26 dead in Connecticut elementary school

[ivan]

BTW, the last two posts were me (Tvash) posting as Ivan. Too damn lazy to logout/login.

 

 

[prole]

I am not disagreeing with you in principle and will accept your insult, but experienced MMA COULD wreak havoc if they wanted. They don't because they are generally not mentally ill. And Jackie Chan would get his ass kicked by the top MMA people.

 

People, are we really going to allow the opportunity for national dialogue on this issue go by the boards? Now is the time for setting aside our partisan differences and engaging in a real debate. The MMA vs. Jackie Chan Question is just too important right now and needs to be settled once and for all if we are to move forward as a nation, as a species, really.

[prole]

BTW, the last two posts were me (Tvash) posting as Ivan. Too damn lazy to logout/login.

 

Gay

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Weighting the benefits and harms, it would be best for everyone if handguns were banned along with assault rifles. They save far fewer people than they hurt. Sorry, gun freaks. Your costly little hero fantasy is just too expensive for the rest of us.

 

There are handguns and there are handguns. Folks have a right to defend themselves, and I think there's a way to accommodate that right w/o owning semi-automatic pistols with large volume magazine clips.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

BTW, the last two posts were me (Tvash) posting as Ivan. Too damn lazy to logout/login.

 

Gay

 

For once I agree with Prole.

 

Gay, gay, gay. NTTAWWT

[matt_warfield]

I am not disagreeing with you in principle and will accept your insult, but experienced MMA COULD wreak havoc if they wanted. They don't because they are generally not mentally ill. And Jackie Chan would get his ass kicked by the top MMA people.

 

People, are we really going to allow the opportunity for national dialogue on this issue go by the boards? Now is the time for setting aside our partisan differences and engaging in a real debate. The MMA vs. Jackie Chan Question is just too important right now and needs to be settled once and for all if we are to move forward as a nation, as a species, really.

 

Okay, I got off track. I'll stick with my argument that treatment of mental illness is key and gun control is a red herring. And these issues should be national dialogue. And again three clips of 10 shells equals 30 in a "large" magazine. But I would have no problem controling assault weapons.

 

Obama is talking about this right now and NRA is going to have a press release Friday. Should be entertaining.

Edited December 19, 2012 by matt_warfield

[ivan]

bring back the blunderbuss!

[ivan]

I am not disagreeing with you in principle and will accept your insult, but experienced MMA COULD wreak havoc if they wanted. They don't because they are generally not mentally ill. And Jackie Chan would get his ass kicked by the top MMA people.

 

People, are we really going to allow the opportunity for national dialogue on this issue go by the boards? Now is the time for setting aside our partisan differences and engaging in a real debate. The MMA vs. Jackie Chan Question is just too important right now and needs to be settled once and for all if we are to move forward as a nation, as a species, really.

 

Okay, I got off track. I'll stick with my argument that treatment of mental illness is key and gun control is a red herring. And these issues should be national dialogue.

 

Most mass shooters don't broadcast their intentions to an actionable degree. Yes, better mental health care access is something we've needed to do since Reagan fucked it all up, but gun control is what we can do something about across the board. The recent pro gun dialog has labeled it a red herring - it's not, of course. It works, and its something we should do.

 

I'd be OK with legal revolvers, all other handguns illegal. You want self defense? You've got six rounds to make it happen. Any more than that and you didn't go to the gun range often enough, pal. Sorry.

[matt_warfield]

And dueling. And cannons. And swordfights. We are mostly civilized but that touch of violence creeps in.

 

I forgot about walking the plank.

 

 

[matt_warfield]

Ivan, I would agree but if you believe in self defense you believe in semi-auto. Ask any law enforcement officer, none of whom use revolvers. It's not about 6 rounds, it's about cocking all the time if you have multiple threats. I just don't see the difference between a six shooter and a Glock.

 

Let's concentrate on taking out assault rifles and machine guns.

 

But I will agree that people need to have proper training and they often don't. Gun ownership is a responsibility along with being a right.

 

And at the gun range you see a lot more semi-autos than revolvers, many handled expertly and safely.

 

But I can see I'm swimming upstream on this thread so will retreat to the sanctuary of rural Montana, where gun ownership is sacred.

Edited December 19, 2012 by matt_warfield

[ivan]

Private citizens don't need access to the same weapons as the police, who do use lots and lots of military weapons these days.

 

If you need a Glock for self defense, try hanging out with a better crowd instead.

 

You don't have to cock a revolver to fire multiple rounds.

 

Yup, plenty of responsible automatic owners who would need to give up their weapons.

 

They can blame all those irresponsible ones should such a long needed ban come about.

 

I'm sure if grenades were legal there would be lots of 'responsible owners'.

Edited December 19, 2012 by ivan

[matt_warfield]

There must be some reason why they make all those semi-autos and I can't remember ever seeing a police officer with other than a semi-auto in a holster. It is the criminals that have AK-47, Mac-10 and etc.

 

But I respect the opinions of the thoughtful and knowledgable anti-gun side.

 

I own a 9 mil and also have a black belt in karate and have never had to use either one in self defense, but have had several pointed at me so I am having a hard time with this argument.

Edited December 19, 2012 by matt_warfield

[ivan]

The 'only outlaws' argument is bullshit. Where do the outlaws get their guns? Um...from the commercial market any time they damn well feel like it. If they weren't available at all, they wouldn't have them, or they'd have to smuggle them, which would greatly reduce the supply.

 

The 'too many already in circulation' argument doesn't wash either - just a nonsensical excuse to continue to do nothing. Increase penalties for banned weapons ownership and you'll see all kinds of owners, criminal and law abiding, give them up right quick like.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Use a semi automatic weapon in a crime? Fast-track death penalty - trial and execution within 2 years.

 

[KirkW]

The 'only outlaws' argument is bullshit. Where do the outlaws get their guns? Um...from the commercial market any time they damn well feel like it. If they weren't available at all, they wouldn't have them, or they'd have to smuggle them, which would greatly reduce the supply.

 

The 'too many already in circulation' argument doesn't wash either - just a nonsensical excuse to continue to do nothing. Increase penalties for banned weapons ownership and you'll see all kinds of owners, criminal and law abiding, give them up right quick like.

 

You don't get out of WA much do you Tvash? Good luck with that theory in places like Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Texas, etc,etc.

 

Of course strict punishment has worked so well with drugs, murder and rape that they've all but disappeared from this country, right?

 

You should log in under your own avatar. You're making Ivan look like an idiot.

[AlpineK]

Weighting the benefits and harms, it would be best for everyone if handguns were banned along with assault rifles. They save far fewer people than they hurt. Sorry, gun freaks. Your costly little hero fantasy is just too expensive for the rest of us.

 

There are handguns and there are handguns. Folks have a right to defend themselves, and I think there's a way to accommodate that right w/o owning semi-automatic pistols with large volume magazine clips.

 

 

Everybody retains handguns and rifles. The only difference is no more rapid fire weapons.

 

Rapid fire weapons have no place in hunting, and you probably don't need them for self defense unless your favorite hobby is gang warfare.

[matt_warfield]

The 'only outlaws' argument is bullshit. Where do the outlaws get their guns? Um...from the commercial market any time they damn well feel like it. If they weren't available at all, they wouldn't have them, or they'd have to smuggle them, which would greatly reduce the supply.

 

The 'too many already in circulation' argument doesn't wash either - just a nonsensical excuse to continue to do nothing. Increase penalties for banned weapons ownership and you'll see all kinds of owners, criminal and law abiding, give them up right quick like.

 

You don't get out of WA much do you Tvash? Good luck with that theory in places like Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Texas, etc,etc.

 

Of course strict punishment has worked so well with drugs, murder and rape that they've all but disappeared from this country, right?

 

You should log in under your own avatar. You're making Ivan look like an idiot.

 

+1 Criminals always have guns. We can pass every law we want and they still will. Drugs are illegal too but are pervasive. Don't think that the same smuggling techniques bringing heroin and coke into the country don't apply to weapons.

 

And I saw on the news some school districts are allowing teachers to pack while in school in case this shit happens again.

 

It is not the fiscal cliff but the views on gun control are pretty similar.

 

But like Kirk said, I'm from rural Montana and bringing liberal views on gun control is going to get a bunch of steely eyes around here. But then they are not the ones doing mass murder.

[matt_warfield]

Weighting the benefits and harms, it would be best for everyone if handguns were banned along with assault rifles. They save far fewer people than they hurt. Sorry, gun freaks. Your costly little hero fantasy is just too expensive for the rest of us.

 

There are handguns and there are handguns. Folks have a right to defend themselves, and I think there's a way to accommodate that right w/o owning semi-automatic pistols with large volume magazine clips.

 

 

Everybody retains handguns and rifles. The only difference is no more rapid fire weapons.

 

Rapid fire weapons have no place in hunting, and you probably don't need them for self defense unless your favorite hobby is gang warfare.

 

I couldn't agree more. But to debate guns you have to absolutely understand the differences between types of guns and especially the difference between semi-auto (one trigger pull per shell) and full-auto (one trigger pull and lots of shells). Unfortunately semi-auto can be converted to full auto in assault rifles which is why they should be banned. But banning handguns when assault rifles are doing the damage is over the top.

 

Hunting as about one or two quick shots with a rifle and thugs and gangs and serial killers are about full auto. But in Montana we don't want the latter to prevent the former because of idealists.

Edited December 19, 2012 by matt_warfield

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Weighting the benefits and harms, it would be best for everyone if handguns were banned along with assault rifles. They save far fewer people than they hurt. Sorry, gun freaks. Your costly little hero fantasy is just too expensive for the rest of us.

 

There are handguns and there are handguns. Folks have a right to defend themselves, and I think there's a way to accommodate that right w/o owning semi-automatic pistols with large volume magazine clips.

 

 

Everybody retains handguns and rifles. The only difference is no more rapid fire weapons.

 

Rapid fire weapons have no place in hunting, and you probably don't need them for self defense unless your favorite hobby is gang warfare.

 

I couldn't agree more. But to debate guns you have to absolutely understand the differences between types of guns and especially the difference between semi-auto (one trigger pull per shell) and full-auto (one trigger pull and lots of shells). Unfortunately semi-auto can be converted to full auto in assault rifles which is why they should be banned. But banning handguns when assault rifles are doing the damage is over the top.

 

Hunting as about one or two quick shots with a rifle and thugs and gangs and serial killers are about full auto. But in Montana we don't want the latter to prevent the former because of idealists.

 

I am OK with semiautomatic pistols if there are no removal clips - manufacturers can sell guns you load into the handle and you get one set of 6 or 8 shots or whatever is standard there.

 

Also, you can own only one such gun for self-defense - no stockpiling weapons for the apocalypse, and sorry "collectors", find something else to collect.

[matt_warfield]

I would agree with that and it makes a lot of sense. If self defense can't be taken care of with one clip, you have serious problems.

 

A semi-auto with multiple clips is nearly an assault peopon.

 

I am just against using well planned and orchestrated events like this, the mall sniper, Columbine, Gabby, and etc. to rain down on responsible gun owners.

Edited December 19, 2012 by matt_warfield

[ivan]

 

You should log in under your own avatar. You're making Ivan look like an idiot.

not that i've ever needed help in that department...

 

i'm all for reducing the world population - perhaps if we put vaccines in all the bullets? a free bushmaster w/ every anti-botulism shot?

[matt_warfield]

I hadn't read your admission but nobody on this site or anywhere else can impersonate ivan. He is absolutely a true original.

Edited December 19, 2012 by matt_warfield

[ivan]

He is absolutely a true original.

if i have sprayed further than those before me, it is only because i have stood on the shoulders of imbeciles

[matt_warfield]

He is absolutely a true original.

if i have sprayed further than those before me, it is only because i have stood on the shoulders of imbeciles

 

And for your info, I know that 90% of people do not understand gun ownership and are not responsible. Just none in Montana.

[Jim]

 

I am OK with semiautomatic pistols if there are no removal clips - manufacturers can sell guns you load into the handle and you get one set of 6 or 8 shots or whatever is standard there.

 

Also, you can own only one such gun for self-defense - no stockpiling weapons for the apocalypse, and sorry "collectors", find something else to collect.

 

While I'd prefer to do more, this seems like a reasonable start - in addition to required background checks/waiting periods/registrations for gun shows and a tighter leash on sellers at shows.