Not another argument about gun control

[OmahaAudio]

" common sense laws "

careful, that is code.

Code? That's crazy talk.

[OmahaAudio]

I heard the next hobbit movie was shot at 300 fps. Ought to make for some interesting visuals.

I heard that it was going to be shot at 300 rounds/sec. One scene, one take, lots of blood, boffo box office.

[OmahaAudio]

You know, before moving to the US, I never had seen gated communities.

Why do you think that is?

No hinges?

[Todd Weaver]

These past several days have been hard in the wake of the Connecticut school massacre. I can't remember any single event in the past that has had such an emotional impact on me especially concerning complete strangers. Feeling that something must be done to control such an event from happening again is understandable. However, there is simply no way to control this type of violence with any legislation whatsoever. If some lunatic has it in his heart to do this type of evil, there is no way of preventing it. An assailant armed with any of the murder weapons listed on the cartoon posted by Jaymz could be used in an attack against the public with success. Depending on the intent of the person who wields them, any of those items can be used for good or evil.

Clearly anyone shot in the head with an assault rifle would be just as dead as someone shot with a hunting rifle, or a pistol, or a muzzle loading musket. Controlling what specific types of firearms the public is allowed to carry won’t change this fact nor is it what the founding fathers had in mind when they put the second amendment in the bill of rights.

Gun control only serves to disarm the peaceful law abiding citizen.

Criminals will find a way regardless of what some piece of legislation says.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."


-Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

In 1995 Timothy McVeigh murdered 168 people, including 19 children with some fertilizer and a bit of Diesel fuel. Weapons control would not have changed this.

On September 11, 2001 heartless and cowardly murderers ended 2,977 human lives along with their own employing commercial jetliners. They were armed only with box cutters. Perhaps if some of the passengers or the flight crews were allowed to carry firearms none of the planes would have reached their targets.

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

- George Washington

The alternate use of the assault rifle is this. These type of weapons are at least some small type of deterrent against a tyrannical government . It seems that so many people these days in the US are completely missing the primary purpose of the second amendment. It is not for hunters. It is not for sports shooters. It is an essential component to maintaining our basic liberties. The very same liberties that made this nation a magnet to such a wide range of immigrants last century. The purpose is to prevent the government from ever again becoming a force of tyranny against it’s own people. If you don’t think it could happen, think again.

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."

-George Mason

[Chris Woodcock]

Very well written Todd

[Cujo]

Evil comes from a poisoned soul and a damaged heart. It is not constrained by the walls of a gun locker or a ream of paper.

[OmahaAudio]

Evil comes from a poisoned soul and a damaged heart. It is not constrained by the walls of a gun locker or a ream of paper.

Poetic but nonsensical. If this latest shooter's mother had had her guns in a properly locked gun safe there'd probably be 26 fewer funerals in Newtown between now and Christmas.

[Chris Woodcock]

Poetic but nonsensical. If this latest shooter's mother had had her guns in a properly locked gun safe there'd probably be 26 fewer funerals in Newtown between now and Christmas.

Do you honestly believe if she didn't have them or if they were locked up (do we even know this as fact?) that he wouldn't have killed anyone?

Yes he might not have been able to kill 26 but still one death would have been one too many

[OmahaAudio]

...anyone shot in the head with an assault rifle would be just as dead as someone shot with a hunting rifle, or a pistol, or a muzzle loading musket.

While it's interesting that you admit that an assault rifle is not suitable for hunting its 30 round mag means that instead of one, two or three dead people there are 26 dead people as the shooter was able to get off hundreds of rounds in a few minutes.

…there is simply no way to control this type of violence with any legislation whatsoever.

Sure there is, fewer guns, no semi-automatic weapons, limited mag sizes.

Gun control only serves to disarm the peaceful law abiding citizen.

Wrong again. If you have to register your car and get a license to drive then the same should apply to firearms. If your car has to abide by certain safety regs (bumpers, seat belts, then so should your firearms (mandatory locks and lockers, limited capacity mags, say goodbye to the semi-auto).

In 1995 Timothy McVeigh murdered 168 people, including 19 children with some fertilizer and a bit of Diesel fuel. Weapons control would not have changed this.

On September 11, 2001 heartless and cowardly murderers ended 2,977 human lives along with their own employing commercial jetliners. They were armed only with box cutters. Perhaps if some of the passengers or the flight crews were allowed to carry firearms none of the planes would have reached their targets.

Frivolous arguments. The discussion is about firearms, not murder in general.

The alternate use of the assault rifle is this. These type of weapons are at least some small type of deterrent against a tyrannical government.

Crap. If you're that afraid that the government of these United States is tyrannical than I suggest you move somewhere else with a governmental system more to your liking. There's got to be a small island somewhere where you won't have to interact with other people.

[OmahaAudio]

Do you honestly believe if she didn't have them or if they were locked up (do we even know this as fact?) that he wouldn't have killed anyone?

Yes as that's the logical conclusion.

...he might not have been able to kill 26 but still one death would have been one too many

So the "extra" 25 deaths mean nothing to you?

[Jaymz]

Clearly anyone shot in the head with an assault rifle would be just as dead as someone shot with a hunting rifle, or a pistol, or a muzzle loading musket. Controlling what specific types of firearms the public is allowed to carry won’t change this fact

So is anyone stabbed in the brain, posined, run over at 150mph, decapitated by a diamond-edged buzz saw. So what's the difference? I'll tell you....it's in the effectiveness of the weapon to kill/wound multiple targets quickly and efficiently.

An assault rifle is designed for combat, for soldiers to kill/wound other soldiers, to engage multiple targets in quick succession. It has no place in the hands of a civilian.

I'm talking solely about semi-automatic assault rifles (as in the pic). Not handguns, hunting rifles and shotguns which cover the areas of self-defense, hunting, sport etc.

nor is it what the founding fathers had in mind when they put the second amendment in the bill of rights.

Gun control only serves to disarm the peaceful law abiding citizen.

Criminals will find a way regardless of what some piece of legislation says.

Not talking about disarming people in the U.S, just about banning assault weapons.

If criminals will find a way to get these weapons regardless, then force them to.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."


-Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

Again, only talking about assault weapons. Not about disarming people entirely.

In 1995 Timothy McVeigh murdered 168 people, including 19 children with some fertilizer and a bit of Diesel fuel. Weapons control would not have changed this.

On September 11, 2001 heartless and cowardly murderers ended 2,977 human lives along with their own employing commercial jetliners. They were armed only with box cutters. Perhaps if some of the passengers or the flight crews were allowed to carry firearms none of the planes would have reached their targets.

You're grossly oversimplifying things. These are cases of high-profile terrorism. Look at the work that both McVeigh and Al-Qaeda had to do in preparation for their attacks.

The alternate use of the assault rifle is this. These type of weapons are at least some small type of deterrent against a tyrannical government . It seems that so many people these days in the US are completely missing the primary purpose of the second amendment. It is not for hunters. It is not for sports shooters. It is an essential component to maintaining our basic liberties. The very same liberties that made this nation a magnet to such a wide range of immigrants last century. The purpose is to prevent the government from ever again becoming a force of tyranny against it’s own people. If you don’t think it could happen, think again.

And it is this purpose of the second amendment that is completely archaic and of no use in the modern U.S. Paranoia and fear of Big Brother enslaving the populace for it's own agenda. Fear that things will be like they were, that history should be taken as formula. I'm more of a Huxley over Orwell kind of person when it comes to the possibility of these things....

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."

-George Mason

If those that drafted the second amendment could see the way things are.....

[pindrop]

If one, just one, truly awful tragic murder of children can be made even slightly more difficult, slightly less likely, and not so numerically efficient surely, surely, surely that is worth some attempt at tighter control over the availability of the ruthlessly efficient means of slaughter. This is widely agreed as wisdom with nuclear weapons.

Time to let go of the American new frontier mentality it's the 21st century with a well established democratic government.

But I suspect there's also something of a deep undercurrent of fetishization of guns and gun ownership going on here that's difficult to prize some people off.

Some questions should be being asked of Obama about the drone slaughter of children in Afghanistan by the American government though. This is worth reading -

http://www.monbiot.com/2012/12/17/%E2%80%98bug-splats%E2%80%99/

[John Steigerwald]

You truly are a sad individua.

You'll have to forgive me if I don't take your sociological theories to heart.

What is sad, however, is that you can't understand the distinction.

[Tom Visser]

This thread is incredible, haven't had a chance to read every response. I'm a former NRA member, simply to enjoy the ability to enter national match competitions, not for any political motive... Since I haven't competed in quite awhile, I'm not currently an active member.

Let me just switch gears a bit and ask another socially poignant question? Would you feel that working on a film that not just depicts violence, but glorifies it, makes you a contributing factor to your nation's gun problem (if you live in a nation that has one)? There are stigmas attached to certain social behaviors... such as smoking, using drugs, that makes them "cool" in the eyes of the viewers and even likely influences a person to participate in that behavior. I have to also suspect that the proliferation of violence in popular culture also makes it seem like a violent option is a viable one, in the case of mental breakdown or life crisis.

I'm talking about films where some hot young girl or guys goes into some place dressed in high fashion, and shoots the "bad guy", usually an unbelievable archetype, with rocking music in the background, slo-mo galore, and cool sound effects, walking away with chic unkempt hair only to be non-plussed as a massive screen filling explosion goes off behind them...

I see the glorification of violence and especially gun violence everywhere, and am personally disgusted by it. Would it be proper for an individual to boycot working on such a film because it goes against their personal beliefs, or is it "just a job" and one shouldn't be concerned?

[Henchman]

Very well written Todd

Well written nonsense.

To say you can't control this violence with legislature is nonsense.

Other countries have done it.

There's a difference between not being able to do something, and simpy not WANTING to do anything.

Those who don't WANT to do anything use the excuse that legislature won't change anything.

How many more auto related deaths would there be if there were no speed limits?

[Henchman]

You'll have to forgive me if I don't take your sociological theories to heart.

What is sad, however, is that you can't understand the distinction.

No, what is sad is that you continue to push your " my gun on the table still hasn't attacked me" childish argument.

[carbonhobbit]

If a law was passed to get rid of all multiple shot weapons, how would they be retrieved from out in the public. A buy back program, forced removal by a place by place search or maybe a voluntary give back? Would all toys, including paintball guns, be recalled too, since they would encourage a want for an automatic weapon? Would video games involving multiple shot weapons be made illegal too since they might be seen also as encouraging automatic weapons. (Automatic, meaning the gun will replace a spent casing with a new bullet either by a single trigger pull or multiple pulls.) Since most are after the multiple round weapons and seem to see a single shot weapon as less destructive, but destructive never the less.

And all this talk about this event, while the USA is facing a "cliff" on how the government will fund it's continued operation. Heated talk about these events (gun deaths), but nobody want to come up with a solution for other problem either it be mental health care or the amount of taxes I'm going to pay next year, or how the earth is spinning into the sun. (Many million of years away).

I think some of the extra wanting to do something about this event is that it happened so close to Christmas, it happened in our country and it involved children under the age of 7 in a school.

Think about all the killing all around the world. It's not right, but it still happens. What would we be talking about if this had been a school bus blown up by a roadside IUD in Kabul? Does anybody think there would be a post with over 230 posts?

Look at the bigger picture, how can we stop the killings all over the world? Shouldn't we be pressing our government to stop selling arms to other countries? Stop giving money to countries just so they can buy arms? (helping the deficit) Maybe shut down all manufacturing ammo and weapons along with banning all import and exporting of like kind. Gilt people to give up all guns because as a peaceful nation, nobody needs a gun. And do it all without raising taxes or paying for it with federal funds.

I don't have an answer, but I think I want what everybody else does.....to live in peace where you never have to worry about your life or your children being threaten. I don't think one answer can solve all.

Scott......

[Henchman]

This thread is incredible, haven't had a chance to read every response. I'm a former NRA member, simply to enjoy the ability to enter national match competitions, not for any political motive... Since I haven't competed in quite awhile, I'm not currently an active member.

Let me just switch gears a bit and ask another socially poignant question? Would you feel that working on a film that not just depicts violence, but glorifies it, makes you a contributing factor to your nation's gun problem (if you live in a nation that has one)? There are stigmas attached to certain social behaviors... such as smoking, using drugs, that makes them "cool" in the eyes of the viewers and even likely influences a person to participate in that behavior. I have to also suspect that the proliferation of violence in popular culture also makes it seem like a violent option is a viable one, in the case of mental breakdown or life crisis.

I'm talking about films where some hot young girl or guys goes into some place dressed in high fashion, and shoots the "bad guy", usually an unbelievable archetype, with rocking music in the background, slo-mo galore, and cool sound effects, walking away with chic unkempt hair only to be non-plussed as a massive screen filling explosion goes off behind them...

I see the glorification of violence and especially gun violence everywhere, and am personally disgusted by it. Would it be proper for an individual to boycot working on such a film because it goes against their personal beliefs, or is it "just a job" and one shouldn't be concerned?

Another attempt to blame media instead of what the real problem is.

[Henchman]

If a law was passed to get rid of all multiple shot weapons, how would they be retrieved from out in the public. A buy back program, forced removal by a place by place search or maybe a voluntary give back? Would all toys, including paintball gums, be recalled too, since they would encourage a want for an automatic weapon? Would video games involving multiple shot weapons be made illegal too since they might be seen also as encouraging automatic weapons. (Automatic, meaning the gun will replace a spent casing with a new bullet either by a single trigger pull or multiple pulls.) Since most are after the multiple round weapons and seem to see a single shot weapon as less destructive, but destructive never the less.

And all this talk about this event, while the USA is facing a "cliff" on how the government will fund it's continued operation. Heated talk about these events (gun deaths), but nobody want to come up with a solution for other problem either it be mental health care or the amount of taxes I'm going to pay next year, or how the earth is spinning into the sun. (Many million of years away).

I think some of the extra wanting to do something about this event is that it happened so close to Christmas, it happened in our country and it involved children under the age of 7 in a school.

Think about all the killing all around the world. It's not right, but it still happens. What would we be talking about if this had been a school bus blown up by a roadside IUD in Kabul? Does anybody think there would be a post with over 230 posts?

Look at the bigger picture, how can we stop the killings all over the world? Shouldn't we be pressing our government to stop selling arms to other countries? Stop giving money to countries just so they can buy arms? (helping the deficit) Maybe shut down all manufacturing ammo and weapons along with banning all import and exporting of like kind. Gilt people to give up all guns because as a peaceful nation, nobody needs a gun. And do it all without raising taxes or paying for it with federal funds.

I don't have an answer, but I think I want what everybody else does.....to live in peace where you never have to worry about your life or your children being threaten. I don't think one answer can solve all.

Scott......

The big picture?

Outlaw semi automatic rifles and guns.

Pretending that things like video games and paintball aren't of the problem is again just trying to divert the attention from where the real problem lies.

Which is easy access to semi-automatic, magazine fed weapons.

But because its something people don't like to hear, they pretend that legislation won't help.

[John Steigerwald]

the " guns don't kill people, people kill people" line of bullshit

So care to defend that statement then?

[carbonhobbit]

But to just get rid of the guns will not be the only answer. Couldn't somebody say that paintball guns and video games are the gateway to wanting semi-automatic guns and destruction and that if we get rid of one, then we need to get rid of the rest. To have a more peaceful respect for each other.

Tom wasn't just trying to blame the media, I think he was trying to point out that some of the people that have or might work on high killing movies might need to think before they take a job or think about what and if these movies are just only a job and entertainment.

Scott....

[Henchman]

So care to defend that statement then?

A person without a gun can't shoot 20 kids after waking up in a bad mod.

[Jaymz]

So care to defend that statement then?

Openly available statistics of gun violence in the US do that for him.

[Henchman]

But to just get rid of the guns will not be the only answer. Couldn't somebody say that paintball guns and video games are the gateway to wanting semi-automatic guns and destruction and that if we get rid of one, then we need to get rid of the rest. To have a more peaceful respect for each other.

Tom wasn't just trying to blame the media, I think he was trying to point out that some of the people that have or might work on high killing movies might need to think before they take a job or think about what and if these movies are just only a job and entertainment.

Scott....

Start by getting rid of he easy access to weapons of mass murder.

That's a very good start, don't you think?

You are aware that everyone else in the world sees the same movies, plays the same video games.

Yet, only here is mass murder an epidemic.

[studiomprd]

" its 30 round mag means that i... the shooter was able to get off hundreds of rounds in a few minutes. "

sounds to me like there was some reloading...

" We have a massive system of drug control laws. Yet, the left is the first to argue that the war on drugs has been a failure. And whether or not one deems it a failure, the war on drugs surely hasn't prevented tens of millions of Americans, including teenagers, from obtaining drugs illegally. Why, then, does the left believe that a war on guns would be any more effective than the war on drugs? "

" How ironic, Holder and the DEA flood Mexico with thousands of Assault Weapons. Mexican law enforcement officials have linked the weapons to hundreds of deaths, that go unreported in the US. Obama couldn't use Fast & Furious to launch an assault on the 2nd Amendment. Now we have one mentally ill deranged person ... and the left is on the move to strip law abiding citizens of their guns. "

" When Israel armed all their teachers and taught them how to use a gun all attacks on schools in Israel stopped. Terrorists know the worst place in the world for them to attack was a school. They would be dead after the first shot was fired. ...

AND NOT ONE 911 call has been in time to stop the massacre...not one. I call it "Dial 911 and DIE". All you see after the "killing field" has been established is police acting like they are doing or have done something when in fact...they did NOTHING!

New gun laws will do nothing, lets quit playing politics, we need to provide security for our children at school, right now we have none, hiding under the desk and marching out in a single file won't save anybody,... There should have been a sign on that door and all school doors..."Staff heavily armed and trained. Any attempt to harm our children will be met with deadly force". The "other sign" is an invitation - as it was in Aurora where there were 2 theaters closer, but the one where the tragedy took place advertised that concealed weapons were prohibited - and always will be and always has been including on this day of infamy. "

" Legislating new laws on gun control is as asinine as the people who believe criminals will obey them. Criminals will always be able to get guns somewhere. New laws won't make any difference. ... If guns kill people then do pencils misspell words? ... The "gun-controllers" intend to get rid of the guns - but retain the control. ... People object to "assault rifles" because they shoot fast and look scary but rifles, all rifles, account for less than two percent of gun crimes. If you want to stop crime regulating rifles is a Red Herring. It also is unconstitutional.

But the real downfall to reactionary thinking is that gun control is hugely ineffective. in 2010 Washington DC had twenty seven times more murders than the same size city of El Paso. Interestingly both cities consist of a majority minority population. DC has the tightest gun control in the nation while El Paso is a place where every responsible adult citizen can carry a loaded, concealed handgun as she or he goes about the day. Twenty seven times more murders is not a statistical blip. It shows a major problem that takes place when tight gun control is implemented. The problem is more murder, much more... Need more evidence of gun control causing crime? Look at Chicago (the second city for gun control). In 2010 Chicago had a murder rate nineteen times higher than El Paso's. California is the state with the most gun laws. It has a murder rate over 400% higher than the nearby state with the least gun control laws. Mexico has extreme nationwide gun control but one medium sized Mexican city had more murders in 2010 than the six largest U.S. cities........ combined!

Gun control kills and they know it. Disarming the lawful citizen leads to more crime, not less. Crime has gone down drastically as the states have implemented concealed carry to the point 49 states now have some form of it and violent crime is lower than it has been since the early '60s. Don't believe it? Read the FBI Crime Report. "