[News] Several killed in Connecticut Elementary School Shooting
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
- Status
Jared Loughner was stopped when he had to reload his weapon and the Aurora shooting could have been much worse if he had fired more than 30 rounds from his main weapon before it jammed.
Shooters having to take time to reload or pull out their other weapons is time in which help is on the way and people aren't being killed. It saves lives and all it involves is taking away a gun accessory that has no use outside of shooting at people.
Now using this mass shooting as an example is misleading because there is no way that we will ever stop all mass shootings. But for example the Fort Hood shooter was a well known crazy who should have never been allowed to get his hands on a gun, Jared Loughner is another person who shouldn't have been allowed near a gun and James Holmes was a god damn mental patient who none the less was able to purchase and bring a fucking arsenal into a movie theater.
And of course there is the upside of people in Arizona no longer being able to buy $40,000 worth of assault weaponry and then sell them in the parking lot to a drug kingpin completely legally.
Devil's advocate... it isn't that hard to modify low capacity magazines (say 5-10 shots) to hold 20-30 rounds. I've done more complicated work on car engines, body work repair and plastic casting. I'm just saying... it's not something that would actually make a difference.
Otherwise I'm on board with the rest of your post.
I'll direct you to notice I said multiple guns not multiple clips being the workaround to smaller clip sizes. Pulling out another pistol/handgun isn't going to slow anyone down.
One of the bedrocks of Law Enforcement was that the only way to stop crime was to catch them in the act. The theory was that if you put cops on 9th and Market the criminals would go to 10th and Market to commit their crimes.
But as it turns out putting cops on 9th and Market didn't cause an increase in crime on 10th and Market. Turns out that criminals who would have committed crimes on 9th and Market just went "fuck this shit" and went home. Criminals by in large aren't dedicated individuals turns out you put a few roadblocks in their way and they generally don't force their way through.
Banning extended magazine won't mean that they are never used but it will mean that significantly fewer of them will be used in mass shootings.
Slowed down James Holmes. That's a good enough reason for me.
So as long as he only kills 10-15 instead of 20-25? Sounds like a solid plan.
Unsure if you are being dismissive about the fact that him having to switch weapons saved numerous lives.
Or that saving 10 lives just isn't enough of a gain for common sense regulations that inconveniences nobody but people who are intending to kill people.
GasBandit
Staff member
(pushes the macro button) The 2nd amendment does not say "A righteous buck season being necessary, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's not. About. Hunting.
/blueintheface.
Depends, but you are right in that it would very likely stop the lazy ones from using them.
I'm curious about what constitutes and extended magazine though because to me it is something along the lines of a drum or box magazine that can hold something ridiculous like 50 or more rounds. Of course, those things are notoriously prone to jamming.
In Canada for a center fire semi-automatic rifle we can only use a magazine that holds 5 rounds (either a small mag that only holds 5 or a standard magazine that has been pinned to only accept 5).
So then would you agree to a 28th constitutional amendment along the lines of "Congress has the right to regulate assault weaponry"
Thus giving congress the right to regulate guns to whatever level you believe will stop these mass shootings. Feel free to rewrite my proposed 28th amendment to be as surgical against weapons that civilians have no reason to have access to.
GasBandit
Staff member
No. What you call "Assault" weapons, BS scare-tactic term that it is, are explicitly the kind of weapon the 2nd amendment is about making sure is available. If a lone soldier can be expected to carry it, the 2nd amendment protects it. Did you not read my post? There is no level of gun control possible that will "stop these mass shootings."
Just wanted to make sure that you were opposing the very idea of reasonable gun control and not just clinging to the constitution refusing to debate the idea.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, let me amend my argument a little. If the states do ratify your proposed 28th amendment, what you describe would become constitutional. I would not support that ratification, but if 3/4ths of the states disagree with me, I've got nothing because clearly I'd be in a very small minority. However, I will do my utmost to make sure people understand why the underlying reasons behind the 2nd amendment were and are valid, and should not be fiddled with - especially in a manner which will clearly not address the issue at hand.
Oh but it really is. It doesn't matter what you think, thats the real problem here. Even you truly believe the population should be able to be armed in such a way that they can fight the government it doesn't matter.
Because you can't be armed in such a way that you can fight the government. As you have said, interpreting the constitution the way you do, which is merely one way to do it, you still can't buy a nuke or a tank.
That battle is already lost. So maybe it's time to get off that horse and we can find a middle ground here on what kinds of weapons people can own and use for personal defense/hunting. Because everything else is just a pipe dream. I'm not saying you can't keep arguing that or even make a decent case for it. I'm just saying it's not reality so whats the point in it? I mean, if you just want to argue thats cool and I understand that.
There are 300+ million people in the US. I don't think a culture change is going to prevent the one in one hundred million chance that someone snaps, decides to commit mass murder, and goes through with it.
The "underlying issues" aren't treatable.
GasBandit
Staff member
If nukes and tanks were ultimate trump cards you say they are, making infantry obsolete, we wouldn't be having near the problems we are in the middle east, would we? It's highly unlikely a nuke would be used against ourselves, even in a full blown civil war or rebellion. You, frankly, could not be more wrong. Ragged peasants with AK47s overthrow governments with tanks and jets pretty often these days. It is much, much harder to oppress an armed populace than an unarmed one, and every tyrant and genocidal dictator in modern history has always made gun control one of the first things to clamp down.
Just passing by...
On topic: horrible thing, condolences, all of that.
On the other topic: defenders of guns like to say (as was said several times in this thread alone) that with safe care and basic handling regulations, those things "don't happen". Guns don't just go off by themselves, and guns aren't responsible, and whatever.
All pretty much true, but that's like saying "with proper care and safety measures, cars don't hit kids crossing the street". Yeah, sure - except that despite all law-making and driver's licences and whatever, it still happens. People, as a whole, aren't all responsible enough, trustworthy enough, adult enough. People DO overestimate themselves, underestimate risks, think "it'll never happen to me" and all that.
Guns, ditto. Proper regulations and limitations can help reduce risks (imagine you didn't need a driver's license and there were no age limits - how many more accidents would there be? Imagine there were no speed limits*, or at the least no enforcement?). Dependable, responsible people with proper training who take good care of their guns and always follow all protocol and procedure aren't the problem. People who only know half, who simply aren't trustworthy, who are prone to anger issues, who are mentally not capable of handling the responsibility (for whatever reason),... are (part of) the problem. It's the same reasoning that makes you think you can still drive home after having a bottle of wine at dinner that'll cause you to mishandle a gun, not take a precaution you know you should, etc etc.
Lastly, the problem isn't so much gun culture as fear culture. Guns are just part of it. Mainstream media need to sell, and the best way to do so is to keep us scared, always. Bombings, murder sprees, those filthy arabs stealing your jobs - as long as you're scared, you're listening and buying and worrying and so on.
*Germany has no speed limits on some of their highways - but there's still limits when rain/dark/fog/snow, there're limits at every on- and offramp, there are advisable speeds, and so on...And the Germans are just weird in how orderly and correct and law-abiding they are. They're not like other people
On topic: horrible thing, condolences, all of that.
On the other topic: defenders of guns like to say (as was said several times in this thread alone) that with safe care and basic handling regulations, those things "don't happen". Guns don't just go off by themselves, and guns aren't responsible, and whatever.
All pretty much true, but that's like saying "with proper care and safety measures, cars don't hit kids crossing the street". Yeah, sure - except that despite all law-making and driver's licences and whatever, it still happens. People, as a whole, aren't all responsible enough, trustworthy enough, adult enough. People DO overestimate themselves, underestimate risks, think "it'll never happen to me" and all that.
Guns, ditto. Proper regulations and limitations can help reduce risks (imagine you didn't need a driver's license and there were no age limits - how many more accidents would there be? Imagine there were no speed limits*, or at the least no enforcement?). Dependable, responsible people with proper training who take good care of their guns and always follow all protocol and procedure aren't the problem. People who only know half, who simply aren't trustworthy, who are prone to anger issues, who are mentally not capable of handling the responsibility (for whatever reason),... are (part of) the problem. It's the same reasoning that makes you think you can still drive home after having a bottle of wine at dinner that'll cause you to mishandle a gun, not take a precaution you know you should, etc etc.
Lastly, the problem isn't so much gun culture as fear culture. Guns are just part of it. Mainstream media need to sell, and the best way to do so is to keep us scared, always. Bombings, murder sprees, those filthy arabs stealing your jobs - as long as you're scared, you're listening and buying and worrying and so on.
*Germany has no speed limits on some of their highways - but there's still limits when rain/dark/fog/snow, there're limits at every on- and offramp, there are advisable speeds, and so on...And the Germans are just weird in how orderly and correct and law-abiding they are. They're not like other people
Consider this. Someone in Canada could legally obtain a Swiss Arms SG 550 rifle and with a few minutes work could modify many 20-30 round pinned magazines to their full capacity. This rifle isn't even on the restricted list in Canada (which goes to show that they always seem to hire morons to classify firearms since this rifle is quite comparable to an AR-15 which IS restricted up here). Accurate, reliable, deadly and able to sustain a large volume of fire. This could cause extreme havoc and end many lives.
Why hasn't someone done it yet?
Underlying issues are far more important than you may think.
GasBandit I get the position, like I said, but the population armed the way it is, has no chance against the government or military. Thats why all gun talk on both sides is discussed in terms of hunting and defense, even by the right wing. I'm not even saying your interpretation of the amendment is "wrong" just that it's pointless in the discussion because we gave up those rights long ago.
Well I would oppose the amendment if that was the way it was written way too broad but I was making the point that the second amendment isn't an immutable fact any more than the 18th is.
And let me amend my argument. I didn't mean stop all mass shootings, earlier on I admitted that we would never be able to stop all the mass shootings but there are regulations that can stop some and make the ones that do happen less deadly.
Regulations like stopping the sale of weapons to disturbed individuals would at least cut out the guys so crazy that they can't even fake sanity and then stopping the mass production of extended magazines would cut down on the number of these shootings as well as the number of dead in these shootings and probably in the 100s of lesser shootings that don't get as widely reported.
I said it before and will say it again:
The war on Gun Control is and has been as effective as the War on Drugs. Just because you make something illegal doesn't mean that those who want to get them won't.
As for someone wanting to do a mass shooting, it doesn't matter if they kill 10 or 20 because of a smaller clip, because the loss of life at all is the real issue. The entire world would have acted just as shocked and awed if the Conneticut shooter had killed 10 Kindergardners instead of 20. The number doesn't matter as much as the reason. Smaller clips won't stop loss of life, it just affects the number. It's already been said numerous times that the shooter was mentally ill, it was known he was mentally ill and a bill recently tried to pass but prevented him from getting the mental help he would have needed to prevent this autracity. A smaller gun clip or harsher gun control wouldn't have.
The war on Gun Control is and has been as effective as the War on Drugs. Just because you make something illegal doesn't mean that those who want to get them won't.
As for someone wanting to do a mass shooting, it doesn't matter if they kill 10 or 20 because of a smaller clip, because the loss of life at all is the real issue. The entire world would have acted just as shocked and awed if the Conneticut shooter had killed 10 Kindergardners instead of 20. The number doesn't matter as much as the reason. Smaller clips won't stop loss of life, it just affects the number. It's already been said numerous times that the shooter was mentally ill, it was known he was mentally ill and a bill recently tried to pass but prevented him from getting the mental help he would have needed to prevent this autracity. A smaller gun clip or harsher gun control wouldn't have.
True, just like just increasing the legal age to drink won't suddenly stop teenagers from getting drunk, or making it harder to get a driver's license would decrease fatalities in traffic. Oh, wait - they do.
You're right, of course, that making it harder to get big-clip, easily-operated guns cheaply and easily won't suddenly stop all mass murders. Yes, if necessary, some will kill 20 people with a blade, or sticks and stones if need be. In the meantime, even if it prevents just one death extra, it may be worth looking into. "It'll just reduce the numbers" may be 100% true, it's also besides the point. You'll never reduce fatalities to 0; you can still try to get there, and you have to keep striving.
Mind that I'm not exactly opposed to better healthcare and better facilities to provide care for the mentally ill, of course
.
War on drugs is about persecuting their use when they are banned. A good argument against that war is that it's better to allow some drugs under some conditions so you have more control over them, who uses them, and having a legal market out of them (as opposed to the uncontrolled illegal market). Sounds pretty much like 'drug control'.
Do you see why your parallel doesn't really work, Gil?
Do you see why your parallel doesn't really work, Gil?
There literally IS NO WAR ON GUN CONTROL. Comparing it to the War on Drugs is ASININE.
Is there some reason why you are setting up the false dichotomy that we can either have better mental health checks or we can have stricter gun control?
Some reason why we shouldn't have smaller clips for when one crazy person drops through the cracks that will still be there when we revamp the mental health system and opens fire? Once again I'm not saying ban guns cause unless you have some sort of time machine or some law that can unring a bell that ship has left port. However there are reasonable regulations like better checks for gun sales closing of loopholes and yes banning of extended clips that can cut down on the amount of casualties.
I support all measures to reduce gun violence including common sense regulation.
I don't recall saying that. I simply said that stricter gun control isn't the solution to Connecticut. Why? Because if someone wants a firearm, they'll go around the legal system to get it. Should we let go of the restrictions we have now? Of course not, I never said that. I'm simply stating that in these situations, the proposed Gun Control tightening would have done nothing.
Yet it's been shown numerous times that countries with younger legal ages to drink have shown no increase in fatalities connected with traffic fatalities, so yeah, the laws in those aspects mean nothing. Oh and if you think increasing the legal age to prevent drunk teenagers works, you've never been to a college campus or high school party. The legal age means nothing and does nothing to deter the issue.
I'm sure you're smart enough to realize I'm talking about the War that's trying to be waged on Gun Control by people such as yourself. Right? You are aware that's what I'm talking about.
I never said we can't have both. I simply stated that one prevents loss of life, and the other may have a chance at reducing the loss of life from a larger number to a not as larger number if the gunman happens to only be carrying one weapon (which they never do). Also the reloading was not what stopped the Theatre killer from getting more victims, it was the dark theatre, mass panic/running, and his poor marksmanship.
Actually spending money on things like health care and education is for commies, you commie.
And like I said it's still time where the shooter isn't killing people and is vulnerable. Them switching weapons saves lives.
It was the fact that his AR-15 jammed on round 30 of 100. That's what stopped him from getting more victims.
We know tighter gun control laws won't stop all gun related violence, and maybe it wouldn't have done anything in this situation. That doesn't mean we can't stop and look at our current laws and figure out if something should be changed.
I don't want to ban guns. I like my guns. What I do think we should do is look at gun sales and find a way to close some legal loopholes regarding background checks and not make it near impossible to do private sales. I'm not a fan of an assault weapon ban, because they really are just a look. Clip sizes, I really don't see the need to allow huge capacities.
People will always find a way around any type of laws. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be there.
GasBandit
Staff member
Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree there, because even if it's not the common argument, it's the right one. And if you truly think the US government would use nuclear weapons to suppress an insurrection within its own borders, I don't know what to tell you, except I hope you don't ever get put in charge of making any important national decisions.
I think society should do things to make it seem less the thing to do. It's been shown time and time again that criminals don't obey gun control laws any more than they do other laws, and that disarming the law abiding populace only exacerbates gun crime. The second amendment isn't about personal/home defense, but guns are still useful for that purpose as well. That's not to say that I think grade school teachers need to carry guns, but say the school principal has one in his car or locked in his office...? That has stopped a shooter. A shooter who, at age 16, intentionally burned his dog to death to see "true beauty." Maybe there are some other warning signs we should be paying more attention to?
A half second to throw one pistol and grab a second from your holster saves no lives.
Correct, also having nothing to do with smaller clips saving lives.
Does when between those 2 pistols you have 30 less bullets.
No of course not the fact that he didn't fire over half the round of ammunition he had in the drum has nothing to do with smaller clip sizes.
- Status