Conneticut Shooting.

[Really]

Originally Posted by jjamis

I no longer own any guns, but I have and I get it. Mind you none of the guns I've owned were automatic or semi-automatic, which is likely where meaningful gun legislation in the US will look at.

Uh...probably all the guns you have owned would be considered semi-automatic. Our President's definition of semi-automatic being any weapon that can fire more than one shot without being reloaded. This would include all weapons that have any kind of magazine, revolvers, derringers, and multiple barrel weapons.

[jjamis]

Originally Posted by Really

Uh...probably all the guns you have owned would be considered semi-automatic. Our President's definition of semi-automatic being any weapon that can fire more than one shot without being reloaded. This would include all weapons that have any kind of magazine, revolvers, derringers, and multiple barrel weapons.

My mistake, thanks for clarifying, I think a better distinction should be made in that case.

[Really]

Originally Posted by John Galt

What has religion got to do with anything here? Religious wars have killed more people over the years than guns ever have.

This is an intellectually anemic and inaccurate argument. All religions are not equal any more than all races are equal or forms of government are equal. This is equivalent to a racist statement. In WWII Germany was not making a religious war (more like an anti-religious war) but killed millions. The Soviets also killed millions in and was actively anti-religion. Polpot in Cambodia also killed millions, also anti-religion. Religions can be good and can be evil, just like governments or people.

[golgi body]

Originally Posted by Dean from Australia

To be clear, I never said that all guns should magically disappear. I clearly said a few times now that I believe that the sale and possession of military grade assault weapons like the Bushmaster used in the Connecticut shooting should be outlawed.

I can see that you haven't watched the video I linked in a previous post. Please watch the following parts. They address the issue you are speaking about, and show how you have been misinformed.

2) Automatic vs. Semi-Auto


4) This next segment shows how a simple cosmetic change can turn an ordinary hunting rifle into a what the media often considers a "paramilitary" style weapon.


Please, watch these two segments, the relevant parts are only a minute or so long. You, and people who share the same opinion, keep making statements that are patently false, and do no good to lend credibility to your arguments. The rifle in part 4 (linked above) displays a sporting rifle in calibre .223, the EXACT same round use by the Bushmaster AR-15 you continue to talk about.

Perhaps it would just be easier for you to explain YOUR definition of a "Military Grade" firearm? And for your information, our military does not use semi-automatic AR-15's; they use select-fire rifles like the M16 and M4 carbine (the AR-15, while looking identical, does not function like its military counterparts. It's the poseur of weaponry, looks the part, but lacks the guts/internals to be what it attempts to portray visually). If the government were to ban rifles like the Bushmaster AR-15 (by the way, many other manufacturers make AR-15's and clones, so you can just drop the Bushmaster part and refer to it as an AR-15), they would essentially be outlawing semi-automatic technology used in just about every type of civilian firearm around the world (handguns, skeet & trap shotguns).

It sounds to me like you just want the "scary" and "menacing" looking rifles banned, which is what they did in the US with the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which I have already pointed out was ridiculously stupid in it's definition of an assault weapon, and had NO EFFECT on reducing gun violence. Let me repeat that again, as it seems that everything I write in response to you falls on deaf ears. Banning so called "assault weapons" HAD NO EFFECT. This was studied and reported by many non-partisan groups. Please go back and read my previous posts if you really care about this issue rather than just wanting to read your own words or hear yourself speak.

Post 1: http://www.keithandthegirl.com/forum...tml#post739281
Post 2: http://www.keithandthegirl.com/forum...tml#post739321

[Dean from Australia]

Originally Posted by golgi body

I can see that you haven't watched the video I linked in a previous post. Please watch the following parts. They address the issue you are speaking about, and show how you have been misinformed.

2) Automatic vs. Semi-Auto


4) This next segment shows how a simple cosmetic change can turn an ordinary hunting rifle into a what the media often considers a "paramilitary" style weapon.


Please, watch these two segments, the relevant parts are only a minute or so long. You, and people who share the same opinion, keep making statements that are patently false, and do no good to lend credibility to your arguments. The rifle in part 4 (linked above) displays a sporting rifle in calibre .223, the EXACT same round use by the Bushmaster AR-15 you continue to talk about.

Perhaps it would just be easier for you to explain YOUR definition of a "Military Grade" firearm? And for your information, our military does not use semi-automatic AR-15's; they use select-fire rifles like the M16 and M4 carbine (the AR-15, while looking identical, does not function like its military counterparts. It's the poseur of weaponry, looks the part, but lacks the guts/internals to be what it attempts to portray visually). If the government were to ban rifles like the Bushmaster AR-15 (by the way, many other manufacturers make AR-15's and clones, so you can just drop the Bushmaster part and refer to it as an AR-15), they would essentially be outlawing semi-automatic technology used in just about every type of civilian firearm around the world (handguns, skeet & trap shotguns).

It sounds to me like you just want the "scary" and "menacing" looking rifles banned, which is what they did in the US with the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which I have already pointed out was ridiculously stupid in it's definition of an assault weapon, and had NO EFFECT on reducing gun violence. Let me repeat that again, as it seems that everything I write in response to you falls on deaf ears. Banning so called "assault weapons" HAD NO EFFECT. This was studied and reported by many non-partisan groups. Please go back and read my previous posts if you really care about this issue rather than just wanting to read your own words or hear yourself speak.

Post 1: http://www.keithandthegirl.com/forum...tml#post739281
Post 2: http://www.keithandthegirl.com/forum...tml#post739321

Okay I've watched the videos and I can see that you have a far better knowledge of weapons than I have.

Don't presume to think for a moment that I just want to hear myself speak. I fucking care about this issue and I don't resile from the view that I think the type of of weapon used in last weekends massacre has no place in the hands of the general population. Tech specs on these kinds of weapons are beyond me but I don't really care - they just don't belong.

[Really]

I think it's amazing that golgi body and john galt bring so many references and facts to the discussion, but the rebuttal is simply that they are 'crazy'.

When you hang on to a position in spite of a mountain of evidence that shows your position is wrong with your only argument as "I am not crazy"...do the math here. It appears that somebody is slapping the crazy label on the wrong side.

Both have shown remarkable patience in this discussion...but I won't.

You ANTI-GUN CRAZY people SHARE RESPONSIBILITY for these mass shootings. We did it your way, created gun free zones in our schools, and the unintended consequence was to invite the criminally insane to shoot our children with the assurance they will have length of time where they will not be opposed. This is a completely irresponsible position for us to take. It is time to make some changes.

[golgi body]

Originally Posted by Dean from Australia

Okay I've watched the videos

Thank you for watching and responding.

Originally Posted by Dean from Australia

Tech specs on these kinds of weapons are beyond me but I don't really care - they just don't belong.

Now with this last part of your statement, please understand how many us can interpret this as you wanting to ban/abolish all weapons from the hands of private citizens. Technically speaking, the AR-15 is nothing special and uses very old technology found in the majority of what most would consider "reasonable" firearms for civilians.

[golgi body]

Suggesting some reasonable restrictions on waiting periods or magazine capacity is not the same as confiscating every gun in America. You'd hardly know that for watching most of the 'gun guys' participate in these discussions.

Research into magazine capacity restrictions showed no benefit in reducing gun violence (mentioned in an earlier post of mine). And waiting periods would not have stopped this tragedy or any of the other recent and heavily publicized shootings.

Also, while most on the anti-gun side of the debate will concede the issue when it comes to private handgun ownership, it should be noted that handguns are involved in the overwhelming majority of violent crimes (70.5% in 2009 - source).


source: Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide trends in the U.S.: Weapons used

[golgi body]

Originally Posted by Lord of the Cock Rings

Yeah, I fucking know. I was trying to illustrate that as soon as the very idea of regulation is brought up (no matter how minor) all you lifetime NRA guys start screaming about the gov't confiscating all the guns.

[NOT YOU specifically...]

I wasn't calling you out specifically either, just responding to the common topics you mentioned (using the royal/collective 'you', like you just did. Is there a such thing as the royal 'you'? I've heard of the royal 'we'. Where is Cubby, or was it William, the English teacher, when you need him?). Perhaps I should have simply quoted the sentence without referencing you specifically. And you're right about the hypersensitivity on the pro-gun side.

Also, a side note to everybody, I'd avoid joining/donating to the NRA for the simple fact that they'll constantly berate you with multiple weekly calls, trying to squeeze another dime out of you (happened to my girlfriend this past year). They've been more annoying than any college alumni association I've had to deal with.

[william]

Read that. Not certain how it backs your point.

“We do need a change of heart and a humble acknowledgement that this nation was founded on the principle of simple trust in God!

“As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes–He did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right!

“I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999 , at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain.”

The man argues that the true cause of these issues is the lack of theology in the classroom and not other factors.

It is a call for prayer in school, stating that being without such is a cause of these tragedies.

::shakes head::

Almost as sad as the recent quote I read:

...A 6-year-old girl survived by playing dead as Sandy Hook Elementary School shooter Adam Lanza sprayed her classroom with bullets, killing everyone around her, a Newtown, Conn., pastor told ABC News.

Pastor Jim Solomon, who counseled the girl’s mother in the aftermath of Friday's horrific mass shooting, told ABC News that the unidentified first-grader was the first student to emerge from Sandy Hook after the massacre, her school clothes soaked in her classmates’ blood.

...“Somehow, in that moment, by God’s grace, (she) was able to act as if she was already deceased,” Solomon said.

Far greater grace would have been the guns jamming - such an act would have seen natural and not metaphysical and well within the confines of a unseen Mover.

I understand that for the parents of this child they feel that Grace has been bestowed upon them, but that negates the greater event. Further, it casts harshly on the other children.

The search for "meaning" leads to spouting of all sorts of nonsense.