Skip to main content

View Diary: The Second Amendment Does Not Say You Can Own a .223 Bushmaster Assault Rifle (29 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Don't muddy the water (9+ / 0-)

    He had the Bushmaster in his vehicle --- it was part of his arsenal.  And handguns with gigantic  easy-load clips are just as bad and ought to be banned tomorrow.

    Dulce bellum inexpertis [War is sweet only to those who have no experience of it].

    by Fatherflot on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 06:47:39 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Lol. Me muddy the water?? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Massconfusion, notrouble

      What did the killer use to kill 20 kids?  2 9mm Handguns.  That's it.

      If he was stupid he would have used the Bushmaster.  First, someone would have seen him walking up to the building.  Second, he would have had to line up his shots for far longer per shot.

      But go ahead and blame me for muddying the water.

      "So what if a guy threw a shoe at me!"

      by FoodChillinMFr on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 07:07:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are missing the point (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The OP is using the Bushmaster as an example of a whole class of automatic weapons (handguns included) that have no justification under the 2nd Amendment.

        Nitpicking in this context is muddying the water.  The issue is not about one particular model, it's about an ENTIRE CLASS OF KILLING MACHINES.

        Dulce bellum inexpertis [War is sweet only to those who have no experience of it].

        by Fatherflot on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 07:13:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  sorry, but they are not automatic... (4+ / 0-)
          •  Automatic enough (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            absdoggy, profewalt, wmholt

            What is the correct term for weapons that can fire this many rounds this quickly.

            I don't personally give a rat's ass if it's technically "automatic" or "semi-automatic" or "fast-loading" or whatever.  That's not what 's important.

            Dulce bellum inexpertis [War is sweet only to those who have no experience of it].

            by Fatherflot on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 07:45:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  just thought you should know what you are (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              notrouble, FoodChillinMFr

              referencing...if the goal is a law to curb the use or ownership of such weapons you'll need to know what they are...the pistols used today were semi-automatic. They fire each time the trigger is  pulled. Then again so do revolvers and good shooters know how to load those quickly as well. If a killer enters an environment of un armed people almost any gun will do a substantial amount of harm before police can respond (I am not advocating for the arming of teachers or anything crazy like that).There is no easy answer to this and it has been a very trying day for any of us with children. Have a good night.

              •  Sure, these details matter at some level (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                absdoggy, myboo, wmholt

                But it's very easy for gun advocates to use their very detailed knowledge of guns to avoid the issue.  It's the fallacy of misplaced concreteness.  If a "semi-automatic" weapon can be used with a series of large-capacity, fast-change clips, the difference between that and an actual "automatic' is not important at this level of argument.  If you can simply press a finger and shoot bullet after bullet quickly and then be able to reload another large clip in a few second and repeat, who cares that it's technically "semi-automatic"?

                Perhaps a "good shooter" can reload a revolver very quickly, but these kinds of guns allow any idiot to become an unstoppable killing machine.  Perhaps if this disturbed monster had a revolver, the time it took to reload would have been enough to rush him or to escape or save more kids.  Perhaps he would have dropped his bullets or gotten confused or distracted.  The automation (sorry, "semi-automation") of these weapons removes even those chances for the victims.

                And again, the important issue is why the general public needs access to these kinds of gun/ammunition systems.  They are not needed for hunting or self defense.  They are only useful for mass killing.

                Dulce bellum inexpertis [War is sweet only to those who have no experience of it].

                by Fatherflot on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 08:23:00 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  There is a HUGEdifference between automatic (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FoodChillinMFr, HiBob, Neuroptimalian

                  and semi auto in terms of rate of fire and there could have been 100 plus dead if the shooter had one. Luckily the ownership of automatic weapons by private citizens has been outlawed since around 1935. Additionally semi auto hand guns are used for self defense all the happens to be what most people consider a standard firearm.

                  In any event I am not avoiding the issue as you can see by looking at some of my other comments. I have a close connection to Newtown and I view today as a tragedy beyond measure.

                  You can check my comments on other diaries regarding my opinion on guns and gun ownership. Short of banning ALL gun ownership as it is in many other countries I don't see a real solution and the chance of that happening here is slim to none.

                  It's also worth noting that an expert in these kind of killings and killers that I quoted earlier says that mass murderers are really unpredictable and largely unstoppable. 150 people die in the, on average, 20 mass murders that happen in the US every year. Another 10,000 are killed in individual gun killings and 15,000 kill themselves with guns. The last two are figures to concentrate on.

                  •  I don't doubt you, but I don't buy this argument (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    myboo, wmholt

                    Major Premise) Only a total gun ban will make a difference
                    Minor Premise) That will never happen here
                    Conclusion)      Therefore we just have to accept this

                    I accept the minor premise that a total gun ban will likely never happen here, but I don't accept the major premise.  You can certainly allow the ownership of some kinds of guns (hunting rifles, revolvers) and not these more efficiently-deadly semi-automatic guns. And what about the ammo clips?  You could make it illegal or much, much harder to get your hands on these.  Why not?  Why is there no reasonable middle ground upon which to negotiate some reasonable, common-sense compromise?

                    Dulce bellum inexpertis [War is sweet only to those who have no experience of it].

                    by Fatherflot on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 09:15:22 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I agree that this all needs to be looked at (0+ / 0-)

                      large capacity magazine bans have happened in the past with no noticable decrease it the murder rate (I suppose we should ask if the mags were his or his mom's, in which case what was up with her?). The last so called 'assault' weapon ban was just an effort to make certain k less scary. If we cut all mags down to a 10 round capacity that may be acceptable to gun advocates but, I am not convinced it would stop these types of killings at all and neither do experts in the subject.I am saying we should try to reduce the overall gun violence rate. Many of the guns used to commit these crimes are NOT legally owned  contract hit in NYC todaythe shell casings were traced to a gun used in a drive by two years ago. I wonder where that gun has been? The statistical truth is that licensed gun owners don't usually kill other people. I'll also say that it's good the kid did not have a shotgun today!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site