What is the purpose of assault weapons?

[Copelius]

but ol HOWBAT had a hell of a time giving me any level of comfort that a weapon assigned to the Battery wouldn't show up at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Fortunately we didn't have any of those types of issues, but I can see any number of my 13Bs doing something similar. I think being in Germany helped contain them somewhat.

[Bo Diddley]

In other words, there are guns in your "gun free zone" and you can't estimate if it is more or less than what you find among police in any given city.

Only guns in the hands of police, just as there are guns in the hands of police in every "gun free zone".

And to exacerbate the problem, it's not just a school, it's the greater part of a small city where regular Joes can't defend themselves with a gun. That's a pretty large area for someone with ill intent to roam until the police show up. How long did it take at Ft. Hood? How long at Newtown? Too long to make enough of a difference.

[YOhio]

First I learn you have never shot a deer and now this. Do me a favor, will you? If you drive a Subaru with a "Kerry Edwards" bumper sticker on the back, can you please just STFU and keep it to yourself? Por favor? There is only some much disillusionment this old heart can take.

Lol! Napper is a phony. I had him pegged from day one.

[wuapinmon]

Like a virgin lecturing on sexual techniques and positions.

Depending on what she looks like, that could be very interesting.

[SoCalCoug]

First I learn you have never shot a deer and now this. Do me a favor, will you? If you drive a Subaru with a "Kerry Edwards" bumper sticker on the back, can you please just STFU and keep it to yourself? Por favor? There is only so much disillusionment this old heart can take.

Seriously, what's next? Are we going to learn that he's a thespian?

[Moliere]

I think we should ban truck rentals and fertilizer.

[calicoug]

Only guns in the hands of police, just as there are guns in the hands of police in every "gun free zone".

And to exacerbate the problem, it's not just a school, it's the greater part of a small city where regular Joes can't defend themselves with a gun. That's a pretty large area for someone with ill intent to roam until the police show up. How long did it take at Ft. Hood? How long at Newtown? Too long to make enough of a difference.

Churches and schools are the biggest group of gun free zones and tere are rarely if any police there. Quite unlike an army base.

And at Fort Hood, police showed up fairly quickly. The shooter shot and disabled the firs officer while she was returning fire. At Sandy Hook officers were there within about 2 minutes.

More guns isn't the answer.

Imagine the scene in Aurora if several people had guns on them during the movie. The shooter comes in, throws smoke grenades, starts shooting, and then what? The people in the audience return fire? Why would they assume the others they see shooting are good guys? What if they start shooting each other? Nobody can even tell at that point who the real threat is or how many threats there are. Then the police arrive. Who do they shoot in the mayhem? Do they shoot at anyone who is pointing a gun at anyone else or do they stop to ask questions while that person fires?

Chaos.

[calicoug]

I think we should ban truck rentals and fertilizer.

At least approach the debate honestly. If you can't identify any obvious differences between trucks and fertilizer versus assault weapons, you need to reflect more before posting again.

[creekster]

At least approach the debate honestly. If you can't identify any obvious differences between trucks and fertilizer versus assault weapons, you need to reflect more before posting again.

Patronize much?

[Moliere]

At least approach the debate honestly. If you can't identify any obvious differences between trucks and fertilizer versus assault weapons, you need to reflect more before posting again.

You clearly missed the point, but carry on with your assault on assault weapons while the smart people try to attack the root of the problem.

[pellegrino]

Are you really suggesting it is "loaded language" to talk about a mass shooting at an elementary school when discussing gun control? Are we supposed to consider gun control as if there are no mass shootings?

I think you meant to respond to a different post, not mine. I'm still waiting for your analysis that shows not just an alleged correlation between the expiration of the AWB and an increase of mass shootings, but the cause of said alleged increase.

With regards to this post, however, I think you're making an emotional argument, not a rational one when you suggest that Friday's tragedy be the primary frame of reference for the debate on the place of guns in American society.

[calicoug]

I think you meant to respond to a different post, not mine. I'm still waiting for your analysis that shows not just an alleged correlation between the expiration of the AWB and an increase of mass shootings, but the cause of said alleged increase.

With regards to this post, however, I think you're making an emotional argument, not a rational one when you suggest that Friday's tragedy be the primary frame of reference for the debate on the place of guns in American society.

I didn't say Friday's shooting should be the primary frame of reference.

I think you have causality backwards, by the way. What you are after is not that repeal of AWB caused mass shootings but that assault weapon bans (of which AWB is merely one example) have caused a reduction in mass killings. Australia and the UK have interesting data on this point, and while in the US I don't know one can conclusively show causality there is at least very interesting correlation.

As for the emotional argument issue, that's about how I feel about arguments that "we can't give these guns up because they are just so fun to shoot!"

[calicoug]

You clearly missed the point, but carry on with your assault on assault weapons while the smart people try to attack the root of the problem.

Which is what? Mental illness? Care to guess what percentage of mass killers are diagnosed with a mental illness?

[Drunk Tank]

Imagine the scene in Aurora if several people had guns on them during the movie. The shooter comes in, throws smoke grenades, starts shooting, and then what? The people in the audience return fire? Why would they assume the others they see shooting are good guys? What if they start shooting each other? Nobody can even tell at that point who the real threat is or how many threats there are. Then the police arrive. Who do they shoot in the mayhem? Do they shoot at anyone who is pointing a gun at anyone else or do they stop to ask questions while that person fires?

Chaos.

http://current.com/1s4rokc

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/c...icle-1.1121161



http://www.examiner.com/article/anal...chool-shooting

[byu71]

As for the emotional argument issue, that's about how I feel about arguments that "we can't give these guns up because they are just so fun to shoot!"

Which is why one should not argue emotions. Your emotions are yours and somone else's is there's. I can understand why each person may validate their own emotions, but you can't come to any agreement doing that.

Mock someone's feelings as trivial because you define it as "fun" vs "death" of others as a valid argument. It isn't. It is as I said a mocking argument or one meant to embarass or lay guilt. Anyone who feels differently than you and has the ability to think just isn't going to buy your method of persuasion. As one who has an open mind to this discussion, your method pushes me the other direction.

I have never been persuaded by applying a guilt trip. Especially a baseless one.

Prove to me with facts deaths will go down dramatically by a new gun law and I could be persuaded. If I haven't made it clear, your "fun" vs "death" aargument is just empty.