Oh, I know what the gun rights folks will say when the bricks start flying their way. The most recent gun tragedy today should be a reminder to all of us and to the gun lovers as well that something must be done to control both access to and responsibility for gun ownership.
Even today, only hours after this horrific tragedy, it was suggested that if the kids were armed this never would have happened.. You all have heard the expression... I wasn't born yesterday.... and neither were you.. One time I was watching a ball game on TV. and pretended that an intruder was breaking down the door. I got up from the couch and ran to get my pistol; load the clip into the gun and pull the slide back to put a bullet in the chamber ready to fire. You know what happened? My imaginary intruder was already in the house with his weapon drawn. The myth proudly pronounced by all the rabid gun lovers is just that... a myth.
Sadly, events like today will happen again and again and the right winger gun-totin' NRA rabid members will mount an offensive so powerful that the likes of our politicians will just melt away and pocket the money NRA gives all the good boys that vote for the NRA right to bear and forget the rest.
I am for reasonable gun control and that means just as a beginning that everybody that buys a weapon must go through a background expense . That means the gun shows at Alhambra and pawn shops and private sales. Failure to do so will result in a jail sentence.
* * *
Mr. Brooks, I wasn't born yesterday, and neither were you.
So I think we can both be expected to understand that David Frum was being sarcastic when he Tweeted, "Obviously, we need to lower the age limit for concealed carry so toddlers can defend themselves." Mr. Frum is on your side of this debate.
Since we both weren't born anywhere close to yesterday, I think we should have learned to recognize and avoid strawman arguments. Nobody has actually called for giving toddlers the right to bear arms, and no reasonable person would. Children cannot be reasonably expected to defend themselves from armed psychotic murderers, nor should they be. Defending children is the duty of moral, responsible adults, and they ought to have the tools necessary to do so.
Since we are both chronological adults, we're both a bit old to be playing with imaginary friends and enemies. Or at least, old enough to know that the way things play out in our heads prove nothing about how those events would go in reality. Every day, armed criminals attack hundreds of good people. Sometimes, the good people lose. Sometimes, the good people win. And when the good people are armed, their odds of winning increase. That's simple statistics, compiled by the FBI.
Finally, Mr. Brooks, we are both old enough that we should know that the term "reasonable" is very subjective. And that when one uses vague terms like "reasonable" to persuade, he's probably trying to screw the other. There's a reason "reasonable" is rarely found in contracts.
What happened in Connecticut yesterday - and what happens multiple times every day, on a smaller, less newsworthy scale - was an act of evil. Evil will not obey your laws. I think we should both be mature enough to recognize that fact, and support laws which allow good people to deal with evil if it comes.
* * *
What is a pistol's primary purpose? What did the people who designed the AK47 and the M16 have in mind as a target? What was the primary purpose of the Henry Repeating Rifle and John Browning's more refined Winchester Model 94?
All of these designs are for the purpose of killing people. Not deer, rabbits, squirrels or ducks. So why, this 2nd amendment, SEC football fanatic, conservative, red neck boy who has guns aplenty is wondering, is it so difficult to get a driver's license and so inexcusably easy to get an AR15 and amass thousands of rounds over the Internet in a span of a couple of weeks with no questions asked?
There is no excuse. If the NRA can't be a proactive participant in a solution to whack jobs with semi-auto, mega-round handguns and similar man-killing rifles, I hope and pray the people of this country stand united and have them permanently sit down and shut up. Please.
* * *
Instruments of murder - guns, cars, knives, bats, poisons, rocks, water, pillows, arrows, pipe bombs (plumbing supplies).
Oh, I almost forgot - human hands.
* * *
Anyone using this and any tragedy to push their political agenda should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. While events like the shooting in Connecticut bring the accessibility of firearms to the forefront, using it to scare people into backing an agenda for more aggressive gun control is unconscionable.
Let the dust settle, let the families grieve, let our nation heal first.
* * *
Remember that the 2nd Amendment is not there for acts of evil, which in every way, shape and form, this was. The 2nd Amendment is a balance against tyranny, which is the way this country is going.
Why are people buying weapons in record amounts? Simple, our country is headed in that direction. Our rights are being eroded. The 1st Amendment is being eroded through people being "offended" and then beat down because it is not the correct speech. All you have to do is see what is happening in colleges if you don't toe the line with leftist ideology.
* * *
Why in the world would anyone think that the school shooter would obey any gun law when he didn't obey the law against murder?
* * *
I think the gun laws failed in this situation: the 20 year old gunman wielded two handguns and a rifle. Anyone who has passed by the gun counter at the sporting good store knows that you have to be 21 to buy a handgun.
Explain to me how more gun laws would have helped in a situation where existing gun laws were circumnavigated.
* * *
It's shameful that the anti-gun lobby has opportunistically used the recent Connecticut mass murder as a catalyst for their agenda. But since their insensitivity inhibits their capacity to mourn when appropriate, let's put this subject to rest.
MurderUK.com, a compelling website that tracks mass murders in the United Kingdom, has listed over 61 mass murderers in a nation where handguns have been outlawed for...forever. A lot of good those anti-gun laws have done. Here at home, with rare exception, states where concealed carry and ownership laws are in effect have lower murder and violent crime statistics.
The Connecticut scenario would most likely have been played out even if the mother had locked her guns up in a safe. Evil and insanity are not personality traits readily legislated to fit into liberal concepts of their epitomic society. But the liberal gun lobby will always, always choose to believe what they want, turning a blind eye to the facts at hand.
Now, stop all your caterwauling about your sensitivities and show some respect for the dead.
David D. Fihn, Sr.
* * *
Lets put first things first. We have programs in our schools for art, music, drivers ed, ROTC, basketball football, even golf. Lets take a few of those dollars and put an armed guard at the front door of every school in Hamilton County. Nobody gets in or out without the permission of he armed guard. One entrance, one exit, same door. Load his gun with Teflon bullets.
Also have a backup weapon in the principal's office. A sniper rifle with Teflon bullets. Is this extreme? Yes it is, and that's what it will take to counter the extreme violence seen in Connecticut.
Any gun control law you want to enact would take years to implement. Arming the schools can be done within a few weeks.
* * *
No one is stomping on anybody's 2nd Amendment right, but my question is: Why do you think they call it an "assault rifle?"
* * *
Mr. Brooks' note seems to be indicative of a dangerous lack of knowledge of fire arms and their projectiles. I'll take the trusty Rusty hunting, Mr. Brooks, while you stay safely at home.
* * *
An earlier poster was correct, an AR-15 is not made for hunting, it is made for killing people . . . or tyrants. The Second Amendment is not there to protect hunters or sport shooters, it is there to protect us all from tyranny.
In case you've been under a rock for the last 50 years, tyranny is the direction the U.S. has been heading. Pelosi is on record as stating she would take all guns. The U.N. is trying to make an end run around our Second Amendment right now.
Wake up sheeple, look at history. All dictatorships from Hitler, Stalin, Musolini, and more have removed the right to private gun ownership. There will always be nuts killing people with whatever they have available. These deaths cannot supersede our Second Amendment right. Too many brave men and women have died fighting for our rights to let this happen.
Ronnie "Rock" Land
* * *
From experience it only takes one standard load .223 (the round fired from an AR15) from 100 yards to utterly vaporize a plastic gallon jug full of water. Huge wow factor. Not a little intimidating and very addictive. Probably Freudian but I don't care. I recommend it. But 100 .223 rounds into a squirrel would, you know, be a big hole where he last lighted and there would be no fur. Not even any grease.
The reason they explode instead of boring a hole, like other larger rounds, is because they are extremely fast and the bullet tumbles when it penetrates the target. The .223 is not a legal deer round in most states because it is deemed inhumane. It is light weight and does not have the knock down power of larger, slower, rounds. It was designed to enter the flesh of an enemy combatant, a human, with a tiny hole and flip-flop while inside and exit with a different trajectory, carrying body mass with it. Thus it leaves a large hole but does not necessarily kill the man. Therefore, theoretically, it would take one or two healthy comrades to transport the totally incapacitated casualty out of the fire fight and thus neutralize two or three of the enemy as opposed to just one who otherwise stand and fight on if he "just" had a bore hole through a non-vital part of his body.
The argument that we all need these and multiple semi-auto hand guns and shotguns with barrel magazines for extreme street sweeping (each of these weapons were found on the Connecticut scene) with thousands of rounds in our closet so that we can fight a government that has Raptors, drones and M1 Abrams tanks is absurd. You really think we are on the verge of that? Come on, man.
Just as baffling, actually irritating, to me are uneducated talking head politicos and most of the media who have obviously never held a gun in their hand and ask ridiculous questions like "You've actually allowed your child to shoot a gun?" and "There are guns in your house? Under the same roof as your children?" Dear Lord forbid.
Yes, bonehead. I taught my boys how to safely plink with a .22 and skeet shoot with a 20 gauge. No, I don't have hand guns. I don't like the concept but you go on and do what you want. Yes, I would like to protect myself if "they" really came. I don't think they will but yes, if I want a pistol or an AR15 or a SKS or any other form of legal semi-auto weapon, I should be able to get one should I so choose. I have shot most every bullet ranging from .22 to 30-06 and I won't let stupid-minded people take that away from me.
But should I not be amenable to scrutiny and additional, required, mandated, security measures if I choose to amass a legal arsenal in a home where somebody is clearly unstable? I have no idea what the answer is. All I know is that intractability on both sides of this is what we have and still have. And knowing what they do at 100 yards, I can't imagine what the horror of a .223 travelling at 3,500 feet per second at a range of ten or so feet is. Hundreds of them in a span of minutes.
It's time to do something. They were little babies.
Savage Glascock, Sr.
* * *
I am a staunch conservative. Especially when it comes to fiscal affairs. But I want to address gun control in light of the events on Friday. I am so torn on this issue that I would like to ask for points of view from the political right and from the political left. The most intriguing question is "how do we do it."
If the leadership of our country decided to remove guns from the street, how would we go about it. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of street gangs in this country. How are you going to get their guns from them? Organized crime, para-military groups, survivalists, low income housing project residents, fearful surbanites, drug dealers, petty criminals, rural residents that live miles from the nearest neighbor, and Joe Six-Pack that is devoted to his family. How do we get their guns?
As a practical matter, removing guns from the street is an impossibility. We all know that. In the last three days I have heard "we must do something to prevent this" at least a hundred times. Someone please tell me specifically what. And don't tell me about a waiting period to buy a gun. Does it matter if someone dies today or a few days from now?
* * *
Reasonable gun control?
Ever hear this? "Guns don't kill people, people do". Same thing for cars, knives, rocks, etc.
The shooter did not buy any guns, he got them at his home. We have been told by the media that the responsible adult [the mother] had those particular guns for use as self defense in their home, and other guns as part of a collection.
Part of the problem was a lack of proper security of the guns, despite the comment that the mother was afraid of her son, and did not dare allow him to be left unsupervised for a moment. Gun laws do not address the safety of having guns in the home. That is up to the owner. The safety training comes in the form of a pamphlet packed with most guns when they are purchased.
Another aspect of the problem was the lack of behavioral health care for the shooter [according to the media] and a failure of our current system to account for early reporting of perceived dangerous individuals. Law enforcement is usually limited to taking action until the person has actually committed a crime. No solid information available yet on the degree to which the mother tried to obtain help for her son, or if she ever seriously informed anyone of her fear of her own son.
If you Google "Worst School Shootings," you will find that the absolute highest number of deaths in attacks on schools was due to explosives, not guns. Guns are easy to obtain, handle, more convenient, and quicker. However, if someone is highly determined to kill, they will accomplish their goal.
We can change gun laws, but those laws have to be enforced. We can stop the sale of military and paramilitary weapons, but they will still be available somewhere. We can post guards and create passive security systems, but someone has to pay for that.
The real question has been put forth repeatedly since the tragedy. Are we ready to do what is
necessary? Will we really do what has to be done? Will we change?
* * *
I am pro gun and I am a U.S. Army Infantry veteran. There is no legitimate civilian use for an AR-15 other than placing large amounts of lead on "soft" targets but don't you dare try to take my AR-15; I earned it.