I'm interested to know, if gun control is the answer, what does that mean? I read a lot about needing to reevaluate gun control, but not a lot about how. There are A LOT of guns out there, so what measures could be implemented AND enforced that would make us safer?
gun control is only one small part of the issue, what about ammunition control? perhaps restricting the sale of high capacity magazines? restricting the sale of those super destructive bullets? I dont' know, it seems we ought to be able to agree on at least some steps that could be taken...
at any rate, here are some links with additional information:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/ny...n-newtown.html
and here's the link I was looking for:But they did give the specifics of the arsenal that her son brought to the school and gave a sense of the vast quantity of ammunition that he had. Lt. J. Paul Vance, a spokesman for the Connecticut State Police, said most of the shots were fired from a .223 Bushmaster semiautomatic carbine, a military-style assault weapon. Mr. Lanza was also carrying two semiautomatic pistols, a 10-millimeter Glock and a 9-millimeter Sig Sauer. A shotgun was found in the car....
While Lieutenant Vance said he did not yet know how many bullets had been fired, he did say investigators recovered “numerous” empty 30-round magazines for the Bushmaster rifle. The .223-caliber bullet is a small, high-velocity round that has been used by Western military forces for decades, in part because it inflicts devastating wounds...
In addition to multiple high-capacity magazines for the rifle, Lieutenant Vance said the gunman had brought a number of magazines for both pistols.
Collectively, he said, there were hundreds of unfired bullets.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/ny...ad-in-all.html
So this was one of those situations where it really didn't matter what sort of security measures may have been in place to screen visitors to the school...The gunman in the Connecticut shooting blasted his way into the elementary school and then sprayed the children with bullets, first from a distance and then at close range, hitting some of them as many as 11 times, as he fired a semiautomatic rifle loaded with ammunition designed for maximum damage, officials said Saturday....
...Outfitted in combat gear, Mr. Lanza shot his way in, defeating a security system requiring visitors to be buzzed in. This contradicted earlier reports that he had been recognized and allowed to enter the one-story building. “He was not voluntarily let into the school at all,” Lieutenant Vance said. “He forced his way in.”
The lieutenant’s account was consistent with recordings of police dispatchers who answered call after call from adults at the school. “The front glass has been broken,” one dispatcher cautioned officers who were rushing there, repeating on the police radio what a 911 caller had said on the phone. “They are unsure why.”
personally I'm not sure it's THE answer in any case...Originally Posted by Bronco70
but there might be things that could be tried that would not really infringe on the "right to bear arms"
I have a question too. I sort of understand people who enjoy the sport and challenge of target shooting, and/or hunting and those who feel they need a gun for protection, but I don't really understand what is meant when someone is said to have a "fascination" with guns...
Aside from their potential to do great bodily harm and/or kill, what is the fascination? Is it a fascination with the mechanics of how a gun works? If so, isn't there some other mechanical device that might be equally fascinating? Is it the loud noise that attracts some people? If so, why not take up the drums? I guess what I'm saying is that I think that for some people, what's so fascinating and appealing about guns is the fact that they do kill and maim. Otherwise, why not shoot blanks? Or an air gun? And why the need for super-damaging bullets and high capacity magazines? Do hunters need them to successfully kill their quarry?
I think this video pretty much sums it up.
I don't want to participate in this thread or this site, but I feel compelled to address one thing.
Super-destructive bullets and the purchase of large quantities of ammo.
There are many types of ammo. Some of it is lead with a full layer of copper completely covering the cone. That is called "Full-Jacket." That full jacket give the bullet better penetration through things like car doors, light body armor, windows, the thick skin of a boar or bear.
There is "hollow-point" ammo. This ammo usually has a partial coating of copper around the base of the cone and the nose of the cone has been removed and a small indentation exists at the tip of the bullet. This causes the bullet to expand more quickly when it impacts.
Both bullets have been described by gun control advocates as some monstrous innovation intended only to cause greater death and destruction.
A full metal jacket bullet is what our military uses. It penetrates better, but is somewhat less lethal when used against a person wearing no armor. That is because it is more likely to pass through the person and leave a smaller wound because it does not expand as much. The military has no need to kill every enemy soldier dead on the battlefield and wounded soldiers are more taxing on the enemies resources than dead soldiers, so there is some benefit to disabling enemies than in killing them.
Hollow points are better at stopping an non-body armored foe. The bullet's expansion releases almost all of the bullet's force into the person who is shot as well as leaving a larger wound. However, this ammo is particularly poor at penetrating body armor, car doors, or other obstructions. For instance, if you were to fire a hollow point in your apartment at someone attacking you and you missed, the bullet would be much less likely to carry enough force into the neighboring apartment and harm an innocent person. Also, if the person attacking you was particularly large, wearing a leather jacket and hopped up on PCP you may not have enough penetration to stop them in time.
That's just a quick look at two different types of ammo. A factor equally as (if not more) important is the caliber of ammo being used. For instance, almost no body armor can stop a rifle bullet. I'm not talking about "assault-rifles" which is a misnomer as it is predominately used, any rifle, like granpa's old hunting rifle. Use hollow points, soft points, full jacket, whatever. It will most likely penetrate body armor.
On the other hand, hand guns will seldom penetrate good body armor. Besides that, from most of what I've read hollow points are more a marketing ploy in hand gun ammo, as most handguns do not produce the velocity required to cause the ammo to spread in soft tissue. So the bullet usually acts much like a full metal jacket round.
On the contrary, rifle ammo will almost always "mushroom" when it hits tissue. Besides, the force of a rifle bullet will be devastating regardless of ammo type. The best you can hope for if shot by a rifle is that the bullet will pass through you completely carrying much of the force with it.
So again, do you think we should ban the "cop-killing" (hype term) full metal jacket ammo, or the super lethal (hype term) hollow point ammo. I've heard both types should be banned using arguments by people who clearly do not understand the actual performance of ammo in handguns.
On the purchase of large quantities of ammo:
When I purchase a firearm I like to become very proficient in its use. To do this I buy several hundred rounds of ammo and shoot the gun. It is only by shooting the gun several hundred times that I feel competent in its use and confident in the reliability of the firearm. To restrict the number of round I can purchase you would only be reducing my ability to become proficient with that weapon, increasing the chances that I will not use it effectively and/or that I will miss my target, therefore creating greater risk to innocent people.
The statement that guns are only meant to kill is beyond false. Police often use a drawn gun and a verbal command to control a situation. A person holding a gun is typically enough to desuade a would-be attacker from carrying out an attack. The sound of a shotgun being racked will cause a burglar to **** their pants. Guns are meant to push a projectile out the bore and send it in a predictable direction. If guns were only meant to kill then a grenade would be as useful to a police officer as a firearm, as a grenade is as effective at killing as any gun. With a gun you can hit a specific target, or use the treat of the firearm to stop a potential attacker because they and only they could be killed.
thank you for your answers, perhaps there are issues here to discuss - or perhaps not. But at least it's information I didn't have before.
And perhaps there can never be any agreement on these issues and we will just have to accept that these sorts of things are going to happen and that's the price we pay for living in a democracy.
exactly... the deterrence is only because of the bodily harm they can cause...
that's the point.
As for fascination with guns...
As my earlier post might indicate, I like to fully understand the firearms I purchase. It is something that might be used at a critical moment and determine the difference between life and death, for me, my family and for someone who means us harm. I don't have a fascination with killing a person, but I would say that I have an interest in firearms.
In the Navy I was a Fire Controlman. That is a person who maintains, troubleshoots, repairs and operates shipboard weapon systems. My specialty was ship's self-defense weapon systems. Specifically the Phalanx (CIWS) cannon and the RAM Missile system. For both of these weapons no one touched them in any way shape or form other than the people in my work center. We did everything that had anything to do with them. We took care of the the computer control systems, the mechanical devices that moved the weapon, the communication systems that the weapon used, the radar systems (for CIWS but not RAM, RAM relied on shipboard radars and fired missiles that contained their own guidance systems) and we were the ones who used the weapon (as in verifying targets and pushing the fire button). It was a job that absolutely required a certain level of "fascination" with the weapon system that we were tasked with using in the event that someone attempted to destroy the ship I was on and the 6000 people who were on that ship with me, needless to mention the 80+ aircraft.
I also served temporarily in the ships security department. In that job I performed armed patrols of the ship while it was at sea and was a member of the ship's Initial Response Team, which responded to any attempted boarding or whatever other crisis that might arise. In port overseas we also acted a gate guards, inspecting people and vehicles from the local community that had any business on the ship.
Anyway, fascination with a weapon you might rely upon and fascination with killing people are two completely different things. If I am obsessed with killing people I will likely become fascinated with the tools I intend to use, but that does not mean every person who is deeply interested in firearms is a potential killer.
well, I understand your view and respect your general sort of way. . . . but I just have to comment on this "demcracy" thing. I know that's what schools, the media, and general governance personnel like to say we are. . . . and what most people think we are. . . .
So here's Benjamin Franklin's take on "Democracy": "Two wolves and sheep deciding who's for dinner".
If you fundamentally believe 51% of the people can define the rights of all, you do not believe in liberty, human rights or even have a decent respect for your neighbors. . . . just sayin'. . . . .
And believing that a President should use "Executive Orders" to skirt around legislators who can't get a bill passed would put you in the fascist camp, solidly.
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=23430406&nid...cid=featured-1
Where the hell are the parents? Why the hell don't they lock their weapons up?KEARNS — An 11-year-old boy who brought a gun to a West Kearns Elementary School Monday is facing criminal charges after allegedly threatening a classmate.
Granite School District administrators said the sixth-grader packed the .22 caliber handgun, along with ammunition, in his backpack and brought it to class.
The boy told administrators he did it to protect himself in case a school shooting similar to the massacre in Newtown, Conn., happened here. But classmate Isabelle Rios said that's not how he used the weapon.
"He pulled out a gun and he put it to my head — me and my friend — (and) said he was going to kills us," Isabelle said. "I told him I was going to tell, but he said, ‘If you tell, I'm going to kill you.'"
Isabelle said it happened during morning recess, but she didn't alert her teacher until around 3:00 in the afternoon.
Upon learning the information the teacher acted quickly, disarming the student in a matter of seconds, and took him to the school's office. Police officers were called and arrived within minutes.
"This teacher in particular put herself with this student and took him into physical custody to ensure that he was not able to use that weapon to harm anybody," said Ben Horsley, spokesman for the Granite School District.
The gun was found in the boy's backpack, Horsley said. There was ammunition there too, but the gun was not loaded when the teacher found it.
Family members of students remained at West Kearns Elementary throughout the evening as they were briefed about the situation.
"I'm taking my kids out of school. They ain't coming back here," said Mandee Doyle, whose children attend the school.
Gun Control can start with making it a felony for not having their guns locked up. I believe these parents have lost their 2nd amendment rights. We could have easily had another tragedy. Take the guns away from these dumbass irresponsible parents and fine the hell out of them.
Corbin sucks.
There's a whole lot of common sense missing in this. I wouldn't imagine there aren't already laws on the books adequate to deal with this situation. School policy will probably require the kid to be kicked out, held back, or put in some juvenile offender sort of sitch. . . . The parents are likely to face charges of several types, including I imagine negligent endangerment of school children. They could face proceedings to terminate their parental rights. . . . .Where the hell are the parents? Why the hell don't they lock their weapons up?
In days gone by, the kid would have been relieved of his gun, and his parents expected to discipline him. .. . in terms that would register the severity of the offense permanently perhaps. A good school teacher would have said. . . . "I can understand your anxiety, Bobby. . . . except what the hell do you think your classmates are going to do when you point this at their heads?"
The official action in this case should be on par with that which bearing any weapon and threatening other children with it would be.
a few pages back, I said the shooter in CT was a victim of our times. Let me explain that a bit. We have a lot of psychiatric drugs that are being shown by events like shootings to have in some people an effect of completely scrambling their moral reasoning. . . . the inhibitions that ordinarily prevent extreme or rash or violent behavior. The kid in CT, still a "kid" at 20, was on these drugs. His mother was worried, complaining to whoever would listen, that she was afraid, and that something was terribly wrong. He could not feel pain. Some disconnect was going on in his brain.
Yet we are mass medicating our whole population with these drugs, often over fairly trivial concerns. Rather than using restrained and reasoned disciplinary measures designed to reinforce consideration of actions and their effects and the responsibility of our kids to learn to treat others with respect.
I think imagining that we can legislate common sense while refusing to effectively teach moral personal accountability is in itself a social illness in those who think that's the way to go, which I would label "profound lack of common sense". And relying on medications which have side effects of impairing our mental processes of moral or whatever reasoning it takes to project a link between our line of contemplated conduct, and our responsibilities to others. . . . .is way out there. "overprescription of psychiatric drugs syndrome" is a mental illness that ought to be considered fair reason to terminate professional practice of psychiatry. . . . or school health counseling. . . .
kids pick locks. the CT shooter broke through the security doors. The local parents of the 11-yr old kid have, probably, lost their kids from this. . . . when the legal process grinds out it's verdicts. . .. and hundreds of thousands in legal costs, if they have it. They are probably bankrupt. There are already too many damned stupid laws, and the more laws you make, the stupider people will get. . . . you're not going to accomplish anything with this. . . .Gun Control can start with making it a felony for not having their guns locked up. I believe these parents have lost their 2nd amendment rights. We could have easily had another tragedy. Take the guns away from these dumbass irresponsible parents and fine the hell out of them.
CT has some of the strongest laws on the books of any state. The mom of the CT shooter apparently gave her life to try to stop her kid. Probably the next fifty or one hundred parents worried about a psychiatric patient kid on Prosac or whatever will take the guns out of the house, store them in a place the kid doesn't know about, leave the key with a friend in the next state. . . . . I mean if we weren't being dumbed down and strung out on medications wholesale to the effect that nobody has any common sense or personal reasoning anymore. . . .
I promised myself I wasn't going to comment on this for a while, so I gave it a few days.
The full on attack on gun rights by the left is downright scary. I put on MSNBC for a bit yesterday and it's literally all they talked about.
My take is this, gun control is fine, but only if you impose the same restrictions on EVERYONE. Don't tell me I can't have an assault rifle, but give the police an unlimited supply of assault rifles.
One law for everyone, that's real justice, right?
There are way too many guns out there to try to control them now. A large portion of gun crimes committed are done by people who are already restricted from owning a gun.
Criminals absolutely will get guns. If you make them illegal, you're only taking them away from the good guys.
Put a school cop in every school. That would have been way more effective than banning assault rifles in this case.
By the way, you can make your own guns with a 3d printer these days. If you outlaw guns, you'll only be creating a huge black market for criminals to get them without restriction. We already have a pretty big black market for that, just imagine if the local street thug selling them was making millions.
It's a terrible idea.
Who's going to pay for the cops? You know as well as I know how cheap our state is when it comes to education and the police department. Hell, wasn't SLCPD facing cuts and possible layoffs just a year ago?
When you can't raise taxes.... And you drastically need to increase spending... But you don't have the revenue... What are we supposed to do?
Many schools in Utah don't even have AC. And yet some of you are suggesting putting metal detectors, bullet proof glass, and now cops at every school?
We're already dead last in per-pupil funding.
Soooooo where's this money gonna come from? Even a tiny school district like Provo has... What... 8? Elementary schools? That's 8 cops right there. 3 Jr. highs? 11 new cops. The 2 HS's already have cops...
11 new cops. Pay them 40k each... Plus benefits... Well, we can all do the math...
Imagine what the cost is going to be like for bigger districts, such as Alpine, Davis, Or Jordan!!!
You best be ready for a heavy tax increase....
Or... A solution might be bringing the damn troops home to protect our own borders, schools, and malls... But that would mean we wouldn't be able to police the world without a draft....
Corbin sucks.
I just looked up there are about 94,000 elementary and secondary schools in the US. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/overview...es/table_2.asp
That would cost us less than $10bln @ $100,000 total cost per job. That's probably cheaper than enforcing more gun control laws, and much more effective. Get it done. Hell, fund two officers per school.
hOLA hoDIPO
I think you nailed it. Bring the troops home, retrain them, and send them to the schools.
I'm also totally in favor of raising taxes, especially on the wealthiest.
And I'm in favor of bringing a lottery to Utah to raise even more revenue.
And I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana for even more revenue.
Heck we could legalize casinos for even more revenue.
There are plenty of untapped revenue streams available. The solution isn't to start taking away freedoms.
Remember when the republicans were pushing the patriot act, and all the democrats were quoting Ben Franklin, saying "Those who sacrifice freedom in the name of security deserve neither," (or whatever the exact quote was). That goes both ways.
I think you nailed it though. If we do anything at all about this problem, it's either going to cost more money, which means tapping into revenue streams republicans have previously been against (which should have already been legal if we're truly free), raising taxes that republicans have been against, or banning guns.
I'm all for any of them, except banning the guns. And I could be swayed on the guns as long as they were also being banned for the police, military, and every other American. If there's a case for them to have them, then the same case can be made for me, you, and any other legal American.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote