CT school shooting

[Weasels wake]

As I've said from the beginning, I have nothing against a ban on assault weapons. I think lifting the ban was a cheap, political in-your-face move to begin with. I have nothing against banning high capacity clips. Nothing against banning handguns. But pretending that it will curb this kind of act is simple nonsense.

Most of the ways I can come up with to actually curb these shootings smell deeply of secret police and invasion of privacy. But there are some approaches that could help. None of them involve bans on guns. I understand that people want to "take action" and do something--anything--to feel they have some control over these tragedies. But if we actually want something effective done, then focusing on the guns is simply ineffective and dilutes the capability to do something constructive.

But, feel good legislation feels so good, it puts a smile on the faces of the politicians so they can move onto something else.
Meanwhile, the people living on the edge of their own mental stability, go on watching and playing their ultra-violent video games whos design was originally meant for training our front line troops.

[PonoBill]

Don't be so disingenuous.  I was specifically refuting the statement that you've all refused to refute, which is that this guy could probably have killed more people with an "old fashioned shotgun" than he did with a high capacity semi automatic rifle.  There's just no way.  

No one but you is refuting the statement because you're wrong. A shortened shotgun is a weapon of choice in close quarters. It's called a street sweeper for a reason. You can easily make one from any automatic or pump shotgun. Six shots is easy, ten or more is also if you're just a little handy with tools. There are 40 pellets in a 3" 12 gauge #4 buckshot round. That's 240 lead pellets sprayed in six shots. At close range it's one of the most devastating weapons available.

An "old fashioned" shot gun is not an automatic or pump shotgun.  An automatic or pump shotgun would be a new fashioned shot gun.  I did not coin the term "old fashioned shotgun," the original poster did.  If one were to make up the term "old fashioned" shotgun, one would do so in order to distiguish from some other sort of shot gun, presumably one that is newer in design.  The old shot guns shot a couple of shells, side by side or over under.

So, given the original statement, this kid with an old fashioned shot gun could do more damage that this kid with a semi automatic high capacity rifle... I don't think so.

I have no idea why I keep answering you Kevin, you are remarkably stubborn in your stupidity. I guess that makes me equally stupid. Automatic shotguns have been around since 1880. I got one for Christmas when I was 20. From Sears. I'm 65.

Give it up.

[Kevin]

Don't be so disingenuous.  I was specifically refuting the statement that you've all refused to refute, which is that this guy could probably have killed more people with an "old fashioned shotgun" than he did with a high capacity semi automatic rifle.  There's just no way.  

No one but you is refuting the statement because you're wrong. A shortened shotgun is a weapon of choice in close quarters. It's called a street sweeper for a reason. You can easily make one from any automatic or pump shotgun. Six shots is easy, ten or more is also if you're just a little handy with tools. There are 40 pellets in a 3" 12 gauge #4 buckshot round. That's 240 lead pellets sprayed in six shots. At close range it's one of the most devastating weapons available.

An "old fashioned" shot gun is not an automatic or pump shotgun.  An automatic or pump shotgun would be a new fashioned shot gun.  I did not coin the term "old fashioned shotgun," the original poster did.  If one were to make up the term "old fashioned" shotgun, one would do so in order to distiguish from some other sort of shot gun, presumably one that is newer in design.  The old shot guns shot a couple of shells, side by side or over under.

So, given the original statement, this kid with an old fashioned shot gun could do more damage that this kid with a semi automatic high capacity rifle... I don't think so.

I have no idea why I keep answering you Kevin, you are remarkably stubborn in your stupidity. I guess that makes me equally stupid. Automatic shotguns have been around since 1880. I got one for Christmas when I was 20. From Sears. I'm 65.

Give it up.

What's an old fashioned shot gun, then?   Who knows.  Doesn't exist.  Makes it less likely to be an effective weapon if it doesn't even exist.

[OC kbar]

An old fashion double barrel shot gun 100+ years old is incredibly effective. More so than an M-16 in close quarters one on one.  They can be reloaded very quickly and they only hold two shots at a time. Pump shotgun 100+ years old. Even more effective still used by special forces/ marines /and others in the military to this day.

As an American you have more right to own a firearm than to receive an education.  Not making an argument for or against. Just the facts.

[Tom]

In the school shooting, police say Lanza's rifle used numerous 30-round magazines.
An AR-15 is usually capable of firing a rate of 45 rounds per minute in semiautomatic mode.

How many new fashion or old fashion shotguns can a person shoot numerous 30-round magazines at a rate of 45 rounds per minute?

[Bean]

Let me repost in this thread:
Hold people personally accountable for violence done with their guns, stolen or otherwise.  The right is to bear arms.  It is a responsibility as well. 
No assault weapons. 

Thanks for reposting.  And yes, the right to bear arms is a huge responsibility.

"Holding people personally accountable for violence done with their guns, stolen or otherwise" might work in the civil context but seems too problematic for criminal prosecution just based upon the inherent difficulty in establishing burden of proof.  By the way, and I don't take this lightly, this could be exactly what the legal community needs to stimulate some new revenue streams.

Your "No assault weapons", would not likely fly under Heller. Among other things, Justice Scalia held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a gun unconnected with service in a militia, and to use the gun for traditionally lawful purposes, such as in the home for self defense.

[supthecreek]

Quote from Admin
"Heller was decided 5-4.  At least 4 supreme court Justices saw this as less clear than you do.  The dissenters read that the intent of the 2nd ammendment was a limited right to bear arms only in "well regulated State Malitias" and did not provide for individual or home uses, but you know that.
"
Additionally there is no mention of the type of arms that must not be infringed on.  One could arguably satisfy the statement above by allowing pea-shooter posession and nothing else.  There is no mention of an unlimited right to bear arms.

D.C. vs Heller
The dissent concludes, "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."

That's exactly what they intended
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"- -Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers

Thomas Jefferson, by no means an imprecise thinker, was well aware of this consideration. In commenting upon how the Constitution should properly be read, he said:
"On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was passed."

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms... -- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789

The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.--- James Madison, The Federalist No. 46

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

Yet despite this clear evidence, gun control and prohibition proponents attempt to squeeze out of the text of the Second Amendment the meaning that only a "collective" ― not an individual ― right is guaranteed by the amendment. They argue that the words of the amendment allegedly apply only to the group in our society that is "well regulated" and "keeps and bears arms," the National Guard. But they are wrong.

Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant.
--- James Madison

here's one for nit pickers, arguing what gun kills the deadest
"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.]  (Lucius Annaeus) Seneca "the Younger" (ca. 4 BC-65 AD)

yeah... it's come up before.

[JeanG]

In the school shooting, police say Lanza's rifle used numerous 30-round magazines.
An AR-15 is usually capable of firing a rate of 45 rounds per minute in semiautomatic mode.

How many new fashion or old fashion shotguns can a person shoot numerous 30-round magazines at a rate of 45 rounds per minute?

All of the new fashion assault shotguns will do this, but none of the old ones. New fashion shotguns have been illegal in the US for a long, long time. Never seen one in person.

I don't even see militaries using them much - the large magazines are probably prone to jams. All military people that I know of prefer pump action for the reliability and simplicity.

New style assault shotguns:

[SoCalSupper]

Ichabod and Chan-that scripture was not intended to say jesus condones violence-neither do i-but keep in mind there is a time for everything according to Ecclesiastes. That was a pretty cheap shot Chan and you know it. Lots of scriptures in the bible about war and violence-the war in the spiritual realms etc..you say i took the scripture out of context and i say you took my posting of it out of context. I wish the bible and Jesus teachings were more easily understood and interpreted, but theyre not, he even spoke often in Parables, and he did it for a reason. the bible was written exactly as he intended it to be.

hmmmm, once again, INTERPRETATION.
Line up 10 christian leaders-youd get a varying mix of interpretation
the nutty snake handler pastor has his interpretation, they guy who wants to burn the Koran has his, ad nauseum....
Talk about a comlicated issue, and im not going to get into an argument on religion here on the SUZ.

I think i speak for the majority that thats the last thing we want right now.

Keep your family close-hug and cherish your children-Merry Christmas to all and God Bless.

Not at all a cheap shot.  I wouldn't bring religion into this debate, but as you have, I would and do find fault with your interpretation.

i believe it was you in reply 51 that threw out the first scripture-i refuted your interpretation of it-you refuted my refutal...
Endless, once again it looks as though you and i are going to have to agree to disagree.

Lets agree on something though-I wish you and your family Gods blessing this season and always.

[OC kbar]

In the school shooting, police say Lanza's rifle used numerous 30-round magazines.
An AR-15 is usually capable of firing a rate of 45 rounds per minute in semiautomatic mode.

How many new fashion or old fashion shotguns can a person shoot numerous 30-round magazines at a rate of 45 rounds per minute?

None that I know of.  I was just saying with the amount of time the shooter had he could have done the same with a older firearm.

[SEA]

Humans are the problem-not the tool.

it sickens me to see the NRA arguments about cars and do not take my liberties away and all that bullshit because it is not a human right to own guns.  

Protecting my family and myself is my GOD given right. You take my ability to protect them away then you are taking my right away. Look at what happened when they took the guns away from registered gun owners by going house to house. They were begging them not to do this as they then were left completely helpless against the looters terrorizing the city. I am dumbfounded by the complete lack of commonsense when a tragedy occurs. EVERY tryrrant that wanted complete control of their sheeple took away the peoples right to own guns. First came gun registration then came confiscation.

The facts are there staring you in the face. Our cities with the strictest  gun control ... HAVE THE HIGHEST  crime rates. I have heard the argument that they might not have the most murders in the cities by guns (maybe) .  However they do  have the highest CRIME rates. WHY ? The criminals KNOW that no law abiding sheeple are allowed to own guns !!  It's easy pickens for these scum. Mexico is no different. super strict gun control laws on a nation wide basis and we all know that place is super safe to live.  This is basic logic and common sense. Take away the peoples right to protection and you leave the criminals holding all the cards.  Almost every state constitution as far as I know say's  

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"  not the militia but PEOPLE as in we the PEOPLE.  SHAL NOT BE INFRINGED. To keep and bear arms is not a privilege it is a RIGHT that shall not be infringed


Infringe

v.t. infrinj'. [L. infringo; in and frango,to break. See Break.]

1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.

2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.

3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]

[Chan]

Lets agree on something though-I wish you and your family Gods blessing this season and always.

I can't disagree with that (-

[PonoBill]

In the school shooting, police say Lanza's rifle used numerous 30-round magazines.
An AR-15 is usually capable of firing a rate of 45 rounds per minute in semiautomatic mode.

How many new fashion or old fashion shotguns can a person shoot numerous 30-round magazines at a rate of 45 rounds per minute?

It's hairsplitting, but once again, you take a hacksaw to grandpaws pump or auto 12 gauge, cut the barrel down to five inches. Load it with #4 buckshot, point the gun at a wall 30 feet away and pull the trigger once. 41 pellets hit the wall in a pattern ten feet in diameter. Rack it and shoot all five rounds (meaning you took the plug out that limits the magazine tube to three shots) and you've put 200 pellets into the wall in five seconds. After the fifth shot the loading port stays open so you can stick one round in the tube, and four in the magazine. If you're slow that takes ten seconds, about the time it takes to drop a clip,  stuff in a new one, and cycle the action on an assault rifle.

If you used the assault rifle you fired 30 rounds, with the shotgun you fired 200 pellets. Being hit by such a weapon at 30 feet would paralyze anyone.

It's not the guns, and it is the guns.

My point has never been that people should have assault rifles--they should not. I've seen morons firing them at ranges that I wouldn't trust with a paintball gun. My point is that banning them is an ineffective action that politicians can make to appease people. It's not a solution, it's not even in the ballpark of being a solution.

Randy's "responsibility" solution is equally useless except for the opportunity to watch the ACLU defend a gun owner whose stolen gun has been used in a crime. Would such a requirement also extend to the police? If they didn't investigate a reported stolen gun would they share the responsibility? Report a stolen gun today and all you get is a copy of the report to file with your insurance agency. In many cases it wouldn't even help get their attention if you said "I think the thief is that crazy kid that lives up the street."

[SUPerSwede]

But an old school shotgun.  You've got to constantly reload.  One of the adults would have tackled that kid and there would have been many fewer casualties.  That's the entire point of the discussion related to gun control.  If you can't concede that then there is no conversation.   No one is going to walk into a building planning to shoot a bunch of people with an old fashioned shot gun if they also have the option of using a high capacity magazine rifle.  

So you think the typical female teacher is going to run at a guy with a shotgun and pistols and tackle him and save the day......

Don't be so disingenuous.  I was specifically refuting the statement that you've all refused to refute, which is that this guy could probably have killed more people with an "old fashioned shotgun" than he did with a high capacity semi automatic rifle.  There's just no way.  And there were heroes there at the scene.  Adult teachers who gave their lives trying to protect the kids.  They charged him to try to stop him, and they were shot and killed.  Yes I think a typical female teacher would run at a guy shooting children with an old fashioned shot gun, and they would have had a much higher chance of succeeding.   It's not even worth arguing about it's so obvious.

In the Holmes case, there are several articles about why so many survived - his AR-15 jammed due to the extended clip. He had to switch to his shotgun.

At really short range, sure, a shotgun will be lethal but at just a little distance, it does not compare to an AR-15. Weapons in the high to near-high velocity range can cause massive damage due to the transmitted energy if the bullet. The shockwave when the body is hit can damage organs far from the bullet path. It's a nightmare to handle in the ER. I'd rather be picking shotgun pellets
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2182011/James-Holmes-Batman-shooting-survivor-Carli-Richards-shows-shotgun-wounds-demands-death-penalty.html
I could link to articles on gunshot wound mechanics and treatment but I doubt that anyone would enjoy that reading.

[JeanG]

Holmes used bird shot, wow.