School shooting: but don't mention guns!

[Skeptic Ginger]

All those things are currently legal with the proper licensing. How about "man-transportable center- and rim-fire firearms"? That would rule out crew-served weapons (with the exception of the tank, since it's the cannon on it that is the biggest danger).

With incredible expense and more red tape than the average gun owner can manage, fine. Put those kinds of restrictions on assault weapons and it will likely help a lot. Like Chris Rock says, charge $5K per bullet, problem solved.

 

[a_unique_person]

For Dog's sake! Stop digging. Do you even know what a carbine is?

A light rifle is my understanding. One that is convenient to carry, designed for close in shooting. The weapon used was based on a military design for close combat conditions. The owner was a survivalist who presumably was preparing for urban combat. If you want to control vermin, a standard hunting rifle will do the job, but won't be as convenient to carry around.

 

[LTC8K6]

Police and other first responders arrived on scene about 20 minutes after the first calls.

I hope that's wrong...I hope it didn't take 20 minutes for the police to arrive.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/12/us/sandy-hook-timeline/?hpt=hp_c2

 

[LTC8K6]

A light rifle is my understanding. One that is convenient to carry, designed for close in shooting. The weapon used was based on a military design for close combat conditions. The owner was a survivalist who presumably was preparing for urban combat. If you want to control vermin, a standard hunting rifle will do the job, but won't be as convenient to carry around.

I would guess that one of the most popular carbines in the US is a tube fed lever action rifle.

 

[Metullus]

With incredible expense and more red tape than the average gun owner can manage, fine. Put those kinds of restrictions on assault weapons and it will likely help a lot. Like Chris Rock says, charge $5K per bullet, problem solved.

What do you understand to be the definition of "assault weapon"?

 

[Polaris]

With incredible expense and more red tape than the average gun owner can manage, fine. Put those kinds of restrictions on assault weapons and it will likely help a lot. Like Chris Rock says, charge $5K per bullet, problem solved.

Actual assault weapons already are subject to those restrictions. Only one (legally owned that is), to the best of my knowledge, has been used in a crime since the NFA in 1934.

What is being discussed here are not assault weapons. By definition a semi-automatic is not an assault weapon. The Congressional definition is invalid by the same standard in which ketchup is not a vegetable.

I'm not comfortable with restrictions that put rights out of the reach of all but the rich.

 

[LTC8K6]

With incredible expense and more red tape than the average gun owner can manage, fine. Put those kinds of restrictions on assault weapons and it will likely help a lot. Like Chris Rock says, charge $5K per bullet, problem solved.

It's already extremely difficult to purchase an "assault rifle".

I have not heard of an "assault rifle" being used in a crime since the North Hollywood shootout, and those were illegally modified to fire full auto.

The term "assault weapon" was invented for the Clinton assault weapons ban, and really has no set meaning except the weapon looks like a military weapon. It is otherwise the same as any other civilian weapon.

 

[Polaris]

A light rifle is my understanding. One that is convenient to carry, designed for close in shooting. The weapon used was based on a military design for close combat conditions. The owner was a survivalist who presumably was preparing for urban combat. If you want to control vermin, a standard hunting rifle will do the job, but won't be as convenient to carry around.

A carbine is a short rifle, nothing more.

 

[Metullus]

A carbine is a short rifle, nothing more.

Many firing pistol rounds...

 

[LTC8K6]

Keep in mind that the Clinton "assault weapons" ban did not ban "assault rifles" at all.

 

[Polaris]

Many firing pistol rounds...

Today, yes. For the purist the original carbines were just shortened versions of muskets designed for cavalry.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Keep in mind that the Clinton "assault weapons" ban did not ban "assault rifles" at all.

I agree that the term is useless.

The operative distinction is whether the specific job that needs doing requires the capabilities of that specific weapon.

In Australia you can get a semi-automatic if you can show you are doing a job that needs one. I'm not sure but I'd guess that exterminating feral pigs and similar might be such a task, since they travel in groups and will run for it when you shoot the first one. If you aren't doing a job that specifically requires one, no semi-auto for you.

I think when laypeople talk about "banning assault rifles" they are gesturing towards banning longarms that can, by means of large ammunition capacities and rapid firing capabilities, be used to kill a lot of people quickly and easily.

While people who have spent years training can load and fire even single-shot weapons surprisingly fast, banning weapons that load themselves limits the number of people who can effectively go on a killing spree substantially.

 

[AlBell]

I watched the President's comment on the tragedy. He looked genuinely stressed and emotional about it. But will there be anything he can do about it?

He'll try not to let an opportunity go to waste.

I hope other countries know that not all of us are a bunch of gun nuts here in America. I have said in the past that although I don't own a gun I respect the right of someone to own one to protect their home or to hunt.

Gosh! Thanks!

But now some of these weapons just seem like murder machines getting in the hands of the mentally ill. And not just one gun. A whole stockpile of weapons.

Why can't we do something about this? The NRA?

No.

The NRA doesn't vote; members of congress do but prefer to be re-elected.

 

[mikedenk]

Apart from the fact that you're cherry-picking like mad, and the correct comparison would be all gun deaths versus all private pool deaths, there are another two more serious problem with the argument.

The first is that it might well turn out that private pools are a dangerous extravagance and that they shouldn't be allowed, or shouldn't be allowed in households with children. You can't just take for granted that private pools are a good idea and hence that anything that kills fewer people than pools is a good idea.

The second is that you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If pools and guns both kill people, that means both are social problems in need of a solution. It would be silly to demand that we must completely ignore the lesser problem (whichever of the two it is) until the greater problem is solved.

Oh my.

Sometimes, just sometimes, the liberal will allow a small glimpse of his or her true thought process.

It's usually not a pretty sight.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What do you understand to be the definition of "assault weapon"?

AK 47, AR 15s.

I'm not here to argue with the semantics the pro-gun forum members are wasting time on.

Federal Assault Weapons Ban defined assault weapons. One of my ex-boyfriends owned one.

Here's Ted Koppel on whether the ban had any effect.

Was the Ban Effective at Reducing Gun Violence In General?

That is unclear. According to a 2004 study from the University of Pennsylvania, the number of people killed in mass shootings did go down generally during the years that the ban was in effect. The exception was 1999, the year that the shooting at Columbine High School happened.
The number of mass shootings per year has doubled since the ban expired, but the researchers say it's difficult to discern whether there was a cause-and-effect relationship.

The study found that gun crimes involving assault weapons declined by as much as 72 percent in the localities examined after the ban went into effect.

However, the authors note that these types of weapons were only used in 2 to 8 percent of the gun crimes committed prior to the ban, so the larger impact on gun violence was minimal.

Is it a miracle cure? Of course not. Should no one act because it won't prevent all shootings like this?

I see no reason why we cannot take some steps here even if we can't take very big steps.

 

[Information Analyst]

Fine, more children are killed by automobiles.

Deliberately?

 

[Autolite]

The term "assault weapon" was invented for the Clinton assault weapons ban, and really has no set meaning except the weapon looks like a military weapon. It is otherwise the same as any other civilian weapon.

Perhaps it might be a result of the media's influence but I find it interesting that the terms 'firearm' and 'weapon' seem to currently be used interchangeably.

Military pers will refer to a firearm as a 'weapon' because they've been indoctrinated to do so and of course the primary usage of a military firearm is as a weapon.

The term 'civilian WEAPON' seems to imply that privately owned firearms are meant to be used primarily as weapons, which I suspect isn't really the case, is it?

Legally, here in Canada, the word 'weapon' can be applied to anything that is used as such. Whacking someone in the back of the head with a wet newspaper is technically "assault-with-a-weapon" and theoretically charges could be laid.

Perhaps responsible firearm owners, who do not see the primary use of their guns as 'weapons', may want to consider discouraging the interchangeability of these two terms...

 

[GeeMack]

While people who have spent years training can load and fire even single-shot weapons surprisingly fast, banning weapons that load themselves limits the number of people who can effectively go on a killing spree substantially.

From my experience teaching people how to shoot my Mossberg .22 Plinkster, the "assault weapons" ban will limit the number of people who can effectively go on a killing spree to anyone at or above the intelligence and physical coordination of a typical eleven year old.

 

[Kestrel]

The Bushmaster XR-15^WP used at Sandy Hook would have fallen under the Assault Weapons Ban.

 

[DavidJames]

Deliberately?

More then a few gun people want us to not make that distinction. The only reason I can see for that is to enable them to make ludicrous statements like if you want to ban guns we should also ban automobiles and swimming pools.

Guns nutz are not known for their intellectual honesty.