Guns

[SciFiAuthor]

I don't think you are heston. I should have constructed a better sentence. I am sorry.

I completely agree that many of the laws written regarding firearms are worthless. I also believe, that those laws go both ways. The problem as I see it is politicians are more concerned with getting reelected than understanding any issue (with rare exceptions). Again going both ways.

They're the worst out of anyone. I'm fairly convinced that perhaps as much as 90% of our politicians don't actually believe their own party platform. They just do whatever is best for them first, whatever is partisan second, and whatever is right third and what's smart last.

[SciFiAuthor]

It's interesting how a gun grab is framed as paranoid. Some form of it has happened one some level in every western country that's instituted gun control laws. We're the only one that hasn't done an outright confiscation, forced demilling or the like. Granted some still allow shotguns and things if you can prove you need one, but for the everyday joe it meant someone coming to pick up or chop up the guns . . . or else. 

I don't know what the hell y'all think a banning means, but to the rest of the planet it means confiscation.

That said, I don't think a gun grab is coming. I think they'll simply tax ammo and restrict its manufacture so much that it will be impossibly expensive to shoot the gun. Then, after 40 years when the various loose bullets around have all been used up, we might see some effect. By then we won't care though, we'll be too busy legislating fat people out of existence or working tirelessly to prevent whatever concocted coming global cataclysm is the flavor of the day so we can hold the human race back some more. Or maybe it will go the other way and we'll be wasting our time legislating religious morality back into society. 

[Yorkshire pud]

On our breakfast time TV programme (similar to good Morning America without the ads) two or so weeks ago, was a guy who came in to revue that day's newspapers. He is a retired basketball player who has played at international level. One of the stories was about the anniversary of Sandy Hook school. He went on to say that since then, there have been twenty five more such massacres since then. No-one has mentioned that.

He said he'd lived in the USA for twenty years as a player, and had fired a firearm once (He was asked by the presenters if he had) and didn't wish to repeat the event. Why? Not because it scared him; no. But because the way it made him feel good. He enjoyed it too much. That troubled him.

It's all very well some self certifying themselves as being perfectly capable in assessing if they're rational, responsible and competent to possess a firearm. As Ben asks; To what stage does that responsibility extend? Secondly, is almost everyone in a wasted occupation? There's an awful lot of rational people if so, and should be pilots, or surgeons, or some other vocation that involves being entirely calm under extremely critical situations.

It's a sick situation that everyone on here accepts you need to learn to drive before being let loose in a vehicle (Even more so if it's carrying passengers or driving a truck); That qualifications are required to practice medicine; that pilots don't just jump off an X box into a cockpit and magically become aces. Yet that rationality goes out of the window, and by incredible osmosis, simply looking at a firearm makes someone an expert and able to control their use of it.. That will explain why raw recruits in the military are given firearms on their first day and allowed to carry them..Oh hang on, no, that's not true.

Neither do they allow soldiers access to just any firearm once trained to shoot. Neither do they even allow squaddies into hostage rescue situations where there is confusion, high stress, screaming, and possibly bullets being fired back or at the hostages.  Yet incredibly some believe a few hours a week on a range with a Glock makes them capable (assuming they don't have some un-diagnosed personality disorder) of assessing and controlling an area with gunfire going on. 99.9999% of civilians can't and never will be able to do that. That's why we have special forces who CAN do that, and even they sometimes get it wrong.

[PB the Deplorable]

... He said he'd lived in the USA for twenty years as a player, and had fired a firearm once (He was asked by the presenters if he had) and didn't wish to repeat the event. Why? Not because it scared him; no. But because the way it made him feel good. He enjoyed it too much. That troubled him...

It IS fun plinking tin cans or whatever.  The same way hitting a good golf shot or scoring a goal in some game is.

There's not a thing wrong with target shooting, just the opposite.  I'm going to guess he was troubled about enjoying it because he was conditioned that way growing up in UK.

[SciFiAuthor]

On our breakfast time TV programme (similar to good Morning America without the ads) two or so weeks ago, was a guy who came in to revue that day's newspapers. He is a retired basketball player who has played at international level. One of the stories was about the anniversary of Sandy Hook school. He went on to say that since then, there have been twenty five more such massacres since then. No-one has mentioned that.

He said he'd lived in the USA for twenty years as a player, and had fired a firearm once (He was asked by the presenters if he had) and didn't wish to repeat the event. Why? Not because it scared him; no. But because the way it made him feel good. He enjoyed it too much. That troubled him.

It's all very well some self certifying themselves as being perfectly capable in assessing if they're rational, responsible and competent to possess a firearm. As Ben asks; To what stage does that responsibility extend? Secondly, is almost everyone in a wasted occupation? There's an awful lot of rational people if so, and should be pilots, or surgeons, or some other vocation that involves being entirely calm under extremely critical situations.

It's a sick situation that everyone on here accepts you need to learn to drive before being let loose in a vehicle (Even more so if it's carrying passengers or driving a truck); That qualifications are required to practice medicine; that pilots don't just jump off an X box into a cockpit and magically become aces. Yet that rationality goes out of the window, and by incredible osmosis, simply looking at a firearm makes someone an expert and able to control their use of it.. That will explain why raw recruits in the military are given firearms on their first day and allowed to carry them..Oh hang on, no, that's not true.

Neither do they allow soldiers access to just any firearm once trained to shoot. Neither do they even allow squaddies into hostage rescue situations where there is confusion, high stress, screaming, and possibly bullets being fired back or at the hostages.  Yet incredibly some believe a few hours a week on a range with a Glock makes them capable (assuming they don't have some un-diagnosed personality disorder) of assessing and controlling an area with gunfire going on. 99.9999% of civilians can't and never will be able to do that. That's why we have special forces who CAN do that, and even they sometimes get it wrong.

Yeah, but the whole thing is moot. We have 89 guns per 100 people. How does one reset the system where you can then determine who should have a gun and whom should not? If you're intent on using a gun for some criminal or insane purpose, you can simply steal one. You won't have to break into three houses in the US to find a gun. Or buy one from a private individual. You can dictate that everyone go get certified, but since you have no way of knowing where any of the guns are, the people that are the most likely to be a problem simply don't get certified and keep their gun hidden.

My point through all of this has been that it's realistically too late for the US. We might have been successful with gun control if we'd have put it in place in the 1960's, but not now. There's too much. So any attempt at gun control--which we tried under Clinton--fails. Sure, it puts a bunch of people in prison, which I *guess* is something, but it doesn't seem to do much for the death rate. Our only hope is confronting the culture rot that causes people to perpetrate violent crime against each other in the first place. But, because of political correctness, we aren't allowed to do that.

Just look at how this thread has evolved. It's come down to Sandy Hook. 28 dead in that incident. Tragic, sure. But, um, the United States as a whole sees 87 gun deaths PER DAY on average. Way more children die from the background 87 per day than the occasional school shooting. But the every day numbers bear a strong tendency towards black inner city children. Again, tragic, but we're not really allowed to ask why that's occurring. We can only talk about white kids getting shot in the occasional school rampage without having to do the political correctness dance.

So we focus on the only thing we can think of: gun control, even though we know it won't work on any meaningful level. The only reason we do that is for a bunch of people to feel good and think they did something about a problem. But feeling good about one's self does not mean that a problem was solved or even dented. It just means that the lawyers will make a bunch of extra money when Grandpa goes to jail for not registering his trusty old shotgun he bought in 1951 because he called the police to check out a break-in and they search his place and find the gun.

The bottom line is that we cannot fix this problem with gun control. We have zero chance of doing so. But what we all know that we've got a culture that is rotten to the absolute core from every subculture to the overarching American culture at large. Rotten, rotten, rotten. And we aren't allowed to talk about it because we'll be branded racist, pro-censorship, anti-Christian, pro-Christian or whatever else is needed to reinforce our taboos.

Gun control here means running from our problems and putting a Band-Aid on a sucking chest wound. In the end, all I can say is be glad you live in Yorkshire because we've done everything we possibly can over the last 40 years to fuck the United States up beyond all recognition. 

[FightTheFuture]

Second Amendment.



Game. Set. Match.


Next?

[Yorkshire pud]

It IS fun plinking tin cans or whatever.  The same way hitting a good golf shot or scoring a goal in some game is.

There's not a thing wrong with target shooting, just the opposite.  I'm going to guess he was troubled about enjoying it because he was conditioned that way growing up in UK.

Conditioned? He lived for 20 years in the USA, and he's now about 40. I'm not conditioned to be troubled with firearms; I have used them in my past. I know which end is the business end. I was trained by qualified instructors. In short I know how lethal they are, and what they're used for. If anyone on a range so much as pretended to fuck about with ammunition, the weapon or each other, wouldn't have been allowed back. I once witnessed an instructor escort a cadet from a range because he'd acted as if he was John Wayne with blank rounds (Was doing loading/discharge the breach practice, and had been warned once already). Too many people treat weapons as a penis extension, to make themselves feel bigger and tougher than they are.

[Yorkshire pud]

Second Amendment.



Game. Set. Match.


Next?

Oh does that include this bit?

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms regardless of service in a militia. The right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of firearms and similar devices.[1] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right. The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights.
The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[2]
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[3] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.[4][5]

Or the fact it was over 200 years ago, when the weapons used were muskets?

They didn't exactly draw up the constitution with any uniform clarity (and why should they, they weren't as sophisticated as we are now); if they had, there wouldn't be successive Supreme court cases that examines letter by letter exactly what may/or may not have been meant. I doubt we've seen the last of such cases.

[Yorkshire pud]

Yeah, but the whole thing is moot. We have 89 guns per 100 people. How does one reset the system where you can then determine who should have a gun and whom should not? If you're intent on using a gun for some criminal or insane purpose, you can simply steal one. You won't have to break into three houses in the US to find a gun. Or buy one from a private individual. You can dictate that everyone go get certified, but since you have no way of knowing where any of the guns are, the people that are the most likely to be a problem simply don't get certified and keep their gun hidden.

True; and that will be the case anywhere in the world. I can take you to cities in the UK where weapons can reputedly be bought and sold easily, although a friend of mine who is quite up on these things (no he isn't a criminal!), said it isn't as easy as some think it is. Of course it's supply and demand and if you have 89 guns for 100, it's hard not to be able to get one.

My point through all of this has been that it's realistically too late for the US. We might have been successful with gun control if we'd have put it in place in the 1960's, but not now. There's too much.

Oh I agree. I think unless you have the hot heads who the NRA have in their back pocket and the paranoids not being because they believe there's an imminent government plot to put everyone in FEMA camps out of the equation, you're on a hiding to nothing. But people don't live for ever. Whenever anything changes and evolves, there's a starting point. There was a time that we didn't need driving licences. There are still some in the UK who are driving who started out not needing one. My Grandfather drove and didn't have a licence in WW1 when he manned the ambulances, they took him off the front line to drive, as so few could.

But one day it was decided that certain criteria was needed to drive...Starting point.

We had a regs in the UK before the massacre at Dunblane in 96; post Dunblane we had more introduced. In my view they didn't go far enough, but it's what it was. There was an amnesty of firearms. ALL firearms, old flintlocks, sawn off shotguns, rifles brought back as souvenirs from wars etc, hand guns, anything that went bang. Handguns were made illegal to own. Replica firearms are illegal. Anyone caught in a bank robbery with anything that resembles a firearm will likely be having red laser dots trained on them by armed response teams.

So any attempt at gun control--which we tried under Clinton--fails. Sure, it puts a bunch of people in prison, which I *guess* is something, but it doesn't seem to do much for the death rate. Our only hope is confronting the culture rot that causes people to perpetrate violent crime against each other in the first place. But, because of political correctness, we aren't allowed to do that.

So confront it. It's my understanding that anyone can stand for President. Same as in the UK. You just need to get elected. Go on the ticket that confronts it.

Just look at how this thread has evolved. It's come down to Sandy Hook. 28 dead in that incident. Tragic, sure. But, um, the United States as a whole sees 87 gun deaths PER DAY on average. Way more children die from the background 87 per day than the occasional school shooting. But the every day numbers bear a strong tendency towards black inner city children. Again, tragic, but we're not really allowed to ask why that's occurring. We can only talk about white kids getting shot in the occasional school rampage without having to do the political correctness dance.

Indeed; and as a demograph the same can be said about the few incidences of gun violence in the UK. We have few though. I think 50 or so were killed by firearms in the UK in 2012, a lot of those were suicides with legitimately owned shotguns (Farmers mainly). Massacres hit the headlines because it's newsworthy, a black kid shooting another isn't seen as important, so therefore not newsworthy.

So we focus on the only thing we can think of: gun control, even though we know it won't work on any meaningful level. The only reason we do that is for a bunch of people to feel good and think they did something about a problem. But feeling good about one's self does not mean that a problem was solved or even dented. It just means that the lawyers will make a bunch of extra money when Grandpa goes to jail for not registering his trusty old shotgun he bought in 1951 because he called the police to check out a break-in and they search his place and find the gun.

Perhaps that is what happens there; but paradoxically I don't think it would here. It depends on the context. I'm not saying he wouldn't have it confiscated, or he'd have deep and searching questions asked, but I think the prosecution service wouldn't see it in the public interest to have it go to trial and pursue incarceration. Maybe a fine and probation. Of course, if he was unlicensed, the gun on show, loaded, and brandished when the door was opened, it would be a completely different kettle of haddock.

The bottom line is that we cannot fix this problem with gun control. We have zero chance of doing so. But what we all know that we've got a culture that is rotten to the absolute core from every subculture to the overarching American culture at large. Rotten, rotten, rotten. And we aren't allowed to talk about it because we'll be branded racist, pro-censorship, anti-Christian, pro-Christian or whatever else is needed to reinforce our taboos.

So get it mainstream; get elected. People by and large (not the opposite ends of the spectrum, they just believe what it is they want) are in the middle and accept that things can be fixed and often need to be.

Gun control here means running from our problems and putting a Band-Aid on a sucking chest wound. In the end, all I can say is be glad you live in Yorkshire because we've done everything we possibly can over the last 40 years to fuck the United States up beyond all recognition.

So why is that? (I'm genuinely interested). You know, I mentioned it in another topic and got off topic! I don't like war films as such, I'm not obsessed with war; I think it's disgusting and cruel. What does fascinate me are the people who were called into it from all sides. The Soviets lost more than all the other countries combined. They were fanatical in keeping Germany from rolling over them. Most Germans were not Nazis. Most Americans didn't come over to screw British women; They lost 250000* soldiers in the D Day landings.. Two hundred and fifty thousand! I can't even imagine that loss. Most were well under 30 (How that hasn't changed eh?) who hadn't been further than the county line, and yet were conscripted into a war a continent away. The AAF lost thousands of aircraft and crew. The same went for sailors.

Some on here think I hate the USA; nothing could be further from the truth. I have deep respect for the sacrifices they have made at the whim of their (and our) political leaders. I've been to the USA, I have friends over there. The hospitality I was shown was at times too much, not in a bad way, but I'm quite reserved so it was a bit of a culture shock..But then I've been to Kenya several times and was greeted by a local who I hadn't seen in 12 months as if he'd seen me yesterday.

Why is the USA broken? It didn't used to be.

No doubt someone will put all the blame on the Democrats.

* That figure may be greater than it was by a factor of X2. But even if it is, 125000 is still horrendous.

[Quick Karl]

[Yorkshire pud]

Not about guns, and is about a social aspect, but I thought this interesting. Certainly a novel approach.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25548061

Big government interfering or perhaps taking a pragmatic and possibly beneficial approach?

[Yorkshire pud]

Of course it's an unbiased appraisal!

Drug abuse; would that be prescribed or un prescribed?

Alcohol abuse: No-one has a drink for the first time intending to have a long term problem.

Tobacco:  Enough information out there and evidence to prove it's crap stuff.

Non firearm murders; Who is saying they're right?

All the rest are un-intended, and therefore not pre-meditated.

Someone who deliberately shoots someone isn't doing it to clear the air or substituting tin cans. The list you've trawled is in some way justification for nearly 12 000 firearm murders? What about suicides? Negligent discharges? Loaded weapons picked up by toddlers who take out their siblings? That's okay then? Or would they have killed their siblings in another way? Maybe thrown a ball of wool at them and causing an Aneurysm?

[FightTheFuture]

All the studies and statistics mean absolutely nothing. The fact is, the Second Amendment has been litigated over and over, and what is the result? We still have the right to keep and bear arms, and I still carry my loaded Sig Sauer SP2022 9mm semi-auto pistol, on my person, everywhere I go.

And next year, and the year after and 20 years later, that will not have changed a single bit.

[PB the Deplorable]

All the studies and statistics mean absolutely nothing. The fact is, the Second Amendment has been litigated over and over, and what is the result? We still have the right to keep and bear arms, and I still carry my loaded Sig Sauer SP2022 9mm semi-auto pistol, on my person, everywhere I go.

And next year, and the year after and 20 years later, that will not have changed a single bit.

There are lots of places a person can't get a concealed weapons permit.  And are in big trouble if they shoot someone while outside their home, even if they are defending themselves.

Neither of which are in compliance with he 2nd Amendment.

[Quick Karl]

http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html

Read it and weep, commies.

[Yorkshire pud]

http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html

Read it an weep, commies.

It sort of loses credibility with this:

Similarly, criminals can count on a vigorous defense of the fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches as well as the fifth amendment right not to incriminate oneself. All of this is true even though most of us would (p.1008)agree that Nazi hate language is of no utility, and a criminal's confession, absent coercion, and the fruits of a search of his or her house are among the best indicators of actual guilt or innocence. Yet, we zealously defend these rights on the premise that governmental abuse of power is a greater evil than that posed by individual hatemongers or criminals.

This suggests that the criminal justice protocols are by-passed and the presumption of innocence is forgotten. So we don't need a prosecution to present it's case in court, the defendant not to have the opportunity to be represented or tried by jury, overseen by a judge. Do not pass GO do not collect $200.

These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia.

Hmmm, this would be back in the late 18th century then. It's quite amusing they defaulted to not trusting government; which begs the question, why bother having one? Why entertain advocating the very thing you don't really trust? A bit like keeping a Lion in your living room, you just assume one day it will eat you, but you keep it anyway.

Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia.

Before a national army, navy or airforce. No mention of concealed carrying in public. Really before an 18th century man might be reasonably be expected to envisage such things. Although it's not widely known, the British 'army' were mainly mercenaries at that time. No-one could possibly have imagined anything close to what we had even a hundred years ago, let alone now.

[Quick Karl]

Pud, do you do this because your parents and children are disgusted by you? Only you could miss the larger issues in that article. You read one or two paragraphs and act like you are competent enough to offer a counter argument or undermine it.

Your seething hatred will destroy you and whatever family you might have. Seek help before you do something crazy.

[dan7800]

How many people who grew up around responsible gun owners, and have a reasonable amount of experience with them are for more gun control regulations?

A good friend of mine is an undercover cop in NYC who deals with informants. Most of them are real scumbags, but stay out of jail because they turn in even bigger scumbags. He says 99% of them are always (quite illegally) packing, and NYC has some of the toughest gun laws around.

Personally, I believe we've lost our sense of accountability in this country and we no longer have the personal accountability that we need to. Too many student loans? It is the school's fault. Cannot find a job? It is the fault of some rich person. Someone gets shot. It is the gun's fault. Cannot find a job out of school with your Art degree? It is the economy's fault.

[Mind Flayer Monk]

A good friend of mine is an undercover cop in NYC who deals with informants. Most of them are real scumbags, but stay out of jail because they turn in even bigger scumbags. He says 99% of them are always (quite illegally) packing, and NYC has some of the toughest gun laws around.

Firearms possession is how they pinch alot of those guys.

[Yorkshire pud]

Pud, do you do this because your parents and children are disgusted by you?

Do you resort to such 'insults' because you think it has an affect on me?

Only you could miss the larger issues in that article. You read one or two paragraphs and act like you are competent enough to offer a counter argument or undermine it.

Your seething hatred will destroy you and whatever family you might have. Seek help before you do something crazy.

You have a very skewed idea of what hatred is. Karl, I don't hate you. You're simply not worth the emotional expenditure. I have only once in my life been so consumed that I could hate; and I didn't bother. And trust me on this, but your feeble attempts to try and score vituperative points pale to insignificance on reasons why I would have hated  that individual.

Consider this; your avatar is of a bearded man from whom you have bought a duck caller as some token of your support of him. You state you're going to possibly march on DC (for what aim I have no idea-I suggested dragging out Obama onto the lawn, but you've not said); yet you have the laughable temerity to claim I'm crazy?

You're consistent if nothing else. 

[NowhereInTime]

Why not an AR-15?

Nancy wasn't the violent malcontent here, was she? 

As far as anyone can tell, her AR-15 was purchased for Adam.  Stored in the arms locker in HIS room.

Why does someone need a large caliber bolt action rifle with scope that can reach out and kill at 4x the distance what an AR-15 can?  These are especially popular with hunters.  But someone set up to kill innocents with one could easily re-purpose it as such in order to avoid being located.

Why does someone need a Ruger 10/22?  You can kill more people for much less money with a .22LR.

If we are going to suppose that gun are singularly meant to kill people, we really should include all of them, as they are all deadly and specialized in various situations.

Questioning why Nancy Lanza needed an AR-15 does nothing to honor those children.  Neither does questioning why I need one.  The question, as you pose it, would be to ask gun owners what they are doing with their guns on a constant basis as if this would catch Lanza in the act.  Is that correct?

No, I'm more along the line of, if Nancy could only purchase bolt action precision hunting rifles or shotguns, would Adam have been inspired by the mass, quick death brought on by assault weapons?

[NowhereInTime]

Well, firstly, an AR-15 isn't a 50 caliber. So you want to illegalize something without it ever having been shown to be a problem, and is unlikely to ever be a problem, because YOU think that it should be. That's the same thinking that brought about prohibition, actually. Tea drinking old ladies that wanted to take other people's pot and booze.

I don't get emotional over things like Adam Lanza. He was mentally ill and had subjected himself to years of violent imagery and then snapped. He would have killed people anyway, whether by driving a car into a crowd or a pipe bomb....

Whether an AR-15, with it's mass killing capabilities, or a .50 caliber rifle, which could explode an engine block from a mile away, what is the need for this level of force in civilian society?

I am sorry, but I do get emotional over "things like Adam Lanza" because of the fact that I lived in SH for 4 years, my brother still lives there, and when you come across family of lost littles one live and in person in town in chokes you to the core.  Nancy was an acquaintance of my brother; he had nothing but good things to say about her but I feel she was derelict in letting Adam develop his passion for firearms.

I do not agree with your conclusion that he would have developed a "pipe bomb" or driven his car into a crowd; there's no evidence to support that behavior.  He was gun obsessed, mass murder obsessed, and war-video game obsessed.

Frankly, I would be curious to see a clinical diagnosis that, I would wager, would speak to ultimate sexual frustration as a cause for anger.  I am untrained, but it would seem spot on to me that the rifle and its ability to potently spray would be fitting surrogates for the sexual contact Adam in fact lacked.

[DanTSX]

No, I'm more along the line of, if Nancy could only purchase bolt action precision hunting rifles or shotguns, would Adam have been inspired by the mass, quick death brought on by assault weapons?

Is that what inspired him?

Could he not have killed many with a scoped hunting rifle from concealment a substantial distance away?

A Remington 870 shotgun would had killed just as well in the school.  Possibly more effective.

Your considerations of the effectiveness of a particular weapon are flawed.  The AR-15 is actually a great hunting rifle.   But the 2A has nothing to do with hunting so I don't know why I should go down that route.

And why should I be responsible for her fuck ups?

[aldousburbank]

The only rational gun control standard is to limit caliber diameters to 1/5th of your IQ.

[DanTSX]

Whether an AR-15, with it's mass killing capabilities, or a .50 caliber rifle, which could explode an engine block from a mile away, what is the need for this level of force in civilian society?

I am sorry, but I do get emotional over "things like Adam Lanza" because of the fact that I lived in SH for 4 years, my brother still lives there, and when you come across family of lost littles one live and in person in town in chokes you to the core.  Nancy was an acquaintance of my brother; he had nothing but good things to say about her but I feel she was derelict in letting Adam develop his passion for firearms.

I do not agree with your conclusion that he would have developed a "pipe bomb" or driven his car into a crowd; there's no evidence to support that behavior.  He was gun obsessed, mass murder obsessed, and war-video game obsessed.

Frankly, I would be curious to see a clinical diagnosis that, I would wager, would speak to ultimate sexual frustration as a cause for anger.  I am untrained, but it would seem spot on to me that the rifle and its ability to potently spray would be fitting surrogates for the sexual contact Adam in fact lacked.

I hope you are joking with that last paragraph.

It would be very revealing of your own projections if you are not joking.

We desire semiautomatic rifles because we are sexually frustrated ?  Do I have that right?  That's freshman level psychology class.  C'mon man.

[DanTSX]

Estimated 300,000 complete and functional AR-15 style rifles in CT at the time of sandy hook.   Not even counting other types of semi autos. Or the 800,000 CT concealed carry permit holders

One single nut goes nuts and kills enabling mom, 20 kids and himself.   

Punish everyone else who never broke any law or used their gun for harm.

Makes sense right?  Control us. Forget about the guy with the issues

Why are you scared of the gun, but not Lanza?

You said it yourself.  This is all Nancy's fault.
Don't blame me.   Don't blame the NRA.   We were all as horrified as you.

[DanTSX]

The only rational gun control standard is to limit caliber diameters to 1/5th of your IQ.

Finally. Anti tank rounds within my reach

[Quick Karl]

Just one, of my babies...


A Mark 12 SPR clone I built after reading Lone Survivor - This was when the rifle was just built, I have since duracoated the barrel a nice, matte black, and added a folding front sight.

And, the best group I ever shot in my life (with same rifle)

Sucks I pulled the last shot and ruined the group.

I bet this will make a few of my special forum friends piss their panties...

I built it special for hunting quacks when the SHTF.

[Yorkshire pud]

Is that what inspired him?

Could he not have killed many with a scoped hunting rifle from concealment a substantial distance away?

A Remington 870 shotgun would had killed just as well in the school.  Possibly more effective.

He used what he had to hand I imagine. But that he went up close and personal because he wanted them to see him, he wanted his victims to be sure who their executioner was. He couldn't do that outside a school and just wait for them to exit using a scoped rifle. It's made sicker by the cases who make videos suggesting the whole thing was a hoax. (No I'm not suggesting anyone here is suggesting that).

[Quick Karl]

Here's another lil project of mine I did just for fun! It is a Smith-Corona 03A3 that I built - I got the rifle for free and it wouldn't shoot worth a darn.

             

A good friend gave me a genuine pre-64 Winchester 3-position safety, which I installed.

             

Then I made a titanium striker (note set-screw in threaded cocking piece to adjust firing pin protrusion).

           

And a modified 8620 cocking piece that reduces lock travel (the part hasn't been nitro-carburized yet in this photo and not shown is the rear of the sear extension ground to match the original slope).

             

I purchased a 26" Douglas barrel (finish - turned and deep chambered in 30-06 Ackley Improved) - all I had to do was move the shoulder to head space it. I head spaced it so the bolt would just drag on the 30-06 AI go gage I ordered from Pacific Tool and Gage.

             

Also, I had a Dakota bolt knob tig-welded on in place of the goofy handle that was on it, and installed a milled 03 bottom metal, a Timney trigger, and then I Parkerized it and dropped it into a Boyd's prairie Hunter (Aluminum pillar - MarineTex epoxy bedded)!

       

This is for quacks from the comfort of a long way off.

I have lots more