Jump to content

Mass Shooting at Elementary School Connecticut 12/14/12


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 789
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The only argument I fully disagree with is this number 63 your keep bringing up...as if that's not enough for someone to take action yet. Like Chase said...it's a drop in the bucket, right? Don't think so.

Oh, I fully support taking corrective action but prefer to stay within the bounds of what is realistic and affordable. Not to mention among the 63 incidents few if any were of the "he just snapped" variety. Fort Hood shooter had a history a mile long; thanks to political correctness was never neutralized until it was too late. Sandy Hook shooter had a history of mental illness a mile long.

Put the money up to detect the motivation, not the location.

Yeah you ought to see yourself

Through the eyes of anyone

Who ever knew you when you were more useful

There used to be no place

For anyone who wanted to come play around your backdoor

Now they're sneakin through your cat hole

Yeah you got a lot of nerve

It ought to be illegal

Always taking up so much space

They never see you come

They'll only see you leaving

Cause you've always got your hands full

You even steal all the shadows

Ain't the lies ain't the freaks

It ain't your mother

But what's your motivation

Ain't the wine ain't the creeps

It ain't your father

Tell me what's your motivation

Yeah you said you knew me when I was easier to be around

Knew me like we were really friends

You let me wear your hat

When all I really wanted was to know why you wake up

Tell me where you hide your make-up

I never see you without it

Tell me what's your motivation

Yeah I saw your monkeycat

He's dancin on the corner with a brother and his moonshine

Yeah they're buzzin like a beehive

Edited by SteveAJones
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, well, a little testy are we? I guess you cannot read as well since I never said a combat shotgun was less lethal than a semi-auto rifle. That being said the point I was making is a shotgun for home defense holds, as you said, 8 rounds, however you analogy is flawed. A shotgun has an accurate range of about 25 yard without a choke and there are only six pellets in OO shot. Further, beyond 25 yards the energy dissipation of those pellets is significant since they are not rifled, so they are likely to cause damage but not kill. Shotguns are intended for very close up action, anyone who has used one knows that (except game rounds which are choked and are used for small game and cannot kill a human unless you place it against a persons head). Also, loading a shotgun is had work and takes time, enough time for a person to jump the asshole and disarm, unlike an assault rifle.

I already noted the effective range. What you are not apperently aware of it would seem is that the LETHAL range can be much further than the "effective range".(see again my comment about combat shotguns in urban metropitan police depts) Depending on the brand and wether the loads are 2 3/4 or 3" Mag rounds; you can still kill or cause serious injury if you are not properly trained. In addition, standard #00 buckshot for most brands have 8-9 pellets. Mag rounds may even have more, but all brands are different. Federal brand copper plated defensive shells in #00 have 9 pellets in .33 cal.

But I'm not here to school you on spread patterns, ballistic characteristics or how a single errant .33 cal shotgun pellet can be lethal to something you may not intend beyond your intended target. You see people who hunt, people who have had some training and people who think about the legal and moral consequences of gun ownership are apperently much more concerned about these things than someone such as yourself. You are intentionally missing the point. Your MILITARY COMBAT SHOTGUN is just as intended for it's purpose as a so called "assault rifle", And as Stryder pointed out to you: your shotgun is in the cross-hairs of additional weapons bans too. So what will you do then? Turn it in, or argue that you have a right to own it? You have ZERO moral authority therefore to make the statements you have made,

So, your argument is both flawed and discredited, nice try though. I also am shocked that you did not answer my very basic question...what is the civilian purpose of an assault rifle and / or extended capacity magazines??? Can you answer that skippy?

That was already clearly answered, but maybe I was talking too fast for you, or maybe you need a picture instead. The answer is: The same civilian purpose that your Military Combat shotgun serves you. You know many people HATE shotguns as a choice to defend the home. Besides the fact that it is a two handed weapon (can't easily open doors and window while operating); it's also a pain in the ass to maneuver around corners or through small openings like a partially opened door. And in case you haven't noticed (I'll bet you never go the range) it takes distance for the spread pattern to open up; therefore, it's just as easy to miss your target at very close range as with a rifle. But of course that nasty pistol grip on an assault rifle that helps you be more accurate has no reasonable use for home self defense according to people like you.

I could debate with you for years about the tactical pros and cons of one gun vs another for home defense. But my point is that there are many different situations which people usually consider. You like a combat shotgun. I prefer a .357 revolver with .38 +P PMC 125 grain Starfire hollow points for less penetration but maximum energy transfer to the hostile target. In another very hostile situation depending upon the variables, I see an assault rifle as a legitimate choice as well. You make your choice, I make mine, and I allow others to make their choice as well. It's a free country.... or at least it used to be.

Ps. I keep three rounds in my shotgun, two bird shot and one small game shot, this is because I do not want the pellets penetrating the drywall and hitting my kids and second, I do not want to kill anyone if I can help it.

That is moronic. Even the wadding material inside of a shotgun shell at close range CAN KILL SOMEONE!!!! The ONLY justification for using a weapon of that type against another human being is to DEFEND your life or that of another.. The moral and legal consequences of what you just said is STUPID. And if you don't want to harm someone who is proximate or down range from your target,,,, THEN YOU DON'T SHOOT. You don't assume that because you think you loaded something less lethal, that it isn't going to kill anyone; your intended target, or unintended targets.

Do your kids a favor and leave this to the adults. From everything you have said so far; the only person who will benefit from you discharging your shotgun will probably be your civil defense attorney collecting his fees. I could easily see someone such as yourself becoming a statistic for the anti-gun lobby. Start using your head and get some training.

Edited by Leather Apron
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Boogeyman might be under your bed, but for another billion dollars a year...

Hang on a minute.

One of the main reasons people have guns is because they almost expect someone to invade their homes, right?

TypeO said he lived in a rough town and there were many incidents of home invasion, right?

So there are Boogeymen and women out there.

Ever consider that with all the unpredictable crazies out there they could easily break in and wait under the bed, if that happened and regardless whether you were or weren't packing when you went out you and / or your family could easily be killed.

Any guns you had in the house would be made redundant, would they not?

Once again people are putting too much value in the dollar as opposed to life.

Part or fulltime security is affordable if managed correctly.

Currently there are security guards in shopping centres / malls, banks (now there's a surprise!?), government offices and so on.

Unfortunately we live in times where security is a necessary evil and businesses have a duty of care to their boards, shareholders, employees, customers and the general public for their personal safety, that is why they employ them in the first place.

They are also insured accordingly.

As some have suggested here including myself, retired Marines stood guard over their respective schools

One wasn't even a fullfledged serviceman for some reason or another but he still did, WITHOUT a gun, personally I would not have a problem with them being armed as they are trained professionals in every sense.

One thing I admire about the US is their servicemen and women who step up and barring a few nutjobs over the years the majority are decent human beings

These blokes have served your country with honour and deserve employment when they step into civilian life.

I say pay them well to do the job properly.

America has a bad reputation toward veterans, if all the reports I've heard are true?

You could tell by the way stood their watch they were proud and honoured to do it.

Not for thanks or reward but for the sheer sense of duty to look after their own.

I as an outsider was proud of them all for stepping up.

So what if cinemas and other businesses have to employ some security, that's life and business as it is today.

I don't buy that the government can't afford the 5 billion plus per year to run it.

Here's a tip, take it out of the DEFENCE budget.

So you can't buy one stealth bomber a year, big deal!

They say that with power comes great responsibility, well I say, with great responsibility comes great power.

I hope the victims families find some strength to try and enjoy Christmas.

My thoughts and prayers are with them and you all.

Edited by Reggie29
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang on a minute.

One of the main reasons people have guns is because they almost expect someone to invade their homes, right?

TypeO said he lived in a rough town and there were many incidents of home invasion, right?

So there are Boogeymen and women out there.

Ever consider that with all the unpredictable crazies out there they could easily break in and wait under the bed, if that happened and regardless whether you were or weren't packing when you went out you and / or your family could easily be killed.

Any guns you had in the house would be made redundant, would they not?

Once again people are putting too much value in the dollar as opposed to life.

Part or fulltime security is affordable if managed correctly.

Currently there are security guards in shopping centres / malls, banks (now there's a surprise!?), government offices and so on.

Unfortunately we live in times where security is a necessary evil and businesses have a duty of care to their boards, shareholders, employees, customers and the general public for their personal safety, that is why they employ them in the first place.

They are also insured accordingly.

As some have suggested here including myself, retired Marines stood guard over their respective schools

One wasn't even a fullfledged serviceman for some reason or another but he still did, WITHOUT a gun, personally I would not have a problem with them being armed as they are trained professionals in every sense.

One thing I admire about the US is their servicemen and women who step up and barring a few nutjobs over the years the majority are decent human beings

These blokes have served your country with honour and deserve employment when they step into civilian life.

I say pay them well to do the job properly.

America has a bad reputation toward veterans, if all the reports I've heard are true?

You could tell by the way stood their watch they were proud and honoured to do it.

Not for thanks or reward but for the sheer sense of duty to look after their own.

I as an outsider was proud of them all for stepping up.

So what if cinemas and other businesses have to employ some security, that's life and business as it is today.

I don't buy that the government can't afford the 5 billion plus per year to run it.

Here's a tip, take it out of the DEFENCE budget.

So you can't buy one stealth bomber a year, big deal!

They say that with power comes great responsibility, well I say, with great responsibility comes great power.

I hope the victims families find some strength to try and enjoy Christmas.

My thoughts and prayers are with them and you all.

WORD

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't buy that the government can't afford the 5 billion plus per year to run it.

The people can't afford it!

To put things into perspective further, the Department of Education's 17,000 employees annual budget is $14.2 billion, and it's a well known fact many districts already cannot afford routine maintenance nor paper, paint, buses and books.

The Department of Defense budget, $671 billion for FY12, is already facing a $100 billion cut thanks to the fiscal cliff US is facing.

So like all pro-union, socialist utopian schemes, The Boogeyman Patrol requires a tax increase.

5 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR for a militia of 100,000 public school security guards

:redcard:

Do people even acknowledge the simple fact the country is going bankrupt from coast to coast?

Do people comprehend massive government over-expenditures are devaluing the currency?

Do people realize the devestating effect hyper-inflation will have on American society?

Edited by SteveAJones
Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact militias and a standing army do exisit make the second amendment more purposeful, not less.

An armed civilian militia does not exist in the US in anything close to the form envisioned by the second amendment, certainly the vast majority of arms held by cilvians in the US are not in anyway linked to one.

It seems pretty clear to me that mass gun ownership creating the potential for civilian uprising was not the intension of the second amendment but rather an anti federalist desire for civilian militias to limate the need for a standing army.

To atempt to claim the second admendmant is still fulfilling its original purpose is to me a false appeal to aurthority.

Edited by greenman
Link to post
Share on other sites

To attempt to claim the second admendment is still fulfilling its original purpose is to me a false appeal to authority.

The Second Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Language changes over time but the words, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," unambiguously guarantees that the people, not merely the government have the right to possess firearms. Those who link the first clause to the second, by necessity must ignore both the common sense reading in today's language and more importantly the meaning of the language in the context of the time the Second Amendment was written. At that period in American history public policy encouraged firearm ownership and endorsed the rights of the citizens, not the government to form militias.

In point of fact, just a few years before the Bill of Rights was written, militias of citizens opposed to the existing government had formed and overthrown duly established government of the time. The people who created the Bill of Rights had done just that and were guaranteeing that right to the citizens in perpetuity.

The Second Amendment indisputably guarantees the right of individuals to bear arms. Any argument to the contrary would need to be based on the premise that although the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is an extremely well crafted document, that the authors got sloppy when they wrote the Second Amendment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To put things into perspective further, the Department of Education's 17,000 employees annual budget is $14.2 billion, and it's a well known fact many districts already cannot afford routine maintenance nor paper, paint, buses and books.

The Department of Defense budget of $671 billion for FY12 is already facing a $100 billion cut thanks to the fiscal cliff US is facing, so like all good socialist utopians you'll just have to support another tax increase on top of all of those increases already pending.

Yet you support $5 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR be earmarked for a militia of 100,000 public school security guards.

Do people even acknowledge the simple fact the country is going bankrupt from coast to coast?

Do people comprehend massive government over-expenditures are devaluing the currency?

Do people realize the devestating effect hyper-inflation will have on American society?

Use all the labels you want, Steve. I thought you were above that, obviously not. My bad.

I am not a socialist but am a social person nor am I Utopian, I'm Australian and damn proud of it too.

Well it doesn't effect you now does it?

You don't live there and I doubt that being an ex-serviceman would pay (maybe pay taxes to the Japanese government) US taxes either, so it's quite easy for you to sit in your ivory tower and criticise government spending from afar.

I won't buy that but "I am an American and care about my country" bullshit when you see fit to reside and work elsewhere and support a foreign economy.

It was not your government who got into debt, it was big business and greedy banks that screwed your country financially (along with the rest of the world) and left your government to bail them out, that caused thje dollar to devalue and brought on "hyper-inflation".

So if I was you I'd be taking any frustration about going broke, out on them.

I'd like to see companies like Microsoft, Apple, Exxon and the tobacco industry et al do their bit too but being the capitalists they are I wouldn't hold my breath.

Edited by Reggie29
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it doesn't effect you now does it?

You don't live there and I doubt that being an ex-serviceman would pay (maybe pay taxes to the Japanese government) US taxes either, so it's quite easy for you to sit in your ivory tower and criticise government spending from afar.

I won't buy that but "I am an American and care about my country" bullshit when you see fit to reside and work elsewhere and support a foreign economy.

It was not your government who got into debt, it was big business and greedy banks that screwed your country financially (along with the rest of the world) and left your government to bail them out, that caused the dollar to devalue and brought on "hyper-inflation".

So if I was you I'd be taking any frustration about going broke, out on them.

I'd like to see companies like Microsoft, Apple, Exxon and the tobacco industry et al do their bit too but being the capitalists they are I wouldn't hold my breath.

Nothing you've posted about me is correct - that figures - but as ever I'm not here to talk about me, just to present my point of view.

The capatalist system you despise is the host organism. When the businessmen, politicians & parasites croak the host organism the winners of the blame game people continue to play will mean less than ever.

Relax, I haven't labelled myself nor even claimed to care, just thought I'd continue to demonstrate my capacity for critical thinking.

Edited by SteveAJones
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately, all this talk and demand for action will amount to nothing more than renewal of the assault weapon ban and more stringent background checks because that is all the municipalities can afford. On the other hand, even if this does come to pass there is nothing to stop an active shooter from finding other soft targets like the theater, the ice cream parlor or the theme park. It's a risk that comes with living in a free and open society, yet fortunately in a nation of over 300 million people mass shootings have only occured 63 times in the past 40 years.

63 divided by 40 diffused into 300 million. I'll take those odds.

How are you defining mass shootings? I would define it as more than one unrelated victim, chosen randomly (no direct personal connection to the killer). There were three people killed yesterday in my area by one gunman. Apparently unrelated although the motive has not yet been determined. One woman hanging Christmas decorations at a church, the other two victims were two men in a car that the shooter rammed and then shot and killed. He then shot at state troopers who ultimately killed him.

If you agree with this definition, this was a mass shooting and I suspect your numbers are way off. If you don't agree, it was still a multiple homicide that is no less horrrible, other than scale.

As a side note, there was also a home invasion yesterday in the area. Three ciminals(don't know if or how they were armed). Homeowner killed one with a knife and chased the other two off. I just thought it was interesting in that many people think it is neccessary to have a gun for protection.

I don't know what the answers are. We own guns for hunting as I stated 30 pages back, but support stricter gun control. The mental health debate is tricky, as there are mentally ill people that are in no way dangerous to themselves or others ( yes I realize there are gun owners that are also not dangerous. ) When people say that there should be more focus on mental health what does that mean? There are privacy concerns, costs, logistics - when and how do you force someone to get care and continue with it. I'm not doing the math (don't do math in public) but I'm sure it is every bit as costly as an armed guard in every school.

Link to post
Share on other sites

NRA calls for armed police officer in every school

By By PHILIP ELLIOTT | Associated Press – 4 mins 33 secs ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The nation's largest gun-rights lobby called Friday for armed police officers to be posted in every American school to stop the next killer "waiting in the wings."

The National Rifle Association broke its silence Friday on last week's shooting rampage at a Connecticut elementary school that left 26 children and staff dead.

The group's top lobbyist, Wayne LaPierre, said at a Washington news conference that "the next Adam Lanza," the man responsible for last week's mayhem, is planning an attack on another school.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," LaPierre said.

He blamed video games, movies and music videos for exposing children to a violent culture day in and day out.

I'm not against people having the right to have these kind of guns, but I think the video games, movies and music videos they speak of can be considered exhilarating and a healthy outlet for many, including those with mental problems. I'm more afraid of someone who thinks this stuff is bad for society than I am of those who enjoy these sort of action fill activities. Using their same reasoning, or lack of it, one could argue that religion encourages violence also. This exhilaration would be the same thing I get out of listening to hard rock, playing a guitar though a cranked up tube amp, or riding a motorcycle. It's a free country, live like it!

Edited by Gospel Zone
Link to post
Share on other sites

I already noted the effective range. What you are not apperently aware of it would seem is that the LETHAL range can be much further than the "effective range".(see again my comment about combat shotguns in urban metropitan police depts) Depending on the brand and wether the loads are 2 3/4 or 3" Mag rounds; you can still kill or cause serious injury if you are not properly trained. In addition, standard #00 buckshot for most brands have 8-9 pellets. Mag rounds may even have more, but all brands are different. Federal brand copper plated defensive shells in #00 have 9 pellets in .33 cal.

But I'm not here to school you on spread patterns, ballistic characteristics or how a single errant .33 cal shotgun pellet can be lethal to something you may not intend beyond your intended target. You see people who hunt, people who have had some training and people who think about the legal and moral consequences of gun ownership are apperently much more concerned about these things than someone such as yourself. You are intentionally missing the point. Your MILITARY COMBAT SHOTGUN is just as intended for it's purpose as a so called "assault rifle", And as Stryder pointed out to you: your shotgun is in the cross-hairs of additional weapons bans too. So what will you do then? Turn it in, or argue that you have a right to own it? You have ZERO moral authority therefore to make the statements you have made,

That was already clearly answered, but maybe I was talking too fast for you, or maybe you need a picture instead. The answer is: The same civilian purpose that your Military Combat shotgun serves you. You know many people HATE shotguns as a choice to defend the home. Besides the fact that it is a two handed weapon (can't easily open doors and window while operating); it's also a pain in the ass to maneuver around corners or through small openings like a partially opened door. And in case you haven't noticed (I'll bet you never go the range) it takes distance for the spread pattern to open up; therefore, it's just as easy to miss your target at very close range as with a rifle. But of course that nasty pistol grip on an assault rifle that helps you be more accurate has no reasonable use for home self defense according to people like you.

I could debate with you for years about the tactical pros and cons of one gun vs another for home defense. But my point is that there are many different situations which people usually consider. You like a combat shotgun. I prefer a .357 revolver with .38 +P PMC 125 grain Starfire hollow points for less penetration but maximum energy transfer to the hostile target. In another very hostile situation depending upon the variables, I see an assault rifle as a legitimate choice as well. You make your choice, I make mine, and I allow others to make their choice as well. It's a free country.... or at least it used to be.

That is moronic. Even the wadding material inside of a shotgun shell at close range CAN KILL SOMEONE!!!! The ONLY justification for using a weapon of that type against another human being is to DEFEND your life or that of another.. The moral and legal consequences of what you just said is STUPID. And if you don't want to harm someone who is proximate or down range from your target,,,, THEN YOU DON'T SHOOT. You don't assume that because you think you loaded something less lethal, that it isn't going to kill anyone; your intended target, or unintended targets.

Do your kids a favor and leave this to the adults. From everything you have said so far; the only person who will benefit from you discharging your shotgun will probably be your civil defense attorney collecting his fees. I could easily see someone such as yourself becoming a statistic for the anti-gun lobby. Start using your head and get some training.

Actually I have plenty of experience, I was in the Marine Corps 86' - 94' and saw combat in three theatres of operations and have seen more dead bodies than an undertaker. I know more about weapons than I truly care to, including those most don't even know exist. Combat shotguns are simply a shorter version of a standard shotgun and are used for very close range use and breaching. Second, if you think a pellet, magnum load or not is going to go 100 yards you are nuts, that pellet will drop within about 70 yards and will not have enough energy to penetrate beyond about 50, accuracy is completely gone beyond 20 yards give or take (shot, not ballistic). The whole reason for shotguns is maximum damage very close up, they are designed to loose their energy quickly thereby transferring to a close up target.

My argument in favor of a combat shotgun vs. an assault rifle is thus: Most break in's occur between midnight and 4am when people are asleep. The homeowner wakes up in a daze in the dark. The shotgun does not need to be accurately aimed in such a close up encounter so anyone who knows how to pull a trigger can pretty much hit the target. Further, because of the rapid expenditure of energy, the stray pellets are not likely to penetrate drywall and go into another room (or person) giving an added degree of safety. Now lets look at the assault rifle for home defense. High power single rounds made to hit targets accurately up to 200 yards. The homeowner wakes up with his AR-15, sees the target in the dark and shoots. Best case scenario he hits the asshole with a lucky shot (it is dark and he is scared you know), however since it is close range the possibility of that round exiting the body, going through drywall and possibly hitting a friendly is extremely high. Now if you factor in the scared as hell aspect the homeowner may shoot off multiple rounds to ensure he hits Mr. Home intruder so now there are multiple missiles zinging about.

Do you understand my logic? I am not trying to get into a pissing contest and I respect your opinion, I also apologize if I came across curt or boorish in earlier posts. My point is simply that there is no practical use for an assault rifle except to kill several targets. Yes you can hunt with them, depending on the calibre, but who does? A 7mm rifle will always out perform an AR-15 for hunting so why drop the extra cash for a less effective tool for the job? I have several friends who are hunters an none of them use an assault rifle for hunting, nor has any of them ever seen anyone use an assault rifle for hunting. SO I simply ask, what is the need for a civilian to own an assault rifle or to have a extended capacity magazine for a pistol or rifle?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the pro-gun people to continually invoke "the right of the people to keep and Bear arms," from the US Constitution, strikes me as a bit disingenuous. Are they saying that their fellow Americans who don't own guns, or even like guns, are somehow not living up to their civic obligations? Is the freedom to bear arms so valuable that you have to actively enjoy it? What other articles of the Constitution do you defend as strongly?

Put another way, which rights are more important to exercise - to speak, worship, or assemble freely (Amendment I)? To have a speedy trial by an impartial jury (Amendment VI)? To not be owned as a slave (Amendment XIII)? To vote, no matter your sex (Amendment XIX)? Seems to me those parts of your sacred, holy, inviolable Constitution are a lot more meaningful than some precious entitlement to keep an arsenal of lethal penis substitutes in one's rec room and secretly hope for an opportunity to try them on another human being.

So spare us the rhetoric that gun ownership is no more than an expression of your "freedom," and that you don't have any personal interest in and affinity for high-powered weapons. "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is one thing, but I haven't often heard the right to bear arms defended by people who privately are opposed to gun use, or who don't already have a strong attachment to their own collection.

...before some fool comes around here, and wanna shoot either you or me...

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the pro-gun people to continually invoke "the right of the people to keep and Bear arms," from the US Constitution, strikes me as a bit disingenuous. Are they saying that their fellow Americans who don't own guns, or even like guns, are somehow not living up to their civic obligations? Is the freedom to bear arms so valuable that you have to actively enjoy it? What other articles of the Constitution do you defend as strongly?

Put another way, which rights are more important to exercise - to speak, worship, or assemble freely (Amendment I)? To have a speedy trial by an impartial jury (Amendment VI)? To not be owned as a slave (Amendment XIII)? To vote, no matter your sex (Amendment XIX)? Seems to me those parts of your sacred, holy, inviolable Constitution are a lot more meaningful than some precious entitlement to keep an arsenal of lethal penis substitutes in one's rec room and secretly hope for an opportunity to try them on another human being.

So spare us the rhetoric that gun ownership is no more than an expression of your "freedom," and that you don't have any personal interest in and affinity for high-powered weapons. "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is one thing, but I haven't often heard the right to bear arms defended by people who privately are opposed to gun use, or who don't already have a strong attachment to their own collection.

...before some fool comes around here, and wanna shoot either you or me...

Actually all of the Constitution is important to me. Sounds like you hate America because of it. And if i am correct then Fuck You.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I have plenty of experience, I was in the Marine Corps 86' - 94' and saw combat in three theatres of operations and have seen more dead bodies than an undertaker. I know more about weapons than I truly care to, including those most don't even know exist. Combat shotguns are simply a shorter version of a standard shotgun and are used for very close range use and breaching. Second, if you think a pellet, magnum load or not is going to go 100 yards you are nuts, that pellet will drop within about 70 yards and will not have enough energy to penetrate beyond about 50, accuracy is completely gone beyond 20 yards give or take (shot, not ballistic). The whole reason for shotguns is maximum damage very close up, they are designed to loose their energy quickly thereby transferring to a close up target.

Well thank you for your service but that hasn't much to do with where I believe you are getting tripped up about shotguns. I said more than once what the "effective range" is for a combat shotgun. Where you aren't hearing me is where the "lethal range" may be. You and I could argue back on forth if it is 70 yards or if it could even be 100 yards depending on the variables (load, shot, choke etc). You of all people should know that even a rifle round has a lethal range far beyond it's effective range. I know your rangemaster must have explained that to you many times if you were a Marine. Even as kids I'm sure you heard your grandfather tell you that your .22 target rifle could possibly KILL at a mile. I'm done arguing with you about what I already know, and what has already been proven. Take that one to a gun forum if you want to continue with that point.

My argument in favor of a combat shotgun vs. an assault rifle is thus: Most break in's occur between midnight and 4am when people are asleep. The homeowner wakes up in a daze in the dark. The shotgun does not need to be accurately aimed in such a close up encounter so anyone who knows how to pull a trigger can pretty much hit the target. Further, because of the rapid expenditure of energy, the stray pellets are not likely to penetrate drywall and go into another room (or person) giving an added degree of safety.

Again, that is just your choice. Go to any gun forum and you will read reams of information from some pretty experienced people with a different opinion. Unless your target is far enough away for the shot to spread; it's just as easy to miss your target with a shotgun as a rifle at close range. Besides, I thought you said you had children in your home? I for one am not inclined to be firing a shotgun after "waking up in a daze in the dark" unless I have made for certain who/what my target is. Just me, but I prefer to opt for training over a shoot first and hope everything works out okay tactic. And that is why I use a revolver with rounds designed for low penetration and effective results along with lots of training and practice.

Congratulations on your miltary training, but it does not appy to anything you are describing to me. You are only making arguments which add ammunition to the anti-gun lobby in my opinion.

Now lets look at the assault rifle for home defense. High power single rounds made to hit targets accurately up to 200 yards. The homeowner wakes up with his AR-15, sees the target in the dark and shoots. Best case scenario he hits the asshole with a lucky shot (it is dark and he is scared you know), however since it is close range the possibility of that round exiting the body, going through drywall and possibly hitting a friendly is extremely high. Now if you factor in the scared as hell aspect the homeowner may shoot off multiple rounds to ensure he hits Mr. Home intruder so now there are multiple missiles zinging about.

But you could have multiple misses with a .45 pistol too couldn't you? You aren't advocating that homeowners not be allowed to have a hicap pistol, so what's the difference? I agree with you about using an assault rifle for what you descrbed. But even someone with my .357 revolver using full jacketed mag rounds could be firing misssed rounds through walls too. My issue with you is that believing that an assualt weapons ban prevents what happened last week is silly. It certainly didn't make any difference at Columbine did it? The assaut weapons ban was in full force then and it did nothing.

Do you understand my logic? I am not trying to get into a pissing contest and I respect your opinion, I also apologize if I came across curt or boorish in earlier posts. My point is simply that there is no practical use for an assault rifle except to kill several targets. Yes you can hunt with them, depending on the calibre, but who does? A 7mm rifle will always out perform an AR-15 for hunting so why drop the extra cash for a less effective tool for the job? I have several friends who are hunters an none of them use an assault rifle for hunting, nor has any of them ever seen anyone use an assault rifle for hunting. SO I simply ask, what is the need for a civilian to own an assault rifle or to have a extended capacity magazine for a pistol or rifle?

Because if they are law abiding citizens then they are not the problem. And since many "tools" can be used to kill lots of people too; there is no reason to fear that law abiding citizens are suddenly going to use their rifles to commit crimes anymore than they could use those other "tools" in our world to do the same. Because banning these rifles has proven to do nothing about solving the problems. Because even if you don't agree with it; many sportsmen enjoy these rifles for target practice and for personal enjoyment. And finally because many people see these rifles as a possible choice to defend themselves under certain circumstances where they may be appropriate. You don't have to agree with that, but I don't agree with how you defend your home either.

That is the answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia --- Crime Rate Plummets

tysk news ^ | 1997 | Baldwin

Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 2:29:03 PM by doug from upland

Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia

Crime Rate Plummets

by Chuck Baldwin

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?

The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.

The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.

There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...