Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

School shooting in CT

Page 21 of 26 [ 412 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 ... 26  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

18 Dec 2012, 8:25 pm

nostromo wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
Raptor wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
I only mentioned it because I think it has a chance of being passed by congress now. I don't really want to argue gun facts anyway. Just saying I don't believe it's possible for the US to ever ban all firearms. It goes against our culture and won't be accepted.


It looked like you were advocating it at first. :x

Anyhow, I can't see any "assault weapons" bans happening.
There are a lot more gun owners now than when the last one was passed in 1994 and they are less tolerant of infringements like that.
When Obama took office in '09 there was a concern (to put it lightly) that there would be a ban.
I thought it was BS but that didn't matter. People were lining up to buy guns while they still could.
Gun shops could not keep AR-15's or AK-47's on the selves they were selling so fast.
Same for semi-auto handguns like Glocks and Springfield XD's.
Ammo was being bought by the 500 and 1000 round case and magazines by the dozen.
Even people that a month before had no interest in guns were all the sudden buying them. A surprising amount of them were even liberals, believe it or not.
While this hoarding went on for several months ammo and even reloading supplies were hard to get in any quantity and were rationed sometimes.
Shooting ranges became real crowded on the weekend, too. Trust me, I'm a range officer at one of them and we're still busy because of that.

Too many voters wold be furious over an "assault weapons" ban and that's not good for the guilty parties during the next election.
obama says he wants to re enstate the clinton era assault weapons ban but that ban was meaningless anyway because of the wording.the clinton era weapons ban would not have included the bushmaster used in the recent shooting.bill clinton was one of the most shrewed politicians ever and a genius at passing laws that make him look like he is busy but the laws have no real practical value

likely obama will do something similar.they must define asault weapon before they can ban them and if the difinition is so narrow that no guns are actualy banned then its a pointless law.
as far as preventing crime it doesnt take a gunsmith to alter the guns to a form thats in the ban once a criminal has a plan,a 12 year old could change a gun from semi to full auto.so the law would likely have little change for honest citizens and no change at all for criminals

What was the weapon used in this shooting? I read it was a Bushmaster .223, then I read it was a Bushmaster AR15 etc etc. Is it an assault rifle?

The company is being sold off
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/ ... 8F20121218
in most peoples opinion a AR in 5.6nato (.223 rem.) is an assault rifle but the definition of an assault rifle in a specified ban may not be the same thing.they would have to specify a defination before they could ban them.the term assault rifle is a adgetive not a noun so what is the legal defination is up in the air.

for instance the term centerfire or rimfire rifle is a noun and for instance no convicted felon can buy or posses any centerfire or rimfire gums or ammo.centerfire means that the fireing pin strikes in the center of the shell casing.a gun is either centerfire,rimfire or a muzzleloader there are no grey area's.where as the adgetive term "assault gun or rifle" has give and take in its definition


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

18 Dec 2012, 8:34 pm

vermontsavant wrote:
in most peoples opinion a AR in 5.6nato (.223 rem.) is an assault rifle... .


Only if select fire. The term originated during WW2 which described a firearm capable of firing semi-automatic and fully-automatic which was chambered in an intermediate cartridge between that of a full power rifle and a pistol caliber submachine gun. Effectively taking over the role of both, especially with the short engagement ranges of most firefights during WW2 (300 meters or less).



vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

18 Dec 2012, 8:51 pm

Dillogic wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
in most peoples opinion a AR in 5.6nato (.223 rem.) is an assault rifle... .


Only if select fire. The term originated during WW2 which described a firearm capable of firing semi-automatic and fully-automatic which was chambered in an intermediate cartridge between that of a full power rifle and a pistol caliber submachine gun. Effectively taking over the role of both, especially with the short engagement ranges of most firefights during WW2 (300 meters or less).
you did not read my post.
i said assault rifle is an adgative and not a noun and hence subjective in defination.your right that most people confuse the term automatic weapon with semi automatic.my point wasnt that a bushmaster .223 should be considered an assault weapon but was the average persons perception of what is an assault weapon has no bearing what an assault weapons ban because the term "assault weapon" is a adgative not a noun.as opposed to say the term rimfire rifle which is a noun.


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

18 Dec 2012, 9:22 pm

vermontsavant wrote:
you did not read my post.


I did. "Assault weapon" is a made up term that's unrelated to the term "Assault Rifle", which has a date of inception and clear parent and design lineage. It originated with the Sturmgewehr 44 during WW2.

It's no different than the terms, "Main Battle Tank", "Battleship", "Infantry Fighting Vehicle" and all others in military parlance that are official descriptors of a set criteria.

"Assault Weapon" is a loose term describing certain features of firearms on the American civilian market that are deemed unsporting, and it's only applicable there.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

18 Dec 2012, 9:40 pm

nostromo wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
Raptor wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
I only mentioned it because I think it has a chance of being passed by congress now. I don't really want to argue gun facts anyway. Just saying I don't believe it's possible for the US to ever ban all firearms. It goes against our culture and won't be accepted.


It looked like you were advocating it at first. :x

Anyhow, I can't see any "assault weapons" bans happening.
There are a lot more gun owners now than when the last one was passed in 1994 and they are less tolerant of infringements like that.
When Obama took office in '09 there was a concern (to put it lightly) that there would be a ban.
I thought it was BS but that didn't matter. People were lining up to buy guns while they still could.
Gun shops could not keep AR-15's or AK-47's on the selves they were selling so fast.
Same for semi-auto handguns like Glocks and Springfield XD's.
Ammo was being bought by the 500 and 1000 round case and magazines by the dozen.
Even people that a month before had no interest in guns were all the sudden buying them. A surprising amount of them were even liberals, believe it or not.
While this hoarding went on for several months ammo and even reloading supplies were hard to get in any quantity and were rationed sometimes.
Shooting ranges became real crowded on the weekend, too. Trust me, I'm a range officer at one of them and we're still busy because of that.

Too many voters wold be furious over an "assault weapons" ban and that's not good for the guilty parties during the next election.
obama says he wants to re enstate the clinton era assault weapons ban but that ban was meaningless anyway because of the wording.the clinton era weapons ban would not have included the bushmaster used in the recent shooting.bill clinton was one of the most shrewed politicians ever and a genius at passing laws that make him look like he is busy but the laws have no real practical value

likely obama will do something similar.they must define asault weapon before they can ban them and if the difinition is so narrow that no guns are actualy banned then its a pointless law.
as far as preventing crime it doesnt take a gunsmith to alter the guns to a form thats in the ban once a criminal has a plan,a 12 year old could change a gun from semi to full auto.so the law would likely have little change for honest citizens and no change at all for criminals

What was the weapon used in this shooting? I read it was a Bushmaster .223, then I read it was a Bushmaster AR15 etc etc. Is it an assault rifle?

The company is being sold off
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/ ... 8F20121218

It's an assault rifle.



nostromo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Mar 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,320
Location: At Festively Plump

18 Dec 2012, 9:43 pm

What about banning semi-automatic weapons (except under special circumstances)? Why would you need semi-automatic capability in a rifle (except for war or perhaps law enforcement)?



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

18 Dec 2012, 9:45 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
It's an assault rifle.


No. An assault rifle by definition needs a select fire capability, which all commercial AR-15s lack. The same with commercial AK variants. The same with commercial Mini-14 variants. On and on.

It might be a so-called "assault weapon", but that's not a military term with a direct meaning.



PM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,466
Location: Southeastern United States

18 Dec 2012, 9:47 pm

The weapon used in the shooting was not an assault rifle, if it was, the victim count would have been significantly higher.

Do I have to repeat this 1000 times?


_________________
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

18 Dec 2012, 9:49 pm

Dillogic wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
It's an assault rifle.


No. An assault rifle by definition needs a select fire capability, which all commercial AR-15s lack. The same with commercial AK variants. The same with commercial Mini-14 variants. On and on.

It might be a so-called "assault weapon", but that's not a military term with a direct meaning.

Then it's another example of media using erroneous info because it is in news stories where I read it's an assault rifle.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

18 Dec 2012, 9:49 pm

PM wrote:
The weapon used in the shooting was not an assault rifle, if it was, the victim count would have been significantly higher.

Do I have to repeat this 1000 times?

No, just a hundred will do.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

18 Dec 2012, 9:51 pm

nostromo wrote:
What about banning semi-automatic weapons (except under special circumstances)? Why would you need semi-automatic capability in a rifle (except for war or perhaps law enforcement)?


The only problem with that is that one can kill just as many unarmed people with a manually loaded firearm. Unarmed targets are literally fish in a barrel. A high volume of fire only comes into play when you're fighting others who are also armed (suppressive fire and fire superiority so you can maneuver on the enemy and destroy them). Putting out 1 aimed shot a second with a manually loaded firearm is more than enough to kill lots of people. But so is one swing per second of a sword.

You're right that people don't "need" a self-loading rifle for almost all applications (as above, it'd only come in handy if you're fighting others armed with similar weapons; which may or may not be the point of the 2nd Amendment in the US. I'm generally of the opinion that it is, so the population can maintain parity with the government; especially considering the circumstances that it was written in. But, that's up for debate).



nostromo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Mar 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,320
Location: At Festively Plump

18 Dec 2012, 10:00 pm

Dillogic wrote:
nostromo wrote:
What about banning semi-automatic weapons (except under special circumstances)? Why would you need semi-automatic capability in a rifle (except for war or perhaps law enforcement)?


The only problem with that is that one can kill just as many unarmed people with a manually loaded firearm. Unarmed targets are literally fish in a barrel.

Thats assuming they are sitting still and not trying to evade you. Surely the ability to rapidly fire allows you to fire more bullets in a given time and therefore be more lethal, and therefore it is possible to kill more people with a semi-automatic weapon than with a manually loading weapon?



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

18 Dec 2012, 10:04 pm

nostromo wrote:
Dillogic wrote:
nostromo wrote:
What about banning semi-automatic weapons (except under special circumstances)? Why would you need semi-automatic capability in a rifle (except for war or perhaps law enforcement)?


It's for personal protection during the Zombie Apocalypse. No joke, that's why many survivalists want to buy assault rifles.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

18 Dec 2012, 10:06 pm

nostromo wrote:
Dillogic wrote:
nostromo wrote:
What about banning semi-automatic weapons (except under special circumstances)? Why would you need semi-automatic capability in a rifle (except for war or perhaps law enforcement)?


The only problem with that is that one can kill just as many unarmed people with a manually loaded firearm. Unarmed targets are literally fish in a barrel.

Thats assuming they are sitting still and not trying to evade you. Surely the ability to rapidly fire allows you to fire more bullets in a given time and therefore be more lethal, and therefore it is possible to kill more people with a semi-automatic weapon than with a manually loading weapon?


So what?


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


nostromo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Mar 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,320
Location: At Festively Plump

18 Dec 2012, 10:13 pm

Raptor wrote:
nostromo wrote:
Dillogic wrote:
nostromo wrote:
What about banning semi-automatic weapons (except under special circumstances)? Why would you need semi-automatic capability in a rifle (except for war or perhaps law enforcement)?


The only problem with that is that one can kill just as many unarmed people with a manually loaded firearm. Unarmed targets are literally fish in a barrel.

Thats assuming they are sitting still and not trying to evade you. Surely the ability to rapidly fire allows you to fire more bullets in a given time and therefore be more lethal, and therefore it is possible to kill more people with a semi-automatic weapon than with a manually loading weapon?


So what?

So a person armed with a semi-automatic gun presents more of a danger to those they are intent on harming than a person armed with a manual gun :roll:
And if there is no legitimate civilian purpose for a semi-automatic weapon then why allow them to be out there endangering people more than seems necessary?

Sheesh..



PM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,466
Location: Southeastern United States

18 Dec 2012, 10:14 pm

I could go on for hours about how the true purpose of gun control is to make it easier for the rich to control the poor, but I will just leave this here:

<Military definition of assault rifle.>


_________________
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?