God damned crazy motherfuckers.

[Turbo Ghost]

Originally Posted by RACER X

Sad how all the news agencys keep referring to an AR as the weapon used to kill all the kids, fact is that he used handguns, the ar was still in the car

We need to ban assault weapons, though handguns killed more people in Chicago!
Who am I?

The AR was the primary gun used. A shotgun was left in the car and not used.

[Turbo Ghost]

You have to look at the United States as a family. The parents are the federal government and the states are the children. The parents make the main rules but, each child must go out on its' own and make rules for its' own life. The children are still under the rule of the parents but, in their own homes, they make rules that more apply to their particular living conditions.
Example:
Here you have to go through a hunter safety course before you can get a hunting license. Would it make sense to require this course for someone in NYC that wants a handgun for self-defense? I know it's not the best analogy but, each state has a different set of circumstances. That's why each state is allowed to self-govern to a degree.

As for the weapon comparison, you do realize if you had buttered toast this morning, you used a weapon to butter it. I would be so bold as to say EVERY home on the planet has at least one knife. A madman recently killed a large number of children with a knife. Homicides by knife run about half as many as by handguns but, interestingly enough almost identicle to homicides by other types of guns (rifles/shotguns). Knives DO have more utilitarian uses than killing but, at their earliest iterations and from then on, one of their main uses is killing. Whether that be for homicide or food or defense that's what they were made for. A lot of people die from knives including suicides but, we don't talk about banning them or having training for them. On a side-note, looking at the charts, handgun related homicides rose dramatically between 1989 and 1996! Then they dropped sharply in 1997 and continued dropping until 2002 and it held steady through 2005. That was the end of the study.
The problem with guns is the ability to hurt multiple targets more easily than with any other weapon. That's also their greatest asset. If you want to kill a bunch of people, get a gun. If you need to defend yourself against a bunch of people, get a gun.
I'm all for training people properly in the use of guns. To be honest though, I would prefer more training and more restrictions in the driving of automobiles! I AM NOT trying to be funny! I've written letters to my representatives and the President trying to save the lives of our citizens especially the younger ones. Americans can't drive! No wonder considering the minimal level of training required to operate one of the most important machines you will ever be in charge of!
I make this point for a reason. My Bronco is a deadly device in the wrong hands. I KNOW I could find the right venue and kill dozens if not hundreds of people if I wanted. Just by being a poor driver, the odds of me killing someone are high! Yet despite the incredible odds that I will be involved in a wreck or incident involving injury, my testing for my license consisted of pulling out of a parking lot onto the main road and circling back in and parking. Good to go!
The same problem exists with guns. You can buy them without having a clue how to use them. People need to learn how to use something dangerous before being allowed to own it!
BUT, BUT, BUT!! Don't forget! The CT shooter STOLE his guns! I don't know what his mom was thinking allowing him access to the guns if she was aware of his state of mind but, it baffles me. Anyway, eventually my boss is going to wonder why I'm at the computer so much today so, I better get back at it! Keep up the debate!

Remember: My opinion! Make it yours!

[Turbo Ghost]

BTW, Papa Complex,
I would have sworn Tesla was The Sherminator from American Pie until I looked it up! Seperated at birth?

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Turbo Ghost

You have to look at the United States as a family. The parents are the federal government and the states are the children. The parents make the main rules but, each child must go out on its' own and make rules for its' own life. The children are still under the rule of the parents but, in their own homes, they make rules that more apply to their particular living conditions.
Example:
Here you have to go through a hunter safety course before you can get a hunting license. Would it make sense to require this course for someone in NYC that wants a handgun for self-defense? I know it's not the best analogy but, each state has a different set of circumstances. That's why each state is allowed to self-govern to a degree.

And there is one issue: The States are still in the 'parents'' house. Want to make your own rules on major issues like firearms ownership/ Sucede. Then the 'kids' will be living in their own 'house.'

How we do it, is different classes of firearm; restricted and non restricted. a handgun or a rifle/carbine of under a certain barrel length (16.5" the last time I checked) are considered restricted, thereby requiring a different set of qualifications. That's one way to break down the training required.

As for the weapon comparison, you do realize if you had buttered toast this morning, you used a weapon to butter it. I would be so bold as to say EVERY home on the planet has at least one knife. A madman recently killed a large number of children with a knife. Homicides by knife run about half as many as by handguns but, interestingly enough almost identicle to homicides by other types of guns (rifles/shotguns). Knives DO have more utilitarian uses than killing but, at their earliest iterations and from then on, one of their main uses is killing. Whether that be for homicide or food or defense that's what they were made for. A lot of people die from knives including suicides but, we don't talk about banning them or having training for them. On a side-note, looking at the charts, handgun related homicides rose dramatically between 1989 and 1996! Then they dropped sharply in 1997 and continued dropping until 2002 and it held steady through 2005. That was the end of the study.

The knife that I buttered my toast with was flat, with a rounded tip, and without a sharpened edge. Unless I sharpen it and turn it into a shiv, it's primary function remains to butter my toast. It's no more a weapon than is a .22 blank firing nail gun, unless you defeat the safety features, at which point it becomes a VERY ineffective and clumsy firearm.

The problem with guns is the ability to hurt multiple targets more easily than with any other weapon. That's also their greatest asset. If you want to kill a bunch of people, get a gun. If you need to defend yourself against a bunch of people, get a gun.
I'm all for training people properly in the use of guns. To be honest though, I would prefer more training and more restrictions in the driving of automobiles! I AM NOT trying to be funny! I've written letters to my representatives and the President trying to save the lives of our citizens especially the younger ones. Americans can't drive! No wonder considering the minimal level of training required to operate one of the most important machines you will ever be in charge of!
I make this point for a reason. My Bronco is a deadly device in the wrong hands. I KNOW I could find the right venue and kill dozens if not hundreds of people if I wanted. Just by being a poor driver, the odds of me killing someone are high! Yet despite the incredible odds that I will be involved in a wreck or incident involving injury, my testing for my license consisted of pulling out of a parking lot onto the main road and circling back in and parking. Good to go!
The same problem exists with guns. You can buy them without having a clue how to use them. People need to learn how to use something dangerous before being allowed to own it!

I don't necessarily disagree with you regarding ownership of vehicles and additional training but, as a vehicle is not primarily a weapon and vehicular death statistics have been steadily going down (per capita) for decades, the best method of pursuing this would likely be via fiscal imperative (mandated insurance discounts).

But a vehicle still isn't a firearm.

BUT, BUT, BUT!! Don't forget! The CT shooter STOLE his guns! I don't know what his mom was thinking allowing him access to the guns if she was aware of his state of mind but, it baffles me. Anyway, eventually my boss is going to wonder why I'm at the computer so much today so, I better get back at it! Keep up the debate!

Remember: My opinion! Make it yours!

Hence my previous comments regarding storage requirements.

Originally Posted by Turbo Ghost

BTW, Papa Complex,
I would have sworn Tesla was The Sherminator from American Pie until I looked it up! Seperated at birth?

The Sherminator could have played the Tesla part, without needing the fake fangs. Stunt double?

[Papa_Complex]

How should they be viewed? For a start people should stop using euphemisms when talking about them. They're weapons. Firearms is almost as good a word to use, but ultimately the only word that fully applies is weapon.

Second, stop making comparisons to things that simply don't apply. The only thing that possibly ties a motorcycle to a firearm are the words, "I want." By that metric you could just as easily tie a motorcycle to a baby. The logical fallacy is obvious in the second, so why not the first?

Thirdly, require an accredited training course (either hunting or defence) for firearm ownership. Accreditation would be performed by government, but training and testing would be performed by trained civilians. This would satisfy the "well regulated militia" portion of the Second Amendment, helping to instill proper reverence and practise in firearm owners.

Fourth and last, have a NATIONAL firearms strategy. This mishmash of State laws is ridiculous. You're one country. Something this important shouldn't be dealt with on a virtual ad hoc basis.

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

How should they be viewed? For a start people should stop using euphemisms when talking about them. They're weapons. Firearms is almost as good a word to use, but ultimately the only word that fully applies is weapon.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I've only ever really heard them called guns, firearms, or specific types (pistol, handgun, rifle).

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Thirdly, require an accredited training course (either hunting or defence) for firearm ownership. Accreditation would be performed by government, but training and testing would be performed by trained civilians. This would satisfy the "well regulated militia" portion of the Second Amendment, helping to instill proper reverence and practise in firearm owners.

I could definitely get behind this. I don't have any problem with regulation, just outright banning.

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Fourth and last, have a NATIONAL firearms strategy. This mishmash of State laws is ridiculous. You're one country. Something this important shouldn't be dealt with on a virtual ad hoc basis.

I can get behind this for firearms and motor vehicles. I'm all for states' rights, but in both cases there is too much interstate travel / commerce involved. There needs to be one standard for each, coast to coast.

[Twobanger]

Wow. Thanks for posting that. It probably felt like an eternity for her.

[Turbo Ghost]

That is exactly what she said. Me personally, I probably would have shot him but, again I wasn't there and don't know exactly what the conversation was. I've seen videos with her watching the video and she says he was going on about the goverment. She felt he would drop the weapon and I commend her for her bravery and service.

Also, while I think of it. How incredibly relevant is this!? Way back in 2000 or 2001, this man had been taken to court for stalking a paper-carrier on her rounds. She did not know the man so it wasn't a domestic situation. The case was dismissed when a witness did not show. Some time after that, the man walked into a police station WEARING a handgun in his waistband complaining about some situation he was having that they needed to take care of. He was arrested for illegal concealment of a weapon. The judge ordered him to seek mental evaluation and counselling. He did neither. If he had or if his probation officer had made sure he had then, perhaps none of this would have happened.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Turbo Ghost

That is exactly what she said. Me personally, I probably would have shot him but, again I wasn't there and don't know exactly what the conversation was. I've seen videos with her watching the video and she says he was going on about the goverment. She felt he would drop the weapon and I commend her for her bravery and service.

Also, while I think of it. How incredibly relevant is this!? Way back in 2000 or 2001, this man had been taken to court for stalking a paper-carrier on her rounds. She did not know the man so it wasn't a domestic situation. The case was dismissed when a witness did not show. Some time after that, the man walked into a police station WEARING a handgun in his waistband complaining about some situation he was having that they needed to take care of. He was arrested for illegal concealment of a weapon. The judge ordered him to seek mental evaluation and counselling. He did neither. If he had or if his probation officer had made sure he had then, perhaps none of this would have happened.

Quite relevant. If the mental health aspects had been pursued, then the SRO would likely have never been put in that position.

[Turbo Ghost]

Yup. That's what I said!