On 12/17/12 3:48 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"Califbill" wrote in message
...



Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

------------------------------------------------------

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to acknowledge
that a "number" is basically being established in terms of how many
people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine capacity of no
more than 10 rounds seems to be a common recommendation. In fact,
Dianne Feinstein (D) California just announced that she will introduce a
bill immediately that limits magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".




I have a lot of building trades union buddies, and a goodly number of
these "hunt" deer and other critters. I don't hunt because I don't like
the idea of killing Bambi or Bambi's mother, or any other helpless
animal but, even though I don't think hunting is a sport, I don't
begrudge my buddies their woodsy sport. I've been out stomping around in
the forest and in the fields with my buddies while they hunt, though.

That being said, I can't recall any of them hunting with anything but a
traditional hunting rifle that holds a few rounds or a shotgun that
holds a few rounds. Just one of my buddies has the time and financial
wherewithal to hunt really big game, and the rifle round he prefers for
that is a .375 H&H Magnum, which isn't as big a round as it sounds.
Anyway, it holds a total of four rounds, including one in the chamber.

Many states limit how many rounds you can have in a shotgun to three or
four while hunting.

Obviously, there are reasons why serious or semi-serious hunters aren't
walking in the woods with semi-auto assault style rifle 30-round magazines.

What's the real purpose of these semi-auto assault style rifles? To kill
people, of course, and lots of them. They're not that suitable for hunting.

I don't see any rational reason for rifles in calibers larger than, say,
..22LR, to be able to load up with more than a few rounds. A 22? 10-round
magazine is adequate. Same with a semi-auto pistol. No reason for more
than 10 rounds unless you plan to shoot up a school or a movie theater, eh?

I happen to have a couple of hi-cap mags for my CZ target pistol, but I
don't use them. I use the 10-rounders at the range and in competition.

Oh...what might work? Making personal possession of certain firearms and
certain sized mags after a certain date a violation of federal law, with
serious penalties, and eliminating the gun show loophopes. No firearms
transactions without paperwork and a background check.

That would do for starters.

On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:02:57 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,

says...



On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote:

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough,



Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading...



It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels.



Cite?

http://www.tampabay.com/news/criminologist-says-mass-shootings-show-no-pattern-or-increase/1266381

On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:02:46 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,

says...



On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote:

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough,



Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading...



It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels.



Here's what needs to be looked at instead of new, knee-jerk gun control laws.



http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son?



Thanks to Reagan for cutting mental health programs....

Stop being a liberal parrot.

"The law that Reagan signed was the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS), passed by the legislature & signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The idea was to "stem entry into the state hospital by encouraging the community system to accept more patients, hopefully improving quality of care while allowing state expense to be alleviated by the newly available federal funds." It also was designed to protect the rights of mental patients. It was considered a landmark of its time--a change in the attitude toward mental illness and its treatment.

The law restricted involuntary commitment, among other things. It allows people to refuse treatment for mental illness, unless they are clearly a danger to someone else or themselves. It facilitated release of many patients---supposedly to go to community mental health treatment programs.

Reagan's role, besides signing the bill, was using it as a reason to cut his budget. What Reagan did was, at the same time the bill was passed, to reduce the budget for state mental hospitals. His budget bill "abolished 1700 hospital staff positions and closed several of the state-operated aftercare facilities. Reagan promised to eliminate even more hospitals if the patient population continued to decline. Year-end population counts for the state hospitals had been declining by approximately 2000 people per year since 1960."

This law presumed that the people released from hospitals or not committed at all would be funneled in community treatment as provided by the Short Doyle Act of 1957. It was "was designed to organize and finance community mental health services for persons with mental illness through locally administered and locally controlled community health programs."

It also presumed that the mentally ill would voluntarily accept treatment if it were made available to them on a community basis. However, because of the restrictions on involuntary commitment, seriously mentally ill people who would not consent to treatment "who clearly needed treatment but did not fit the new criteria or who recycled through short term stays -- became a community dilemma. For them, there was nowhere to go." Once released, they would fail to take meds or get counseling and went right back to being seriously ill.

Also, unfortunately, at the time LPS was implemented, funding for community systems either declined or was not beefed up. Many counties did not have adequate community mental health services in place and were unable to fund them. Federal funds for community mental health programs, which LPS assumed would pick up the slack, began drying up in the early 1980s, due to budget cutbacks in general. The Feds shifted funding responsibility to the states.

Sources:

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~cmhsr/history.html
Reform of the Lanterman, Petris, Short Act
"

It's not as simple as your mind thinks. (pun intended)

On 12/17/12 4:48 PM, wrote:
On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:02:46 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,

says...



On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote:

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough,



Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading...



It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels.



Here's what needs to be looked at instead of new, knee-jerk gun control laws.



http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son?



Thanks to Reagan for cutting mental health programs....

Stop being a liberal parrot.

"The law that Reagan signed was the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS), passed by the legislature & signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The idea was to "stem entry into the state hospital by encouraging the community system to accept more patients, hopefully improving quality of care while allowing state expense to be alleviated by the newly available federal funds." It also was designed to protect the rights of mental patients. It was considered a landmark of its time--a change in the attitude toward mental illness and its treatment.

The law restricted involuntary commitment, among other things. It allows people to refuse treatment for mental illness, unless they are clearly a danger to someone else or themselves. It facilitated release of many patients---supposedly to go to community mental health treatment programs.

Reagan's role, besides signing the bill, was using it as a reason to cut his budget. What Reagan did was, at the same time the bill was passed, to reduce the budget for state mental hospitals. His budget bill "abolished 1700 hospital staff positions and closed several of the state-operated aftercare facilities. Reagan promised to eliminate even more hospitals if the patient population continued to decline. Year-end population counts for the state hospitals had been declining by approximately 2000 people per year since 1960."

This law presumed that the people released from hospitals or not committed at all would be funneled in community treatment as provided by the Short Doyle Act of 1957. It was "was designed to organize and finance community mental health services for persons with mental illness through locally administered and locally controlled community health programs."

It also presumed that the mentally ill would voluntarily accept treatment if it were made available to them on a community basis. However, because of the restrictions on involuntary commitment, seriously mentally ill people who would not consent to treatment "who clearly needed treatment but did not fit the new criteria or who recycled through short term stays -- became a community dilemma. For them, there was nowhere to go." Once released, they would fail to take meds or get counseling and went right back to being seriously ill.

Also, unfortunately, at the time LPS was implemented, funding for community systems either declined or was not beefed up. Many counties did not have adequate community mental health services in place and were unable to fund them. Federal funds for community mental health programs, which LPS assumed would pick up the slack, began drying up in the early 1980s, due to budget cutbacks in general. The Feds shifted funding responsibility to the states.

Sources:

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~cmhsr/history.html
Reform of the Lanterman, Petris, Short Act
"

It's not as simple as your mind thinks. (pun intended)




Reagan "presumed (utter bull****) the local communities would have the
wherewithal the feds were no longer going to provide. Nothing has
changed except that in most communities there are even less
possibilities for treatment of the indigent than when Reagan decimated
the federal contributions for the larger facilities.

Your spin on it is just more right-wing bull****. But, hey, that's all
you have. In a few more years as you aging right-wing southern white
republican bigots start dying out in greater numbers, this country might
regain its ability to move forward.

On 12/17/2012 1:18 PM, Califbill wrote:
jps wrote:
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, who had received an A rating from the
National Rifle Association (NRA) while he was in Congress, says that
after last week’s massacre of 20 elementary school children that “the
ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant,” and he is now
backing a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity clips.

In an unusual commentary segment Monday on Morning Joe, Scarborough
connected to the recent tragedy by noting that his own children were
the age of those killed and one of his children has AspergerÂ’s
syndrome.

“Politicians can no longer be allowed to defend the status quo,” he
explained. “They must instead be forced to defend our children.
Parents can no longer take no for an answer from Washington when the
topic turns to protecting our children. The violence we see spreading
from shopping malls in Oregon to movie theaters in Colorado to college
campuses in Virginia to elementary schools in Connecticut — it’s being
spawned by a toxic brew of popular culture, a growing mental health
crisis and the proliferation of combat-style weapons.”

“I am a conservative Republican who received the NRA’s highest ratings
over four terms in Congress,” he continued. “I saw this debate over
guns as a powerful, symbolic struggle between individual rights and
government controlÂ… IÂ’ve spent the last few days grasping for
solutions and struggling for answers, while daring to question my
long-held beliefs on these subjects.”

Scarborough concluded: “I knew that day that the ideologies of my past
career were no longer relevant to the future that I want, that I
demand for my children. Friday changed everything. It must change
everything. We all must begin anew and demand that WashingtonÂ’s old
way of doing business is no longer acceptable. Entertainment moguls
donÂ’t have an absolute right to glorify murder while spreading mayhem
in young minds across America. And our Bill of Rights does not
guarantee gun manufacturers the absolute right to sell military-style,
high-caliber, semi-automatic combat assault rifles with high-capacity
magazines to whoever the hell they want. It is time for Congress to
put children before deadly dogmas.”

Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.


According to the reports I am seeing here, he used a Bushmaster 223, and
killed himself with a pistol when he heard the cops coming... But the
majority of the killing was done with an assault weapon.

I just don't get the assault weapon thing, even for self defense. If you
are in a situation where you need 30 rounds to "defend" yourself, you
are probably under pretty heavy fire, and are not gonna' get out anyway.
If you can't defend yourself with 1-6 shots or so, you are over your
head. 30 round clips are for offense... And I support the 2nd
amendment... Went to a gun group today and saw somebody ask "why you
need assault weapons" the only answer I saw was "because I can"...

On 12/17/2012 3:45 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:49:41 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

What use do assault rifles have to the average gun owner? Going to start
a war?

===

It turns out that the "AR-15 style guns" make pretty decent hunting
and target rifles. They are not truly "assault rifles" however since
they can not (in most cases) fire in fully automatic mode. I agree
that it's hard to justify 30 round magazines when 5 or 10 is more than
adequate for hunting or target practice. The big mags do look cool
however and a lot of folks want them for that reason alone. Others
view them as a survival weapon if civilization as we know it breaks
down. Is that far fetched? Who can say.

The whole problem with this unfortunate incident in Connecticut lies
with the now deceased mother. She had a child with a long history of
emotional instability, taught him how to shoot, and gave him full
access to her well stocked arsenal. How stupid and irresponsible is
that?


Totally ****in' stupid.. And you are right. There is no legit reason for
those 30 clips, except to make someones penis feel bigger...

On 12/17/2012 3:48 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"Califbill" wrote in message
...



Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

------------------------------------------------------

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to acknowledge
that a "number" is basically being established in terms of how many
people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine capacity of no
more than 10 rounds seems to be a common recommendation. In fact,
Dianne Feinstein (D) California just announced that she will introduce a
bill immediately that limits magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".



You look at what's reasonable for defense. Like I said before, if you
need clips of 30 to defend yourself, you have gotten yourself into a lot
more trouble than a simple robbery or defending your home... 30 rounds
is an offensive accessory, not a defensive one.

On 12/17/2012 4:33 PM, wrote:
On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:02:57 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,

says...



On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote:

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough,



Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading...



It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels.



Cite?

http://www.tampabay.com/news/criminologist-says-mass-shootings-show-no-pattern-or-increase/1266381


He'll pretend he doesn't see it... even an event like this can't make
this guy man up...

"ESAD" wrote in message
...

On 12/17/12 3:48 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"Califbill" wrote in message
...



Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why
did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why
target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

------------------------------------------------------

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of
one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to
acknowledge
that a "number" is basically being established in terms of how many
people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine capacity
of no
more than 10 rounds seems to be a common recommendation. In fact,
Dianne Feinstein (D) California just announced that she will
introduce a
bill immediately that limits magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number
in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false
hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".




I have a lot of building trades union buddies, and a goodly number of
these "hunt" deer and other critters. I don't hunt because I don't
like
the idea of killing Bambi or Bambi's mother, or any other helpless
animal but, even though I don't think hunting is a sport, I don't
begrudge my buddies their woodsy sport. I've been out stomping around
in
the forest and in the fields with my buddies while they hunt, though.

That being said, I can't recall any of them hunting with anything but
a
traditional hunting rifle that holds a few rounds or a shotgun that
holds a few rounds. Just one of my buddies has the time and financial
wherewithal to hunt really big game, and the rifle round he prefers
for
that is a .375 H&H Magnum, which isn't as big a round as it sounds.
Anyway, it holds a total of four rounds, including one in the chamber.

Many states limit how many rounds you can have in a shotgun to three
or
four while hunting.

Obviously, there are reasons why serious or semi-serious hunters
aren't
walking in the woods with semi-auto assault style rifle 30-round
magazines.

What's the real purpose of these semi-auto assault style rifles? To
kill
people, of course, and lots of them. They're not that suitable for
hunting.

I don't see any rational reason for rifles in calibers larger than,
say,
..22LR, to be able to load up with more than a few rounds. A 22?
10-round
magazine is adequate. Same with a semi-auto pistol. No reason for more
than 10 rounds unless you plan to shoot up a school or a movie
theater, eh?

I happen to have a couple of hi-cap mags for my CZ target pistol, but
I
don't use them. I use the 10-rounders at the range and in competition.

Oh...what might work? Making personal possession of certain firearms
and
certain sized mags after a certain date a violation of federal law,
with
serious penalties, and eliminating the gun show loophopes. No firearms
transactions without paperwork and a background check.

That would do for starters.

------------------------------------------

That's all fine and good and works for the vast majority of gun
owners, but it doesn't answer the question of how many people can a
nut case kill and have it be an "acceptable" level in terms of gun
control laws. I can easily argue that *one* is one too many.

As for round sizes, a .22LR can be just as deadly at short range as a
larger round. In fact, some claim that a head shot with a .22 is
likely to be more deadly for reasons not worth repeating. More
deadly? What's that? Dead is dead.

What do you mean by, "That would do for starters"? Any gun control
laws that are justified as being "for starters" pretty much
insinuates an eventual ban on guns period. I don't think that's the
answer, nor will it ever happen.

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:45:29 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:49:41 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

What use do assault rifles have to the average gun owner? Going to start
a war?

===

It turns out that the "AR-15 style guns" make pretty decent hunting
and target rifles. They are not truly "assault rifles" however since
they can not (in most cases) fire in fully automatic mode. I agree
that it's hard to justify 30 round magazines when 5 or 10 is more than
adequate for hunting or target practice. The big mags do look cool
however and a lot of folks want them for that reason alone. Others
view them as a survival weapon if civilization as we know it breaks
down. Is that far fetched? Who can say.

The whole problem with this unfortunate incident in Connecticut lies
with the now deceased mother. She had a child with a long history of
emotional instability, taught him how to shoot, and gave him full
access to her well stocked arsenal. How stupid and irresponsible is
that?

Tempting fate? I don't get it either. Maybe the brother will shed
some light someday.

The 30 round clips are riduculous. They should be outlawed.

The other thing that I'm pondering is the physical attributes of the
gun. I understand all the internal parts are the same as a hunting
rifle but the external parts scream war.

I wonder what the psychological implications of having an "assault"
style weapon in your hands. Does it's style support these lunatic's
assumption that they're at war with the world?

Would they feel less empowered to kill if the rifle were dressed as a
normal hunting rifle?

This may sound simple but the human brain is open to visual cues that
help synapses fire that might otherwise remain dormant.

This probably isn't the group of people to discuss this with but
there's a couple of folks who are intelligent enough, if it's
interesting.