No assault rifle used in CT

[TurboGoKart]

What do you all think about this?

 

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-admits-no-assault-rifle-used-in-newtown-shooting/

[Spidey2721]

thats not really new news. they were saying that off the start, but then for some reason changed their story. thats what smells funny to me.

[El Karacho1647545492]

http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284

[Spidey2721]

that doesnt really help anything. like i said they were all saying the rifle wasnt in the school. (they as in the police at the scene) then they change the story days later.

[Drewhop]

that doesnt really help anything. like i said they were all saying the rifle wasnt in the school. (they as in the police at the scene) then they change the story days later.

 

This is the part that bothers me.

[nurkvinny]

Why does CT specify this gem - "with high capacity 30 round clips" on the rifle, but make no mention of the "clips" found for the hand guns?

[Doc1647545523]

"In a nation of 311 million people, the odds of being killed by a rifle is about one homicide per million people, which is far less than the odds of being murdered by a blunt object. But we don’t hear the media arguing about regulating hammers and clubs. Again, when 99.7% of registered gun owners are law-abiding, gun control is not about guns, it’s about control."

 

The above quotation from the article is one of the best talking points that I've heard in the debate so far.

 

The revelation that the media twisted facts to sensationalize the story is no surprise, but it was news to me. Thanks for the thread, Scott. :thumbup:

[Orion]

"In a nation of 311 million people, the odds of being killed by a rifle is about one homicide per million people, which is far less than the odds of being murdered by a blunt object. But we don’t hear the media arguing about regulating hammers and clubs. Again, when 99.7% of registered gun owners are law-abiding, gun control is not about guns, it’s about control."

 

The above quotation from the article is one of the best talking points that I've heard in the debate so far.

 

The revelation that the media twisted facts to sensationalize the story is no surprise, but it was news to me. Thanks for the thread, Scott. :thumbup:

 

 

You're too smart for this, Doc. How often do you think a hammer is used in the USA every day? Now, compare that to how often a firearm is used. I would say that it is a pretty safe bet there are more hammers being swung per year than bullets being fired. And that's JUST hammers, and doesn't include anything else that may qualify as a "Blunt Object". When people throw out statistics like this, you ALWAYS have to question the validity of the numbers, because, on the surface, they do not tell the whole story. This is like the "90% of all fatalities happen within 20 miles of the home" number...well, no shit, guys, we spend 90% of our time within 20 mile sof the home.

 

I am against the gun control measures, for the most part, but I am MORE against the sensationalist tactics being used by BOTH sides of this argument. Quote me some numbers that make sense, or GTFO.

[Not Brian]

I can't remember the last time I used a hammer for anything. I've shot hundreds of bullets over the past year though

[Miller]

You're too smart for this, Doc. How often do you think a hammer is used in the USA every day? Now, compare that to how often a firearm is used. I would say that it is a pretty safe bet there are more hammers being swung per year than bullets being fired. And that's JUST hammers, and doesn't include anything else that may qualify as a "Blunt Object". When people throw out statistics like this, you ALWAYS have to question the validity of the numbers, because, on the surface, they do not tell the whole story. This is like the "90% of all fatalities happen within 20 miles of the home" number...well, no shit, guys, we spend 90% of our time within 20 mile sof the home.

 

I am against the gun control measures, for the most part, but I am MORE against the sensationalist tactics being used by BOTH sides of this argument. Quote me some numbers that make sense, or GTFO.

 

DJ, bro, you're too smart for this. Hammers have been all but replaced by the pneumatic nail gun! No body swings those anymore except the Amish :dumb: Furthermore, when was the last time you went to the range? I have been twice in the last month or two and fired off nearly 500 rounds. And I'm not that avid a shooter.

[2011SVT]

One of the most interesting points here is that the school was completely blanketed in video surveillance. Not one frame of that video has been made available where we had entire reams of video available through the media the day after Columbine.

 

Makes you wonder....

[El Karacho1647545492]

"In a nation of 311 million people, the odds of being killed by a rifle is about one homicide per million people, which is far less than the odds of being murdered by a blunt object. But we don’t hear the media arguing about regulating hammers and clubs. Again, when 99.7% of registered gun owners are law-abiding, gun control is not about guns, it’s about control."

 

The above quotation from the article is one of the best talking points that I've heard in the debate so far.

 

The revelation that the media twisted facts to sensationalize the story is no surprise, but it was news to me. Thanks for the thread, Scott. :thumbup:

 

1) Hammers, blunt objects, etc are tools just as guns are. However, they are tools whose explicit purpose is something other than killing things. The hammer wasn't invented to bash skulls in. Guns weren't invented to do anything other than kill. That is their purpose as a tool.

 

2) The media isn't "twisting the facts." The inaccurate reporting is the result of the 24 hour news cycle that has made unreliable/inaccurate reporting early on in a crisis not just OK, but par for the course. If you believed everything early on, there were multiple shooters, one of who was Ryan Lanza (not Adam), and he killed multiple family memebers and his girlfriend. That turned out to not be true at all, once the firm facts of the case were determined.

 

What bothers me is the editorializing of the phrase 'high-capacity 30 round magazine'. The State Police have no responsibility to throw adjectives like high-capacity onto the fact that it was a 30-round magazine. High capacity compared to what? A single shot bolt action rifle? A muzzle loader? A belt-fed SAW would certainly make it seem "low capacity" by comparison.

 

And if people are going to quote that rifle or "assault rifle" quote about the percentage of deaths, be careful with that double-edged sword. Handguns have less usefulness in hunting, they are cheap enough to be easily obtained by people who would not be able to get them through legal means, and they account for the majority of preventable gun deaths in the U.S. I'm not advocating a handgun ban, I'm just sayin...

 

 

edit: or maybe I just need a tinfoil hat

[nurkvinny]

And if people are going to quote that rifle or "assault rifle" quote about the percentage of deaths, be careful with that double-edged sword. Handguns have less usefulness in hunting, they are cheap enough to be easily obtained by people who would not be able to get them through legal means, and they account for the majority of preventable gun deaths in the U.S. I'm not advocating a handgun ban, I'm just sayin...

 

This is what scares me about people throwing around the "and rifles aren't even the real issue here!" lines.

[El Karacho1647545492]

This is what scares me about people throwing around the "and rifles aren't even the real issue here!" lines.

 

Yeah, this is why the discussion and subsequent legislation needs to be comprehensive instead of targeting non-issues like a particular type of gun or magazine. No matter what side of the issue you're on, I don't think anyone honestly thinks banning 1 type of gun will keep anyone safer...except people who stand on soapboxes.

[Doc1647545523]

You're too smart for this, Doc.

 

Apparently, not.

 

Both the original post and what you and others posted have made me think this through more carefully. I admit, I hadn't given a lot of thought to the issue. I'm a gun owner who believes citizens have the right to own firearms, but I also think there needs to be an upper limit to how much destructive capacity should be allowed an individual without special training or authorization. At the extremes, I guess I don't think I should have the right to nuclear weapons or biological weapons, but I also don't believe that I should be denied the right to own a firearm, a sword, or a crossbow. It's that space between the extremes that tax our reasoning and elevate our blood pressures.

 

My comment was, admittedly, superficial. I didn't say that the quotation made the case--only that it was a very good talking point. I still believe it's a good point, despite its flaws, because it counters the pervasisve notion that removing one of the means of killing will reduce killing in general.

 

I'm encouraged that at least some of the citizens in the debate are thinking this through more carefully than I have. Thanks for taking the time to point it out to me.

[El Karacho1647545492]

Apparently, not.

 

Both the original post and what you and others posted have made me think this through more carefully. I admit, I hadn't given a lot of thought to the issue. I'm a gun owner who believes citizens have the right to own firearms, but I also think there needs to be an upper limit to how much destructive capacity should be allowed an individual without special training or authorization. At the extremes, I guess I don't think I should have the right to nuclear weapons or biological weapons, but I also don't believe that I should be denied the right to own a firearm, a sword, or a crossbow. It's that space between the extremes that tax our reasoning and elevate our blood pressures.

 

My comment was, admittedly, superficial. I didn't say that the quotation made the case--only that it was a very good talking point. I still believe it's a good point, despite its flaws, because it counters the pervasisve notion that removing one of the means of killing will reduce killing in general.

 

I'm encouraged that at least some of the citizens in the debate are thinking this through more carefully than I have. Thanks for taking the time to point it out to me.

 

I think guns should be licensed like modes of transportation (in a way that's currently not implemented for either item)

 

You don't need a license to ride a bike on public roads. You shouldn't need a license to own basic firearms that fall in certain parameters i.e. revolvers/single shot bolt action rifles. (just as an example)

 

However, you want to drive a car? You need to take some classes. You want to own a semi-auto handgun? You need a little more training than your basic revolver.

 

You want to own a performance car, high horsepower sports car, or large SUV/truck? You've got to be a better driver than a guy who just commutes in a Geo Metro, so you need a bit more specific training...some track time, emergency maneuvers, etc. You want to own an automatic long rifle? You need to prove not only that you spend time on the range keeping your skills up, but you need to demonstrate proficiency and accuracy with that weapon. You wouldn't put a soldier in the field with no training, why would you let a civilian go out and buy a similar rifle with no training?

 

These are all just example to get a point across, but I don't think it's unreasonable to want to know that my gun owning neighbors are proficient and safe as well as law-abiding.

[Green Bastard]

My only thought for this entire thing is why are they going after rifles and "assult weapons" specifically, handguns are much easier to conceal and can be/arguably are just as deadly. I'm with what some others here have mentioned, I'm not for a ban, I just don't like the half stories both sides spit out as arguments.

[sol740]

That's because it's not about banning assault rifles. That's just the tip. NY is the perfect example. If 10 round mags were common sense enough, why push for 7 round mag limits? Next will be revolvers only. They want a full on ban, and they're willing to chip away one terrible incident at a time to do it.

[Spidey2721]

but how does all the officers on scene agree the rifle was in the trunk and then days later they now say it wasnt. it just doesnt change.

[RedRocket1647545505]

I think guns should be licensed like modes of transportation (in a way that's currently not implemented for either item)

 

You don't need a license to ride a bike on public roads. You shouldn't need a license to own basic firearms that fall in certain parameters i.e. revolvers/single shot bolt action rifles. (just as an example)

 

However, you want to drive a car? You need to take some classes. You want to own a semi-auto handgun? You need a little more training than your basic revolver.

 

You want to own a performance car, high horsepower sports car, or large SUV/truck? You've got to be a better driver than a guy who just commutes in a Geo Metro, so you need a bit more specific training...some track time, emergency maneuvers, etc. You want to own an automatic long rifle? You need to prove not only that you spend time on the range keeping your skills up, but you need to demonstrate proficiency and accuracy with that weapon. You wouldn't put a soldier in the field with no training, why would you let a civilian go out and buy a similar rifle with no training?

 

These are all just example to get a point across, but I don't think it's unreasonable to want to know that my gun owning neighbors are proficient and safe as well as law-abiding.

 

There already is such a thing, to an extent; it's call the National Firearms Act.

 

I would also argue that this solution still wouldn't do a thing to fix the problem. I would attribute this to be on par with taking the license away from a drunk driver and saying they won't ever do it again. We all know how well that works out.

 

And just to hop up on my 2A soapbox before I finish; cars aren't a guaranteed right under the constitution nor do they serve a specific and important purpose in regards to governmental control.

[El Karacho1647545492]

but how does all the officers on scene agree the rifle was in the trunk and then days later they now say it wasnt. it just doesnt change.

 

I never saw a report of the rifle being in the trunk. Perhaps confusion between the rifle and the shotgun in the trunk?

[El Karacho1647545492]

And just to hop up on my 2A soapbox before I finish; cars aren't a guaranteed right under the constitution nor do they serve a specific and important purpose in regards to governmental control.

 

You're right, which is why you must be licensed and registered as a driver.

 

I'm against firearm registration, but I think personal licensing is becoming a more attractive option to the things that are being thrown out there.

 

edit: cars weren't around or affordable for most of America's history. I hope we someday have an amendment regarding usage, considering some of the shit i see on roads daily.

[Spidey2721]

I never saw a report of the rifle being in the trunk. Perhaps confusion between the rifle and the shotgun in the trunk?

 

 

dude every report that was out said it was in the trunk

[El Karacho1647545492]

dude every report that was out said it was in the trunk

 

and every report out also said there were multiple shooters.

 

 

and every report out said he killed his father in an apartment in NJ.

 

 

and every report out said his mom was a teacher at the school and was the main target of his attack.

[FourString]

What is an assault rifle?