading skills seem a bit superficial.

As to proving anything, you seem to have utterly ignored the fact that you conflating a quote from Jefferson with the text of the actual US Constitution shows how out of your depth you are in this thread. Unless you want to explain to me how people not following Jefferson's suggestion is equal to...

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The US is already ignoring its own constitution in that case then as there is no mandatory 24 hour gun carrying legislation.

- please do. I could use a laugh today.

MadsL

V_Moth wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#2010s

75 school shootings since Sandy Hook with 54 people killed.

What is your solution?

Also, lets not pretend that this only happens in the US.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

I fail to see how quoting one of the Founding Fathers and one of the framers of both the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights is off topic. How can you possibly not see that, unless you are being deliberately disingenuous.

As to the topic of discussion, that is the lawsuit, is it not? Again your reading skills seem a bit superficial.

As to proving anything, you seem to have utterly ignored the fact that you conflating a quote from Jefferson with the text of the actual US Constitution shows how out of your depth you are in this thread. Unless you want to explain to me how people not following Jefferson's suggestion is equal to...
- please do. I could use a laugh today.

Again, you appear to have your little heart set on proving my point for me. Thanks n all.
We were discussing the constitutional right to bear arms. Unless you're about to tell me that everything Jefferson ever said, like the quote you randomed up, is part of the constitution, it is, unfortunately for you, entirely irrelevant.
Now, more entertainment from you please. Hey, here's another random Jefferson quote for ya!

“Brought from their infancy without necessity for thought or forecast, [blacks] are by their habits rendered as incapable as children of taking care of themselves, and are extinguished promptly wherever industry is necessary for raising young. In the mean time they are pests in society by their idleness, and the depredations to which this leads them.”

Hey, Jefferson said it. It must be in the constitution we're discussing, right? Right?

ScumLord

Manic Moran wrote: »

Which is why more and more SWAT teams are using them to go into houses?

I would have thought there are a number of reasons for them moving to assault riffles that aren't all based on the guns practicality. The first reason I heard was that they had to move to higher powered riffles because the criminals started wearing bulletproof vests and have their own rifles. I've also heard that they are getting surplus military equipment whether they need it or not.

At least they get training for the weapons they're using. The training can give them the confidence to use the weapon properly.

If you have even a vague idea what you're doing, they are actually the -best- home defense gun, popular myths notwithstanding. They are less likely than pistols to go through walls,

I don't understand how a nato round can't go through a wall but a 9mm can? I know you know more about this stuff than I do but that's a confusing one.


It's still overkill in my opinion.

MadsL

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Again, you appear to have your little heart set on proving my point for me. Thanks n all.
We were discussing the constitutional right to bear arms. Unless you're about to tell me that everything Jefferson ever said, like the quote you randomed up, is part of the constitution, it is, unfortunately for you, entirely irrelevant.

Oh you were being saracstic earlier? I thought you were being simply dense.

A quote from Jefferson on the topic of bearing arms IS relevant in discussion of the 2A to any normal, rational thinking person. Your random quote clearly isn't about the right to bear arms so is in fact off topic and clearly simply designed to add noise to the SNR of this thread.

Do you have anything to actually say? You can see how I have to make your points for you, as you seem incapable of actually spelling them out.

MadsL

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

If the only reasons for owning firearms are hunting and defense of the home then many weapon designs available for Americans to buy go well beyond what is required for these roles.

My State constitution includes recreation as a valid reason to own a firearm.

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

A quote from Jefferson on the topic of bearing arms IS relevant in discussion of the 2A to any normal, rational thinking person. Your random quote clearly isn't about the right to bear arms so is in fact off topic and clearly simply designed to add noise to the SNR of this thread.

How is something not in the constitution relevant to a discussion of what's in the constitution? My "random" quote shows just how relevant. Who cares what Jefferson said in some letter to who cares who?
And he didn't write the US Constitution entirely himself anyway.
Sorry, you plucked a random quote from nowhere in a discussion on the US constitution and you're backpedalling yourself into a frenzy trying to pretend it's relevant.
Kinda hilarious you're asking if I have anything relevant to add actually.

The Diabolical Monocle

MadsL wrote: »

My State constitution includes recreation as a valid reason to own a firearm.

so you live in a state that currently views weapons as toys.

MadsL

Dan_Solo wrote: »

How is something not in the constitution relevant to a discussion of what's in the constitution? My "random" quote shows just how relevant. Who care what Jefferson said in some letter to who cares who?
And he didn't write the US Constitution entirely himself anyway.
Sorry, you plucked a random quote from nowhere in a discussion on the US constitution and you're backpedalling yourself into a frenzy trying to pretend it's relevant.
Kinda hilarious you're asking if I have anything relevant to add actually.

Yeah as I thought. You actually have nothing to say.

A quote from Jefferson is relevant to the discussion, but your waffle isn't, so this is my last reply to your silly responses.

However I guess you would rather make a handy distraction from actually dealing with the point that I made earlier, that in fact automatic weapons were in existance at the time that the Bill of Rights was written and had been for over 70 years.

Go on, have a shot (pun intended) at that little fact, see how you get on.

MadsL

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

so you live in a state that currently views weapons as toys.

Do you consider an off-road vehicle a "toy"?

V_Moth

MadsL wrote: »

What is your solution?

Also, lets not pretend that this only happens in the US.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

I was simply stating a very sad statistic (the last one was only four days ago). Arguably, similar shootings in other countries could be taken as copy-cat events due to the sheer frequency of them and related media coverage.

I don't think there are any solutions until the problem is addressed with the seriousness it deserves. Arguing semantics over gun ownership is not helpful and I think guns and their ownership are only one of a number of factors involved (bullying, mental health). I am sure if adequate resources were provided towards addressing the latter issues, we would see a reduction in school shootings. Until then, they will continue to happen.

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

Yeah as I thought. You actually have nothing to say.

A quote from Jefferson is relevant to the discussion, but your waffle isn't, so this is my last replay to your silly responses.

However I guess you would rather make a handy distraction from actually dealing with the point that I made earlier, that in fact automatic weapons were in existance at the time that the Bill of Rights was written and had been for over 70 years.

Go on, have a shot (pun intended) at that little fact, see how you get on.

Yes, as I thought, all you got is bluster as your random irrelevant quotation "got shot to pieces" (pun intended). Do you actually have anything on topic to say?
Next time pay attention to the discussion and avoid this kind of embarrassment for yourself, OK?

The Diabolical Monocle

MadsL wrote: »

Do you consider an off-road vehicle a "toy"?

Personally - no.

Do you view firearms as a means of recreation ?

MadsL

V_Moth wrote: »

I was simply stating a very sad statistic (the last one was only four days ago). Arguably, similar shootings in other countries could be taken as copy-cat events due to the sheer frequency of them and related media coverage.

I don't think there are any solutions until the problem is addressed with the seriousness it deserves. Arguing semantics over gun ownership is not helpful and I think guns and their ownership are only one of a number of factors involved (bullying, mental health). I am sure if adequate resources were provided towards addressing the latter issues, we would see a reduction in school shootings. Until then, they will continue to happen.

The Affordable Care Act at least brings mental health coverage into a large pool of people who might otherwise not have been able to benefit.

I agree wholeheartedly that there are a wide variety of reasons for these tragic events. However the idea that gun manufacturers and legal gun owners are in some way responsible is trotted out over and over again. I find it doesn't hold up to much scrutiny.

MadsL

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Personally - no.

Do you view firearms as a means of recreation ?

In order to answer your question then - since firearms are simply toys according to you, then surely the IOC should remove shooting sports from the Olympics? Or do you accept that target shooting is a valid form of recreation?

The Diabolical Monocle

MadsL wrote: »

In order to answer your question then - since firearms are simply toys according to you, then surely the IOC should remove shooting sports from the Olympics? Or do you accept that target shooting is a valid form of recreation?

I dont view firearms as toys.

Do you view firearms as a means of recreation ?

MadsL

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Yes, as I thought, all you got is bluster as your random irrelevant quotation "got shot to pieces" (pun intended). Do you actually have anything on topic to say?
Next time pay attention to the discussion and avoid this kind of embarrassment for yourself, OK?

You've said absolutely nothing on topic and all you are doing is adding noise. On the other hand all my previous posts ARE on topic, excpet for the ones engaging with you. Therefore to save this thread (which you haven't read at all I suspect) more noise, welcome to my ignore list.

If you only bothered to read posts correctly, and learn to recognise context you might do better with forming an argument. As it is, you have had ample opportunity and failed entirely.

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

I agree wholeheartedly that there are a wide variety of reasons for these tragic events. However the idea that gun manufacturers and legal gun owners are in some way responsible is trotted out over and over again. I find it doesn't hold up to much scrutiny.

3/4 of mass shooting in the US in the last 30 years were with legally held firearms.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
Scrutinize that please.

Manic Moran

ScumLord wrote: »

I would have thought there are a number of reasons for them moving to assault riffles that aren't all based on the guns practicality. The first reason I heard was that they had to move to higher powered riffles because the criminals started wearing bulletproof vests and have their own rifles. I've also heard that they are getting surplus military equipment whether they need it or not.

If all you want to do is punch through body armour at short range, there are better rounds for it. The 5.7mm being a case in point. Of course, there's no reason one can't simply swap out a .223 upper receiver for a 5.7mm upper. It takes about 90 seconds and is part of the beauty of the AR design. It's just so damned flexible.

At least they get training for the weapons they're using. The training can give them the confidence to use the weapon properly.

That statement applies equally to all forms of firearm. There is nothing mysterious about the operation of a rifle as opposed to a handgun, even indoors.

I don't understand how a nato round can't go through a wall but a 9mm can? I know you know more about this stuff than I do but that's a confusing one.

It's a combination of velocity and round design. The round travels so fast, that it actually shatters more easily on impact with anything. There's a level at about 2,200fps at which point a round doesn't shatter so well (unless it's specifically designed to do so, which exists for rifles and pistols both), which is faster than a pistol calibre round will attain, but it much less than the AR's.

FBI testing on pistol vs rifle calibres.
http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14:223-penetration-information&catid=13:technical-info

However, for more than 20 years, conventional law enforcement wisdom generally held that the .223 in any configuration was a deeply penetrating round and, therefore, totally unsuited for CQB missions in the urban environment. Partly because of this erroneous, but long held perception, and other tactical factors, the pistol caliber submachine gun (SMG) eventually emerged as the primary shoulder "entry" weapon for the police and military SWAT teams.

<snip>

Bottom Line: In every test, with the exception of soft body armor, which none of the SMG fired rounds defeated, the .223 penetrated less on average than any of the pistol bullets.

Bear in mind also that ammunition specifically designed for use in the home has since been developed for all types of weapon, pistol and rifle both, so the argument is a bit spurious anyway. People keep thinking of using full metal jacket ammo (or hollow-tip, in some cases), as that's the only thing that the army is legally allowed to fire from its rifles at people. Civilians are given a lot more lattitude.

MadsL

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

I dont view firearms as toys.

Do you view firearms as a means of recreation ?

Blatantly they are a means of recreation, they have been for centuries since man first learnt to build a slingshot and decided to a have a friendly game of who can hit the target first.

You appear to be confusing

rec·re·a·tion
ˌrekrēˈāSH(ə)n/
noun
activity done for enjoyment when one is not working.

with

toy
toi/
noun
1.
an object for a child to play with, typically a model or miniature replica of something.


I certainly do not feel that a child should play with a firearm, but there is no reason why anyone of a reasonable age should not enjoy safe and supervised recreation with a firearm. Thousands of tourist enjoy such recreation in the US every year with a very very low accident rate.