Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:

The NRA is like evangelical Christians. If you disagree either of them they claim you are attacking everyone that owns a gun or is religious.

I take it that "disagree" is an euphemism for "outrageous proposals to violate our Constitutional rights"??

I see you have decided to expand my point by showing us the other hyperbole your side engages in that has no basis in fact. We are attacking the US Constitution if there is any discussion of limiting gun access. (Never mind that the constitution allows for limits on all the other rights.)

Because you are so caught up in your gun nuttiness that you can't see how ignorant your comments really are?

This issue, IMHO, should not be specifically about gun control which should not be legislated. It should be about controlling war machines, such as an assault rifles and controlling better the purchase of huge capacity ammo clips.

It's the type of weapons being used that enables mass killings and woundings very rapidly--these are easily obtainable weapons of mass destruction. And the easy attainability of these weapons is definitely not tangential to the real issue, it is an important component of the real issue.

You can think of some way to conceive of his actions as somehow sane?

Yeh, that old Henry with the tubular magazine pre-dated Winchesters by at least 10 years. The Rebels called it that gun the Yankees load on Sunday and then fire all week. There's very little new under the sun.

Needing a military-style assault rifle to go "varmint-hunting" could be considered "mental illness",

compulsive collecting of dozens of guns could be considered "mental illness",

feeling too paranoid to leave one's house without carrying a concealed weapon could be considered "mental illness".

There's a reason for the term "gun nut".

Do you think that rifles with the name of an assault in them have inherently larger magazines in them then other semi-auto rifle or have a faster rate of fire or what?

That would make him legally sane.

Feel free to try to point out anything I'm wrong about.

A gun is not a weapon of mass destruction.

You seem to be missing the point. Such relatively small scale killings with a knife or some such concealed weapon are nearly impossible to stop. However, obtaining an efficient killing machine such as an assault rifle, COULD be preventable. This is about the SCALE of such mass killing tragedy and the efficiency.

With a knife as the weapon of choice, that's up close and personal and it presents a risk to the killer of beiong overpowered. With an assault rifle, you can be a great distance.

What difference does it make with having a law that they don't enforce and the political and police system is fraught with corruption?

So, the military went away from the M-1 because the M-16 provided no improvement? I suggest we go back the M-1 since it is cheaper if you want to argue their is no difference in the 2.

Since all are equally deadly Bill, wouldn't you agree that having a single shot weapon is all anyone needs to be safe? Your argument cuts both ways. You can't argue they are the same and then argue you need more firepower.

When armies go to war, their weapon of choice are assault rifles or an equiv.

When you freedom haters get called on your efforts to violate civil rights, that is neither baseless nor hyperbole.

Legal sanity/insanity and a medical diagnosis of mental illness are hardly the same thing, firefly.

Reducing access by civilians (especially mentally ill ones) to para-military weapons such as assault rifles may lower the potential death count.

Why has there been such an increase in mass killings in USA in the last 6 years? The answer is access to para-military weapons.

IMHO, it's about having access to such weapons.