Should guns be banned?

[DevilDawg1]

an assault rifle is capable of selective fire and has a detachable box magazine. huge difference.

Lots of weapons have the detachable box magazine.
Selective fire - I take that this means some form of (true) automatic fire. If you do not have FFL it is illegal to own one of these weapons.

Semi-Auto - One trigger pull equals one round. Lots of these in all kinds of varieties.

 

[Skydyvyr]

All speculation on the shooter aside, if YOU were personally planning on killing multiple people, would you really not consider areas where you knew you could attack unimpeded? Come on.

Gun free zones make for some of the best soft targets.

I don't care to speculate on where I would attack as attacking is not in my DNA in any way, but I guess it depends on what my true motive would be -- If I wanted to go out in a blaze of glory/infamy (in my own mind), shooting unarmed, defenseless 6 & 7 year old kids cowering in a classroom would seem pretty much like a punk a** way to do it.

As I've mentioned before in this thread, if it were body count I was after, a firearm would only be part of the plan to defend myself while I accomplished my goals with other tools at my disposal.

So let me ask a questions back: If the shooter’s ultimate goal is to die, why not choose a police station instead? It seems the ultimate goal would be met quicker there.

For clarity sake, once again, using a weapon of any kind against another human being with the intent to harm or kill (outside of the defense of my family or myself) is not part of who I am. I cannot even begin to understand why someone would.

--Sky

 

[DevilDawg1]

No, because it's not true. It's a lot easier for a someone to snap and grab a bunch of unsecured firearms with high capacity mags and drive to a school to shoot it up, than it is for them to, let's say, build a bomb on the spur of the moment.

Bomb - bottle of gas with rag as a wick, and a lighter = boom and big fire. Not very hard, not even expensive, but really effective.

 

[DevilDawg1]

apparently ur not very familar with how easy it is to make an AR-15 into an a full automatic. a drop In auto sear or lightning-link makes a conversion to full automatic is very straightforward. and the clips available are not condusive to hunting but any rifle can shoot and kill anyone buts its quite easy to convert to fully auto. not so with ur average hunting rifle.

and an AR-15 is set up as a modular design which allows the use of numerous accessories such as suppresors, lasers, muzzle brakes, vertical forward grips, etc...

so yes HUGE difference!

Just a little more to it than that, and a little bit of money to go with it.

 

[Blanca BusaLess]

Lots of weapons have the detachable box magazine.
Selective fire - I take that this means some form of (true) automatic fire. If you do not have FFL it is illegal to own one of these weapons.

Semi-Auto - One trigger pull equals one round. Lots of these in all kinds of varieties.

You do not have to have an FFL to own a machine gun. This is half the problem we have is half the people arguing over guns and the control of them don't have a clue what they are talking about.

A select fire weapon otherwise known as a machine gun is a registered firearm controlled under the NFA act of 1934 and GCA act of 1968. They are legal in almost 40 states. Anyone who can pass a detailed 90 day background check by BATF and the FBI can own one. A one time $200 tax registration stamp is required. I've owned several in my life. I know many who own them.
Suppresors are also legal and registered in same fashion.
You also have things called 'destructive devices' like mortars, launchers and missiles which again are legal to own in many states. You cannot tell me when the last time a legal machine gun was used in a crime. The kind of person who spends almost 20,000 on a legal M16 and goes thru a 90 day check is not the kind of person you need worry about. I know some very high profile extremely rich people who own class III weapons.

So when we talk about assault weapons and select fire weapons as well as what they are and the current laws regarding them can we please at least educate ourselves before speaking?

We need to keep in mind that many shotguns were included in the last assault weapons ban due to high capacity and or black ugliness.

 

[GsxrBots]

Blanca you can't expect the Anti-s to learn about what they hate.

And Willie, I'm struggling to wrap my head around your logic, as I'm sure you are ours. Have you ever been to a range with a group of guys/gals?

Really wishing you would have went with us all at the Spring Bash.. Its a lot of fun, and it has nothing to do with death or murder. Nothing like the smell of gunpowder in the morning....

 

[Flicka]

It's not at all and it really seems like fun. But if you are saying the only reason you have guns is because it's fun then those kids death is not worth that. I know you weren't saying that, but maybe the gun types have to give a little in the interest of not having this happen so much.

I'm not saying that at all. And unless I intend to use my firearms for illegal activities, it's nobody's business why I choose to own them.

 

[Blanca BusaLess]

apparently ur not very familar with how easy it is to make an AR-15 into an a full automatic. a drop In auto sear or lightning-link makes a conversion to full automatic is very straightforward. and the clips available are not condusive to hunting but any rifle can shoot and kill anyone buts its quite easy to convert to fully auto. not so with ur average hunting rifle.

and an AR-15 is set up as a modular design which allows the use of numerous accessories such as suppresors, lasers, muzzle brakes, vertical forward grips, etc...

so yes HUGE difference!

Apparently you're not either. Geesh some of the things people say about guns just makes me wanna .
No semi automatic reciever has been made that will accept a drop in auto sear in over twenty yrs, first.
Second in order to purchase a DIAS you have to go thru same registration process one would have to go thru if you were buying an entire M16.
Third the last one I saw for sale legally was over $6,000.
Fourth even of you got ahold of a functioning DIAS your gun would not be full auto.
You would need a M16 bolt carrier which differes greatly from an Ar15 bolt carrier.
You would also need an M16 hammer. You would also need to know how to install that hammer and time it properly with said aforementioned DIAS.
So no it's not easy to make an Ar15 full auto unless you buy one of those gimmick devices which don't allow you to hold weapon properly.


I don't have a problem discussing guns and their regulation but can I at least do it with people who know what they are talking about?

 

[masterblaster]

Arch, you seem like a very reasonable individual, don't think anyone here is not a upset about this event than you are. Some people have the AR type weapons because they are private proof, meaning a private in the Army can maintain and shoot them and they can take a lot of abuse from a private and still work. They are not really the most effective weapons, civilians have a much better selection available to them but they take knowledge and skill to maintain and shoot effectively so few people get them. I have a decent selection spanning the range of normal self defense weapons. All my kids and wife (also a Army vets) are trained in these weapons by me and the US Military, we are all trained in normal military weapons including land mines, AT rockets, mortars, sniper weapons, MG's big and small. There are tens of millions of people out there like me and my family, the weapons the popular culture (sheeple) think are the most dangerous are not really the most dangerous. The most dangerous weapon is a demented determined individual intent on killing innocents and themselves in order to get revenge or to go down in history or just because they got a bad cup of java at dunkin donuts. I myself get very suspicious when I see the rich and elite class in this country openly attempting to restrict our freedoms further than they have already, they really think we are not responsible to enough to be as free as we have been since 1776. Remember the words of the gerat orator Rhom Emanual "Never let a crisis go to waste". Be on guard buddy, make no mistake, the elite really would like to not have the headache of a messy democracy. They really do think that little of the commoners in this country. Look at what has happened since 1945 til now how much freedom we have lost and how much corruption at the highest levels is condoned or ignored. Watch what they (the msm and our politicians) do (and have done) not what they say they will do.

It's not at all and it really seems like fun. But if you are saying the only reason you have guns is because it's fun then those kids death is not worth that. I know you weren't saying that, but maybe the gun types have to give a little in the interest of not having this happen so much.

 

[DevilDawg1]

You do not have to have an FFL to own a machine gun. This is half the problem we have is half the people arguing over guns and the control of them don't have a clue what they are talking about.

A select fire weapon otherwise known as a machine gun is a registered firearm controlled under the NFA act of 1934 and GCA act of 1968. They are legal in almost 40 states. Anyone who can pass a detailed 90 day background check by BATF and the FBI can own one. A one time $200 tax registration stamp is required. I've owned several in my life. I know many who own them.
Suppresors are also legal and registered in same fashion.
You also have things called 'destructive devices' like mortars, launchers and missiles which again are legal to own in many states. You cannot tell me when the last time a legal machine gun was used in a crime. The kind of person who spends almost 20,000 on a legal M16 and goes thru a 90 day check is not the kind of person you need worry about. I know some very high profile extremely rich people who own class III weapons.

So when we talk about assault weapons and select fire weapons as well as what they are and the current laws regarding them can we please at least educate ourselves before speaking?

We need to keep in mind that many shotguns were included in the last assault weapons ban due to high capacity and or black ugliness.

Going by the other posters definition of selective fire . and one of those selections is fully or burst. You are correct as far as the machine gun, but owning a fully automatic weapon requires registration and a FFL, I forgot what class, or grade of FFL

 

[Blanca BusaLess]

The most dangerous weapon in the world is THE HUMAN MIND.
And you can never regulate that into civility.

 

[Skydyvyr]

It's not at all and it really seems like fun. But if you are saying the only reason you have guns is because it's fun then those kids death is not worth that. I know you weren't saying that, but maybe the gun types have to give a little in the interest of not having this happen so much.

It is not only about fun. Proper shooting is a form of self-mastery just like anything else, including but not limited to things like martial arts, sculpting, ballet or riding a motorcycle.

Proper shooting requires control of control of fear, body position, breath control, mental focus, understanding of physics, etc. While there is some adrenaline release associated with stepping up to the line and unloading a magazine into a piece of paper as quickly as you can, that quickly becomes boring and is not what shooting is about.

There are many people out there who believe that motorcycles are dangerous and should be banned. They think too many idiots like you and I die each year because we are foolish enough to ride them. It is easy for someone who doesn't ride and doesn't understand the self-mastery of riding a motorcycle properly to say that the cost of lost lives each year is not worth the fun. In my opinion (and I believe yours), they would be mistaken as they do not understand what riding is about.

_________________ can be about the adrenaline rush, it can be about the fun, it can be about taking out aggression, it can be about emotional release and it can be about self-mastery. When done properly it can be a form of art. If not managed carefully it can result in the loss of life.

You can fill in the blank above with either "Motorcycle Riding" or "Shooting".

--Sky

 

[mysql]

If I wanted to go out in a blaze of glory/infamy (in my own mind), shooting unarmed, defenseless 6 & 7 year old kids cowering in a classroom would seem pretty much like a punk a** way to do it.

If he's looking for infamy, then shooting children would be a good way to get it. The media happily plays along too.

So let me ask a questions back: If the shooter’s ultimate goal is to die, why not choose a police station instead? It seems the ultimate goal would be met quicker there.

I think it's safe to say your question isn't valid:

1. Shooter was able to shoot himself when it came time.
2. Shooter had access to multiple guns. He could have shot himself instead of his mother at the beginning of the situation.

With that we should be able to easily conclude if he wanted a quick death, he had the means and the ability to do it without having to mow over small children.

 

[Skydyvyr]

If he's looking for infamy, then shooting children would be a good way to get it. The media happily plays along too.

So, if you believe that he was seeking infamy, do you really think he would have been deterred by armed teachers?

--Sky

 

[mestona]

I didn't say the guns were evil, you did. If you have a dog that's dangerous, you have to treat them that way. I'm just saying.........

A dog can think, have an attitude, and bite a child because somebody stole his biscuit. If I leave my gun unattended, it doesn't jump my fence and eat my neighbors cat. I'm using the B.S. emotional responses I've been seeing here as an example. I was being sarcastic when I said "evil" because that is what most of the liberal left thinks of these inanimate objects...

 

[mysql]

So, if you believe that he was seeking infamy, do you really think he would have been deterred by armed teachers?

--Sky

Armed teachers stand a greater chance of stopping him than an unarmed populace. If all he was able to do is kill one or two kids? Hell yeah that would be a deterrent.

Look up what the Columbine kids were planning and their motives. They thought previous mass murderers did a poor job and they could obtain a higher body count. They wanted a record that would last for a long time. If they knew teachers were armed they would have had to form a different plan as it would turn into a fire fight instead of a slaughter.

PS: They failed to get the high body count they wanted.

 

[dadofthree]

Sry guys I cheated, didn't read any post. You can ban firearms in America and collect all existing firearms and you would still have death by violence including massacres. It kinda upsets me that the left has used this tragedy to push the lefts agenda. They have no shame, none.

Criminals and sociopaths really could care less about laws, codes, or rules.

One county in California looses 20 preschool kids to gun violence every month.

Banning guns wouldn't slow them down folks.

 

[mysql]

Skydyvyr, This is quoted off Wikipedia, but should help you see some of the thought logic behind the planning something like this.

The pair hoped that after setting off home-made explosives in the cafeteria at the busiest time of day, killing many hundreds of students, they would use their guns to shoot survivors as they fled from the school. Then, as police vehicles, ambulances, fire trucks, and reporters came to the school, bombs set in the boys' cars would detonate, killing the emergency personnel, media, and law enforcement officers; this original plan backfired when the explosives did not detonate

Harris and Klebold constructed a total of 99 improvised explosive devices of various designs and sizes. They sawed the barrels and butts off their shotguns to make them easier to conceal.[4] The perpetrators committed numerous felony violations of state and federal law, including the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968, even before the massacre began.

The biggest school massacre happened in 1927, when an angry farmer set fire to his farm, killed his wife, then went to a school and set off a bomb that killed 39 children. When rescuers arrived, he set off a car bomb that killed several more, and injured dozens. He had 500 lbs of explosives in the basement, intending to kill 250 students.

Read more: Bath School disaster


Now just imagine if either situation had a few teachers with CCW permits.

 

[Skydyvyr]

Armed teachers stand a greater chance of stopping him than an unarmed populace. If all he was able to do is kill one or two kids? Hell yeah that would be a deterrent.

I agree that if there is a teacher (or group of teachers) at the school who could manage to take out the shooter without harming others around them, that would be good, but I don't see it as a deterrent. A successful deterrent is something that would get the shooter to choose another location.

While we may never know why, I believe the Sandy Hook shooter like the Columbine shooters before him planned their attacks in advance (although I suspect the Columbine planning was much more comprehensive). I don't believe that knowing the teachers at the school were amred in either case would have deterred the assailants, but maybe would have caused them to act differently. There is the possibility that armed defenders would have been able to remove them as a threat before they did as much damage as they did.

On the flip side is the possibility that an armed teacher could injure or kill more children in the attempt to disable the assailant. I think it is also safe to say that there is inherrently more danger in a classroom where there is a loaded firearm than one where there is not. School shootings while horrible and heartbreaking are still a relatively rare phenomenon -- is it reasonable to globally increase the danger in classrooms as a preparation against the rare instance of violence? I still believe that overall, schools are a safer place as Gun Free Zones than as Militarized Zones (Ok, MZ is a stretch).

So, now that we have completely jacked the thread, let me apologize and once again voice my opinion against additional gun control as I don't believe it would be either effective or enforceable.

--Sky

 

[Blanca BusaLess]

Going by the other posters definition of selective fire . and one of those selections is fully or burst. You are correct as far as the machine gun, but owning a fully automatic weapon requires registration and a FFL, I forgot what class, or grade of FFL

Once again YOU DO NOT HAVE TO POSSESS AN FFL IN ORDER TO OWN A CLASS III WEAPON.
The transfer must go thru an FFL holder with a class III license but the buyer DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE ONE.
The buyer only need pay a $200 registration fee one time. That tax stamp must be affixed to the weapon at all times. Also the fine print of owning a class III weapon states you agree to allow visual inspection of said weapon 24/7 anytime by law enforcement.
I owned a registered receiver Hk model 53 which I bought in 1995 for $5500. It was one of the last factory made Hk machine guns able to be bought as most were sold long before. By being a registered receiver Mg it meant that I could obtain factory spare parts and have it factory serviced which is a very desirable thing. I sold it in 2001 six years later $17,500. The last mod 53 rr gun I saw sold recently for $24,000.
There are conversions out there for less but they are not factory machine guns. You can have a semi auto gun that was converted to FA before 1986 but only certain parts are serviceable or replaceable. You can also have especially where Hk is concerned a registered auto sear that can be registered in multiple calibers like 9mm,.223 and .308. This way you can have three legal Mgs at the cost of only one sear and three rifles as the sear itself for Hk swaps between weapons. The world of class III weapons is so confusing it ridiculous.
As a dealer in class III and class II weapons you can still possess or buy new Mgs for pennies compared to what the average citizen pays but you need a 'demo request letter' from a police dept to acquire the weapons. After demo they must stay in dealers inventory or be transferred to another dealer.
There are Pre 86 samples and post 86 samples as well. It is a very highly regulated already business and none of the folks trading these 20,000 dollar weapons you need worry about.