Repeat Offender Arrested in shooting of Five Men on the Westside

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Here would be a good working referance...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Criteria of an assault weapon

Assault weapon (semi-automatic) refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', is not required for classification as an assault weapon; merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant such classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun; rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.

In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.

Yeah, but.....

This

is the same as

The only differences are cosmetic.

Same ammo.  Same firing rate. 

Does a car go faster because you put shiny rims and a glow kit on it?

[carpnter]

We can ban all types of guns and it won't stop murders or mass killings.  All it will be is something to make you feel like you are doing something to address the problem. 

People love to cite lower murder rates in other countries with stricter gun control, but the problem is those countries have always had lower murder rates than the US even before they enacted their strict gun control.  The difference between the the US and those other countries is the people and culture.

Brazil has some very restrictive gun ownership laws yet they have one of the highest murder rates with firearms in the world.  Switzerland and Sweden have relatively high ownership rates of guns but have lower number when it comes to murders involving firearms.  Again, the difference is the people and the culture.   You can't point to a country and say "their laws are working, we can do the same here."  There are other things besides gun control that have an affect on why the numbers are so different. 

You can discuss regulating firearms all you want but until you address the people issues you are likely going to end up accomplishing nothing.  People issues range from education and broken families to mental health and the media's and movie industry's obsession with violence.  Gun control should be part of the conversation, but if it dominates the conversation and the only thing accomplished is more gun laws, we will have done absolutely nothing keep something like this from happening again. 

[carpnter]

We can ban all types of guns and it won't stop murders or mass killings.  All it will be is something to make you feel like you are doing something to address the problem. 

People love to cite lower murder rates in other countries with stricter gun control, but the problem is those countries have always had lower murder rates than the US even before they enacted their strict gun control.  The difference between the the US and those other countries is the people and culture.

Brazil has some very restrictive gun ownership laws yet they have one of the highest murder rates with firearms in the world.  Switzerland and Sweden have relatively high ownership rates of guns but have lower number when it comes to murders involving firearms.  Again, the difference is the people and the culture.   You can't point to a country and say "their laws are working, we can do the same here."  There are other things besides gun control that have an affect on why the numbers are so different. 

You can discuss regulating firearms all you want but until you address the people issues you are likely going to end up accomplishing nothing.  People issues range from education and broken families to mental health and the media's and movie industry's obsession with violence.  Gun control should be part of the conversation, but if it dominates the conversation and the only thing accomplished is more gun laws, we will have done absolutely nothing keep something like this from happening again.

literally balderdash from beginning to end.

lets see some statistics proving any of these claims. carpenter

Here are a few

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate - Sort it by homicide.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list - The chart here ranks each nation.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/ - This site classifies the gun laws and policies of each nation.

I could come up with an encyclopedia full of stats to support my claims and you will simply dismiss them because you don't agree with them.  You are incapable of having a thoughtful and rational discussion about the issues.  Your mind is made up. 

[NotNow]

This subject has been discussed on this board many times.  "Knowledgable people" do not appear to know very much about firearms.  What is being called "assault weapons" is simply the attachments to a semi-automatic firearm.  Real assault weapons are already heavily regulated. 

Just a couple of notes:

The purpose of the Second Amendment is not to protect hunting.  It is to simply document that the right to self defense, from all dangers, but especially tyranny of government, to all Americans.  Any study of the writings of the founding fathers makes it clear what the meaning is.  That's right, I said "is".  It means the same thing today as it did in 1789.  Americans have as much right to an AR-15 as a musket.  Technology has changed universally since the founding of this country.  We are (hopefully) not abridging freedom of speech because of television or the internet.  (Although the government is currently trying to restrict your use of the internet.) 

The legislative response to this crime should be to reform our mental health laws.  An honest assessment of our treatment of mental illness reveals serious problems.  This killer was one of the "lucky" mentally ill.  He had a family that cared about him and they allowed him to live in their home.  I would not be surprised to find out that the Lanza divorce was over this mentally ill child.  Many families are coping with dangerous individuals on a daily basis because we as a society don't have the political will to provide secure medical facility settings for them.  There are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of families dealing with dangerous mentally ill family members every day.  We constantly read about families calling police to their homes because of an "out of control" mentally ill family member and the police end up having to kill that person.  We then blame the Police or "lack of training".  Many of the mentally ill don't have families willing to put up with the craziness and danger to themselves, and those end up on our streets and in our alleys.  In our need to be "humane" we allow these people to wander aimlessly with no monitoring, no medication, and no future.  We abandon large portions of real estate to avoid the unpleasant contact with "crazy people" and then we wonder why our urban areas cannot make any progress.  These poor souls sometimes end up killing others or themselves.  We must reform our mental health system.  If we learn anything from this horrible incident, that is what is most important.

[carpnter]

We can ban all types of guns and it won't stop murders or mass killings.  All it will be is something to make you feel like you are doing something to address the problem. 

People love to cite lower murder rates in other countries with stricter gun control, but the problem is those countries have always had lower murder rates than the US even before they enacted their strict gun control.  The difference between the the US and those other countries is the people and culture.

Brazil has some very restrictive gun ownership laws yet they have one of the highest murder rates with firearms in the world.  Switzerland and Sweden have relatively high ownership rates of guns but have lower number when it comes to murders involving firearms.  Again, the difference is the people and the culture.   You can't point to a country and say "their laws are working, we can do the same here."  There are other things besides gun control that have an affect on why the numbers are so different. 

You can discuss regulating firearms all you want but until you address the people issues you are likely going to end up accomplishing nothing.  People issues range from education and broken families to mental health and the media's and movie industry's obsession with violence.  Gun control should be part of the conversation, but if it dominates the conversation and the only thing accomplished is more gun laws, we will have done absolutely nothing keep something like this from happening again.

literally balderdash from beginning to end.

lets see some statistics proving any of these claims. carpenter

Here are a few

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate - Sort it by homicide.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list - The chart here ranks each nation.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/ - This site classifies the gun laws and policies of each nation.

I could come up with an encyclopedia full of stats to support my claims and you will simply dismiss them because you don't agree with them.  You are incapable of having a thoughtful and rational discussion about the issues.  Your mind is made up.

Here is your claim:

the problem is those countries have always had lower murder rates than the US even before they enacted their strict gun control.  The difference between the the US and those other countries is the people and culture.

None of these sources even come close to demonstrating this.

Keep looking, though.  Ill be patient.

And if you can prove your point, I will definitely concede.

Since the most common comparison people use is the UK.
England/UK enacted their most stringent gun control laws in 1996 which banned handgun ownership, and they banned semi-automatic rifles in 1987. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade

As you can see around 1900 the US and Great Britain were relatively the same when comparing murder rates.  The US begins to increase after that and has always been higher than England/UK.  As a side note, England/UK did not show any significant decline in the murder rate after either of these gun control laws were enacted and I suspect an analysis of the data could probably attribute the increase in the murder rate from the 1990's to the 2000's to the addition of Northern Ireland and Scotland to the numbers for the UK when the chart changed from counting data as separate countries to counting the countries as the United Kingdom. 
However the data shows that the murder rate has historically been lower than that in the US before and after the gun laws were passed.

You can also say the same for Australia, its murder rate has been lower than the US no matter their laws, there is data to suggest they did notice a decline in their murder rate after they passed more stringent gun laws(The chart does not seem to show a significant decline though, probably because Australia's murder rate was already pretty low) unlike the UK which did not see a significant decrease.  There is data that indicates that Australia did see a very significant reduction in firearm suicides, but that is another discussion which I am not going to get into. 

[NotNow]

StephenDare,

You quoted my opinion of what the founders had in mind.  My opinion is based on the letters and writings of the founding fathers in which it is quite clear what dangers they had in mind when they decided to actually guarantee ten human rights in the original Constitution.  At the time, many thought that these human rights were self evident, and opposed the original Bill of Rights from the fear that some future government would try to state that citizens rights were limited to just those specified in the Bill of Rights. 

There is no need (I would hope) for me to quote the founding fathers many statements which they verify that one of the most important reasons for an armed populace is to keep tyranny of government in check.  That has already been done many times on this site.  Seditionist nonsense?  Read the Federalist papers.  Read the writings of the founding fathers.  Read the past threads on this issue.  To argue for what is right is not "seditionist". 

"Disobedience to tyrants is obedience to God." - Benjamin Franklin

As for this nonsense - "No where does it say that the Right to Bear Arms includes machinery which allows for the mass murder of American citizens without warning."  - You might want to think about the statement.  Timothy McVeigh killed almost two hundred people including almost twenty small children...with fertilizer and a van.  33,000 people died in traffic crashes, almost 11,000 of those people died in DUI crashes last year.  Trains killed 600 people and injured 2300.  Almost 2,000 people are stabbed to death each year. 

We will be outlawing a lot of booze, cars, trains, and knives using your "machinery" logic.

Seriously, the Second Amendment codifies the right of the public to keep and bear arms...what kind of arms?  Why, just as you posted, the kind needed to arm a militia.  Modern arms capable of using as an armed force. 

It's really just that simple. 

The real call for reform from this incident is the need for mental health care reform.  That is where we should be concentrating our efforts and debate.

[Tacachale]

^Oh come on. Our state already has a well regulated militia that's far better equipped than any private citizen and is perfectly capable of protecting us from any threat to our freedom, foreign or domestic. It's called the Florida National Guard.

[NotNow]

Tacachale, you are missing the point of the Second Amendment.  The National Guard is an arm of the state government.  The founding fathers believed in placing as much power as possible with the people.  The militia that they were talking about was the people.

Here is the beauty of the Constitution.  Truth stands the test of time.  The idea of a free people, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from government is as true today as it was in 1776.  Sure, times have changed.  We have automobiles and airplanes, television and the internet, corporate food supplies and corporate health care.  But the freedoms that we enjoy, those basic truths still stand.  A human being has every right to be able to defend him/herself against any incursion, be it criminal or tyrant.  As the founding fathers (and their forebears)said, these rights are God given and are not subject to the governments of man.  A free people acknowledge the increased responsibility placed on each of them.  They understand that the temporary security of tyrants has resulted in massive suffering throughout history.  How easily we forget the lessons of the past. 

[Cheshire Cat]

Owner of the firearms company who made the gun used at Sandy Hook is selling the business.

From the article:
"It's an unusual move by Cerberus but it was a terrible event, so they are responding to some of their investors who are teachers' funds. I'm sure they will be selling it at a low price because now would not be a good time to sell the business," said Steven Kaplan, a University of Chicago finance professor.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-cerberus-freedomgroupbre8bh08f-20121217,0,3376808.story