Massive school shooting in CT

[UVAwahoos]

 

[UVAwahoos]

Just curious, but what would this accomplish?

All that would do is make hunting/target shooting more expensive for everyone else.

It's simple. Don't raise taxes on ammunition used for target practice or hunting (so long as the person has a valid hunting license and it's in-season)

Tax hollow-tipped bullets 10,000-25,000%, license them, and use the revenue generated to fund more security at schools and more mental health programs for troubled children.

We'll see if massacres go down when the tax on a small-cartridge box of those bullets is $2000-3000.

If all it took was one shoe bomber to force every airline passenger to remove his/her shoes during TSA screening, I think it's about time to clamp down here and stop letting lobbyists control this issue with politics.

 

[NoDak]

It's simple. Don't raise taxes on ammunition used for target practice or hunting (so long as the person has a valid hunting license and it's in-season)

Tax hollow-tipped bullets 10,000-25,000%, license them, and use the revenue generated to fund more security at schools and more mental health programs for troubled children.

We'll see if massacres go down when the tax on a small-cartridge box of those bullets is $2000-3000.

If all it took was one shoe bomber to force every airline passenger to remove his/her shoes during TSA screening, I think it's about time to clamp down here and stop letting lobbyists control this issue with politics.

So now there has to be a season for target shooters? And why did you cut out the middle of my post, why not answer it all, UVAstile? So even if they add your idiotic tax to ammo, you think it will stop a crazy person from making the decision to kill others? Come on now.

Oh, and you might want to read up on what was actually said in the constitution. The right to bear arms was not "In case the British come back". lol

 

[Jon88]

Assault rifles and semi automatic pistols need to be banned. If your hobby is shooting them on the weekends, get another hobby. And a girlfriend.

 

[bbgun]

lol "most retarded thing" is like the pot calling the kettle black.

Lots of emotion in your post, so I doubt you're even capable of having rational thoughts on this subject. Regardless, I'll post for the board in general.

Says the man who, like thousands on the Left, wasted no time politicizing this tragedy and seeks to scapegoat responsible gun owners for the actions of a deranged few.

There were actually two violent attacks in schools yesterday. One in Connecticut, and the other in China. Both involved over 20 children. The attack in China had no reported fatalities. The attack in America took 27 lives. Why such a difference in fatality count? Well, the attacker in China had a knife, while the one in CT had two semi-automatic weapons, and 3rd one ready to go just in case. The same type of weapons were used in Aurora, at the Wisconsin temple, in Tuscon and at Va. Tech.

Aurora, Tucson, VA Tech, Wisconsin temple. Hmmm. What's the common thread? They're are all sites where the presence of firearms is strictly prohibited and enforced with zero tolerance. There is no one to shoot back and thus deter the shooter from his evil intentions. You know where you don't see mass slaughter? Gun shows, shooting ranges, rodeos, Nascar events, etc. It is precisely where there are the most guns and people who know how to use them where the massacres do not occur. And it is precisely where guns are not present where these slaughters do take place.

BTW, why is China still a Communist country? Oh right. Like Cuba, it disarmed its citizenry. BTW, the unarmed victims of Tiananmen Square say "hi."

There are about 25K gun deaths per year in America, which is 20 times the world average for developed nations. England and Japan in comparison, have less than 50 murders/year. Japan actually averages less than 10, and it was down to 2 total soon after outlawing all forms of firearm ownership. Germany averages less than 200. All of these nations obviously have stricter gun laws than the US.

And yet a lot of those US murders take place in gun-hostile urban settings like Bloomberg's NYC and Obama's hometown of Chicago. In fact, over 400 people have been killed in Chicago this year alone-- a city that bans guns. Nobody appears to give a shit about those deaths; doesn't fit the anti-gun agenda. As a reminder, all three guns used in the Connecticut shooting were PURCHASED LEGALLY by the MOTHER OF THE SHOOTER. So the Left's excuses about stricter checks protecting the rest of us from maniacs falls short in this case.

As for Germany, did you forget this little incident from a few years ago? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting

The 2nd amendment interpretation that the NRA spends millions to promote is a complete fallacy.

Actually, it's the Supreme Court that interprets the 2nd Amendment, and they've sided more times with the NRA than I can count.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

None of these registered gun owners is part of any militia. The entire purpose of that amendment was to be able to call upon citizens in the event that the British returned to fight. It's no surprise that red state gun supporters are living 200 years in the past though.

Please tell me you don't teach U.S. history for a living or have access to impressionable young minds. The Bill of Rights assures us "negative" rights (i.e. rights against the Government). America is a country that was founded in response to an oppressive and tyrannical government. With that in mind, the Founders knew that these new-found freedoms would mean absolutely nothing if they could summarily be taken away by a domestic or foreign oppressor. America was founded as a beacon of liberty (it has definitely strayed far from the intended). But liberty is only meaningful if those who have it are afforded the ability to defend it.

You want to ban semi-automatic pistols? Go ahead and try it. The SCOTUS will overturn it as unconstitutional. You want to limit gun ownership? Amend the Constitution. Don't like that answer? Sorry. Find another government or place to live. That's the law of this land.

This is the same group who just now decided that women and minorities are somewhat equal to white males since they just got their asses beat in the presidential election. Plus, even Reagan backed stricter gun laws, so it's hysterical that it has now become such a partisan issue.

As I said after the tragedy in KC, not even the NRA is against sensible/reasonable gun control like waiting periods, thorough background checks, keeping guns away from minors, the mentally ill, criminals, etc. We already ban automatic weapons in this country, and many states will not allow you to carry a gun on your person. Let's stop pretending that you can walk into a gun shop, order whatever you want, and walk out minutes later.

I wish senseless murders of innocent children did not exist. We can't stop that. What we know is that you don't need high-speed, rapid-fire weapons to hunt or defend your home.

Again, machine guns and other fully automatic weapons are already banned. No one in their right mind considers single squeeze semi-automatic handguns to be "high speed." Shotguns can kill a lot of closely grouped victims as well. Shall we ban them too? There are over 300 million firearms in the United States. Trying to "ban" them at this juncture is a lot like unringing a bell.

I've shot numerous types of guns and my family has also owned many, but it's embarrassing to see how irrational some can be with regards to this subject. Like I said, until it actually involves your own children getting pumped full of lead in one of these massacres, you won't have a reason to want to understand or care.

Unfortunately, the occasional mass killing is just the price we pay for living in a free society, just like anti-abortion folks like myself have had to put up with 50 million + murders since 1973. There are an estimated 350,000,000 guns in America. The only thing a gun ban would do is take guns away from people who have willingly registered them, and obtained the proper licenses. It's as if people think passing a gun ban will magically make all the guns in this country disappear in an instant, thus preventing anyone from ever maliciously using one again.

Banning something does not make it go away. Like someone else posted, drugs are illegal and nobody has a problem getting high when they want. If someone has a desire murder to someone, making guns illegal is not going to stop it; they will just buy an illegal weapon. Responsible Americans actually abide by gun laws. Crazy people don't.

 

[Hoofbite]

The problem with gun regulation is that there is no immediate solution that is acceptable for all sides. As a result, like most other political talking points, people just say "fuck it" and stick with the status quo because neither side can see a bit of compromise.

There are definitely things that could be done to remove or prevent guns from getting into the hands of people who aren't mentally stable enough to own them. I know of a person who last time I saw them was telling me about how he just got his concealed carry license. No fucking way he should have a gun at all.

I have no problem with responsible people owning guns. Problem is, the regulations in place don't necessarily make sure that people are responsible.

There's plenty of areas where gun control can and would fail. You can't account for someone who lives their entire life straight as an arrow and then just snaps. Additionally, these types of massacres are situations in which people are looking to kill regardless of how it's done. If a gun is the most effective way, it'll be the gun. If driving a drunk full of gas barrels into a building is the next best option, they'll go for that. There were people on CZ who were advocating for teachers to carry like that would somehow deter a batshit crazy person who is hell bent on dying. There is no deterrent for crazy. You're dealing with a fucked up person in the first place so to try add some sort of rational thought process to the situation is pretty much pissing into the wind. At best you could try to make an argument that the shooter would have been stopped sooner but only so long as you are willing to admit that in your best case scenario he didn't shoot the teacher first.

That's why these situations shouldn't be the reasons for gun control. How about the thousands of other people that die annually in situations that weren't premeditated?

However, looking at the areas in which it might be effective I think it's hard to say that fewer guns wouldn't have an effect. To say there would be no effect is dishonest. Out of all the gun-related killings, not a single one would have been avoided if there wasn't a gun present in the heat of the moment? You can make up the number to be as big or low as you want but there would be some effect and at that point the question becomes, how many people's lives is it acceptable to lose and what is the cutoff?

 

[Hoofbite]

By the way, the whole situation with having the bodies laying there overnight so they can completely their "investigation" or whatever is just fucking ridiculous. I'm not sure I see why that is a necessity.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

What does anyone think of regulating the types of guns that someone can own? Noone needs an AR assault rifle to defend themselves. They're just ******s who get hardons when they spot a gun.

 

[bbgun]

What does anyone think of regulating the types of guns that someone can own? Noone needs an AR assault rifle to defend themselves. They're just ******s who get hardons when they spot a gun.

"Gun control" means keeping guns out of the wrong hands, not eradicating or confiscating presently legal classes of weapons. What makes no sense to you (assault rifles) might make perfect sense to someone else. There are people who want to eradicate porn or violent video games, but that pesky Constitution keeps getting in the way.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

You can't keep guns out of the wrong hands, esp when there are Saturday Night Specials out there. And if someone doesn't have a violent record or bad psycho eval, "Most likely to be involved in a massacre sometime in the future" isn't exactly stamped on their foreheads.

You have to cut into the heart of the matter and regulate the types of guns that can be legally bought. I kind of like the tax on bullets idea, but if it cuts into your shooting range time, like Jon said, get another hobby.

 

[bbgun]

Sorry, but you can't inconvenience responsible gun owners or deprive them of their Constitutional rights just because others (criminals) might abuse that privilege. Same with speech. All you'd accomplish is a thriving black market for the weapons that you've banned.

 

[marionbarberthe4th]

I'm not afraid of hurting the fore fathers feelings. Times have changed, it's an epidemic. Keep people not dead

 

[bbgun]

I'm not afraid of hurting the fore fathers feelings. Times have changed, it's an epidemic. Keep people not dead

Not really. Tyrannical governments are as prevalent today as they were 1776, and the need for personal self-defense is timeless.

 

[marionbarberthe4th]

Great lets defend ourselves by keeping machiñe guns out of lunatics hands

 

[bbgun]

?

Not even sane, ultra-responsible people are allowed to have machine guns. Ditto grenades, dynamite, plastic explosives, howitzers, etc.

 

[Hoofbite]

I don't think machine guns has an accent on it.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Sorry, but you can't inconvenience responsible gun owners or deprive them of their Constitutional rights just because others (criminals) might abuse that privilege. Same with speech. All you'd accomplish is a thriving black market for the weapons that you've banned.

I'm not saying eliminate all guns, just ones that hold and produce ridiculous fire-power. There is no need for it unless you're a gun enthusiast who likes to bore your friends with tales of how many rounds you shot at paper mache.

A Smith and Wesson and a shotgun ought to be enough to protect oneself. A single-shot rifle that you have to reload ought to be good enough for hunting.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I think we need to bring back flintlock weaponry.

 

[bbgun]

I'm not saying eliminate all guns, just ones that hold and produce ridiculous fire-power. There is no need for it unless you're a gun enthusiast who likes to bore your friends with tales of how many rounds you shot at paper mache.

A Smith and Wesson and a shotgun ought to be enough to protect oneself. A single-shot rifle that you have to reload ought to be good enough for hunting.

Like I said, you're for eradication, not "control." Banning guns not only is unconstitutional, in a free society it would be no more effective than banning drugs, and truly would leave guns only in the hands of criminals who prefer something a little stronger than a Smith & Wesson. I'd no sooner ban alcohol because of your multiple DUIs or Josh Brent's carelessness.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

No, that's gun control. You control what types of guns people can purchase legally and to whom those guns can be legally sold to.

You can never eradicate a black market for goods, so to use that as an argument against gun control is retarded. It's the police's job to stop someone who was illegally able to get ahold of an uzzi, not the homeowner's