Connecticut School Shooting

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Table 5

You know how to manufacture bullets?

Its really not that difficult to reload your casings.

I have a brother-in-law that used to run a custom long gun outfit and he showed me one day. With a little practice and the right equipment it is almost trivial.

You can even use lead and a mold to form your own bullet, if you like. You still need to have access to the powder and the primer, which are only really obtainable commercially.

So yeah, you would have to ban the sale of a few of those parts as well.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

How about nobody, aside from police officers, carries a gun in public.

The only way to get there is to have strict gun laws in place, and enforce them. It won't be an instant fix, but it will set the US on the right path.

I totlay agree. But the argument is; How, at this point does that happen?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I do.

Part of the hobby, especially useful for non-standard calibers (mostly older guns) with expensive ammunition.

1) Neato, didn't know you could do that.

2) I'm sure it takes a skilled hand and time to make a bullet....a skill that the general public probably does not have. I'd be willing to bet that if everyone had to make your own bullets, gun use would go down dramatically. It's a lot easier to walk into Walmart and buy 1000 rounds then to whittle them yourself.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

I totaly agree with last two paragraphs, and see no reason for anyone in the general population to own a gun. In the US though, as I've said before, this is not the reality.

How different do you think that panic level would be between 5 shots or 50 shots? I predict total chaos not matter what.

But why isn't it a reality? Why can't it be? Make it illegal to own an assault rifle. Heck, go even further and ban hand guns. Ban ammunition. Set up checkstops randomly like you do for drinking and driving and check all vehicles for these weapons or ammunition. The problem won't go away right away, but it's a start. I'm actually quite convinced that a significant portion of people would willingly hand in their assault rifles and hand guns if an amnesty period was implemented. I remember a few years back, Iraq had a similar amnesty period for assault rifles and they collected something like 2 million AK-47s (can't find the article now). Now they have a murder rate per capita lower than only firearms murder rate in the US (see for yourself http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/iraq). Think of that. Iraq is safer than America!

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Table 5

1) Neato, didn't know you could do that.

2) I'm sure it takes a skilled hand and time to make a bullet....a skill that the general public probably does not have. I'd be willing to bet that if everyone had to make your own bullets, gun use would go down dramatically. It's a lot easier to walk into Walmart and buy 1000 rounds then to whittle them yourself.

Agreed.

I don't know, never heard of someone reloading their .22 or 9mm rounds. They're actually cheaper to buy from a retail store than you could reload them for.

For me, it gets back to the ridiculous defence of some of these proposed limitations. There is NO need for magazine capacity larger than 5-10 rounds, other than to equip battle troops. There is no need for automatic weapons, and there is no need for replica assault rifles.

You can say you're losing a small calibre, or you're shooting varmints etc, etc, but it's all bull.

Like in the aurora thread, I feel dirty responding as someone with an intest in firearms. I don't want my access to firearms prohibited, but then, I'm also a firearm 'enthusiast' with zero interest in automatic weapons, carbon fibre chassis', and various means of circumventing or meeting the bare requirements of firearm ownership like barrel length or round capacity.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Agreed.

I don't know, never heard of someone reloading their .22 or 9mm rounds. They're actually cheaper to buy from a retail store than you could reload them for.

For me, it gets back to the ridiculous defence of some of these proposed limitations. There is NO need for magazine capacity larger than 5-10 rounds, other than to equip battle troops. There is no need for automatic weapons, and there is no need for replica assault rifles.

You can say you're losing a small calibre, or you're shooting varmints etc, etc, but it's all bull.

Like in the aurora thread, I feel dirty responding as someone with an intest in firearms. I don't want my access to firearms prohibited, but then, I'm also a firearm 'enthusiast' with zero interest in automatic weapons, carbon fibre chassis', and various means of circumventing or meeting the bare requirements of firearm ownership like barrel length or round capacity.

I just don't see where in any world that average Joe needs an assault rifle, I don't see where a 20 or 30 or larger round magazine is required.

I even question whether magazine fed pistols are something that really needs to be available to the general public.

Modern day battlefield capable weapons are the ultimate rage weapon, they're incredibly accurate and economical.

If you need a thirty round clip to hunt deer you're ether lazy or inacurate.

You don't need a thirty round clip or an assault rifle for home defense, if fact a pistol would probably be preferable for home defence. where your in a confined space. Probably the best weapon for home defence would be a shotgun since its almost like using a flame thrower.

I get that the whole idea of militia's and 2nd ammendment rights to bear arms is there to protect citizens from a corrupt government. But really your assault rigle or uzi is pretty useless against a government backed by armoured cav, advanced aircraft and highly trained soldiers who do killing for a living. Good luck taking out a tank with a bush master



Maybe its the rum talking, but after last weekends tragediy and the ones before that, the second ammendmant right to bear arms seems utterly ######ed.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I just don't see where in any world that average Joe needs an assault rifle, I don't see where a 20 or 30 or larger round magazine is required.

I even question whether magazine fed pistols are something that really needs to be available to the general public.

Modern day battlefield capable weapons are the ultimate rage weapon, they're incredibly accurate and economical.

If you need a thirty round clip to hunt deer you're ether lazy or inacurate.

You don't need a thirty round clip or an assault rifle for home defense, if fact a pistol would probably be preferable for home defence. where your in a confined space. Probably the best weapon for home defence would be a shotgun since its almost like using a flame thrower.

I get that the whole idea of militia's and 2nd ammendment rights to bear arms is there to protect citizens from a corrupt government. But really your assault rigle or uzi is pretty useless against a government backed by armoured cav, advanced aircraft and highly trained soldiers who do killing for a living. Good luck taking out a tank with a bush master



Maybe its the rum talking, but after last weekends tragediy and the ones before that, the second ammendmant right to bear arms seems utterly ######ed.

Great point about magazine fed handguns as well.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

Like I said, you have two choices, so you would only want the bad guy with a gun? With proper training a person with a gun may have eliminated this situation quite quickly. I don't mean guns dolled out to everyone. If no one can defend themselves or anyone else, they are all just potential victims.

Fort Hood. All sorts of guys with proper training and packing. 13 dead 30 wounded before the shooter was taken down.

People talk a a good game but even if they are sharpshooter the very large majority of those people are frozen with fear when confronted with a true life or death situation. Or they are so rattled in that situation that they are no longer a sharp shooter.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

Like I said put yourself in that situation, and give it some thought. The only guy you would want with a gun is the crazy bad guy?

Honestly, this is a tough choice. The civvy with a gun could just as easily cause more casualties in a dark movie theatre as he or she could cause less.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I get that the whole idea of militia's and 2nd ammendment rights to bear arms is there to protect citizens from a corrupt government. But really your assault rigle or uzi is pretty useless against a government backed by armoured cav, advanced aircraft and highly trained soldiers who do killing for a living. Good luck taking out a tank with a bush master

That's a good point,

I wonder if the forefathers envisioned a tyrannical US govt with drones circling the skies, shooting dissidents with pin point accuracy, when they wrote up the 2nd?

[ernie]

^^^^

The guy I "shot" all afternoon at work yesterday has simply resorted to "well if the government become tyrannical then you'll all be sorry you don't have guns but I'll be happy because I have mine!"

My reply:

"I look forward to watching you battle a tank with your AR-15. This isn't a video game with damage meters. You aren't going to win. If tyranny ensues and that tyranny has control of the armed forces you're screwed. If they don't have control of the armed forces they're screwed. It ain't the 1800's anymore."

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by ernie

Fort Hood. All sorts of guys with proper training and packing. 13 dead 30 wounded before the shooter was taken down.

People talk a a good game but even if they are sharpshooter the very large majority of those people are frozen with fear when confronted with a true life or death situation. Or they are so rattled in that situation that they are no longer a sharp shooter.

Last year in Seattle a guy walks into a cafe and guns down 4 cops having coffee, guns are totally useless for defence unless you have them drawn and aimed and expect a threat, even then if the wack job has a kevlar vest on (and these wack jobs all seem to have kevlar vests) he is essentially untouchable to the average marksman.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I get that the whole idea of militia's and 2nd ammendment rights to bear arms is there to protect citizens from a corrupt government. But really your assault rigle or uzi is pretty useless against a government backed by armoured cav, advanced aircraft and highly trained soldiers who do killing for a living. Good luck taking out a tank with a bush master

That's an argument that I never understood either....how some fat fata in Ohio is going to protect the good citizens of the US against a battleship, an f22 raptor and some highly trained infantry force.

Might as well be children making "Pew Pew Pew" sounds with their fingers.

Btw, todays US government seems about as corrupt and morally bankrupt as one can get. Why not take up arms against them, heroes of America?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

That's a good point,

I wonder if the forefathers envisioned a tyrannical US govt with drones circling the skies, shooting dissidents with pin point accuracy, when they wrote up the 2nd?

Considering many were slave holders, it's pretty easy to assume their comprehension of many issues facing Americans today is non-existent.

From a historical perspective the constitution is a nice document. From a practical governing perspective it's an utterly outdated document who's meaning has largely been rendered inconsequential, while other aspects, like the 2nd amendment have been co-opted as a kind of blasphemous argument defence. "What are you, some kind of anti-constitutionalist? Traitor!"

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by ernie

^^^^

The guy I "shot" all afternoon at work yesterday has simply resorted to "well if the government become tyrannical then you'll all be sorry you don't have guns but I'll be happy because I have mine!"

My reply:

"I look forward to watching you battle a tank with your AR-15. This isn't a video game with damage meters. You aren't going to win. If tyranny ensues and that tyranny has control of the armed forces you're screwed. If they don't have control of the armed forces they're screwed. It ain't the 1800's anymore."

These dum efftards always forget that tyranny always comes about with massive popular support, as it has in the US in the last decade due to the 'war on terror'
Ironically it is the right wing gun owning wack jobs that support the tyranny most of all.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by ernie

^^^^

The guy I "shot" all afternoon at work yesterday has simply resorted to "well if the government become tyrannical then you'll all be sorry you don't have guns but I'll be happy because I have mine!"

My reply:

"I look forward to watching you battle a tank with your AR-15. This isn't a video game with damage meters. You aren't going to win. If tyranny ensues and that tyranny has control of the armed forces you're screwed. If they don't have control of the armed forces they're screwed. It ain't the 1800's anymore."

I think that they might argue that the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan were fairly successful at tying up one of the most advanced armies in the world.

However if you look at it, it wasn't rifles and hand guns that caused the problems and tied up the military as much as it was a hidden enemy that used their own enemies explosives against them to make fairly advanced IEDs.

In the states it would be different as the U.S. for the most part has paved roads and infrastructure that would make it very difficult to hide mines.

In a straight out up and up gun battle with the U.S. army you will lose, especialy since their army got a hideous amount of experience in urban combat.

Plus I don't think some fat militia guy is any match for a Afghanistan tribes man who has been at war constantly for 30 or 40 or 50 years.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by ernie

^^^^

The guy I "shot" all afternoon at work yesterday has simply resorted to "well if the government become tyrannical then you'll all be sorry you don't have guns but I'll be happy because I have mine!"

My reply:

"I look forward to watching you battle a tank with your AR-15. This isn't a video game with damage meters. You aren't going to win. If tyranny ensues and that tyranny has control of the armed forces you're screwed. If they don't have control of the armed forces they're screwed. It ain't the 1800's anymore."

If a tyrannical government takes over in the states the average person won't see it coming and will probably welcome it with thunderus applause.

The day and age of rounding up dissidents at gun point has been replaced with shifting laws. the next great goverment change will be fought in front of our computers and T.V.s and not in ambush points or building to building gun fights.

The smart militia should be spending time at lawschool and not shooting rifles.

[_Q_]

Well also there's the fact that if you're at war with the US government, chances are you no longer care about the laws of the land and you'll obtain those weapons you need to fight the US army either legally or illegally. Weapons are smuggled in all the time now into Iraq through Turkey, Iran and Jordan. If a civil war broke out in America, Canadians and Mexicans would find a way to arm their rebel buddies in the US since the profit from such an endeavour would be astronomical.

[Table 5]

Can't wait to see this:


vs this:

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Well also there's the fact that if you're at war with the US government, chances are you no longer care about the laws of the land and you'll obtain those weapons you need to fight the US army either legally or illegally. Weapons are smuggled in all the time now into Iraq through Turkey, Iran and Jordan. If a civil war broke out in America, Canadians and Mexicans would find a way to arm their rebel buddies in the US since the profit from such an endeavour would be astronomical.

The first thing that the U.S. government would do in the case of a rebellion like that would be to effectively seal the borders. You would no longer have fat customs cops on the line, you'd have army and marines. You would have blackhawk helicopters with infra red look down searching for tunnels.

They don't do it now because it would be hideously expensive and would send the wrong message to their neighbours. but give them a reason and mandate and nothing is coming in or leaving.

And this is on the U.S. militaries home turf, you're going to face their full army on a short logistics train unlike in Iraq and Afghanistan.