Contrary to popular belief

[petros]

This may excite some, but I believe that the latest shooting in CT is a definite reason for the US to look at limiting gun access to it's citizens. While I acknowledge that there are gun owners out there who are responsible, I see no reason for any civilian to own a semi automatic weapon. While I see nothing wrong with an individual citizen, who undergoes screening, owning a weapon for target shooting, home protection, or for hunting, I also think that the right to bear arms argument put forth by hardcore gun advocates is antiquated at best.

The children who died this week came as a result of an obviously disturbed young man getting access to weapons. This is a tragedy of epic proportion and sadly it was completely preventable. It is time for a discussion regarding two very serious issues, one is limiting access to firearms that serve no application for civilian use. No one outside the military, police department requires assault weapons. The second issue that needs to be looked at with a great deal of scrutiny is society's ignorance and indifference to mental health issues.

That's my take.

"I see no reason for any civilian to own a semi automatic weapon."

Well Sir,I can think of several valid reasons for the public owning semi-autos.

What about lever action like the Winchester 1894 or Marlin 336? i can fire off six rounds in six seconds with my 1894 and I'm no slouch with the bolt on my Tikka T3. The bolt on a Tikka is extremely smooth and by far the best on the market.

Check out this video on how quickly a lever action Winchester 1894 can be fired with a little practice:

30-30 rapid fire plus cool trick - YouTube

"I also think that the right to bear arms argument put forth by hardcore gun advocates is antiquated at best."

The Swiss, Israelis, Ukrainians,Chileans and Nigerians and anyone who lives under a dictaorship would disagree.

In 1942 it wouldn't have a been a cake walk across the Steppes for the Nazis had the Soviets not disarmed Ukrainian citizens post he Ukraine/Russia war of 1917- 1921.

Again in 1942 a Jap General who was educated in US convinced Tojo to not send an invasion force into Hawaii or attack mainland US because he knew the public was armed to the teeth.

Public gun ownership is how the US defeated the Brits in the War of Independence.

"The children who died this week came as a result of an obviously disturbed young man getting access to weapons. This is a tragedy of epic proportion and sadly it was completely preventable. It is time for a discussion regarding two very serious issues, one is limiting access to firearms that serve no application for civilian use. No one outside the military, police department requires assault weapons."

It wasn't preventable, if he didn't have a gun he would have found other easily obtainable means such as molotovs, chemicals, IEDs etc.

There is nothing wrong with assualt style weapons being owned by the public BUT no one outside the military, police department requires a 30+1 magazine. A basic magazine for hunting/sport shooting rifle holds only 5 rounds. If you need more than 3 rounds for hunting, you shouldn't be hunting.

"The second issue that needs to be looked at with a great deal of scrutiny is society's ignorance and indifference to mental health issues."

Second? It's the first and only issue and the issue that would have prevented this and other incidents. Mental health disorders are the most common health problem, the least funded and it is heavily stigmatized.

Then there are the medications. SSRIs and SNRIs should be banned and how drugs are tested NEEDS heavy scrutiny. The SSRI Paxil for instance was tested on homeless people in Delaware FFS. The majority of school,mall, restaurant etc shooting spree instigators in the last 20 years have been on an SSRI. Please google

This and the other school shootings are horrific and heartbreaking but guns or Marilyn Mason are not the root cause. Un or under treated mental health disorders are the root issue.

Free mental health treatment in America needs to be made a reality ASAP.

 

[DaSleeper]

$6 reloads 25yrs ago?

I remember the Canadian Military having a few that looked like that set up in the
hallway of the high school I went to on 'career days'.....

Could it have been a Bren Gun in 303 cal. British if it was the magazine would have been on top..and the carrying handle just ahead of the magazine.
When I was in the army cadets in high school, we had a couple of them that we had to learn to field strip.
We never got to fire it....although we had a two position rifle range indoor where we could only shoot the 303 look alike rifles in 22 cal.

 

[Ron in Regina]

That was 25+yrs back, in a hallway, in a high school, behind the velvet ropes like
they use in movie theatres.....during a 'career days' event. Like most other students,
my focus wasn't the magazine placement on that weapon, but how I could ditch out
on the whole thing without getting caught so I could go get high with my buddies.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

You know then the usefulness of a semi auto, you don't have to take your eyes off your target if you miss or don't get a clean kill shot.

You don't have to tell me, that point was proven at Sandy Hook, Colombine... Oh and where was that Premier of the Dark Knight again? Colorado?

If you need to take that many shots at a target in such a short time then you need firearms training.

If you don't have a clean shot you shouldn't take it.

 

[petros]

You don't have to tell me, that point was proven at Sandy Hook, Colombine... Oh and where was that Premier of the Dark Knight again? Colorado?

The shooters in those three you mentioned were on SSRIs

Index to SSRI Stories

 

[CDNBear]

America is at that point.

We live in a Unreal society. Our everyday lives are so twisted and warped.
Money. Government and technology all distort reality so much. we look lost.

We are Completely out of balance we have lost touch. We no longer can see the truth.
Its like the blind leading the blind.

Sometimes there is nothing you can do. And you have to live with it.

Neat observation.

Please speak for yourself.

 

[JamesBondo]

My hunting rifle is a .308 semi-auto with a magazine that holds 3 rounds. Forgive me if I don't understand a proposed law that would make it illegal.

My rifle would be useless for a mass shooter. The mag capacity is too small. The barrel length is too long. The wooden stock isn't sinister looking enough. The 8 power scope would be useless at close range. And, the first time the kid pulls that trigger in rapid succession, the second and third rounds will likely drive the scope into his nose. I'm not joking, when I was a kid, it happened to me because I flinched.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

My hunting rifle is a .308 semi-auto with a magazine that holds 3 rounds. Forgive me if I don't understand a proposed law that would make it illegal.

My rifle would be useless for a mass shooter. The mag capacity is too small. The barrel length is too long. The wooden stock isn't sinister looking enough. The 8 power scope would be useless at close range. And, the first time the kid pulls that trigger in rapid succession, the second and third rounds will likely drive the scope into his nose. I'm not joking, when I was a kid, it happened to me because I flinched.

Well that warrants discussion doesn't it. Three round mag isn't really what we are addressing. Okay so it's a semi-auto hunting rifle. Hmm let's re-designate it a hunting rifle as it really doesn't pose the same threat as semi-auto with a 30 round mag. You mistake my posts and op for that of someone to outlaw all guns, sorry wrong guy.

I'm talking serious thought out discussion. And you raise a valid point.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

You don't have to tell me, that point was proven at Sandy Hook, Colombine... Oh and where was that Premier of the Dark Knight again? Colorado?

If you need to take that many shots at a target in such a short time then you need firearms training.

If you don't have a clean shot you shouldn't take it.

No amount of training can guarantee a clean shot, I've certainly missed a few, but a second usually hits the mark and made the difference of going home skunked or not. I do not own a semi-auto rifle, these were shotgun shots. However, I know many folks who had to make second or third shots to bring down large game, the other option being tracking a wounded animal that got away anyway when it could no longer be tracked.

I am not against reasonable restrictions, the problem is; "what is reasonable?". Reasonable may have been to have to register pistols, to have the local police department issue you a CCW permit, which evolves to things like firearms prohibited due to their size, calibre, looks, and action, up to a mandatory 3 year minimum sentence in a federal correction facility for something as mundane as even posessing a 30 round magazine for a rifle you don't even own or posess, in the course of threee generations. It is what is called progress. We all love progress, the Conservatives re-branded themselves as PC's to get onto the progressive train, the Liberals were already there and the NDP were sounding the horn.

What I am saying is that reasonable restrictions worked, not perfectly, you cannot protect everyone from all eventualities. But this is not to the satisfaction of the progressives who will try to predict and prevent all eventualities, which is the impossible dream. They will not stop until all citizens are disarmed, completely, the UN has said so in maybe not so many words. This is why the debate is so polarized, it has come to a battle between the "anything goes freedom lovers" to "those who subscribe to total subservience to the state", there is no longer a middle ground. Blame the progressives, I say.

Well that warrants discussion doesn't it. Three round mag isn't really what we are addressing. Okay so it's a semi-auto hunting rifle. Hmm let's re-designate it a hunting rifle as it really doesn't pose the same threat as semi-auto with a 30 round mag. You mistake my posts and op for that of someone to outlaw all guns, sorry wrong guy.

I'm talking serious thought out discussion. And you raise a valid point.

I am not aginst restrictions against high capacity mags, in theory; I consider myself fairly slow and deliberate, but I was videotaped, (do we still have those?) where, using my .45, I had to draw from a holster, fire six shots, two each at three targets, drop the mag and repeat, twice more for a total of 18 rounds in under 12 seconds. Watching the video I realized that I did that faster than could be done in any Bond game my kids own. My mags hold anywhere from 7 - 10 rounds, but the FBI qualification rules limited us to 6 per mag, but that is by the way.

In any case, restricting mag capacity, which may be valid, is in my opnion, only window dressing. The video actually scared me, because I am mediocre at best judging by who I was up against at the time, ( the FBI hmm).

 

[Niflmir]

"I also think that the right to bear arms argument put forth by hardcore gun advocates is antiquated at best."

The Swiss, Israelis, Ukrainians,Chileans and Nigerians and anyone who lives under a dictaorship would disagree.

In 1942 it wouldn't have a been a cake walk across the Steppes for the Nazis had the Soviets not disarmed Ukrainian citizens post he Ukraine/Russia war of 1917- 1921.

Again in 1942 a Jap General who was educated in US convinced Tojo to not send an invasion force into Hawaii or attack mainland US because he knew the public was armed to the teeth.

Public gun ownership is how the US defeated the Brits in the War of Independence.

"The children who died this week came as a result of an obviously disturbed young man getting access to weapons. This is a tragedy of epic proportion and sadly it was completely preventable. It is time for a discussion regarding two very serious issues, one is limiting access to firearms that serve no application for civilian use. No one outside the military, police department requires assault weapons."

It wasn't preventable, if he didn't have a gun he would have found other easily obtainable means such as molotovs, chemicals, IEDs etc.

There is nothing wrong with assualt style weapons being owned by the public BUT no one outside the military, police department requires a 30+1 magazine. A basic magazine for hunting/sport shooting rifle holds only 5 rounds. If you need more than 3 rounds for hunting, you shouldn't be hunting.

Let us say that you are right, and an armed population is what prevents nations from being so easily invaded. Now take a look at the armaments that civilians will need to stand up to a modern military: rocket launchers, machine guns, naval vessels, fighter jets, and nuclear bombs.

If you really think that civilians should be able to own nuclear bombs in order to prevent their cities from being invaded, then you believe that the second amendment isn't antiquated. Otherwise, you rationally agree that the second amendment doesn't make much sense in the face of the devastation modern weapons are capable of inflicting: antiquated.

 

[Stretch]

I don't think you're "contrary to popular belief" , RCS.

The need for the average shooter to own an assault rifle doesn't exist. According to polls recently taken. My sentiments also.

I would be really pissed if they outlawed bolt action rifles, but, not likely to happen.................hoooonose?!

the idea, eventually, is to outlaw everything. we cant even by a slingshot here in Australia, dont even get me started on paintball guns.............

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

No amount of training can guarantee a clean shot, I've certainly missed a few, but a second usually hits the mark and made the difference of going home skunked or not. I do not own a semi-auto rifle, these were shotgun shots. However, I know many folks who had to make second or third shots to bring down large game, the other option being tracking a wounded animal that got away anyway when it could no longer be tracked..

No amount of training can guarantee a clean shot. True. But taking a shot at a target without taking into consideration whether or not you are going to kill or wound it definitely brings poor training to mind. Unless you are in a firefight where you are pinned down and your life is in peril you have the decision on when to take that shot.

Perhaps a circumstance might arise that would cause you to make a poor first shot, say the mouth breather beside you or maybe the gang of rednecks chasing your posse who want you to squeal like a pig.

All kidding aside, I understand that not all shots meet their target, but perhaps that can be met with .308 semi-auto with a magazine that holds 3 rounds as mentioned by James Bondo.

I think that the discussion gets lost on both sides because of lack of will to compromise. The Pro-Firearm types adopt the "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS" stance. And the limp wristed reactionary types fall back to: ALL GUNS SHOULD BE BANNED.

The best solution of course is discussion and compromise.

 

[#juan]

My first deer rifle was a Winchester model 94 30-30. My older brother had a Remington 30-06. In those days
nobody had a telescopic sight. There was such a thing as having the patience to stalk your prey and getting
downwind of your deer, and planning your hunt so you didn't have to pack the animal through five
miles of deadfall. I don't hunt anymore.........It's too much work lol....

 

[JamesBondo]

Well that warrants discussion doesn't it. Three round mag isn't really what we are addressing. Okay so it's a semi-auto hunting rifle. Hmm let's re-designate it a hunting rifle as it really doesn't pose the same threat as semi-auto with a 30 round mag. You mistake my posts and op for that of someone to outlaw all guns, sorry wrong guy.

I'm talking serious thought out discussion. And you raise a valid point.

Thank you, and I respect that. I think it is important to educate the technically illiterate non gun people of well thought out definitions. Some of them are talking about assault weapons and semi-automatic actions as the same. Not even the former US definition of assault weapons made that assertion. If I remember correctly, it had to be a semi-auto action with least 2 additional features from a list of features that helped determine the application of the rifle.
Things like collapse stock, high cap mag, length of barrel, rim fire vs center fire, ease of modification, etc. I think too many of these features in a repeating action other than semi-auto could in fact pose a stronger concern than my .308 hunting rifle.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Thank you, and I respect that. I think it is important to educate the technically illiterate non gun people of well thought out definitions. Some of them are talking about assault weapons and semi-automatic actions as the same. Not even the former US definition of assault weapons made that assertion. If I remember correctly, it had to be a semi-auto action with least 2 additional features from a list of features that helped determine the application of the rifle.
Things like collapse stock, high cap mag, length of barrel, rim fire vs center fire, ease of modification, etc. I think too many of these features in a repeating action other than semi-auto could in fact pose a stronger concern than my .308 hunting rifle.

Thank You! I am one of the "technically illiterate non gun people," and brought this point up
back in posts #75 & #77, and included a LINK to a Wiki-thing showing several different
definitions. I'm following the thread out of curiosity, as I don't have a dog in this race.

It does seem though, that even in this thread, let alone the larger debate as a whole,
that folks are arguing apples against oranges against banana's including bazooka's &
nuclear weapons to repel a modern army, etc...and rocket launchers aren't what was
used in this latest school shooting.

A clear definition of what is being debated here is long overdue....& being one of the
admitted "technically illiterate non gun people," I'm not the one to give it.

 

[EagleSmack]

Let us say that you are right, and an armed population is what prevents nations from being so easily invaded. Now take a look at the armaments that civilians will need to stand up to a modern military: rocket launchers, machine guns, naval vessels, fighter jets, and nuclear bombs.

An armed resistance is futile unless you have all these?

 

[gerryh]

I think that the discussion gets lost on both sides because of lack of will to compromise. The Pro-Firearm types adopt the "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS" stance. And the limp wristed reactionary types fall back to: ALL GUNS SHOULD BE BANNED.

The best solution of course is discussion and compromise.

Interesting definition of the 2 sides. I can see that there is no bias in here at all.:roll:


I'd be one of the "limp wristed" ones. I wonder how well you could say that with a 30 06 stuffed up your a$$, stock end first?

 

[JLM]

Thank You! I am one of the "technically illiterate non gun people," and brought this point up
back in posts #75 & #77, and included a LINK to a Wiki-thing showing several different
definitions. I'm following the thread out of curiosity, as I don't have a dog in this race.

It does seem though, that even in this thread, let alone the larger debate as a whole,
that folks are arguing apples against oranges against banana's including bazooka's &
nuclear weapons to repel a modern army, etc...and rocket launchers aren't what was
used in this latest school shooting.

A clear definition of what is being debated here is long overdue....& being one of the
admitted "technically illiterate non gun people," I'm not the one to give it.

In a nutshell I interpret the thread to be about people not needing guns of capabilities beyond which they are being used? (No need for a gatling gun to kill rats) -

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Let us say that you are right, and an armed population is what prevents nations from being so easily invaded. Now take a look at the armaments that civilians will need to stand up to a modern military: rocket launchers, machine guns, naval vessels, fighter jets, and nuclear bombs.

The Viet Cong seemed to do quite well in assisting the NVA in ousting the mighty US forces, often with weapons probably considered more primitive than used during the American revolution. It is extemely hard to win a war on someone else's turf when you are far away from your own, Cambodia, Afghanistan and Iraq also come to mind.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Interesting definition of the 2 sides. I can see that there is no bias in here at all.:roll:


I'd be one of the "limp wristed" ones. I wonder how well you could say that with a 30 06 stuffed up your a$$, stock end first?

Gerry you are anything but limp wristed. And I have no bias. You just feel inadequate because I failed to mention that the FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS CROWD is often akin to retarded.