Gun enthusiasts pack shows to buy assault weapons

BS.

It is not BS at all cleo it is well known to anyone who is involved in shooting guns. Even John Caile says the same thing. Heck even criminals according to the FBI train weekly with their guns. I'm willing to bet that people involved in a gun club in the UK probably go monthly if not weekly.

Wow. Well, there goes the credibility. The average gun owner that I know personally does not train anywhere near that rate.

You don't say yabits, gee I wonder if that is why I said most gun owners, I didn't say all.

At the very least the average civilian gun owners train a lot more with their guns than the average cop does.

I've lived in America before and never felt the need to own a gun.

Then why ban them?

They love to cite statistics saying you are more likely to die in a car crash than by a gun, but feel it's okay to buy a gun to protect yourself from the miniscule oft-chance you'll need it.

Same reason why you put on your seat belt in a car or wear a helmet when riding a bike. You do it to protect yourself from the minuscule oft-chance you'll need it. How often has you wearing a helmet riding a bike or sledding down a hill saved your life? How often has wearing a seat belt in your car saved your life? I'm willing to be you do those things have saved your life pretty rarely.

Brian they are not using assault rifles for target practice, they are using semi-automatic rifles for target practice. You could ask the question of why do you need a bolt action, pump action or lever action for target shooting, don't muzzle loaders do just fine for target shooting?

Proof that hitting a moving target is more difficult than a stationary one?

Nope that is not what I'm asking.

Proof that if you're moving to track you're less well able to brace?

Yes, I would to like to see that at a gun range when tracking a moving target down range, yourself the shooter are not necessarily moving, that you are less able to brace for the recoil. That is what your argument was, that at a gun range target shooting at a moving target while tracking a moving target you are less able to brace for the recoil. I would like to see proof of that.

your average citizen would have to spend about 1 and a half hours on the range every weekend every year... fat chance!).

How is it a fat chance? Go to any gun range that is not advertised for non gun owners or tourists and ask them how often they see their regulars, I will guarantee you that it is almost a weekly basis if not more.

No, down on the ground with a bullet in them and looking dumbly at the hole while they try to figure out what the hell happened.

Then the answer to that question would be know that would be considered murder at that point because the threat is over, that is why I asked the question if they were still trying to fight me.

Again, I think you watch too many action movies and play too many computer games where people shrug off bullets.

VPC disagrees:

Unexpected Assailant Reaction. More often than not, in the movies and on television, people who are "shot" simply fall down and stay down. End of fight. In real life, the opposite is often true, especially if the assailant is on alcohol or drugs. They either don't fall down, or they get back up and keep coming. "We can presume that in half of the police-involved shootings, the felon will not lay down and be cooperative instantly. In fact, many shooting reports included information to suggest that the felon showed no indication that he had been hit.

For example this guy in the below link was shot 4 times and he was still fighting the cop, it wasn't until he was shot in the head did he stop.

http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=4527526

People who are hit with a bullet may get knocked down but they don't stay down.

NYPD's new deadly force policy prohibits firing to injure. In other words you shoot to kill or you don't shoot at all. It also prohibits firing where it may endanger bystanders. In other words you fire one shot that you're sure will hit and kill, or you don't fire at all.

That is not evidence that they only fire one shot and wait for the results or that they have a policy of one shot one kill. Heck remember those cops in the NYPD that fired till the suspect was dead but ended hitting 9 bystanders? That was them following the deadly force policy and they didn't fire one shot each and then wait for the results they kept firing until he was dead. Do you think they lined up a shot and said yes this one shot is going to kill him or do you think their training was to fire at the torso and don't stop firing until the suspect is incapacitated/dead?

Sure this policy isn't ahered to, but it is there in the handbook. You asked for the handbook, there's the handbook.

Again that is not proof of one shot and wait till the results come in, all that handbook says is you shoot until you know the suspect is incapacitated or dead. If they fire till the magazine is depleted and the suspect is incapacitated but still alive they have to provide medical assitance otherwise it would be execution at that point because the threat is over.

I've proven you wrong on EVERY SINGLE point. Just give up, clearly you have no clue. You claim a rate of accuracy that is frankly unbelievable for the average gun owner (or even an ex-police officer), and your grasp of tactics and how guns operate seems to be based entirely on FPS computer games.

No you haven't, in fact I haven't seen a single point proven wrong by you. Rate of accuracy is not unbelievable for the average gun owner at a gun range considering they train more often than the average police officer. Heck I even proved that criminals are better shots than the average police officer, and that is the FBI saying that.

Most gun owners that are not in law enforcement or the military train nearly weekly if not monthly with their gun at a gun range.

Wow. Well, there goes the credibility.

The average gun owner that I know personally does not train anywhere near that rate.

No, I can't. I've handled fully automatic weapons and I restrict myself to double-taps at most since after that accuracy decreases exponentially, and if I can't do it with 2 bullets then 5 or 10 or 20 won't help. And you're misrepresenting what I wrote. I used the words "you" and "I", i.e. average gun users. You admitted yourself in a previous post that of a clip only 1 to 5 bullets would hit the target, and that the rest would go off target. That's just irresponsible. If you fire a bullet you're responsible for where it goes. If you don't know where it is going then DON'T FIRE.

Then that is you, I have show people firing fully automatics and not be overcome by the recoil. My point was the myth that firing more than a certain number of rounds and you will be hitting the ceiling. I didn't misrepresent what you said. This is what you said:

because the first two or three rounds will be okay, but the rest will ricochet off the ceiling

That is not a misrepresentation.

Yes you are correct that you are responsible for where the bullet goes, do you honestly think I'm suggesting you rapidly fire or even fire one round and not be aware of what is beyond the target?

I didn't say that they never shot their gun. I do however contest your assertion that the average gun user has enough expertise to hit the a man-sized target at 10 yards on single-shot mode every time... never mind firing on automatic. Police officers, who are required to pass annual certifications and who's JOB is to carry a firearm only hit their target 34% of the time. Your claim that the average citizen is more accurate than a cop? You have no clue. (Source: NYPD Firearms discharge report, 2006)

I've been to enough gun ranges to know that the average gun user enough expertise to hit a man sized target at 10 yards on a single every time. Exactly the firearm accuracy of police officers is that low, you know why? Because they don't have as extensive firearms training as people think they do.

Most people don't know this but the average cop has anywhere between 1-3 practice sessions with a gun at a gun range per year on average shooting 100 rounds or less each session.

According to the FBI criminals have a hit rate nearly double that of law enforcement when they engage in a firefight with law enforcement. Why? Because according to the FBI they train at least twice as often as law enforcement.

http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews/2006/12/new-findings-from-fbi-about-cop-attackers-their-weapons/

The reason why cops hit rate is so low is because they basically don't ever shoot their gun. Most gun owners that are not in law enforcement or the military train nearly weekly if not monthly with their gun at a gun range. This is why civilians almost always win every single shooting tournament that pits civilians vs. law enforcement.

John Caile has trained police, military and civlians on firearms and has been involved in shoot outs. This is what he says about police training:

In the 1940s, 50s, and even through the 60s, police officers averaged hit-rates of around 65% in actual shootouts with armed suspects. Today, the hit-rates are in the 10-15% range. Why? Two reasons. First, Police Departments went from 6-shot revolvers to high-capacity semi-auto pistols. As a result, many officers wrongly concluded that a “fist full of lead” was a substitute for skill. Even today, the majority of officers go to the shooting range to practice only once or twice a year!

But how can this be? Arent police officers highly trained experts in the use of firearms? The short answer is NO. Contrary to the claims of politicians like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and the fantasy world of television, where law enforcement characters spend endless hours at the gun range honing their skills, in reality most police officers go to a shooting range only ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR. And when they get there, they usually fire no more than one box of ammunition a mere 50 rounds. True, there are exceptions some of my cop friends practice regularly, including participating in combat shooting competition. As a result, they are highly skilled, and would likely be far more effective than most of their fellow officers, should they become involved in an actual shooting confrontation. But the problem is that they are exceptions. Compare that to civilian handgun permit holders, many of whom practice monthly, if not weekly, and firing hundreds of rounds at each session. I myself shoot approximately 75 times a year (twice a week in Summer, and at least once a week in Winter). Now, I am a professional firearm instructor, and thus not the norm, but I can attest to the fact that I often run into my students at the range, and they are not alone. As a result, civilians often have higher hit rates in altercations with armed assailants, and seldom hit innocent bystanders.

This is what Rex Applegate, founder of the O.S.S. and world renowned expert in combat handgun training, who told a convention of Police trainers in 1998:

in case you are not aware of it, the ratio of hits to shots fired in police gun fights is a miserable 15%, and the majority of those shots were fired at distances of less than 15 feet! This is a disgrace. Self defense training should be based in reality, and that means point shooting.

You can contest it all you want but your average police officer only trains basically once or twice a year with a gun.

Hawkeye I too would be ashamed of being an American just now, if I was one. As someone else commented here, the ones who feel the need to own guns are the ones who are the truly mentally ill. Anyone who thinks weapons make for a safer world are mentally deranged at worst, deluded at best. This FEAR that makes these people rush to spend their money on assault weapons, actually causes aggression, even war. All violence is fear-based. America certainly has a very serious sickness at its heart. I have never even seen a gun, let alone used one, and I have never, in my 67 years on earth, felt the need of one. I pray for peace in all men/women's hearts.

Why do you need an assault rifle for target practice?? NO one at our club is allowed one and we have over 500 members, so where do these people get the idea they need one? In England you have to apply to the police for a firearms licence, you have to fill a form in with the name of your doctor, two referees, stating where you are going to store these guns and why you want them, just because you want one is not valid reason. You have to be a full member of a club/rifle range to go to. After four weeks or longer the police will have gone and done a full background checks on your medical records and police records..IE if you have been convicted of assault or any thing to violence, you can forget your licence! You must have a secured strong metal gun cabinet bolted to your wall in your house, this is part of the licensing laws, also the guns must be secured inside all of the time unless you’re going to the club, and the keys are to be held by the gun owner and no one else. You are told how many bullets you can have and that’s not many at all. And this applies to shot guns as well (different licence) single shot or semi auto rifles and pistols are ok but not fully auto. This is only a brief out line on what we have to do to get a rifle, so queuing up for half an hour into a quick phone call is ridicules. What limitation is there on the bullets? Do they have to go in a locked cabinet? And what are the penalties for non compliance? We have a minimum 5 years for any infringement!! That’s the law take it or leave it!

They do background check for adults willing to buy guns but wait.... sellers don't check the entire family member background.

Members of the community who interact with the family can probably best determine this. This is why I support putting into place a protocol whereby members of the community can register an affidavit of "no confidence" with local authorities -- which should prompt a thorough inspection of the conditions regarding questionable gun-owners.

A person who is not fit to possess weapons -- who is either incompetent or irresponsible, or who has family members whose behavior is anti-social or unpredictable -- should not have them, or should be limited to the amount of firepower they have. A free-market way of achieving this is to require the purchase of liability insurance. Naturally, the price of a policy would increase along with the risk involved -- as determined by experts in that area.

There are those who are incompetent and irresponsible, and as naturally the case, they are the ones least likely to judge themselves so. And background checks will not reveal this.

If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword, or in this case, you wanna live with GUNS, sooner or later, you or your family will get shot by some nut with a gun, etc...and remember GOD hates you??

They do background check for adults willing to buy guns but wait.... sellers don't check the entire family member background. I afraid, there will be some increase about the incidents soon.

AR-15 rifles sell for 800 to 1200 dollars every day, the Delton AR-15 sell's for 600 dollars which will also by an AK-47. Anybody paying 1500 for a AR type rifle is not looking around hard enough. Obama say's he want's to ban the assault rifle,and now everybody want's one or two. I dont see the need for a AR-15 when hunting any north american game..A good lever action or bolt action big bore rifle will keep your freezer full of Meat...

I'm NOT afraid, because I have a gun and a dog that would take a big chunk out of anyone that would be even stupid enough to try to enter onto my property.

bassfunk: But why did you buy a gun in the first place, if not to protect yourself? I've lived in America before and never felt the need to own a gun. Gun enthusiasts are a bunch of hippocrites. They love to cite statistics saying you are more likely to die in a car crash than by a gun, but feel it's okay to buy a gun to protect yourself from the miniscule oft-chance you'll need it.

I knew a guy who actually bought a gun, but returned it after only having it a short time since it made him more nervous having it locked up in his room. He also said that it didn't make sense having one anyway, since if someone did come in and tried to rob him, he'd have to find the wits to take the time to unlock his safe, get his gun, then go to a separate room where he kept his ammo to quickly load the gun, which by that time, he could be dead anyway. He also feared it getting stolen and used in a crime, in which case, he'd feel so responsible for indirectly allowing that gun to get out on the street in the first place. I know that I couldn't live with myself knowing that if I had a gun, and it was somehow stolen from me and then it was used to kill someone.

I want you to define 'mentally ill' for me... you know... for the database. It seems the definition changes to fit the needs of gun-nutters, and EVERYONE is mentally ill AFTER the fact.

The best example would be the guy who shot up Virginia Tech in 2007, Korean Cho Seung-hui. People seem to forget this guy and that his rampage was the worst in Northern American history, killing 32 people and wounding 17 others. And yes, his family knew he was mentally ill and yet didn't do anything about it. I remember all the Korean students there afraid of "reprisals."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cho_seung_hui

NolivingDec. 24, 2012 - 04:04PM JST Nice dodge, your argument that you were implying was no person could fire rapidly without hitting the ceiling especially with a fully automatic. The truth of the matter is that you are wrong. You can easily fire pistols/rifles/shotguns rapidly and not hit the ceiling.

No, I can't. I've handled fully automatic weapons and I restrict myself to double-taps at most since after that accuracy decreases exponentially, and if I can't do it with 2 bullets then 5 or 10 or 20 won't help. And you're misrepresenting what I wrote. I used the words "you" and "I", i.e. average gun users. You admitted yourself in a previous post that of a clip only 1 to 5 bullets would hit the target, and that the rest would go off target. That's just irresponsible. If you fire a bullet you're responsible for where it goes. If you don't know where it is going then DON'T FIRE.

If you honestly believe the average gun user is going to hit the ceiling after the first 5 shots you are lying to yourself. The average gun user in the US has fired more than 10 rounds. The average gun user is not just someone who buys a guns and never goes the gun range with it. Do you honestly think the average gun owner just buys a gun and never shoots it?

I didn't say that they never shot their gun. I do however contest your assertion that the average gun user has enough expertise to hit the a man-sized target at 10 yards on single-shot mode every time... never mind firing on automatic. Police officers, who are required to pass annual certifications and who's JOB is to carry a firearm only hit their target 34% of the time. Your claim that the average citizen is more accurate than a cop? You have no clue. (Source: NYPD Firearms discharge report, 2006)

I would like to see proof of that.

Proof that hitting a moving target is more difficult than a stationary one? Proof that if you're moving to track you're less well able to brace? Okay, look at the same report as above. Sometimes the police are required to shoot dogs. That's normally a moving target (but not one firing a gun or anything, so low stress). The accuracy rate drops to 30%. Compare that to range shooting where their certification requires 84% accuracy (it has just been increased to 92% for pistol). So evidence shows that shooting at a movng target is about 3 times harder than a stationary one. Oh, and when the person is firing back the accuracy drops to 18%. (source: Same report as above, cross-referenced to the NYDP shooting certification requirements... oh, and that's a 63 hour course... to get the same level of proficiency, i.e. only missing 2 times out of 3 on a non-threatening moving target like a dog, your average citizen would have to spend about 1 and a half hours on the range every weekend every year... fat chance!).

In a fight would you kick a man who's already down? Still conscious and still trying to get into a fight? Absolutely.

No, down on the ground with a bullet in them and looking dumbly at the hole while they try to figure out what the hell happened. Again, I think you watch too many action movies and play too many computer games where people shrug off bullets. A review of the border patrol in the U.S. showed that most people who were shot died of shock, not from the shooting, but from the subsequent shock. That's how traumatic being shot it. If someone was high on drugs they might, possibly, be able to get up from the floor, look for their gun, pause to swat at the bats, wonder where they were and then resume firing, but they'd have to be INCREDIBLY high to do that... in which case their accuracy is non-existant and their heart-rate is through the roof so all you'd have to do is take cover and wait for them to bleed out or run out of ammo.

Show me law enforcement hand book that says you wait for the results of your first round before firing the second one.

NYPD's new deadly force policy prohibits firing to injure. In other words you shoot to kill or you don't shoot at all. It also prohibits firing where it may endanger bystanders. In other words you fire one shot that you're sure will hit and kill, or you don't fire at all. Firing a dozen shots, on average, 70% will go off target, is no longer acceptable. The new policy also requires them to show that there was a clear and present danger, so if they guy is lying there after being shot you can't just pump another round into his head to make sure.

Sure this policy isn't ahered to, but it is there in the handbook. You asked for the handbook, there's the handbook.

I've proven you wrong on EVERY SINGLE point. Just give up, clearly you have no clue. You claim a rate of accuracy that is frankly unbelievable for the average gun owner (or even an ex-police officer), and your grasp of tactics and how guns operate seems to be based entirely on FPS computer games.

Firstly, go on youtube and type in "gun accidents" and for every video of someone firing a gun well you'll find a dozen clips of people firing guns badly.

Nice dodge, your argument that you were implying was no person could fire rapidly without hitting the ceiling especially with a fully automatic. The truth of the matter is that you are wrong. You can easily fire pistols/rifles/shotguns rapidly and not hit the ceiling.

I could just type /thread right here, because it's the AVERAGE gun user we're concerned with in the U.S.

If you honestly believe the average gun user is going to hit the ceiling after the first 5 shots you are lying to yourself. The average gun user in the US has fired more than 10 rounds. The average gun user is not just someone who buys a guns and never goes the gun range with it. Do you honestly think the average gun owner just buys a gun and never shoots it?

As for moving targets, well they require you to track while firing. This means that you need to be moving the firearm as you fire, so the "deathgrip" approach doesn't work, you have to be more relaxed. This means that recoil is more of a factor. That you didn't know this means that your claims of expertise are somewhat inflated.

I would like to see proof of that.

Yes, they do.

No they don't. I don't see them stopping after one round(shooting starts at around the 55 second mark):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cAAM4TXPdw

This right here is 13 police officers firing 137 rounds into a car.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/12/13_cleveland_police_officers_w.html

This is police firing 90 rounds into an unarmed teenager:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/13/la-police-officers-fire-90-rounds-at-fleeing-unarmed-teen/

In this video you can clearly see the cop fires three rounds in rapid succession without waiting for the results of his first shot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bl3MgW8y0jo

17 shots fired at a knife wielding man:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn0bf96g36s

In a fight would you kick a man who's already down?

Still conscious and still trying to get into a fight? Absolutely.

at best its just a poor tactical choice from someone who's too inaccurate to be sure of their first shot.

Show me law enforcement hand book that says you wait for the results of your first round before firing the second one.

... so you went to outdoor ranges then?

Nope all indoor, I don't like waiting for other people to finish before I can shoot again. The only downside is that it is generally louder.

By the way the kid was never thrown out for rapidly firing his gun nor did he hit the ceiling.

NolivingDec. 24, 2012 - 04:05AM JST

The subsequent exclusion of "explosive ordinance" is an utter perversion of the 2nd amendment and nullifies its intent. In short the 2nd amendment is toothle Sure.....

Glad to see you agree.

The idea that the others will hit the ceiling is just not true as long as you have the proper grip and stance on the gun. What does a moving target have anything to do with it? Everyone is behind the firing range, if the target down range is moving or is standing still. There are many gun ranges in the US that have moving targets....

Firstly, go on youtube and type in "gun accidents" and for every video of someone firing a gun well you'll find a dozen clips of people firing guns badly. I could just type /thread right here, because it's the AVERAGE gun user we're concerned with in the U.S., since there's no requirement to even be halfway competent at the moment, so your argument about "proper grip and stance" just doesn't apply. As gun laws currently stand anyone can get a gun, and there's no attempt to vet their level of competence.

As for moving targets, well they require you to track while firing. This means that you need to be moving the firearm as you fire, so the "deathgrip" approach doesn't work, you have to be more relaxed. This means that recoil is more of a factor. That you didn't know this means that your claims of expertise are somewhat inflated.

You really honestly think police officers only shoot one round and then wait for the result before firing their next round?

Yes, they do. They would be arrested for murder if they continued to fire into a target who was already down. And it WOULD be murder. In a fight would you kick a man who's already down? If you kicked him in the head it would be murder. The same applies to someone who you've shot once. At worst its murder, at best its just a poor tactical choice from someone who's too inaccurate to be sure of their first shot.

You have never fired a gun have you? Heck you even been to a gun range? I have rapidly fired multiple semi-automatics and never been thrown out. Nor has the bullets ever hit the ceiling nor have they ever ricochet off the walls and back at the shooters because as you know gun ranges are designed to prevent such ricochets.

... so you went to outdoor ranges then?

@smith

People that are incapable of taking care of themselves, people that are a danger to themselves and to society, people that have been officially certified as "mentally unbalanced" where it is highly recommended that these people should never be left alone. Basically, people that are potentially prone to having emotionally outbursts, once the determination has been made, they should should be institutionalized or constantly monitored. People that are living with a mentally disturbed person, that means anyone that possesses a legal firearm would have to notify and register with their local police dept. and have frequent visits by a mental care counselor just like a convicted criminal, that way, we can keep a better track of these people. This is NOT the only solution, but "a" solution.

The reason why some people live in fear is because their are so many people out there with gun!! The answer is clearly not more guns! Can't these gun fanatics see the faulty logic they are using? It's like saying their are too many fat people in the US and instead of trying to get these people to diet and eat right, let's just make everyone fat so it's all equal. Crazy and irrational thinking, right?

It has taken a long time for the US to dig themselves this hole and it will take a long time to get them out of it. But change can happen and it can start NOW. Imagine a country where every Tom, Criminal Dick and mentally ill Harry DO NOT have guns. Imagine how well Americans could sleep then. Imagine how they could feel REAL freedom and REAL safety.

And we all know where most of the arms Mexican gangs have come from. Talk about coming home to roost!

Obama's "Fast and Furious" gun running operation perhaps? The operation that the Media won't touch with a ten foot pole by the way.

The busiest table at the R.K. Gun & Knife show at an exposition center near the Kansas City, Missouri airport, was offering assault weapons near the entrance. No surpjusrise here! Kansas?? Missouri?? We are talking about some of the most backwards, hillbilly, red neck "god fearing" hypocrites in the so called "bible belt" of the good old USA! These same hillbillies are going around "protesting" at funerals of US Marines etc..who were rumored to be gay, etc..telling the families of these dead US soldiers the "GOD HATES YOU!" etc...so we are dealing with folk who are not only ignorant and inbreed but are getting only stupider, more and more ignorant by the second, but thank GOD these hillbillies are not the majority in the USA and they know their guns will be outlawed real soon, so they are just stubborn old goats, who need to get real that guns DO kill people and when the next shooting massacre happens, who will the NRA try to blame it on? God??

Do you feel better getting that off of your chest?

The busiest table at the R.K. Gun & Knife show at an exposition center near the Kansas City, Missouri airport, was offering assault weapons near the entrance. No surpjusrise here! Kansas?? Missouri?? We are talking about some of the most backwards, hillbilly, red neck "god fearing" hypocrites in the so called "bible belt" of the good old USA! These same hillbillies are going around "protesting" at funerals of US Marines etc..who were rumored to be gay, etc..telling the families of these dead US soldiers the "GOD HATES YOU!" etc...so we are dealing with folk who are not only ignorant and inbreed but are getting only stupider, more and more ignorant by the second, but thank GOD these hillbillies are not the majority in the USA and they know their guns will be outlawed real soon, so they are just stubborn old goats, who need to get real that guns DO kill people and when the next shooting massacre happens, who will the NRA try to blame it on? God??

Ah, so the answer is to have a whole lot of other armed guards that might miss too? Or maybe they'll hit students instead. The usual foolish logic.

Worth the risk smith.

Noliving: "The reason why the cop didn't stop the shooter was because he missed..."

Ah, so the answer is to have a whole lot of other armed guards that might miss too? Or maybe they'll hit students instead. The usual foolish logic.

sailwind: "The gangs there have pretty intense firepower."

And we all know where most of the arms Mexican gangs have come from. Talk about coming home to roost!

bass4funk: "Then how would you explain this woman taking her kid to a shooting range, knowing full well that her son was a deranged basket case, being an introvert, having difficulties feeling physical pain, wanting to only stay indoors and play video games, so as a way to help his self-esteem, she takes him to the shooting range, that's ok? "

I want you to define 'mentally ill' for me... you know... for the database. It seems the definition changes to fit the needs of gun-nutters, and EVERYONE is mentally ill AFTER the fact. Quite frankly I think people who want and think they NEED guns are mentally ill. Can we put all of those people in the database? Or is that an inconvenience?

That makes no big difference because there will always be only 1 cop for a school that has 2 gates, 2 for a school that has 3 gates, 2 shooters for one cop, so they will arrive with a delay where the problem occurs.

Keep telling yourself that 38 minutes made no difference.

tell me that giving those shooters 38 minutes of unrestricted movement in that school did not make any difference in that tragedy....the shooter retreated further into the school

That makes no big difference because there will always be only 1 cop for a school that has 2 gates, 2 for a school that has 3 gates, 2 shooters for one cop, so they will arrive with a delay where the problem occurs. The guys that "protect" are always at a disadvantage to chase the guys that attack. They have to protect everywhere, while the shooter needs only one tiny hole in the display to get it. Also the shooters can shoot anybody, they don't care, they don't even care about their own lives if they are crazy but the cops have to be careful to not hurt any other person. In the US case, with the existing laws, the attackers will have the same guns as the cops,or even more powerful. And you can't "block" them since it's legal. I mean you can't even put a metal detector and make people leave their guns when they enter all the shopping malls, leisure parks or a campus. In some States, they don't accept it, isn't it ? I'm not even sure they can ban the parents from entering the kids school with their weapons. So that means trouble can appear from anywhere, North, South, East, West... and that's worse than most war situation. Now, if that was a case like Japan, you could say that an armed guard could be advantaged as the attacker is not likely to have a dedicated weapon, but only something like a knife. At the limit, we could discuss it, and yes, if you are guarding an empty building at night, surely see how a fire gun could help. A school ? No. Having twice to deal with guys attacking with knives at workplace, I have seen we couldn't use anything but our hands, talk to gain time and gather enough persons to block them. Maybe a taser can help sometimes. With a military weapon, you'll make what ? Friendly fires ? Attackers won't invite you to a duel at the river side so you can do Jackie Chan kung-fu, kick them with full split or shoot at good distance the only figures in the desert like John Wayne would. They attack in the middle of a crowd, in some complicated buildings, as they don't need to be super smart to realize that's an advantage for them.

So you say he was not there and he returned fire from his house ? Nobody cares about the details of the timing. The fact is an experimented trained cop was there and unable to stop a kid, a fire gun rookie. So he'd do what with a trained adult ? A gang ? Be real, there is no way to protect a vast public space with outdoor playgrounds and sports fields at some reasonable cost. That already requires lots of security staff to secure an Embassy designed like a blockhaus. And then, even if they found the way, the shooters can arrive in motorbike to shoot in the crowd of kids getting out of the school. Or that will be a hospital. A hotel. A cinema. A shopping mall.... How can you protect a whole town ?

No what I meant to say was that at the time the shooting started the cop was not on the school grounds. No one cares about the details of the timing?

I care, so does everyone else that calls 911 for help.

The argument that was made was that the guard was on the school grounds when the shooting started which is not true.

The reason why the cop didn't stop the shooter was because he missed and also because the shooter retreated further into the school and the police did not follow. It was 38 minutes between when the police arrived on the school grounds and when they entered the school. Now tell me that type of timing does not matter, tell me that giving those shooters 38 minutes of unrestricted movement in that school did not make any difference in that tragedy.

Noliving, what are your thoughts about the 2nd Amendment as it was written then and as it applies now, especially when you think of how much destruction can be put in the hands of one man? It seems we have a problem with citizens going after other citizens while the threat from the government is zero.

My thoughts on the second amendment is the same as the other amendments, it is designed to adapt to new technologies. Freedom of speech wasn't only limited to the forms of communication back then. Same with freedom of expression. Freedom of religion was not limited to the religions that only existed then but to the ones that would come about. Same with the 2nd amendment it was not limited to the guns that existed back then. I believe strongly that the second amendment needs to have regulation in terms of background checks and possibly have a mental evaluation annually. Limiting the types of firearms that can be owned is not really going to be effective, I think a more effective approach would be limiting the magazine capacity size and also what type of magazine as well as limiting people to buying only one gun each month. Banning semi-automatics is not going to make a difference because you can fire pump action and lever action guns at a cyclic fire rate of 300 rounds per minute if not faster. Besides rifles of all types make up less than 360 homicides a year. There are over 8.5k gun homicides. Banning semi-automatic rifles wouldn't make a single dent in gun homicide violence nor would it really prevent any mass shooting. More than half of all the people shot and killed or injured at Aurora for example were shot with a pump action shotgun not with the semi-automatic rifle he was using.

It's better to detour to cover than to attempt suppressive fire and have your squad moving over exposed terrritory. In close quarters if you know someone is there waiting for you around the corner then a grenade is a better option, or outflank them, or fire through the wall with a high calibre rifle.... but spraying rounds down a corridor in the hopes that maybe you're firing at the right height, and maybe the person is still there and not moving around to flank you while you give away your position.... it's a poor tactic and one to be avoided. If you're engaging in suppressive fire you've made a mistake.

Ya ya ya.......

At the time those were the largest and most powerful man-portable weapons available. The intent was VERY CLEARLY to allow for a successful armed revolution by the people against a despotic government, and for citizens to have access to weapons that would allow that goal to be achieved. It was the ultimate check and balance, that 2nd amendment intended governments to be afraid of their citizens, and to govern with the certain knowledge that no tyrrany would be possible. The subsequent exclusion of "explosive ordinance" is an utter perversion of the 2nd amendment and nullifies its intent. In short the 2nd amendment is toothle

Sure.....

Have you ever actually fired a gun? It seems like you haven't. I have, and unloading "half your magazine" will result in one or maybe two rounds hitting your target... and the rest in your ceiling (and probably through your ceiling coming down in a parabolic arc heaven's knows where).

Yes, I have fired a variety of rifles such as AR-15, WASR-10, Ruger-10/22, Ruger Mini-14, Marlin model 60 etc. I have also fired several pistols such as a FN Five-Seven, Glock 21, Beretta 92fs. I agree that the first several rounds such 1-5 rounds will hit the target the others will most likely miss.

The idea that the others will hit the ceiling is just not true as long as you have the proper grip and stance on the gun.

Take for example this guy shooting his M4 on fully automatic, notice how none of them go straight into the air.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4smSRz8BYk

Clearly arguing with you is useless since you have never fired a gun, nor know anything about using guns. Even if you hit someone with a single round and they're wearing a bulletproof vest the kinetic energy for a standard pistol against a civilian bulletproof vest is sufficient to knock them down, and probably break some ribs.

Yes actually I have fired a gun. Oh yes I agree that single round even with a bullet resistance vest can in fact kill you because it is the equivalent of someone taking a blunt object and hitting you.

One bullet is MORE than enough. Two bullets is overkill. Half the magazine is irresponsible since any marksman (not regular granny with a gun, a skilled marksman) will tell you that anything more than two shots in succession your accuracy goes to hell.

You really honestly think police officers only shoot one round and then wait for the result before firing their next round?

This is NOT a computer game where the game autocorrects for you and has unrealistic recoil. Go back to the U.S., get an automatic pistol and try unloading half your clip at a moving target on a range. You'll be thrown out of that range so fast your head will spin, because the first two or three rounds will be okay, but the rest will ricochet off the ceiling or walls and endanger the lives of everyone around you. With an assault rifle it is a dozen times worse (physics bites, and increased muzzle velocity means increased ricochet).

You have never fired a gun have you? Heck you even been to a gun range? I have rapidly fired multiple semi-automatics and never been thrown out. Nor has the bullets ever hit the ceiling nor have they ever ricochet off the walls and back at the shooters because as you know gun ranges are designed to prevent such ricochets.

In this video I don't see this kid getting thrown out nor do I see there being any bullets hitting the ceiling:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol6MIVA9tfA

What does a moving target have anything to do with it? Everyone is behind the firing range, if the target down range is moving or is standing still. There are many gun ranges in the US that have moving targets....

As for suppressive fire, you're not firing to hit your target. That means the bullet is flying somewhere else. You don't know where. For a soldier in a warzone this isn't a problem. For a civilian in a populated area it is.

Where do you think the warzone is? Where do you think the warzone in Iraq is?

No your not hitting your target but you are hitting the area/ground or the object right next to them. If you are that concerned about stray bullets use hollow point rounds they will basically destroy themselves on impact against the wall.

What ever happen to your comment that it is a tactic of last resort?

As for marines and suppressive fire, the standard load of ammunition is 200 rounds (10 clips). Suppressive fire is ammo-intensive, and there's no resupply in a hot zone. It is not a recommended tactic.

Yes not a recommended tactic by you, it is used all the time in combat by the US military. It is a very effective tactic. Yes it is ammo intensive that is why people own more than one 10 round magazine, they own several magazines and they own more than 10 rounds. Standard magazine size for the US military for their assault rilfes is 30 rounds. Not 20 round magazines. 20 round magazines is given to specific soldiers designated as marksmen who are going to be firing in a prone position.

Noliving, you get caught in your failed logic.

According to the following article Neil Gardner was not even on the school grounds the day the attack took place, Harris unloaded his assault rifle at the cop. Gardner returned fire with his .45-caliber semiautomatic, but missed the gunman.

So you say he was not there and he returned fire from his house ? Nobody cares about the details of the timing. The fact is an experimented trained cop was there and unable to stop a kid, a fire gun rookie. So he'd do what with a trained adult ? A gang ? Be real, there is no way to protect a vast public space with outdoor playgrounds and sports fields at some reasonable cost. That already requires lots of security staff to secure an Embassy designed like a blockhaus. And then, even if they found the way, the shooters can arrive in motorbike to shoot in the crowd of kids getting out of the school. Or that will be a hospital. A hotel. A cinema. A shopping mall.... How can you protect a whole town ?

Seriously, Bass, on every thread involving the justification of the murder of children you have gun-nutters crying foul about this and that and then retreating every step of the way because they know their arguments won't wash.

Has nothing to do with crying "foul" As with most liberals, they just want to put the blame squarely with the gun itself and that is a total ruse.

Now you guys are suggesting some 'mentally-ill database', which would have no meaning because the mother of the kid who committed this massacre and was shot FOUR TIMES in the face was not mentally ill and could own the guns legally.

Then how would you explain this woman taking her kid to a shooting range, knowing full well that her son was a deranged basket case, being an introvert, having difficulties feeling physical pain, wanting to only stay indoors and play video games, so as a way to help his self-esteem, she takes him to the shooting range, that's ok? This is a slow disaster waiting to happen and then the kid (accordingly) freaks out finding out his mother was about to commit him to the looney bin?! Why is it that you guys always want to give the mentally insane a pass, but NO, that would be violating their constitutional rights. Sorry, I just don't have that much empathy for the mentally insane, in particular, when they are a danger to the point that if they would ever get their hands on a gun, they could possible hurt someone, let alone themselves, No, they should be looked up where they can't hurt anyone as well as themselves.

"Oh! Oh! But I keep my guns locked up safely!" is not an argument for gun control when a child can easily open the safely locked up guns and take them to school, as has been evidenced time and again. It always takes the death of one's own children for gun nutters to realize how the weapons they hold are not at all for defense, but for death, plain and simple.

Any sensible and responsible parent would always store their firearm away so that ANY child would never get their hands on the weapon, if you are serious and careful, this should not be a problem. I grew up with guns, my father had all kinds of guns and at an early age, I know the power that they possess and had the utmost respect for that power. My dad had them locked up as do I with my own. If you can't do that and are not responsible, then you shouldn't use or own a firearm.

The only people who are TRULY mentally ill are those who think they actually need guns.

I beg to differ. I believe that the real problem is that since in the 80's most of the US mental institutions were closed and now we are all paying the price for having to care for mentally unbalanced people when they should not be around the general public, they should be locked up, in a padded cell, taking some pills.

But you factor in guns and the US stands alone with the mentally ill -- or those suddenly deemed so after the fat -- killing many in shootings. Why? the answer is GUNS. You cannot deny it without looking at the fact that other nations with mentally ill have 200 to 1000 times less the number of gun deaths per year.

So what's your point, Japan doesn't have guns, but the US is NOT Japan, different culture, different history. Japan has a high suicidal rate, every country has its own share or problems, Japan is not immune from being problem free.

@Thunder

Do the people of America realise how they look to the rest of the world?

We don't really care what the rest of the world thinks, that's what independence means, NOT to care.

How small-minded and ludicrous? For pity's sake open your bloody eyes and look at what a society you live in...

I like the society where I live in, VERY much, I just don't like how the country is politically being governed now, but other than that, love it. Wouldn't want to trade it for the world.

where people are so afraid of being murdered in their own beds that they feel the need to have their own death-dealing weapons.

I'm NOT afraid, because I have a gun and a dog that would take a big chunk out of anyone that would be even stupid enough to try to enter onto my property.

You even treat the gun as an icon to be worshipped. Hollywood even made films dedicated to the weapons: Colt 45, Winchester 66, etc...

Admit it, movies, ANY kind of action movies wouldn't be the same without a firearm, NO one would go to the movies, NO ONE. You think people want to see movies like "the Piano" all the time, seriously!

How many more kids have to die?

You have more children in Africa dying of starvation and children in 3rd world nations dying from war than you have in the US.

Noliving, what are your thoughts about the 2nd Amendment as it was written then and as it applies now, especially when you think of how much destruction can be put in the hands of one man? It seems we have a problem with citizens going after other citizens while the threat from the government is zero.

NolivingDec. 24, 2012 - 01:38AM JST No I'm not side-stepping the issue, it is very clear that bear arms/small arms means portable firearms, not explosive ordinance.

At the time those were the largest and most powerful man-portable weapons available. The intent was VERY CLEARLY to allow for a successful armed revolution by the people against a despotic government, and for citizens to have access to weapons that would allow that goal to be achieved. It was the ultimate check and balance, that 2nd amendment intended governments to be afraid of their citizens, and to govern with the certain knowledge that no tyrrany would be possible. The subsequent exclusion of "explosive ordinance" is an utter perversion of the 2nd amendment and nullifies its intent. In short the 2nd amendment is toothless.

0 Good Bad

NolivingDec. 24, 2012 - 01:45AM JST Marine drill sergeant? Go to any law enforcement or military and they will tell you that you unload about half your magazine into your attacker, that way if there is a second attacker you still have an adequate amount. You don't fire one round and then wait for result of the first bullet. Suppresive fire is not considered a last resort tactic or an indication that you have done something god-awful stupid.

Have you ever actually fired a gun? It seems like you haven't. I have, and unloading "half your magazine" will result in one or maybe two rounds hitting your target... and the rest in your ceiling (and probably through your ceiling coming down in a parabolic arc heaven's knows where).

Clearly arguing with you is useless since you have never fired a gun, nor know anything about using guns. Even if you hit someone with a single round and they're wearing a bulletproof vest the kinetic energy for a standard pistol against a civilian bulletproof vest is sufficient to knock them down, and probably break some ribs. One bullet is MORE than enough. Two bullets is overkill. Half the magazine is irresponsible since any marksman (not regular granny with a gun, a skilled marksman) will tell you that anything more than two shots in succession your accuracy goes to hell.

This is NOT a computer game where the game autocorrects for you and has unrealistic recoil. Go back to the U.S., get an automatic pistol and try unloading half your clip at a moving target on a range. You'll be thrown out of that range so fast your head will spin, because the first two or three rounds will be okay, but the rest will ricochet off the ceiling or walls and endanger the lives of everyone around you. With an assault rifle it is a dozen times worse (physics bites, and increased muzzle velocity means increased ricochet).

As for suppressive fire, you're not firing to hit your target. That means the bullet is flying somewhere else. You don't know where. For a soldier in a warzone this isn't a problem. For a civilian in a populated area it is.

As for marines and suppressive fire, the standard load of ammunition is 200 rounds (10 clips). Suppressive fire is ammo-intensive, and there's no resupply in a hot zone. It is not a recommended tactic. This is not a computer game where you have thousands of rounds of ammo and the enemies drop more. It's better to detour to cover than to attempt suppressive fire and have your squad moving over exposed terrritory. In close quarters if you know someone is there waiting for you around the corner then a grenade is a better option, or outflank them, or fire through the wall with a high calibre rifle.... but spraying rounds down a corridor in the hopes that maybe you're firing at the right height, and maybe the person is still there and not moving around to flank you while you give away your position.... it's a poor tactic and one to be avoided. If you're engaging in suppressive fire you've made a mistake.

Sheriff's deputy Neil Gardner, he tried to shoot one of the shooter but was unable to reach him. I don't have his direct phone number, if you want to call him to check. So, surely, one sniper per school is not enough. There were several shooters in Columbine. That proves ! You need one bashibazouk at the door of each class, plus a dozen patrolling around, checking nobody crosses the land-mines and trenches to reach the electrified anti-tsunami high wall surround the play ground.

According to the following article Neil Gardner was not even on the school grounds the day the attack took place, but when the call came in about the shooting he rushed to the scene. Not only that but he agrees with the NRA. He believes there should be a police officer at the schools:

The Colorado sheriff’s deputy who was one of the first to respond at Columbine High School during a bloody massacre more than a decade ago thinks armed guards could help keep kids safe. Neil Gardner, who was stationed at the school but was not there when gunmen attacked, told the Daily News on Friday that he also supports a ban on assault weapons.

“If you live through a school shooting, you understand you really don’t need these weapons,” Gardner, 57, said. “I don’t know why a normal person would need an assault rifle.” Gardner rushed back to the school after Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold began the gruesome rampage that left 13 people dead and 24 injured on April 20, 1999.

Harris unloaded his assault rifle at the cop. Gardner returned fire with his .45-caliber semiautomatic, but missed the gunman. Gardner said banning assault weapons and magazines that carry extra ammunition is only one step to making a safer school. The 28-year vet said having armed police officers assigned to schools and providing more help to students with mental illness are also key.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/columbine-armed-guards-schools-students-safe-article-1.1225796#ixzz2FtkD5w00

The article and the police officer incorrectly state that the Hi-point 995 carbine was an assault rifle, two reasons. The first reason is that gun does not fire a rifle caliber bullet, it fires pistol ammo, and second is that it is not a fully automatic.

I don't recall their ever being a guard with a firearm in the school or on the school grounds when the shooting started at Columbine. Do you have name for that guard that had a gun when that shooting started?

Sheriff's deputy Neil Gardner, he tried to shoot one of the shooter but was unable to reach him. I don't have his direct phone number, if you want to call him to check. So, surely, one sniper per school is not enough. There were several shooters in Columbine. That proves ! You need one bashibazouk at the door of each class, plus a dozen patrolling around, checking nobody crosses the land-mines and trenches to reach the electrified anti-tsunami high wall surround the play ground.

Typo correction again:

not explosive ordinance.

Should be ordnance.

How many more kids have to die?

You can ask that question about anything, how many more kids have to die by drunk drivers before you outlaw alcohol and private ownership of cars? Or just how many more kids have to die by an angry drunk adult before you ban alcohol? How many more kids have to die before you ban metal knives and make everyone use plastic knives to cut their food?

The correct tactic would to choose an area with good visibility and cover (such as a corridor in your home with brick walls) with the lights off on your end, and lighting them from behind (a window behind them or something similar), and wait for the first intruder to proceed up the corridor. When they get within range fire a single shot, if they're armed then aim to kill. You will have satisfied the requirements of even the most rigorous states' laws, having retreated "to the wall", and with clear visibility of your target to satisy yourself that they're not known to you and that they are armed. Once the target is down then light that area and reposition. Repeat as necessary fighting a rearguard action. They will most likely retreat, assuming there is more than one attacker, and if they are foolish enough to advance they will do so slowly and with extreme caution, giving you a lot more time for your family to retreat than the previous "suppressing fire" tactic would have.

OK.....

As for what would happen to someone who chose the "suppressing fire" tactic. Well, I'd say that the police would probably arrest you for reckless endangerment (your stray bullets could have hit anyone), plus there's a possibility that you might hit one of the attackers... only to find out that it was an unarmed kid. In which case you'd be in for manslaughter (trespassing laws notwithstanding the authorities do not look kindly on people unloading 10+ rounds at an unarmed kid). Finally, you'd be arrested for possession of illegal ammunition.

Ya good luck with thinking the police officer would arrest you for that. Illegal ammunition? Meaning you can only have 10 rounds at a time?

All that your argument has done is demonstrate that you do not understand guns, gun tactics and responsible gun ownership and use. Go and talk to your local marine drill sergeant about the importance of chokepoint strategies and how "suppressing fire" is a last-resort tactic and generally indicates that you did something god-awful stupid to be in the position where such a resource-expensive tactic was your only option.

Marine drill sergeant? Go to any law enforcement or military and they will tell you that you unload about half your magazine into your attacker, that way if there is a second attacker you still have an adequate amount. You don't fire one round and then wait for result of the first bullet. Suppresive fire is not considered a last resort tactic or an indication that you have done something god-awful stupid.

This is what the US military has to say about suppresive fire:

The purpose of suppression is to stop or prevent a target from observing, shooting or moving. This is useful for tactical reasons, as a suppressed target will be unable to return fire upon vulnerable forces that are moving without cover. This enables forces to advance to new positions that offer more tactical advantages (e.g., a high point). For example, a US Marines article notes that "communication and suppresive fire are what enables movement on the battlefield, giving Marines the upper hand."

That doesn't sound a like a last resort tactic.

It then goes on to say:

Suppresive fire is typically used as covering fire against targets in the close combat zone.

Man I wonder if in your house is considered a close combat zone? I wonder if I'm using it as a covering fire for me and or the people with me to escape to a safe place. There will pretty much always be multiple options it is all about risk and what risk you find to be acceptable. If you find the risk to be acceptable to fire one round and then wait for the result of that first round before firing a second round that is up to you but don't force it onto to others to adopt such a tactic.

You wake up and realize the DVD of the action flick you were watching is over and you're in the real world, where being allowed to have guns and so much ammo results not in defense but in massacres of innocents. How many rounds did the armed guard at the Columbine highschool have, just out of curiosity, and how effective was he in preventing what happened?

I don't recall their ever being a guard with a firearm in the school or on the school grounds when the shooting started at Columbine. Do you have name for that guard that had a gun when that shooting started?

You're side-stepping the issue. If the military/government has ordinance then the intent of the second amendment was that civilians have access to equal munitions in order to overthrow a corrupt government. In short the intent of the second amendment has already been neutered, so all the wailing about the second amendment is, by the virtue of your own example, defunct. So stop citing the 2nd amendment, it doesn't apply.

No I'm not side-stepping the issue, it is very clear that bear arms/small arms means portable firearms, not explosive ordinance.

Firstly, suppressing fire is a military tactic and is inappropriate for civilian situations.

Not when your life or your families life is in danger is it an inappropriate. Ya its a military only tactic alright......

That someone would even contemplate this as a legitimate tactical choice just demonstrates the gross irresponsibility of some gun owners in the U.S. It is also tactically idiotic. You will have given away your position, the fact that you have a gun, you will have wasted ammunition, potentially endangered innocent bystanders... and all before you're even sure that the "attackers" are even armed or where you think they are.

You are doing suppresive fire because they already know your position and you can see them or you saw them in that location hence why you are firing at them. That is why you reload after "wasting" that ammunition. All shots fired potentially endanger innocent bystanders. What do you think I meant by suppresive fire? Just start shooting in all directions without having a visual?

For those that think a ban on these weapons means the police have to go around and collect them all, is not how it works. They will be grandfathered, which is why the mad rush to get one now, just like in the '90s.

If it means amending the Constitution then it should be done. After all, the 2nd Amendment was exactly that, an amendment. Amend it again. If could be done but it would take courage to do it. Admittedly, it would take many years for the number of guns to be seriously reduced but saying that it's impossible to do is part of the problem. The US needs to focus on the goal of eliminating guns from society, so a short, mid, and long-term plan is necessary. Do people really believe that there would be the same number of murders if there were zero guns in the general population? Come on!

"I'm so happy that I don't live in such a gun-crazed country"

Americans are so happy that you don't live there.

There are more gun dealers in America than McDonalds and Walmarts combined.

I still find it difficult to believe that some gun-nuts are still advocating ownership after not on the Newtown massacre but also the recent shooting which JT presented to us.

Do the people of America realise how they look to the rest of the world? How small-minded and ludicrous? For pity's sake open your bloody eyes and look at what a society you live in... where people are so afraid of being murdered in their own beds that they feel the need to have their own death-dealing weapons.

You even treat the gun as an icon to be worshipped. Hollywood even made films dedicated to the weapons: Colt 45, Winchester 66, etc...

How many more kids have to die?

http://centerfiresystems.com/allrifles.aspx (all sold out)

NolivingDec. 23, 2012 - 01:24PM JST

The American 2nd amendment gives the right to "bear arms", but no-one has reasonably interacted with the idea of how much of a force multiplier the average citizen needs. If this question isn't answered then someone could claim that they need a nuke. Actually it has been answered. Explosives are defined as ordinance as a result they are not covered by the 2nd amendment so no Nuke could ever be legal under the 2nd amendment. Small arms refers to things a person could carry on them, excluding ordinance type weapons.

You're side-stepping the issue. If the military/government has ordinance then the intent of the second amendment was that civilians have access to equal munitions in order to overthrow a corrupt government. In short the intent of the second amendment has already been neutered, so all the wailing about the second amendment is, by the virtue of your own example, defunct. So stop citing the 2nd amendment, it doesn't apply.

NolivingDec. 23, 2012 - 01:33PM JST So what happens if the person shooting in self defense reloads and fires again? What are the consequences legally if they shoot more than 10 rounds. Like lets say for example someone breaks in and you unload 10 rounds for suppresive/covering fire for your family to get out of the house and go to a safe location and you reload and then fire several more rounds? What happens then?

Firstly, suppressing fire is a military tactic and is inappropriate for civilian situations. Why? Simply put, you are responsible for where every one of your rounds goes. Firing blindly in the general direction of your enemies is fine on a battlefield where everyone in the enemy's direction can safely be assumed to be hostile, but grossly irresponsible in a civilian situation where a round from an assault rifle can cover 1000 yards and kill your neighbour or their child. That someone would even contemplate this as a legitimate tactical choice just demonstrates the gross irresponsibility of some gun owners in the U.S. It is also tactically idiotic. You will have given away your position, the fact that you have a gun, you will have wasted ammunition, potentially endangered innocent bystanders... and all before you're even sure that the "attackers" are even armed or where you think they are.

The correct tactic would to choose an area with good visibility and cover (such as a corridor in your home with brick walls) with the lights off on your end, and lighting them from behind (a window behind them or something similar), and wait for the first intruder to proceed up the corridor. When they get within range fire a single shot, if they're armed then aim to kill. You will have satisfied the requirements of even the most rigorous states' laws, having retreated "to the wall", and with clear visibility of your target to satisy yourself that they're not known to you and that they are armed. Once the target is down then light that area and reposition. Repeat as necessary fighting a rearguard action. They will most likely retreat, assuming there is more than one attacker, and if they are foolish enough to advance they will do so slowly and with extreme caution, giving you a lot more time for your family to retreat than the previous "suppressing fire" tactic would have.

As for what would happen to someone who chose the "suppressing fire" tactic. Well, I'd say that the police would probably arrest you for reckless endangerment (your stray bullets could have hit anyone), plus there's a possibility that you might hit one of the attackers... only to find out that it was an unarmed kid. In which case you'd be in for manslaughter (trespassing laws not withstanding the authorities do not look kindly on people unloading 10+ rounds at an unarmed kid). Finally, you'd be arrested for possession of illegal ammunition.

All that your argument has done is demonstrate that you do not understand guns, gun tactics and responsible gun ownership and use. Go and talk to your local marine drill sergeant about the importance of chokepoint strategies and how "suppressing fire" is a last-resort tactic and generally indicates that you did something god-awful stupid to be in the position where such a resource-expensive tactic was your only option.

I've asked this one before but can I just ask where the pro-gun posters draw the line?

Not really sure, as one size doesn't fit all in the USA. The border states with Mexico are having an epidemic of crime related to the drug wars going on across the border and spilling over into California, Arizona, Texas. The gangs there have pretty intense firepower.

A clip from a home invasion attempt by 4 guys in Tucson Arizona show clearly an assault rifle being used by one as they get out of the car and literally start to attack the house until...well it didn't turn out like they planned, just watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuhKCiY-lu0

http://www.classicfirearms.com/ Notice that almost all of their guns are sold out. =Even the Russian Mosin-Nagant 91/30 (M91/30). http://www.classicfirearms.com/mosin-nagant-rfile-by-the-crate

-they sold these by the crate because there were millions in stock and are good-vg shooters (refurbished to new). They have never ever sold out in since being imported in the 60's. Maybe even the Nagant Revolver could sell out? (a gun industry impossibility)

=you can't get a gun thru a store so people are going to the trade shows. High prices so maybe more sellers also.

It seems some people just couldn't wait to unwrap their presents this year.

Please tell me why someone requires a military grade (AR-15) rifle for target practice?

You have alot of shooting clubs especially in Texas. The CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program) is maybe the best organized. http://www.odcmp.com/Sales/m1garand.htm Those "National Match" type of rifles are the ones to shoot for and they are well stocked (in supply) for ones -usually they are sold out. So some country must have returned a few back.

http://www.swissrifles.com/shooting/ Switzerland takes its' shooting very seriously though. I own 3 K31's (7.5 Swiss, but can use .308 bullets) which are excellent (almost) match grade type weapons that were surprisingly cheap buys in the US ($99-129) 10yrs ago. Swiss guns are some of the best out there and the STG57 (7.5 Swiss) was the mandatory military take home weapon and is a awesome weapon.

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Switzerland-Sig-SG-550-Apple-Store-Open-Carry.jpg (open-carry Apple Store Switzerland sg550)

Absolutely mind boggling...as we say in Australia.."only in America"

Please tell me why someone requires a military grade (AR-15) rifle for target practice?

As for background checks, should this not be done by Police and not the dealers themselves??

Just have to ban guns. An amnesty of 1 year and then impose fines. 200 years from now, it would be looked upon as the best thing the U.S. ever did and the 'Right to bear arms' would be long forgotten. Stop living in the late 18th Century!

It's not possible to just ban guns and changing the law wold not be easy. The first thing that needs to be done is to amend the US Constitution. That will require those that are anti-gun to do the hard work of convincing a large majority of their fellow citizens to give up this right. No one is even discussing amending the Constitution - not even Obama. Even if this could be achieved, the government would then have to convince everyone to voluntarily turn in their guns. At that point, I feel safe in presuming that many of the otherwise law-abiding will refuse to do so.

The US cannot stop drugs from being smuggled in from Mexico. The gun trade would boom along the Mexican border and crime would rise once again.

I think that the government can make reasonable restrictions for gun ownership but an outright gun ban would be as effective as prohibition or alcohol. American culture is violent - look at the movies and gangster lifestyle that are promoted by Hollywood and the music industry. Mentally health is also a big issue in the US. There are very few mental health institutions remaining in the US.

If people want to amend the Constitution to ban guns they need to get off their butts and do the hard work of making that happen. But don't forget to address the problem of the violent culture promoted by the media and the lack of control of those with mental health issues.

bass4funk: "Get off of it, seriously! NOT once, NOT ONCE did I hear you mention that this loon and other mentally ill people can be equally a danger to society, whether guns are involved or not!"

I HAVE mentioned the fact that the mentally ill are not properly addressed, on both this thread, and in fact MANY threads involving deaths in the US and Japan, especially with regard to suicides in the latter. But you factor in guns and the US stands alone with the mentally ill -- or those suddenly deemed so after the fat -- killing many in shootings. Why? the answer is GUNS. You cannot deny it without looking at the fact that other nations with mentally ill have 200 to 1000 times less the number of gun deaths per year.

Just have to ban guns. An amnesty of 1 year and then impose fines. 200 years from now, it would be looked upon as the best thing the U.S. ever did and the 'Right to bear arms' would be long forgotten. Stop living in the late 18th Century!

Seriously, Bass, on every thread involving the justification of the murder of children you have gun-nutters crying foul about this and that and then retreating every step of the way because they know their arguments won't wash. Now you guys are suggesting some 'mentally-ill database', which would have no meaning because the mother of the kid who committed this massacre and was shot FOUR TIMES in the face was not mentally ill and could own the guns legally.

"Oh! Oh! But I keep my guns locked up safely!" is not an argument for gun control when a child can easily open the safely locked up guns and take them to school, as has been evidenced time and again. It always takes the death of one's own children for gun nutters to realize how the weapons they hold are not at all for defense, but for death, plain and simple.

The only people who are TRULY mentally ill are those who think they actually need guns.

Owning a gun is not civilized

bass4funk: "Get off of it, seriously! NOT once, NOT ONCE did I hear you mention that this loon and other mentally ill people can be equally a danger to society, whether guns are involved or not!"

That's because you suffer from the same 'selective hearing' as other gun-nutters. I have said countless times, in fact, that the mentally ill can be a danger to society, but once I follow it up with the fact that when said people have free access to guns they become exponentially more dangerous you stop listening. Mental illness exists everywhere, and is not properly addressed anywhere, so what makes the US so special when it comes to mass shootings by the mentally ill -- GUNS. You really don't see how you defeat your own arguments?

NOT ONCE did I hear you mention that this loon and other mentally ill people can be equally a danger to society....

Bass, let's let that one go, shall we? "Mental illness" is such a broad spectrum that often what it comes down to is the eye of the beholder. (Not that I'm calling you crazy, Bass - that would get my post deleted.) Mental illness is a rainbow that extends from the guy who obsessively follows at your heels obsequiously, ever eager to help, to the guy who stalks you.

The catch is how to winnow the former from the latter. NRA types seem to be suggesting at this point that we lock 'em all up - and if they get their wish, ironically, that giant net created would snare a great percentage of NRA membership, whether intended or not. Really, the only test for separating the violent mentally ill from the nonviolent is the act: Have they committed a violent crime.

Adam Lanza was known as a strange individual but had committed no violent acts. Some (like Bass) would suggest that we lock up all of these people in some gargantuan gulag simply because the desire for firearms in our society takes priority. That is not the America I know, for it is not in the least bit civilized.

I've asked this one before but can I just ask where the pro-gun posters draw the line? I take it nobody wants to see AK47s on sale but revolvers are ok? Ammunition clips of more than 10 bullets ok? How about 9,8,7,6? I can't work out the logic. Are some lethal weapons acceptable but other lethal weapons aren't?

@dolphin

It's just plain sad that there are so many fearful and paranoid people in the US who think they need a gun in order to feel safe and free. Really, what kind of freedom do they have if they feel they have to sleep with a gun next to their bed? I feel sorry for them.

What do you mean paranoid? There are a lot of mentally ill people in the world, there are many people with a lot of money, politicians, business executives, doctors and sadly, you have a lot of people out there that are jealous of other peoples success and or are just obsessed with either killing someone or stalking them. That's a totally absurd thing to say. The FBI just foiled a plot of some crazy people that wanted to kidnap and kill Justin Bieber. How about bodyguards? We shouldn't have them either? Mandela, Berlusconi, Chavez, Castro, Hitler and on and on, all these people had armed bodyguards even in Japan. We live in a world that is not what it use to be, people are locking their doors more and more in Japan as well, people are in fear for their lives and feel better with giant gates, HD video intercoms, you name it. If you think there are enough police to protect the entire population and America is a large country, you cannot count on law enforcement to be everywhere at every call to protect you, that is not what any federal government was designed to do. So being able to protect yourself in case of a dire and deadly situation that a person could possibly encounter, a gun could be the thing that could actually save your life as well as your freedom. I'm NEVER afraid at night, I don't sleep with a gun underneath my pillow, but what about people that live in Gang areas of the states or in countries like Mexico and in South Africa where the threat is real that you could be killed, kidnapped, being raped or all of the above. I feel sorry for those people worldwide that have to be afraid at night that either some thug or even law enforcement officers that abuse their power and hurt people, that's the real sad thing.

It's just plain sad that there are so many fearful and paranoid people in the US who think they need a gun in order to feel safe and free. Really, what kind of freedom do they have if they feel they have to sleep with a gun next to their bed? I feel sorry for them.

Yes, a lot of the people who have weapons, firearms especially, should not. That includes some law enforcement members.

Adding to that, there have been a number of cases worldwide where police officers misused their guns and or set up people and orchestrated schemes to cheat the system, a lot of it, being swept under the rug, because it's something that the media doesn't really care about all too much. The very people that are supposed to protect us. This is not exclusive only to America, this has happened every in every country and is still going on. Only difference is, police are ALLOWED to use deadly legal force to uphold the law.

I can't help but laugh at the people accusing others of profiting off of the tragedy. When there's an uptick in sales of generators and other emergency equipment after a hurricane, do you also accuse retailers of profiting off of a tragedy? Buying and selling of firearms is a legitimate economic activity, and it is quite hypocritical for people to condemn it.

And it's fed and fueled by violent-themed entertainment and nationalistic warmongering.

Or people like yourself.

Part of the media's campaign to disarm the public is tactically obfuscation of the term "assault weapon" with "assault-STYLE weapon". The AR-15 used in Newtown was a semi-automatic rifle, meaning firing each bullet requires squeezing the trigger each time. Many rifles are semi-automatic but don't LOOK like a fully-automatic military weapon, the true assault weapon. My hunting rifles were all semi-auto. Also, most of the gun deaths are suicides. How many suicides annually in Japan? 30,000?

Yes, America has a serious violence problem. And it's fed and fueled by violent-themed entertainment and nationalistic warmongering.

Yes, a lot of the people who have weapons, firearms especially, should not. That includes some law enforcement members.

@smith

Get off of it, seriously! NOT once, NOT ONCE did I hear you mention that this loon and other mentally ill people can be equally a danger to society, whether guns are involved or not! Jeffery Domer, Ted Bundy. has nothing to do with guns generally speaking, yes, they should make it harder to purchase fully automated AR, but how about building mental asylums, why is it that every time we hear about these cases, some wing nut came out of the wood works and decided to go on a rampage. Should we ban knives, lead paint and steel-toed shoes (that some people use to kick people to death) so although, I am a huge supporter of gun ownership, I want people to stop thinking that this is only a gun issue, in part, put I think America has an even bigger issue of where to put these crazy people. Some people need to be locked up and no matter how much empathy we have towards these people, they are not well and should be drugged and locked up.

NoLiving: "Like lets say for example someone breaks in and you unload 10 rounds for suppresive/covering fire for your family to get out of the house and go to a safe location and you reload and then fire several more rounds? What happens then?"

You wake up and realize the DVD of the action flick you were watching is over and you're in the real world, where being allowed to have guns and so much ammo results not in defense but in massacres of innocents. How many rounds did the armed guard at the Columbine highschool have, just out of curiosity, and how effective was he in preventing what happened?

Only in the US would gun sellers profit from the murder of children.

Guns make all men equal, intellectuals without may use the pen as there weapon, but those that are armed will always trump those that are not,period, history has taught us that.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN MADE ALL MEN FREE, SMITH & WESSON MADE ALL MEN EQUAL

I think there is a bit of confusion between enthusiasm and paranoia. Assault rifles are only designed for one thing and that is to kill people.

Typo correction:

ordinance

Should be explosive ordnance.

Therefore 10 rounds should be plenty for self defence.

So what happens if the person shooting in self defense reloads and fires again? What are the consequences legally if they shoot more than 10 rounds. Like lets say for example someone breaks in and you unload 10 rounds for suppresive/covering fire for your family to get out of the house and go to a safe location and you reload and then fire several more rounds? What happens then?

but gun laws are so lax that criminals can easily get guns, they just need to walk up, show their ID and they can walk away with an assault rifle.

Assault Rifles are machine guns or fully automatic. Semi-automatic only rifle such as an AR-15 is not an Assault Rifle, you need to use the proper terms if you don't you will create bad laws. For example if you pass a law that says Assault Rifles are illegal to own guess what? AR-15's will still be legal to own because the military/law enforcement definition of an Assault Rifle is that it is a machine gun. In other words Semi-automatic only rifles such as the AR-15 would still be legal.

The American 2nd amendment gives the right to "bear arms", but no-one has reasonably interacted with the idea of how much of a force multiplier the average citizen needs. If this question isn't answered then someone could claim that they need a nuke.

Actually it has been answered. Explosives are defined as ordinance as a result they are not covered by the 2nd amendment so no Nuke could ever be legal under the 2nd amendment. Small arms refers to things a person could carry on them, excluding ordinance type weapons.

It's so sick to think that gun sales are up and businesses like these are profitting from death.

Well to be fair it is kind of predictable, for example if the US was to announce it was going to be banning cigarettes guess what would happen? All the smokers would run out and grab as many of them as they can before the ban took effect and the cigarettes makers would make a profit from it.

Look at the Twinkies, when it was announced they may be gone for good there was a sudden rush on them.

If the US was to announce banning alcohol after a drunk driver killed everyone on the school bus you can bet there would be a huge rush to hoard as much alcohol as they could.

Quite frankly talking about an AWB is what got it going, if there was no talk about doing an AWB there probably would be less of a rush for those guns.

Next pass federal laws and go to every person who legally purchased an assault weapons, confiscate them, destroy them and offer only compensation of the actual purchase price if they can produce a receipt.

Here is the problem there is no registry also the next problem is that even after you ban them it will only reduce America's gun homicide at most by around 350 a year, out of the 8.5k homicides with guns only 350 are committed by rifles of all types. For example my state of Minnesota only had one rifle death the entire year of 2011

If only everyone in the world had a gun, then there'd be world peace!

When American adults brag about their "guns and ammo" it looks out like a dick measure contest in a kindergarden. Plain and simple.

Until the public's mindset changes in the US, this problem will never go away.

If the US could start again from scratch today, I'm sure we'd have very strict gun control laws. But the reality is, it is just too late. We can only live with the situation that we are much more likely to be attacked in the US by some lunatic or criminal with a gun than people in other developed countries. However, the vast majority of Americans (probably over 99%) who own guns will never use them outside a shooting range. Of course, I realize the gun situation in the States detracts somewhat from the overall quality of life, but when I'm back in Chicago I just feel forced to having a gun in the house because it might give me some kind of protection one day. That feeling is on the same level as the motivation a person has when taking out some kind of home or life insurance. And I think that's the reason for the mentality of American gun owner (which probably seems crazy to people from countries that have a history of strict gun control)......they just want to maintain that right to have this specific kind of insurance.

As an American, I am totally ashamed of my country and the morons who inhabit it. Guns, guns and more guns is not the answer. The idea from the NRA to arm every tom dick and harry to prevent more tragedies comes from mentally unbalanced gun nuts. It is better to pass laws that would allow the ATF (alcohol tobacco and firearms) branch of the us government the right to shut down importation, manufacture and sales of any type of weapon and ammunition that should be used only by the military in a war scenario. Next pass federal laws and go to every person who legally purchased an assault weapons, confiscate them, destroy them and offer only compensation of the actual purchase price if they can produce a receipt. Any weapon that is stolen and used in a crime then recovered should be traced back to the buyer of record and they should be liable to a great degree for any crime where that weapon was used. After passing a total ban on assault weapons, anyone found to be in possession of an assault weapon gets a mandatory long prison term with no appeal allowed.

“The answer is not to limit people having guns. If someone wants to hurt somebody, they are going to find a way to do it,” Ouart said.

This argument is so stale imo, if these people DIDNT have the guns these murderous shootings would NOT have happened. Get over yourselves, you are a HUGE part of the problem dealing and promoting FEAR and ignorance.

People do not NEED an AR 15 or any other type of semi-automatic high powered rifles like it.

They forget the difference between need and want.

The NRAs solution to the gun problem is more guns (oh wait, I forgot, guns are not a problem).

If only everyone in the world had a gun, then there'd be world peace!

there are around 250million guns in America, a ban on some of these weapons will not decrease the amount of people owning them, what do they expect the police to do go to everybodys home and demand they give them up, good luck with that. taking the guns out of American society is like having the world free of Nuclear weapons, just a blissful fantasy for the ignorant

There should be reasonable scale-down of guns and ammo. Perhaps the first step is for each 'qualified' person to own only one handgun and limited bullets. These people who are allowed to own a handgun are then required to go for an annual health check to ascertain their mental state. Transgressors of these rules can have their weapons held for a certain period of time or totally denied future rights to own guns, much like the parole system for ex-prisoners. Such rules & restrictions can be slowly worked-in. After saying all these, we know Americans are proud people and do not want to be told about issues with regards to 'personal freedom' or 'rights' or the threat of taking away such liberties. God help the USA & her young people if the situation remains the same because nothing will be done due to the influence of the NRA & gun-lovers.

Well, that's just a matter of opinion to all you liberal haters. Love my country, proud of it, wouldn't want to live anywhere else and for those that think otherwise, you don't have to go visit or live there, more power to you, now having said that, I have constantly said, that I am in agreement that High power AR should be banned or at least only to law enforcement and the military. I do believe that arming school teachers is NOT the answer and I also believe that the NRA does have to be a bit more responsible and should work with congress to modify certain gun laws. At the same time, we need to rebuild new mental asylums and lock the mentally ill up. But people are too jumpy as to wanting to put the blame primarily on the guns themselves and that is absolutely not the case. Whatever happened to personal responsibility and no one is addressing the issue about the thousands of mentally ill people roaming the streets that shouldn't be out living in the society anyway? All the mental institutions are but gone in the US and I think we should reopen them. You can kill people in many ways, knives, gas, poison, saws...whatever, if you want to go out and murder someone, you don't need a gun. Look at the L.A. riots, if many of the Korean store owners didn't have a gun to protect them, many would have been hurt or worse, Katrina, same thing. You can without a doubt make the argument that gun also saves lives. But with the growing number of mentally ill people out there, what are we to do with them? Andrea Yates? She didn't need a gun to drown all 5 of her kids because she heard some voices telling her to do so. Lanza was a complete basket case 100%, and I don't think his mom was holding a full deck either. Taking her crazy son to the shooting gallery? She was very close to putting him away for a long time and that could have been the possible trigger for him killing her, either way, the boy should have never been able to come close to ANY gun and his mom was most definitely responsible for introducing him to guns. She bought them legally and had the right to own guns, don't have a problem with that, but allowing her crazy son to use them as a somehow therapeutic remedy to get him to come out of his shell in hopes of helping him to become less of an introvert, is sheer madness.

more restrictions on guns would not stop mass killings such as Connecticut.

And here's the problem in a nutshell. Yes, knives/guns/nukes/etc don't kill people, people kill people. HOWEVER at each level you see an increasing force multiplier. Someone with a knife could kill 2 or 3 people, someone with a handgun could kill 5 or 10, someone with an assault rifle could kill 20 or 30, someone with a nuke could kill 100 000 people... etc.

The American 2nd amendment gives the right to "bear arms", but no-one has reasonably interacted with the idea of how much of a force multiplier the average citizen needs. If this question isn't answered then someone could claim that they need a nuke. This may seem ridiculous, but the original intent of the 2nd amendment was to provide U.S. citizens with a way to overthrow a despotic government. Since the U.S. government has force multipliers like attack helicopters and nukes that could kill hundreds or millions of people then logically this is what citizens should have access to as well? ... and this is where the logic falls apart. Clearly the original intent no longer holds. Now we move onto the backup position, that these weapons are for self-defence...

.... but gun laws are so lax that criminals can easily get guns, they just need to walk up, show their ID and they can walk away with an assault rifle. In effect it becomes an arms race where the average citizen has a force multiplier... but so does the criminal, so you have to buy the latest assault rifle or cruise missile or mini-nuke to retain parity.... which may seem ridiculous... because it is. The entire situation is ridiculous. How many attackers are generally invovled in a home invasion or robbery? Generally it is one. Sometimes as many as five. Entire hordes attacking a house only happens in zombie movies.

Therefore 10 rounds should be plenty for self defence. There's no need for assault rifles, attack helicopters or mini-nukes for the average citizen.

It's so sick to think that gun sales are up and businesses like these are profitting from death. As hopeless as it may seem to eradicate all guns and gun violence in America, a stricter gun ban must be given a chance. If people become so afraid that they feel the need to own more and more guns to protect themselves even in their own homes and schools, then essentially innocent Americans have lost. And even though a gun ban may not work as well as it has in countries such as Australia and Japan, it must still be given a try. But people will remain afraid to try, and so many more Americans (on average, 34 each day) will die due to gun violence.

The NRAs solution to the gun problem is more guns (oh wait, I forgot, guns are not a problem).

They don't want to die before they can their assault weapons.

Tettoe

Interesting idea. Kind of like making the big tobacco companies pay billions in compensation for the damage their products do. There isn't much difference, is there? Tobacco doesn't kill people if it's just sitting on the table, just like the NRA says guns don't kill people. What a sad place the US is. As usual, it's all about money. The gun makers also create major revenue for the government so it's a sticky problem. As for Mr. LaPierre, the NRA chief, who thinks more guns in schools is the solution, what an idiot.

This kind of gun-loving, violent-prone culture is reflected in US' foreign policy. Just look at what it has done over the last 30 years!

Those who have the power to make laws are not looking 'out of the box' type of solutions for gun control. They don't have to ban any type of guns or to whom they should be sold (since the NRA chairman said it's the people and not the guns). All they have to do is make the gun companies pay for the damage. Sure they can make lethal weapons and sell it to whoever they want to but whoever abused 'their guns' (not using for self protection - as they were meant to be under their constitutional rights) then they should be slapped with a BIG compensation bills for the lives their product has caused. Money will talk and there won't be money for the NRA to buy politicians.

It is true that guns don't kill people, people kill people. But the other side is that Americans have to recognize something they will not like: the US is an extremely violent country. It is like a civil war is in progress. As reported in Japan Today article, shooting deaths in Japan, 11, in US, 9,500+, plus almost 100,000 shot but didn't die. US, God's last gift to mankind (according to president Reagan), is extremely violent.

Why not just give every schoolkid an AK47? Then they could defend themselves and their 2nd Amendment rights.

And why not give the NRA a Darwin Award?

What a sick, sick, sick country the US is. Gun dealers are actually profiting from the horror at Sandy Hook. While the affected grieve, they get richer.

If the US had gun laws the way Japan does all lot of those gun dealers would be out of business. That would be nice.

I'm so happy that I don't live in such a gun crazed country.

God bless America, the most gun happy nation on earth.