18 Children Dead in CT Mass Shooting

[FyredUp]

Exactly. There's far more to the issue than banning guns, we have a real issue with personal responsibility, devaluation of human life and looking for quick fixes that solve nothing.

Quick fixes that solve nothing? You mean like banning specific types of firearms and magazines? That seems to be the answer of the knee jerk ati-gunners.

[scfire86]

By injecting your ridiculous comparison of guns to explosives. Which, by the way, MILLIONS use every year around the 4th of July for celebrations. Oh I know tht isn't what you had in mind but it is true that millions of people use them every year causing no harm to themselves or others.

Precisely my point. The majority of people that use explosives, use them for constructive and legitimate purposes. Particularly in the mining industry. That doesn't stop their being heavily regulated. The belief being put forth by gun owners is there should be no regulations on semi-auto firearms because the majority of their owners use them responsibly. If you don't understand the comparison to explosives, I can't help you.

Do tell what the restrictions for buying, owning and consuming candy and potato chips are. Heck the government subsidizes the purchase of those items with Foodstamps. Nice try, ridiculous, stupid and without merit, but nice try anyways.

There are significant regulations in place for the production of food to ensure they are safe for consumption. A quick refresher of the Pure Food and Drug Act should help educate you on the issue.

It is so readily apparent that you search these forums for these types of topics. Your posts are nonsenical and troll like serving no purpose other than to enflame. Sorry I am not getting upset I mostly laugh at your indefensible posturing.

Your beliefs about me are not relevant to the topic.

[scfire86]

My bet is trials don't last for YEARS, with massive appeals. Health care issues, including mental health, are more readily addressed by society. Seems pretty simple...probably not enough money in that for lawyers and health care providers in the US.

I have no problem studying which of those are accurate and applying them here.

I am passionate about my guaranteed rights under the constitution and I won't apologize for that.

I'm not advocating you not be allowed to own firearms. However, the Supreme Court has deemed the Right to Bear Arms is not absolute. There are restrictions currently placing numerous restrictions on firearms ownership.

[scfire86]

Note the area in red. I have no idea if FH rights their own copy or if it was pulled from the general media. but we all know this was not a military style assault rifle that was used but a high-powered hunting rifle, which was 100% legal in CT.

It was in fact a military style assault rifle that was used. The Bushmaster bears far more of a resemblance to the M4 than a Winchester M70 or Remington 700.

The fact is the mainstream liberal media will continue to push that this was an assault rifle even though it was not in an effort to push their anti-gun agenda. Unfortunately the public will believe this crap until they are told otherwise. and it is likely that if they hear this assault rifle crap enough, even when given the truth later on that this was not the the case they won't believe it or already have their minds made up.

What about the statement of it being a military style assault rifle is inaccurate?

First we started out talking about banning fully automatic weapons. now we are talking about banning semi-automatic. problem is the bad guys have access to the tens of thousands (if not more) of both types that are already out there. Bottom line is the public should have access to the exact same firepower that the criminals do.

So what? So because bad guys have access to weapons we shouldn't pass any laws? Since you're the Mr. Pub Ed genieass, people are going to commit arson. Should we not pass laws on arson and revoke the ones that are currently in place? I love the logic that since a law won't prevent all individuals we shouldn't do anything that might prevent any of these occurrences.

[Catch22]

The fact is the mainstream liberal media will continue to push that this was an assault rifle even though it was not in an effort to push their anti-gun agenda. Unfortunately the public will believe this crap until they are told otherwise. and it is likely that if they hear this assault rifle crap enough, even when given the truth later on that this was not the the case they won't believe it or already have their minds made up.

First we started out talking about banning fully automatic weapons. now we are talking about banning semi-automatic. problem is the bad guys have access to the tens of thousands (if not more) of both types that are already out there. Bottom line is the public should have access to the exact same firepower that the criminals do.

The media is comprised of idiots pushing an agenda. I heared again this morning on a major news network how Lanza was wearing body armor. You would think they would have their stories right and understand tactical clothing and body armor are two different things. Of course, there are still those saying that James Holmes was wearing body armor, though he was only wearing tactical clothing.

Giving everyone what the criminal have access to is asinine. What is the problem with keeping illegal weapons away from those who shouldn't have them? Enforce the freaking laws we have now and punish criminals the way they're supposed to be, then we can look at making new laws. The only ones that are going to follow any new laws are the law-abiding citizens, anyway.

[L-Webb]

Why does anyone need ANY weapon that holds 30 rounds?

[FyredUp]

It was in fact a military style assault rifle that was used. The Bushmaster bears far more of a resemblance to the M4 than a Winchester M70 or Remington 700.

Once again your absolute and complete ignorance, and disregard, for the definition of an assault weapon makes any other point you try to make on this topic moot. The rifle used was a semi-sutomatic rifle, an assault weapon is selective fire meaning it can be fired fully automatic.

What about the statement of it being a military style assault rifle is inaccurate?

The fact that is absolutely CANNOT be fired in the fully automatic mode. That no matter how much you wish it not to be true invalidates anyone calling that rifle an assault weapon. It is plain and simple a semi-automatic rifle that looks like its cousin the military M16/M4. No matter how many times you, the media, Senator Feinstein, or any other uneducated on firearms person says it, YOU ARE ALL WRONG!


So what? So because bad guys have access to weapons we shouldn't pass any laws? Since you're the Mr. Pub Ed genieass, people are going to commit arson. Should we not pass laws on arson and revoke the ones that are currently in place? I love the logic that since a law won't prevent all individuals we shouldn't do anything that might prevent any of these occurrences.

Not what I said, not what LA is saying. The point is there are tons of laws on the books regarding guns and violent crime, up to and including murder, they may deter some but they will never deter all. Taking away my guns, or specific guns or accessories will prevent no crimes since I am not now, nor have any intentions of ever being a criminal. The same holds true for all law abiding citizens and therein lies the fallacy that passing more laws that affect those already obeying the law will somehow deter crime. I believe a better solution is to have much harsher penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime. 1) Merely possessing a gun in the commission of a crime would be a mandatory, no plea bargaining down, 10 years, 2) Brandishing or threatening with a gun would be 20 years mandatory, no plea bargaining down, 3) Shooting someone would be life with no parole, no plea bargaining down, 4) Murdering someone with a gun would be mandatory death penalty, no plea bargaining down...Harsher penalties for crimes already on the books that punish the criminals make more sense that punishing innoent law abiding citizens.

I think it is safe to say we will never agree on this topic. I will never willingly give up my legal rights for phony answer that will in the end solve nothing.

[FyredUp]

Why does anyone need ANY weapon that holds 30 rounds?

Why not? It is 100% legal and since I have never broken any guns laws why shouldn't I be able to have them if I desire?

Further do you and others believe that the drug dealers buy their machine guns at the local gun store? Um, no they don't. Just like drugs, and so many other things in this country, they are purchased illegally on the black market. Making high capacity magazines illegal for law abiding citizens will not remove them from the hands of criminals. Making semi-automatic rifes illegal for law abiding citizens will not remove them from the hands of criminals. In fact all it does is strengthen their hand over the law abiding citizens that would choose to defend themselves and their loved ones when they realize that the police can't be everywhere all the time.

Further, why does anyone NEED anything in life other than food and shelter? If need is the determining factor for what we own life is going to get pretty boring. There is no need for TV, or iPods, or fancy cars, or SUVs, or vacation cabins, or motor homes, or pleasure boats, or snow mobiles, or ATVs, or computers, or cell phones, or much of anything else that our current society has deemed as a NEED. Yet, despite my feelings on the "Necessity" of some of those items I would never tell anyone they can't have them as long as they are legal.

[L-Webb]

Now you know as well as I that people who do things like this have no fear or regard for any laws

[FyredUp]

Precisely my point. The majority of people that use explosives, use them for constructive and legitimate purposes. Particularly in the mining industry. That doesn't stop their being heavily regulated. The belief being put forth by gun owners is there should be no regulations on semi-auto firearms because the majority of their owners use them responsibly. If you don't understand the comparison to explosives, I can't help you.

The point is there is no comparison between explosives and firearm usage. It was a ridiculous diversionary attempt on your part.


There are significant regulations in place for the production of food to ensure they are safe for consumption. A quick refresher of the Pure Food and Drug Act should help educate you on the issue.

This answer is so ridiculous that I am amazed you expect that it makes sense. The controls on manufacture of an item are hardly the same as the controls you wish to place on the end user of firearms. For your comparison to have any validity it has to say that the government somehow controls what type of candy and potato chips you are legally able to buy, and how you consume them. Sorry your comparison is completely ludicrous and proves absolutely nothing.


Your beliefs about me are not relevant to the topic.


Oh but they are completely relevant. You have nothing of any substnce to add to this topic other than anti-gun media talking points. You can't properly define what an assault weapon even is yet you proclaim that the rifle used in Newtown was an assault weapon. Sorry NO, by definition it absolutely was not and all the hand wringing and ranting by the anti-gunners will not make it so. You have told people in the past to do research and use facts...sadly you should take your own advice because your ignorance on this topic is pathetic.

Try harder please, you are making this far too easy.

[FyredUp]

Now you know as well as I that people who do things like this have no fear or regard for any laws

Um, DUH? So how does passing anymore laws make you or anyone else believe it will somehow make us safer?

[L-Webb]

Um, DUH? So how does passing anymore laws make you or anyone else believe it will somehow make us safer?

The same holds true for all law abiding citizens and therein lies the fallacy that passing more laws that affect those already obeying the law will somehow deter crime. I believe a better solution is to have much harsher penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime. 1) Merely possessing a gun in the commission of a crime would be a mandatory, no plea bargaining down, 10 years, 2) Brandishing or threatening with a gun would be 20 years mandatory, no plea bargaining down, 3) Shooting someone would be life with no parole, no plea bargaining down, 4) Murdering someone with a gun would be mandatory death penalty, no plea bargaining down...Harsher penalties for crimes already on the books that punish the criminals make more sense that punishing innoent law abiding citizens.


This is what I was refering to.

[FyredUp]

The same holds true for all law abiding citizens and therein lies the fallacy that passing more laws that affect those already obeying the law will somehow deter crime. I believe a better solution is to have much harsher penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime. 1) Merely possessing a gun in the commission of a crime would be a mandatory, no plea bargaining down, 10 years, 2) Brandishing or threatening with a gun would be 20 years mandatory, no plea bargaining down, 3) Shooting someone would be life with no parole, no plea bargaining down, 4) Murdering someone with a gun would be mandatory death penalty, no plea bargaining down...Harsher penalties for crimes already on the books that punish the criminals make more sense that punishing innoent law abiding citizens.


This is what I was refering to.

My point is harsher penalties do at least one thing, if nothing else, remove those criminals from society. That in and of itself reduces gun crime by eliminating the criminal.

[DeputyMarshal]

It was in fact a military style assault rifle that was used.

False. An assault rifle was not used at all. The crime was perpetrated with a stolen semi-automatic superficially styled to look like an assault rifle. Functionally, it was no different from any number of common rifles that just don't look as "scary".

[DeputyMarshal]

Why does anyone need ANY weapon that holds 30 rounds?

Why shouldn't they?

[FyredUp]

Why shouldn't they?

It is quite simply that obvious, isn't it?

[RFDACM02]

Quick fixes that solve nothing? You mean like banning specific types of firearms and magazines? That seems to be the answer of the knee jerk ati-gunners.

That is exactly what I was pointing at. I certainly don't agree with his premise, but some of what he's saying isn't untrue. I think you and I are in lock step when it comes to banning.

[scfire86]

Once again your absolute and complete ignorance, and disregard, for the definition of an assault weapon makes any other point you try to make on this topic moot. The rifle used was a semi-sutomatic rifle, an assault weapon is selective fire meaning it can be fired fully automatic.

Really? So what? The term being used is "military style." To me that connotes similar but not exactly.

The fact that is absolutely CANNOT be fired in the fully automatic mode. That no matter how much you wish it not to be true invalidates anyone calling that rifle an assault weapon. It is plain and simple a semi-automatic rifle that looks like its cousin the military M16/M4. No matter how many times you, the media, Senator Feinstein, or any other uneducated on firearms person says it, YOU ARE ALL WRONG!

See above post. Keep arguing your pedantic semantics. No one cares

Not what I said, not what LA is saying. The point is there are tons of laws on the books regarding guns and violent crime, up to and including murder, they may deter some but they will never deter all. Taking away my guns, or specific guns or accessories will prevent no crimes since I am not now, nor have any intentions of ever being a criminal. The same holds true for all law abiding citizens and therein lies the fallacy that passing more laws that affect those already obeying the law will somehow deter crime. I believe a better solution is to have much harsher penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime. 1) Merely possessing a gun in the commission of a crime would be a mandatory, no plea bargaining down, 10 years, 2) Brandishing or threatening with a gun would be 20 years mandatory, no plea bargaining down, 3) Shooting someone would be life with no parole, no plea bargaining down, 4) Murdering someone with a gun would be mandatory

Once again. So what? We shouldn't pass laws because they won't prevent bad people from doing bad things? I love that logic.

I think it is safe to say we will never agree on this topic. I will never willingly give up my legal rights for phony answer that will in the end solve nothing.

Where have I asked any such thing? I've never advocated taking away one's legal rights.

[scfire86]

The point is there is no comparison between explosives and firearm usage. It was a ridiculous diversionary attempt on your part.

That's not the comparison I'm making. Predictably, you don't get the analogy I'm making. It's obvious you are making an emotional argument.

This answer is so ridiculous that I am amazed you expect that it makes sense. The controls on manufacture of an item are hardly the same as the controls you wish to place on the end user of firearms. For your comparison to have any validity it has to say that the government somehow controls what type of candy and potato chips you are legally able to buy, and how you consume them. Sorry your comparison is completely ludicrous and proves absolutely nothing.

Please read the Pure Food and Drug Act before you continue to make a fool of yourself as it relates to the regulations regarding food production.

Oh but they are completely relevant. You have nothing of any substnce to add to this topic other than anti-gun media talking points. You can't properly define what an assault weapon even is yet you proclaim that the rifle used in Newtown was an assault weapon. Sorry NO, by definition it absolutely was not and all the hand wringing and ranting by the anti-gunners will not make it so. You have told people in the past to do research and use facts...sadly you should take your own advice because your ignorance on this topic is pathetic.

Sadly, you have dissolved into personal attacks. As I stated earlier, you are making emotional arguments. Facts or logic don't support your positions.

Try harder please, you are making this far too easy.

No need to do any such thing. You're supplying all the support I need.

[scfire86]

Why shouldn't they?

Because they are typically used to commit mass murder.