• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

School shooting: but don't mention guns!

Quad4_72 said:
Ok, given that in this particular instance with the school shooting, going to another state was not the issue. They were weapons that were legally obtained and registered in a state that has some of the strictest gun laws. Let's go ahead and say these same gun laws were in place around the United States. Would it have made a difference? Obviously not, so what possible law put in place would have prevented this from happening short of banning guns across the country (And even then that is not a guarantee to stop mass school shootings).
Click to expand...

"Some of the strictest gun laws" does not mean strict gun laws, compared to other countries. The mother was a survivalist food hoarder, with far more weapons than she needed, including the Bushmaster .223. There is no known reason why anyone needs one of these for civilian purposes. He would have also had high capacity magazines. Also unnecessary.
 
a_unique_person said:
"Some of the strictest gun laws" does not mean strict gun laws, compared to other countries. The mother was a survivalist food hoarder, with far more weapons than she needed, including the Bushmaster .223. There is no known reason why anyone needs one of these for civilian purposes. He would have also had high capacity magazines. Also unnecessary.
Click to expand...

I have many guns, one of them being an AK47. I am in the military, and it is my profession to be proficient with firearms. Why should I not have the right to own and practice with such weapons just because some nut wants to go on a shooting rampage?
 
Quad4_72 said:
But again that raises the question, what is the answer to all this? Connecticut has some of the most strict gun control laws in the country, so I have trouble believing tighter gun control will be the solution.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that if the existing state gun laws had been complied with, this incident would not have occurred.

We've been told that the firearms used did not belong to the shooter but to the mother. Considering that the legal owner was murdered, would it be unreasonable to suggest that the firearms were stolen and that the shooter had illegal possession of the guns?

We've also been told that the shooter was not old enough to legally be in possession of the hand guns.

I am not familiar with the laws in Connecticut reference the security and storage of privately owned firearms, but I'm thinking that there may have been some sort of non-compliance in that respect as well.

The point being, it appears that several pre-existing gun laws, laws that most likely would have prevented the shooting, may have been broken. I am curious as to why this issue, so far, seems to have largely been ignored by the media.

What are people expecting when they demand more gun laws? Perhaps a clause stating "and-we-really-mean-it" tacked on to the end of all the pre-existing laws that apparently had been violated???
 
Quad4_72 said:
I have many guns, one of them being an AK47. I am in the military, and it is my profession to be proficient with firearms. Why should I not have the right to own and practice with such weapons just because some nut wants to go on a shooting rampage?
Click to expand...

It's been a while since I've played soldier, but for 3 1/2 years the Army provided me an M-16 and ammo with which to practice.
 
Quad4_72 said:
Ok, given that in this particular instance with the school shooting, going to another state was not the issue. They were weapons that were legally obtained and registered in a state that has some of the strictest gun laws. Let's go ahead and say these same gun laws were in place around the United States. Would it have made a difference? Obviously not, so what possible law put in place would have prevented this from happening short of banning guns across the country (And even then that is not a guarantee to stop mass school shootings).
Click to expand...

Making people keep their guns under lock and key at the firing range would have done it in this case I believe, since the killer used family-owned guns.
 
banning the sale of semi autos and autos to civillians is a good first move, restriciting high cailbre weapons to firing ranges under lock and key is another good move.
 
LTC8K6 said:
The Bushmaster .223 is the same as any other semi-auto rifle any nut might care to use to do such a thing. There's nothing especially deadly or fast or dangerous about it, compared to any other semi-auto rifle.
Click to expand...

True enough, however gun control is a highly emotional issue and it seems that simple fact is often completely ignored. Consider also that the term "assault weapon" is now incorrectly applied to almost any firearm used criminally (and is accepted by the ill informed or willfully ignorant).

It's my guess that the Americans will soon see new bans, restrictions and prohibitions likely placed on firearms for their cosmetic appearance only. Similar laws a have been in force in Canada for several years now. There are firearms that have been restricted or prohibited because some consider them to be 'scary-looking'. They function no differently than hundreds of other hunting-type rifles but are subject to special restrictions anyway.

Such rules do nothing to increase public safety but the facade works politically by placating those demanding that "something must be done"...
 
Last edited:
UnrepentantSinner said:
It's been a while since I've played soldier, but for 3 1/2 years the Army provided me an M-16 and ammo with which to practice.
Click to expand...

Yes the Army does go to the range. But many of us are avid shooters in our personal time as well. So again, should that right be taken away from me because a lone nut wants to go on a shooting rampage?
 
I see no issue wuth using a high cailbre weapon at a shooting range but do not see why a civillian needs a semit auto to do that.
 
Dcdrac said:
banning the sale of semi autos and autos to civillians is a good first move, restriciting high cailbre weapons to firing ranges under lock and key is another good move.
Click to expand...

How many mass shootings have taken place in the United States with automatic weapons? Similarly, how many with semi auto rifles?
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Making people keep their guns under lock and key at the firing range would have done it in this case I believe, since the killer used family-owned guns.
Click to expand...

As diverse as the different states are, that would not be practical in many places. For example, My buddy and I used to shoot at his farm all the time on weekends. Also, I personally believe we have the right to keep firearms in our home.
 
The most recent one one of the weapons was a Glock it has been reported.

And what is unreasonable about restricting autos and semi autos, in my opinion only the military and police should have access to thsoe there is nothing in the civillian sphere that needs such a set of weapons.
 
tyr_13 said:
!Kaggen said:
My 2 cents

The fact is people will always want to hurt other people and when they will do this is unpredictable.
The best we can do is reduce their abilities to achieve their goal as much as possible.
Any weapon which is designed to improve an individuals ability to cause harm is what any pro-active stance should be concentrating on getting rid of.
The rest of the discussion is just irrelevant noise.

It really is that simple.
Click to expand...

tyr_13 said:
!Kaggen comes out against wrestling and martial arts.
Click to expand...

!Kaggen said:
Oh dear logic was never your strong point.

Links to massacres by individuals using wrestling and martial arts would prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

The fact that there aren't notable massacres by individuals using wrestling and martial arts is actually central to my criticism of your 'logic' about it being 'that simple'.

So you agree that it isn't as simple as you initially stated correct?
Click to expand...

You either approve of weapons specifically designed to cause harm to human beings or you don't.

Sure you can spend time trying to stay on the imaginary moral high ground of the slippery slope, but eventually you end up at the bottom.
 
Quad4_72 said:
I have many guns, one of them being an AK47. I am in the military, and it is my profession to be proficient with firearms. Why should I not have the right to own and practice with such weapons just because some nut wants to go on a shooting rampage?
Click to expand...

Because of your mad, blood-curdling, right-wing political beliefs.

Quad4_72 said:
How many mass shootings have taken place in the United States with automatic weapons? Similarly, how many with semi auto rifles?
Click to expand...

How many mass school shootings have taken place elsewhere in the world with any kind of weapon?
 
Quad4_72 said:
As diverse as the different states are, that would not be practical in many places. For example, My buddy and I used to shoot at his farm all the time on weekends. Also, I personally believe we have the right to keep firearms in our home.
Click to expand...
You do have that right. The question was whether you should. Unless you think that this right is self-evident and universally true.
 
Quad4_72 said:
Obviously not, so what possible law put in place would have prevented this from happening short of banning guns across the country (And even then that is not a guarantee to stop mass school shootings).
Click to expand...

I never understand the line of thinking that says that a law is ineffective if it doesn't work in 100% of all instances.

It's true. Mass shootings are still possible. Germany has very strict gun controls, and yet there was a mass shooting in Germany barely a decade ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom