How many guns ya got....?

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:
[i]The Connecticut law restricts semi-automatic [b]rifles...

But according to your webpage it also bans this...
______________________
(B) A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

i. an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

ii. a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer;

iii. a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

iv. a manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

v. a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
________________________________

So if it does not have a combination of any two of these, "ii", "iii", and "v", then a semi-automatic handgun which has detachable ammo magazines is still legal. And several of those weapons can easily get the job done for a mass shooter. Plus, if that is now legal in CT (with it's gun laws being described as "among the tougest in the country), then I would be very surprised if any new federal legislation will make those illegal nationally either.
THEREFORE, THE BOTTOM LINE IS: If we ban what they're NOW wanting to ban, THAT BAN WILL NOT PREVENT MASS SHOOTINGS. Or any other kinds of shootings for that matter.

This whole proposal is starting to sound to me like if they were trying to stop highway deaths by banning Ford Fairlanes and Chevy Impalas but leaving all the other vehicles legal to own.
Just more politician bullshit.

Also, I don't understand why banning any kind of rifles is supposed to stop mass shootings. If I was going to do a mass shooting I'd leave the rifle at home and use high power semi-automatic handguns which are a lot easier to carry and conceal.

Bob wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:
[i]The Connecticut law restricts semi-automatic [b]rifles...

But according to your webpage it also bans this...
______________________
(B) A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

i. an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

ii. a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer;

iii. a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

iv. a manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

v. a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
________________________________

So if it does not have a combination of any two of these, "ii", "iii", and "v", then a semi-automatic handgun which has detachable ammo magazines is still legal. And several of those weapons can easily get the job done for a mass shooter. Plus, if that is now legal in CT (with it's gun laws being described as "among the tougest in the country), then I would be very surprised if any new federal legislation will make those illegal nationally either.
THEREFORE, THE BOTTOM LINE IS: If we ban what they're NOW wanting to ban, THAT BAN WILL NOT PREVENT MASS SHOOTINGS. Or any other kinds of shootings for that matter.

Bob I have never seen a pistol that has a magazine that attaches outside the grip. I'm not saying they are not available, it is just that I have never seen one but of course I have no need to even want one.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

NaNook wrote:The Bushmaster AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle, PERIOD. It has NO SELECTOR switch. If you want to ban semi-auto weapons then remember how long they have been around.

People are getting stupid. Are you going to ban a Colt-45? Are you going to ban a Sweet Sixteen Browning? Are you going to stop the government from selling semi-auto weapons to the general public? Ever hear of the CMP Program? It's been around for decades. Yes, you can buy semi-auto weapons from your government via the CMP Program.

What about a 5-barrel pistol from the 1800's which fires all barrels with one trigger pull? It's not an automatic...

Let's bring some common sense into the discussion.

Pray tell me, who was the last mass murderer considered a normal person?

According to Ct law it must be as described.

The Connecticut law restricts semi-automatic rifles — those capable of firing a bullet with each pull of the trigger — only if they include a detachable magazine as well as at least two of five specific features. One of those features — a pistol grip — is ubiquitous on military-style weapons. But to be banned, an AR-15-style rifle would also need to include a folding or telescoping stock, a bayonet mount, a grenade launcher or a flash suppressor, a device typically screwed on to the end of the muzzle to limit the bright flash caused by gunpowder that ignites outside of the muzzle.

This is basically the same as the federal law that expired under the Bush administration. Any rifle that will fire with every trigger pull and include 2 other options is considered an assault weapon.

A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

i. a folding or telescopic stock;

ii. a pistol grip;

iii. a bayonet mount;

iv. a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

v. a grenade launcher.

http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/glossary/assaultweapon.htm

..

Ghost, How easy is it to convert a pistol grip to an english grip? A bayonet mount? WHY, on a weapon of mass destruction? Flash Suppersor, who uses them? A Grenade launcher, does everyone get free grenades with an AR purchase? Aren't Grenades illegal?

The Bushmaster AR-15 is a plinker. They are used for target shooting and varmint shooting. Plain and simple......

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:
Bob I have never seen a pistol that has a magazine that attaches outside the grip. I'm not saying they are not available, it is just that I have never seen one.

Okay. But if I'm still allowed to own handguns which take any other kind of magazine, and I carry several of those and a pocket full of magazines with me to the mass shooting, then how is the proposed "ban" keeping me from killing lots of people?

NaNook wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

NaNook wrote:The Bushmaster AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle, PERIOD. It has NO SELECTOR switch. If you want to ban semi-auto weapons then remember how long they have been around.

People are getting stupid. Are you going to ban a Colt-45? Are you going to ban a Sweet Sixteen Browning? Are you going to stop the government from selling semi-auto weapons to the general public? Ever hear of the CMP Program? It's been around for decades. Yes, you can buy semi-auto weapons from your government via the CMP Program.

What about a 5-barrel pistol from the 1800's which fires all barrels with one trigger pull? It's not an automatic...

Let's bring some common sense into the discussion.

Pray tell me, who was the last mass murderer considered a normal person?

According to Ct law it must be as described.

The Connecticut law restricts semi-automatic rifles — those capable of firing a bullet with each pull of the trigger — only if they include a detachable magazine as well as at least two of five specific features. One of those features — a pistol grip — is ubiquitous on military-style weapons. But to be banned, an AR-15-style rifle would also need to include a folding or telescoping stock, a bayonet mount, a grenade launcher or a flash suppressor, a device typically screwed on to the end of the muzzle to limit the bright flash caused by gunpowder that ignites outside of the muzzle.

This is basically the same as the federal law that expired under the Bush administration. Any rifle that will fire with every trigger pull and include 2 other options is considered an assault weapon.

A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

i. a folding or telescopic stock;

ii. a pistol grip;

iii. a bayonet mount;

iv. a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

v. a grenade launcher.

http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/glossary/assaultweapon.htm

..

Ghost, How easy is it to convert a pistol grip to an english grip? A bayonet mount? WHY, on a weapon of mass destruction? Flash Suppersor, who uses them? A Grenade launcher, does everyone get free grenades with an AR purchase? Aren't Grenades illegal?

The Bushmaster AR-15 is a plinker. They are used for target shooting and varmint shooting. Plain and simple......

Don't shoot the messenger, the CT law classifies it as an assault weapon and so does the US DOJ when the federal ban was in effect.

I can conceal six holstered 9mm handguns with 10 round clips under a coat.
Okay hell let's make that 8 round clips because that's the figure I heard mentioned for the ban limit.
I can do that easier than trying to carry "assault rifles" into a mass shooting.

I can shoot two of them at a time and shoot 48 rounds before I have to reload. And if I have some more 8 shot clips on me, after I reload I can keep shooting.

And I will still be able to do this after the "ban" which is now being championed as the cure for mass shootings.

Question for ghost and alecto and other gun people reading this: what have I said in this post that is not true?

2seaoat wrote:My father killed himself with a .410 snake charmer... so it can kill... but it's a poor choice imo.

I hope you were an adult and could deal with your loss....it is never easy at any age, and I hope your pain has lessened with time....but I dare not ask more because I would feel some of your pain......and that will not do a thing for either of us....but in the end I am sorry for your loss.

Thanks seaoat... It was a few years ago. You're a kind man... I hope you know how fond I am of you beyond our debates.

Fox News is reporting right now that Adam Lanza knew his mother had started court proceedings to have him committed to a mental institution and that is what made him go off his rocker.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18/fear-being-committed-may-have-caused-connecticut-madman-to-snap/

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

W_T_M wrote:Ya got a lot ya say....?

I'm ready for all of the gun freaks on here to line up and explain what exactly they think their arsenal is gonna do to "protect them from a tyrannical Gub'ment..."

I own guns. But the one I embrace that trumps all of yours is in the hands of the US of America. I have a huge gun if there comes an armed revolt from you nut-job pseudo patriots.

You gonna protect your home with a fully auto AK-47...? An M-16...? A 50cal...? Your ever so deadly multiple handguns...?

Don't make me LOL. I've got a tank that will blast a hole right through your vacuous dreams of adequacy. Got a bunker...? I've got laser guided bunker busters.

In fact, short of a huge bomb that's cumbersome and unwieldy, there's not a damned that you have that will be an effective defense from my collective "gun".

So here's your chance boys....step right up and tell us all about how you plan to use those guns you so love to hoard.

This should be interesting if not downright ridiculous.

I think you have mental issues based on the size or lack thereof of your empennage.

BTW fool, we don't register guns in Florida. I will though buy at least one when I get home on Christmas vacation from my school. I'm thinking of one called THE JUDGE. It shoots .45 and .410 shotgun shells. If I alternate ammo selection in the cylinder, it will make it quite amusing for a would be intruder.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

And I think you're a closet homosexual who is obsessed with dix, and comparing the size of yours to others...that's kinda sick. I think it also manifests itself in your constant over-compensation by the ever present testosterone in your pathos.

Except the whole teacher thing. Everybody knows that male teachers are gay. And if you're a coach, well there is that whole shower deal, where every dude is forced to strip naked around every other naked dude. How gay is that....?

Go over compensate and stalk elsewhere, pseudo-religious mini-macho prick.

BTW, the empennage is the tail section of an aircraft, jarhead.

Joanimaroni wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.


SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE to.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

Aside from the fact that correlation is not the same as causality, the number of privately owned guns per-capita in the US is twice that of Switzerland.

I googled the information...about Switzerland....and low and behold the information I copied was incorrect.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/switzerland.asp
http://www.ice-news.net/2012/01/16/gun-history-the-media-chooses-to-ignore/



firearm related deaths per 100,000
United States 9.20 Homicides 3.7
Switzerland 3.5 Homicides 0.52

I really do not know how else to explain this, so I will try one more time. The data point that you keep referencing and trying to use to explain the crime rate in Switzerland exists for the US as well. In fact, there are twice as many privately owned guns in the US as there are in Switzerland. So if your logic holds (your logic being that higher numbers of guns equates to lower rates of crime), the US should have the lowest crime rate in the world - because the US has the highest number of privately owned guns per capita in the world.

So I ask you, joanimaroni, does the US hold the lowest crime rate in the world?

Bob wrote:You don't have to go all the way to Switzerland to debate this point.
Not if what we read here is true...

"The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998."

any comment, bds?

the source:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818862/posts

Bob, I believe you are citing the infamous Lott/Mustard study here, which has been refuted countless times. This again goes back to the difference between correlation and causality.

I'll give you an example: First grade students at Ferry Pass Elementary School have the lowest rate of reckless driving charges in the city of Pensacola. Not one single person in that group has any negative marks on their driving record.

Conclusion? First graders are superior drivers.

The logic employed in the study that you cited is as equally flawed.

Sal wrote:I'm seriously starting to get pissed off here.

Apparently the argument against the attempt to restrict assault weapons and high capacity magazines is that you can bring a sack full of hand guns that can do the same job slower and more cumbersomely?????

Are you fucking shittin' me??

Fuck you, idiots.

If it saves one six-year-old, it's worth it.

There's going to be a ban on "assault weapons". I'll be in favor of it if it also includes a provision to start monitoring people who "get seriously pissed off" because somebody don't agree with them in a lousy internet discussion. If we can get both the "assault weapons" and those people off the streets, then it might saved even more lives.

Signed,

A fucking idiot who is not shitting you. lol

boards of FL wrote:

Bob wrote:You don't have to go all the way to Switzerland to debate this point.
Not if what we read here is true...

"The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998."

any comment, bds?

the source:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818862/posts

Bob, I believe you are citing the infamous Lott/Mustard study here

Actually, if you check the author of that blog post, I was citing the Rev Chuck Baldwin of the Crossroads Baptist Church (out by the Fairgrounds). lol
But I'll google it to see what you're talking about.

boards of FL wrote:

Bob wrote:You don't have to go all the way to Switzerland to debate this point.
Not if what we read here is true...

"The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998."

any comment, bds?

the source:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818862/posts

Bob, I believe you are citing the infamous Lott/Mustard study here, which has been refuted countless times. This again goes back to the difference between correlation and causality.

I'll give you an example: First grade students at Ferry Pass Elementary School have the lowest rate of reckless driving charges in the city of Pensacola. Not one single person in that group has any negative marks on their driving record.

Conclusion? First graders are superior drivers.

The logic employed in the study that you cited is as equally flawed.

Then why do you propose laws that limit gun owners that have broken no law or caused anyone harm? The crazy criminal bent on harm isn't going to recognize your logic or follow your rules. The guns you hate are already at large (even the ones our govt supplied to criminal cartels in mexico)... Do you think they'll turn em in? Or do you just want criminals to have them and not responsible citizens? Don't tread on me.

I googled a quick read on "lott/mustard", bds. From what I gleaned from that, it is addressing the concealed carry laws. Not the kind of scenario in Kennesaw. Can you provide me with evidence that Baldwin's claims about Kennesaw are not true?

Statistics have shown that folk who smoke cigs have a higher rate of auto accidents than nonsmokers.

I think we should ban tobacco, to make the highways safer.

Bob wrote:I googled a quick read on "lott/mustard", bds. From what I gleaned from that, it is addressing the concealed carry laws. Not the kind of scenario in Kennesaw. Can you provide me with evidence that Baldwin's claims about Kennesaw are not true?

I will have a more thorough look tomorrow and respond.

PkrBum wrote: Do you think they'll turn em in?

Wouldn't that be a hoot? That the politicians make laws which require us to turn in the guns we already have on hand? Like there's a snowball's chance in hell that could ever be enforced. lol

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Bob wrote:You don't have to go all the way to Switzerland to debate this point.
Not if what we read here is true...

"The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998."

any comment, bds?

the source:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818862/posts

Bob, I believe you are citing the infamous Lott/Mustard study here, which has been refuted countless times. This again goes back to the difference between correlation and causality.

I'll give you an example: First grade students at Ferry Pass Elementary School have the lowest rate of reckless driving charges in the city of Pensacola. Not one single person in that group has any negative marks on their driving record.

Conclusion? First graders are superior drivers.

The logic employed in the study that you cited is as equally flawed.

Then why do you propose laws that limit gun owners that have broken no law or caused anyone harm? The crazy criminal bent on harm isn't going to recognize your logic or follow your rules. The guns you hate are already at large (even the ones our govt supplied to criminal cartels in mexico)... Do you think they'll turn em in? Or do you just want criminals to have them and not responsible citizens? Don't tread on me.

From where does the "crazy criminal bent on harm" obtain his/her guns?

W_T_M wrote:Statistics have shown that folk who smoke cigs have a higher rate of auto accidents than nonsmokers.

I think we should ban tobacco, to make the highways safer.

If we do that then you'll have to drive me to the liquor store. lol

You might wanna read this, bds. This time it's not Chuck Baldwin. It's an op-ed in that ultra-conservative gun-loving right-wing rag called The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/opinion/16reynolds.html?_r=0

"And it may not be a bad idea. While pro-gun laws like the one in Greenleaf are mostly symbolic, to the extent that they actually make a difference, it is likely to be a positive one."