Gun Rights / Gun Control And The Church'S View.

[ERayR]

The Bushmaster assault rifle that Lanza carried into the school in CT sprays 180 rounds per minute. It was designed after it was learned that soldiers in combat usually did not take aim before shooting but rather just pointed in a general direction.

Then it was obtained illegally because fully automatic rifles are illegal to own.

A quick Google would have told you that the weapon Lanza used could not spray 180 rounds a minute. "Lanza used a Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic rifle at close range". The rifle Lanza used was a SEMI-AUTOMATIC look alike of the Bushmaster. When firing a semi-automatic rifle the trigger must be pulled for every shot. With a 30 or 40 shot clip (that is the two capacities I found available online) there is no way it could fire 180 rounds a minute

So there is nothing about Lanza’s rate of fire that suggests the need to regulate or ban any particular style of firearm. But all of that is by way of preface. The many observers who are calling for a renewed ban on assault weapons apparently believe that the rifle that Lanza used was an assault weapon. Is that assumption correct? There are three possible answers; take the quiz:

* Yes

* No

* Maybe

The correct answer is “Maybe,” or, more specifically, “Maybe, but probably not.” The specific model of the Bushmaster rifle has not been publicly disclosed, and without knowing that we cannot tell whether it is an assault weapon as defined in the defunct federal law. (The phrase “assault weapon” has no meaning apart from the federal law; it was invented by politicians for political reasons.) We can guess that it probably isn’t, since Connecticut already bans the sale of “assault weapons,” and there is no indication that Nancy Lanza bought or owned her guns illegally.

[ERayR]

I grew up with BB guns and hunting rifles, and by the time I was 12 I had my own .22 rifle. I shot quail, sitting doves and that kind of thing for a while, and then had an experience where I brought down a bigger animal and had to pump several rounds into it to kill it before I swore off guns. Today I own a shotgun, and I occasionally go out dove or pheasant hunting with family members. But I rarely bag anything--I don't try very hard.

Guns are so deeply embedded in the American psyche...I think it is hard for non-Americans to understand how deeply embedded they are. They are never going away, not only guns used for hunting but assault weapons whose sole purpose is to kill people. No matter what the gov't does or does not do, in the U.S. guns are here to stay.

And that is your choice but do allow others their choices.

[Calm]

I was thinking of the problem of having military style weapons and target shooting for sport and the possibility of limiting such to local gun clubs where they could be lent out to be used for a certain amount of time in the club area and then turned back in, just like clubs at a minature golf range. One pays for the rental and the ammo used and the club is responsible for keeping the gun under lock and key.

The idea of having the 'point and fire' rather than 'aim and fire' type of weapon at home for self-defense scares me due to what seems to me the extreme possiblity of someone who shouldn't getting hurt because they are standing in the wrong place at the wrong time and the shooter is not sufficiently aware of them due to being focused on the threat or thinking they have more control then they do when it is such an emotional situation which tends to lead to misjudgments and overreactions. I would think the vast, vast majority of self-defense situations would be sufficiently addressed by use of less excessive guns if the owner is trained in the use.

[ERayR]

I can't and won't tell you how to live your life but by the same token I don't participate in those activities and it makes me no nevermind to those who do. What I do have a problem with is the massacres that keep happening in your country and people don't seem to care enough to do something about it

Again, The guns do not commit the massacres it is the mental health case doing it. So instead of taking guns away from all the law abiding citizens lets find a way to help the mental health case.

[Duncan]

I think it is unfair to claim that someone doesn't care simply because they don't agree with a particular solution, especially when they don't agree because they don't think that solution is workable.

fair point, but what can be done to prevent more of this stuff from happening?

[Sky]

Neither are a significant portion of guns.

My point still stands.

[Calm]

With a 30 or 40 shot clip

I think clips should be limited to something more like 10 shots, but am willing to be educated here. All I can think of for legally needing that many shots in a self-defense scenario is if one were to take on a gang and considering how rarely that would happen and how someone would still be able to get to you while you are aiming in the other direction, I do think a viable gun law would be to lessen the amounts of shots per clip allowed.

[Duncan]

Again, The guns do not commit the massacres it is the mental health case doing it. So instead of taking guns away from all the law abiding citizens lets find a way to help the mental health case.

it's Christmas so in the spirit of good will to all men, I can agree on most of that!

[ERayR]

fair point, but what can be done to prevent more of this stuff from happening?

More could be done in the detection and treatment of mental health issues.

[Calm]

Again, The guns do not commit the massacres it is the mental health case doing it. So instead of taking guns away from all the law abiding citizens lets find a way to help the mental health case.

Totally agree. Better use of money imo than gun laws that most likely only target those who use guns responsibly anyway. One gets into debates on locking up people who may be dangerous but not known for sure and that is a difficult topic to handle.

[Sky]

Again, The guns do not commit the massacres it is the mental health case doing it. So instead of taking guns away from all the law abiding citizens lets find a way to help the mental health case.

And just how do you suggest we "find a way to help the mental health case"?

I have a feeling the NRA would agree with you.

[blackstrap]

More could be done in the detection and treatment of mental health issues.

Again, what if the treatment is the cause.?

[ERayR]

I think clips should be limited to something more like 10 shots, but am willing to be educated here. All I can think of for legally needing that many shots in a self-defense scenario is if one were to take on a gang and considering how rarely that would happen and how someone would still be able to get to you while you are aiming in the other direction, I do think a viable gun law would be to lessen the amounts of shots per clip allowed.

It is not the size of the clip that makes any difference. If you limited it to 10 shot clips the nut only has to load and carry more clips. It would not slow them down.

[Calm]

fair point, but what can be done to prevent more of this stuff from happening?

Education, education, education (something the NRA promotes big time, btw) tough, tough laws about locking up one's guns so that those who shouldn't have them can't get their hands on ones with significant penalities for those who don't follow through, mental health care being pumped up including facilities for the mentally ill which are not more like jails than dorms or private homes so as to encourage them to volunteer for treatment, having restrictions placed on the mentally ill who refuse treatment (they should be allowed to refuse, but if so, penalities should be in place.)

[ERayR]

And just how do you suggest we "find a way to help the mental health case"?

I have a feeling the NRA would agree with you.

Now you are at least asking the right question.

Don't know I am not a member nor do I read their literature.

[ERayR]

Education, education, education (something the NRA promotes big time, btw) tough, tough laws about locking up one's guns so that those who shouldn't have them can't get their hands on ones with significant penalities for those who don't follow through, mental health care being pumped up including facilities for the mentally ill which are not more like jails than dorms or private homes so as to encourage them to volunteer for treatment, having restrictions placed on the mentally ill who refuse treatment (they should be allowed to refuse, but if so, penalities should be in place.)

It would be nice if they would be recognized as having problems instead of trying to "main stream" them.

[Bob Crockett]

More could be done in the detection and treatment of mental health issues.

Anything proposed would be an unconstitutional infringement upon one's freedoms. In Adam Lanza's case, there would have been no reason to restrict his freedom to own guns. He was a good student. He did not have a criminal record.

As it stands now, felons cannot own guns, but many or most crimes involving guns are committed by convicted felons.

What's easier? Make handguns and assault rifles unlawful to own, or lock people away because they are loners, don't have girlfriends, don't like to get their hair cut, and are computer dweebs?

[bdouglas]

And that is your choice but do allow others their choices.

This is kind of a funny thing to say. Where, in any of my posts, have I talked about taking away your choice to own as many weapons as you want? What I did say is that it is my opinion that no matter what the gov't does or does not do, nothing is going to change in this country when it comes to guns.

Don't be so quick to take offense. I do not have any intention of taking away your guns.

[Duncan]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55513621-78/golden-kimball-church-guns.html.csp

timely article

I think it's been decided that the Church doesn't seem to have an opinion or we lost interest in finding out what it is

[ERayR]

Anything proposed would be an unconstitutional infringement upon one's freedoms. In Adam Lanza's case, there would have been no reason to restrict his freedom to own guns. He was a good student. He did not have a criminal record.

As it stands now, felons cannot own guns, but many or most crimes involving guns are committed by convicted felons.

What's easier? Make handguns and assault rifles unlawful to own, or lock people away because they are loners, don't have girlfriends, don't like to get their hair cut, and are computer dweebs?

It is a solution? It hasn't worked in the past nor will it work in the future. It is not a solution, it is a band-aid on a severed artery. If you can assure me that criminals and people like Lanza will never again get guns I will listen to your arguments.

[ERayR]

This is kind of a funny thing to say. Where, in any of my posts, have I talked about taking away your choice to own as many weapons as you want? What I did say is that it is my opinion that no matter what the gov't does or does not do, nothing is going to change in this country when it comes to guns.

Don't be so quick to take offense. I do not have any intention of taking away your guns.

Sorry didn't mean to appear as if I had taken offense. The comment was intended for those who would so quickly destroy the constitution. And Don't be so quick to take offense

[bdouglas]

Sorry didn't mean to appear as if I had taken offense. The comment was intended for those who would so quickly destroy the constitution. And Don't be so quick to take offense

Yes, you're right. Sorry. You can always count on a discussion about guns to get both sides of the debate riled up...although I don't think I belong to either side

On a lighter note, everyone should read the link Duncan referenced about J. Golden Kimball (the last of our "uncorrelated" church leaders) and his guns, etc. A good laugh. If you missed link, here it is:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55513621-78/golden-kimball-church-guns.html.csp

[ERayR]

Yes, you're right. Sorry. You can always count on a discussion about guns to get both sides of the debate riled up...although I don't think I belong to either side

On a lighter note, everyone should read the link Duncan referenced about J. Golden Kimball (the last of our "uncorrelated" church leaders) and his guns, etc. A good laugh. If you missed link, here it is:

http://www.sltrib.co...h-guns.html.csp

I used to be neighbors with one of J. Golden's nephews. He loved his Uncle Golden. I had heard this story and many more a long time ago. If you will note though his instruction was not to get rid of the guns but to use some common sense in their use. Thus the warning that guns carried in their hip pockets would go off and blow their brains out.

[Sky]

Now you are at least asking the right question.

Look, I'm all for doing more to help the mentally ill, but stricter gun control laws need to be part of the answer too. In my opinion, nobody has any business with an AK47 or M16, or anything like it. We all get to make choices, but when people's lives are at stake, that is another matter. Making it easy for guns to get into the hands of the wrong people is not acceptable. Right now, it's too easy. This year should have made that apparent enough. And you can look to the example of other countries to see that strict gun control laws actually do work.

Having common sense gun control laws doesn't destroy the constitution. The constitution can be amended if need be. It's a matter of saving lives.

And the NRA cares more about selling guns than it does making our world a safer place. The idea to have an armed police officer at every school is costly and risky. So sorry, but I have very little sympathy for the gun lobby and their supporters.

Edited December 23, 2012 by Sky

[ERayR]

Look, I'm all for doing more to help the mentally ill, but stricter gun control laws need to be part of the answer too. In my opinion, nobody has any business with an AK47 or M16, or anything like it. We all get to make choices, but when people's lives are at stake, that is another matter. Making it easy for guns to get into the hands of the wrong people is not acceptable. Right now, it's too easy. This year should have made that apparent enough. And you can look to the example of other countries to see that strict gun control laws actually do work.

Having common sense gun control laws doesn't destroy the constitution. The constitution can be amended if need be. It's a matter of saving lives.

And the NRA cares more about selling guns than it does making our world a safer place. The idea to have an armed police officer at every school is costly and risky. So sorry, but I have very little sympathy for the gun lobby and their supporters.

Look, what you are failing to recognize or admit it is already illegal for guns to be in the hands of the "wrong people". Passing laws against gun ownership is simply a "fell good" action. It does nothing to solve the problem but diverts attention and makes everybody "feel good". Again blaming the gun is faulty logic. The gun does not have emotions or independent action. It has no power to reason or sway action. All of that is done in the mind of the mental health case or the rational citizen. To say it is caused by the gun speak very poorly to the logic used in such a conclusion. As I reported above the worst case of violence in a school resulting in the most deaths of children was not done with a gun but with dynamite.