The CT shooting and gun control

• WebFire

  gut;1344966 wrote:Yawn. Again, that is dealing specifically with shooting the lock itself. If there's no structure around the lock it ain't going to work like it's designed.

  It acknowledges that.
  

  Only SWAT teams and soldiers ever do this in real life, and it involves a shotgun, Kevlar body armor, specialized ammunition (a powdered metal breaching round, often jokingly referred to as "Avon Calling"), and full face protection. Even then, the goal is not specifically to destroy the lock, but to destroy the surrounding door or the hinges.

• LJ

  

  WebFire;1344986 wrote:It acknowledges that.

  yes, a breech goes between the lock mechanism and the jamb, destroying both.
• WebFire

  LJ;1344993 wrote:yes, a breech goes between the lock mechanism and the jamb, destroying both.

  Right. I was showing gut that they weren't just talking about shooting at the lock.
• LJ

  

  WebFire;1345000 wrote:Right. I was showing gut that they weren't just talking about shooting at the lock.

  I was just showing gut that they aren't talking about what he is talking about
• fish82

  

  LJ;1344464 wrote:Unless he had a breaching shotgun, this is most likely a false report. More likely the doors had windows that he shot out and he reached in and unlocked the doors. Mythbusters showed that you can't just "shoot out a lock"

  Exactly. He just shot out a window, reached through and pulled the bar handle toward him, opening the door. Those types of doors aren't locked from the inside.
• said_aouita

  

  Belly35;1343985 wrote:Time and time again we see the same series of events. Political figures on national media hinting of their political anti gun agenda on the heel of a community devastation. It was difficult to determine real concern from the poor acting of distress of those politically jousting. Deployable to watch as they grumble for air time at the expense of young lives and stricken families. Media spewing their Liberal attach on the rights of good law biding citizen and the 2nd Amendment and the blaming of weapons for crimes and horrific acts against innocent men, women, children, like the magical weapon calls them to their precious insanity. Even more repulsive is that the Professional Media reporting, skewed facts and when the real drama, strengths and perseverance are lost in networks bias.
  
  The problem is not with weapons. Now more than ever the utilization of responsible men and women with legal weapons, proficiency skill training and a past history of honored service should be implemented in those high affected of crazed individual. Where the focus should be directed is a closer look at the failure of the medical professional and teaching / counseling community that harbor many of those derange individual. If that means profiling so be it. Government regulation restricting vital information to law enforcement has not proven to be beneficial those 20 or 30 murder by one. Time for a closer evaluation of the Medical / Counseling g process of handling mentally and socially sick individual with our communities. Off with the gloves and political correctness time is now to be active in the prevention derange not the prevention of their action. Parents it time you also step up and face reality that your kid is a loser and potential damager to himself, you and innocent others. Difficult as it is to turn your kid in or call the authorities you have to. I’ve done it, difficult but in the end a blessing for the family.
  
  Weapons are not the problem, derange individuals and a system that protects then for reason of political correctness and professional confidentiality

  "Implemented in those high affected by crazed individuals?" - What does that mean?
  The area of Conn. the shooting took place looks to be quite a wealthy and safe area.
  
  Maybe gun fans should not be legal guardians of children with mental disorders?
• BoatShoes

  believer;1344139 wrote:Only when these ASSHOLES begin to realize that it's not about gun control but a moral decay of our society that they are helping to perpetuate, then perhaps tragedies such as these may become a little less commonplace.

  This is a bunch of bullshit that just allows us not to take responsibilty for these massacres. The other 20 wealthiest countries in the world have just as much moral decay as the United States, if not more so...being more secular and less religious than we are and they don't have the gun massacres that we do. Gun masscares can be curbed and reduced. Australia had a gun massacre problem. They don't believe in God, have pre-marital sex, do drugs in Australia but they nevertheless have had zero gun massacres since they got tough on guns.
  
  There is no excuse for not taking reasonable action unless we simply think that a ridiculous amount of needless deaths at the hands of guns are an acceptable consequence of our freedom to have weapons that offer little tangible benefit to society because it was thought to be a good idea in 1789.
• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;1345337 wrote:This is a bunch of bull**** that just allows us not to take responsibilty for these massacres. ...9.

  His statement is the ultimate position for being accountable and responsible for our actions.
  
  When considering all the historical and societal influences present, there's no country that has the unique cultural impact that guns have had on the U.S..
• BoatShoes

  Con_Alma;1345339 wrote:His statement is the ultimate position for being accountable and responsible for our actions.
  
  When considering all the historical and societal influences present, there's no country that has the unique cultural impact that guns have had on the U.S..

  It is not. It is a cop out to refuse to try things as a nation that have been successful in suggesting that attempting to cease perpetual gun massacres is a lost cause because the culture has gone the route of Sodom and Gomorrah. It is not a lost cause. Rich countries just as morally decadent and with similar affinities for violence and guns have had success. Godless countries have less massacres than our country which is highly religious by comparison.
  
  It is a choice to allow this to continue. "How often does this really happen? A massacre of innocents performed efficiently with chattels designed solely for the purpose of efficient killing is permissible because there's not that many and there's a lot of people who don't massacre people with these killing machines and just keep them in their closet."
  
  Indeed, America is the one wealthy country that chooses to be a failed state in regards to curbing unnecessary deaths at the hands of guns. It is the foreseeable consequence of valuing the freedom to own worthless but efficient killing machines and permitting free access to them. When you outlaw guns on a national level...the evidence indicates that the intuition that "only outlaws will have guns" does not appear to be true.
  
  It is worth a shot as it doesn't get much worse that 20 slaughtered kindegartners.
• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;1345355 wrote:It is not. It is a cop out to refuse to try things as a nation that have been successful in suggesting that attempting to cease perpetual gun massacres is a lost cause because the culture has gone the route of Sodom and Gomorrah. It is not a lost cause. Rich countries just as morally decadent and with similar affinities for violence and guns have had success. Godless countries have less massacres than our country which is highly religious by comparison.
  
  It is a choice to allow this to continue. "How often does this really happen? A massacre of innocents performed efficiently with chattels designed solely for the purpose of efficient killing is permissible because there's not that many and there's a lot of people who don't massacre people with these killing machines and just keep them in their closet."
  
  Indeed, America is the one wealthy country that chooses to be a failed state in regards to curbing unnecessary deaths at the hands of guns. It is the foreseeable consequence of valuing the freedom to own worthless but efficient killing machines and permitting free access to them. When you outlaw guns on a national level...the evidence indicates that the intuition that "only outlaws will have guns" does not appear to be true.
  
  It is worth a shot as it doesn't get much worse that 20 slaughtered kindegartners.

  It's the exact opposite of a "cop out". It is a call to look at all that influences us to carry out ill as a nation and our decisions.
  
  It's hardly a lost cause.
  
  There's no indication that when considering the unique relationship of guns and the US that such a move would be productive.
  
  Address the root of the cause as opposed to the tool being used.
• WebFire

  "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."- Plato (427-347 B.C.)
• BoatShoes

  WebFire;1345374 wrote:"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."- Plato (427-347 B.C.)

  Nobody appreciates Plato more than I do but the guy also believed in basically the most government oriented society ever with kids being chosen for certain professions at their birth. Surely you wouldn't follow his advice in that regard eh?
  
  Like I said...that statement sounds intuitive but real world experience has shattered that intuition. Plato's hypothesis has been shown not to be a universal truth.
  
  And even if it is true, let them have to conspire greatly to achieve their criminal enterprise. The more effort they have to put into it, the more likely law enforcement will be able to intervene.
  
  Waltzing into your idiot doomsday-prepper Mom's closet who had no sane, reality-based reason for owning these weapons is a lot easier than acquiring the skills necessary to kill a bunch of people with a knife or build a bomb or with an illegally obtained assault weapon.
• BoatShoes

  Con_Alma;1345360 wrote:It's the exact opposite of a "cop out". It is a call to look at all that influences us to carry out ill as a nation and our decisions.
  
  It's hardly a lost cause.
  
  There's no indication that when considering the unique relationship of guns and the US that such a move would be productive.
  
  Address the root of the cause as opposed to the tool being used.

  If gun massacres are a problem we want to correct and we can look at natural experiments in the world for what to do we can consider a couple of variables.
  
  A. Degree of Moral Decay in the culture
  
  B. Degree of Affinity and Culture attachment to Guns
  
  C. Gun Regulation
  
  D. Mental Health Care Access
  
  
  People have offered various solutions. Believer says we need to concentrate on Variable A. You seem to suggest Variable B is too great that changes to Variable C will have no effect.
  
  But, when we look at the world...countries with much higher variable A have less gun violence when we fix variable C. So since fixing variable A is much more difficult, it's reasonable to attempt better gun regulation
  
  There are less examples of countries with similar gun affinity to us but Australia is close. They had good results with increased gun regulation. The reasonable conclusion is that it would be worth the effort to try better and more reasonable gun regulation.
  
  It is worth a try.
• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;1345415 wrote:...
  
  
  
  B. Degree of Affinity and Culture attachment to Guns
  
  C. Gun Regulation
  
  
  You seem to suggest Variable B is too great that changes to Variable C will have no effect.
  
  ...

  I don't know where you come up with this stuff.
  
  I do not believe that "Variable B" is too great to change.
  
  I support Variable C.
• BoatShoes

  Con_Alma;1345421 wrote:I don't know where you come up with this stuff.
  
  I do not believe that "Variable B" is too great to change.
  
  I support Variable C.

  There's no indication that when considering the unique relationship of guns and the US that such a move would be productive.

  This is a quote from you in this thread.
  
  
• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;1345428 wrote:This is a quote from you in this thread.
  
  

  Yes. That's correct. I do support the regulation we have as it relates to guns. There's no reason to indication that what other countries have done would be productive when considering the unique relationship of guns and the U.S..
  
  There's no contradiction there at all.
• BoatShoes

  Con_Alma;1345435 wrote:Yes. That's correct. I do support the regulation we have as it relates to guns. There's no reason to indication that what other countries have done would be productive when considering the unique relationship of guns and the U.S..
  
  There's no contradiction there at all.

  Are you or are you not saying that increasing the regulation of guns in the United States of America on par with what other wealthy countries have done will unlikely be effective at curbing gun massacres because the United States has a unique relationship with firearms?
• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;1345437 wrote:Are you or are you not saying that increasing the regulation of guns in the United States of America on par with what other wealthy countries have done will unlikely be effective at curbing gun massacres because the United States has a unique relationship with firearms?

  I have never said it will unlikely be effective.
  
  I have said there is no indication it will.
• BoatShoes

  Con_Alma;1345438 wrote:I have never said it will unlikely be effective.
  
  I have said there is no indication it will.

  Well Gee, quite the language game we're playing then, eh:rolleyes:
  
  What has worked in other countries that are not 100% similar but nevertheless similar, may not be an indication that it will work, but it is reasonable enough evidence upon which to base a decision on public policy. We can reasonably infer that it might work and that it could be worth the effort to try it out despite the uncertain future.
  
  We do this all the time.
• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;1345450 wrote:Well Gee, quite the language game we're playing then, eh:rolleyes:
  
  What has worked in other countries that are not 100% similar but nevertheless similar, may not be an indication that it will work, but it is reasonable enough evidence upon which to base a decision on public policy. We can reasonably infer that it might work and that it could be worth the effort to try it out despite the uncertain future.
  
  We do this all the time.

  That's where we disagree. I don't believe there's reasonable enough evidence. We have a very different situation here.
  
  I'm not playing any language game. If you wish to scrutinize my post I will do my best to clarify anything you wish.
• jhay78

  

  BoatShoes;1345337 wrote:This is a bunch of bull**** that just allows us not to take responsibilty for these massacres. The other 20 wealthiest countries in the world have just as much moral decay as the United States, if not more so...being more secular and less religious than we are and they don't have the gun massacres that we do. Gun masscares can be curbed and reduced. Australia had a gun massacre problem. They don't believe in God, have pre-marital sex, do drugs in Australia but they nevertheless have had zero gun massacres since they got tough on guns.
  
  There is no excuse for not taking reasonable action unless we simply think that a ridiculous amount of needless deaths at the hands of guns are an acceptable consequence of our freedom to have weapons that offer little tangible benefit to society because it was thought to be a good idea in 1789.

  Why do I, or any other responsible gun owner, or any other morally upstanding individual in our society, have to "take responsibility" for this tragedy? First and foremost responsibility lies with the shooter.
  
  If I'm not mistaken, the mother possessed the .223 rifle illegally, so she bears some responsibility as well.
  
  The silence from some regarding our entertainment culture's glorification of violence in movies and video games is quite baffling.
  
  We could use a little questioning of the "gun-free zones" that we have made out of schools and shopping malls, where magically most mass shootings take place. The signs saying "This is a gun-free zone" don't say anything to violent people except "This is an easy target". No sane person would post such a sign at his or her home; quite the contrary, you see signs saying the opposite.
  
  Maybe an armed school official won't solve everything, but I could see a potential shooter not wanting to deal with the hassle of someone with a gun, and picking someplace else.
• BoatShoes

  jhay78;1345517 wrote:Why do I, or any other responsible gun owner, or any other morally upstanding individual in our society, have to "take responsibility" for this tragedy? First and foremost responsibility lies with the shooter.
  
  If I'm not mistaken, the mother possessed the .223 rifle illegally, so she bears some responsibility as well.
  
  The silence from some regarding our entertainment culture's glorification of violence in movies and video games is quite baffling.
  
  We could use a little questioning of the "gun-free zones" that we have made out of schools and shopping malls, where magically most mass shootings take place. The signs saying "This is a gun-free zone" don't say anything to violent people except "This is an easy target". No sane person would post such a sign at his or her home; quite the contrary, you see signs saying the opposite.
  
  Maybe an armed school official won't solve everything, but I could see a potential shooter not wanting to deal with the hassle of someone with a gun, and picking someplace else.

  Nobody else has turned their schools and places of commerce and other places of congregation in free and open society into armed fortresses. They've simply taken reasonable measures to eliminate these weapons of mass destruction from being easily obtained and the carnage has been curbed substantially.
  
  I may be responsbile enough to handle chemical weapons or hell a nuclear bomb in my home but it has no place in civilized society and there wide availability turns "responsible gun owners" into killers and the dead all the time every day in America.
  
  Kids in other countries watch Walking Dead and play violent video games but they don't have the massacres that we have.
  
  It is a choice for this to continue.
  
  The Aussies loved their guns probably as more than any other country but us. They had a gun massacre problem and they fixed it. We can too. Blah blah "America is different" is a convenient excuse to let the carnage continue.
  

  On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.
  
  Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.
  
  At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.
  
  What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes

• LJ

  

  http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
  

  Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
  

  • In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
  • Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
  • Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

  Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
  
  

  • Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
  • During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
  • Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.

  • Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
  • At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
  • Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

  [/LIST]
  The black market for banned guns is also pretty damn prevalent according to Aussies.
• WebFire

  LJ;1345577 wrote:http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
  
  [/LIST]The black market for banned guns is also pretty damn prevalent according to Aussies.

  Nice work detective.
• LJ

  

  WebFire;1345580 wrote:Nice work detective.

  Nah, some Aussies brought it up on another forum.