Mass Shootings the last six months

[AquaMan]

Here is what the TCC guard looks like:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk1bFJnnAkI&playnext=1&list=PL3694AA7163E48526[/youtube]

......and the OU Bomber (Wikipedia that) tried several times to get his TATP bomb in the game (picking a gate with no surveillance cameras).

Not sure what your point is. That is TTC downtown not Tulsa Teachers Credit Union on 31st. Still, the security guard was quite effective in stopping a kid with a skateboard which we all know was quite dangerous and needed to be arrested....

Its been a while since I read the OU bomber stuff but I'll look it up. Are you saying he picked a gate with no cameras to enter? I didn't think he made it in.

[AquaMan]

This is actually what Wiki said:

"Rumors also circulated that Hinrichs intended to detonate his homemade bomb inside the stadium; these included allegations that he tried to enter the stadium that evening but was denied entry after he refused to be searched. Hinrichs was not a student football season ticket holder;[17] there was no evidence that Hinrichs tried to enter the stadium, and Hinrichs apparently neither bought nor tried to buy a game ticket.[16] Agents scoured hundreds of hours of security camera tapes and found no images of Hinrichs, but, since not all entrances had cameras, they conceded they may never know if Hinrichs wanted to enter or tried to enter the stadium that night.[6]

Doesn't sound to me like he tried to enter the stadium. Didn't have a ticket and never made it on camera. Still a close call.

[Gaspar]

The application of Reason paints a different picture.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6lyunRYMenY#![/youtube]

[Conan71]

A little devil's advocacy here:

I'm trying to figure out how a restriction or ban on "assault weapons" is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment based on the fact that there are certain "arms" individuals are not allowed to own, or not allowed to own without some sort of advanced licensing.

To my knowledge, individuals are not allowed to own or operate fully functional mortar launchers, grenade launchers, grenades, tanks, fully armed fighter aircraft, or bazookas.  Ownership and operation of fully automatic weaponry is limited only to specifically licensed individuals.  None of those restrictions are considered a violation of 2A.  Just curious why a restriction or ban on semi-automatic "assault weapons" or high capacity mags suddenly becomes an impingement on one's Second Amendment rights.  Let's discuss. 

[Gaspar]

A little devil's advocacy here:

I'm trying to figure out how a restriction or ban on "assault weapons" is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment based on the fact that there are certain "arms" individuals are not allowed to own, or not allowed to own without some sort of advanced licensing.

To my knowledge, individuals are not allowed to own or operate fully functional mortar launchers, grenade launchers, grenades, tanks, fully armed fighter aircraft, or bazookas.  Ownership and operation of fully automatic weaponry is limited only to specifically licensed individuals.  None of those restrictions are considered a violation of 2A.  Just curious why a restriction or ban on semi-automatic "assault weapons" or high capacity mags suddenly becomes an impingement on one's Second Amendment rights.  Let's discuss. 

That's an excellent question, and here is the answer.
There is no such technical classification as an "assault weapon."  Not a single politician can describe one outside of a discussion of the style, color, and accessories.  Is it any black weapon?  Is it weapons with extra handles, or scopes?  Even the Clinton assault weapons ban could not articulate what an assault weapon was.  That's why you could still go to Dong's and buy one, because the restrictions were simply cosmetic.

I heard some idiot congressman today attempt to summarize assault weapons by classifying them as any "large caliber" rifle.  Unfortunately, this would not ban a single weapon the libs consider "assault weapons," because most of those rifles are very small caliber (.223, 7mm, 7.64, 8mm).  It would however ban hunting rifles. If congress is going to ban from ownership under penalty of law anything, it is necessary for them to be able to articulate what they are banning.  Simply limiting the capacity of a magazine on a gun is rather meaningless, since that is completely unrelated to the tragedies of the past year.  No unarmed teacher is going to be triumphant against a nut like Lanza simply because he has slap in a new magazine every 10 shots.

We are watching an emotional response to a logical debate.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Would a Hello Kitty AR 15 be an assault rifle...??  It's pink....does it look evil??


http://blog.riflegear.com/archive/2007/12/26/hello-kitty-ar-15---evil-black-rifle-meets-cute-and.aspx

[Hoss]

A little devil's advocacy here:

I'm trying to figure out how a restriction or ban on "assault weapons" is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment based on the fact that there are certain "arms" individuals are not allowed to own, or not allowed to own without some sort of advanced licensing.

To my knowledge, individuals are not allowed to own or operate fully functional mortar launchers, grenade launchers, grenades, tanks, fully armed fighter aircraft, or bazookas.  Ownership and operation of fully automatic weaponry is limited only to specifically licensed individuals.  None of those restrictions are considered a violation of 2A.  Just curious why a restriction or ban on semi-automatic "assault weapons" or high capacity mags suddenly becomes an impingement on one's Second Amendment rights.  Let's discuss. 

You just about stole the words I was thinking.

The answer:  because the gun lobby (and when I say that I actually mean the NRA) says so.

All this knee-jerk reaction from Joe Schmoe about impinging on their 2A rights cracks me up when half of them don't even know how the Amendment reads or even where it came from.

I don' think it speaks in the 2A specifically about right to keep and bear AR15s or SKSs but whatever.   

[heironymouspasparagus]

A little devil's advocacy here:

I'm trying to figure out how a restriction or ban on "assault weapons" is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment based on the fact that there are certain "arms" individuals are not allowed to own, or not allowed to own without some sort of advanced licensing.

To my knowledge, individuals are not allowed to own or operate fully functional mortar launchers, grenade launchers, grenades, tanks, fully armed fighter aircraft, or bazookas.  Ownership and operation of fully automatic weaponry is limited only to specifically licensed individuals.  None of those restrictions are considered a violation of 2A.  Just curious why a restriction or ban on semi-automatic "assault weapons" or high capacity mags suddenly becomes an impingement on one's Second Amendment rights.  Let's discuss. 

The reason is that this really isn't about "assault rifles" at all.  It is about firearms.  It is about taking them away from law abiding sportsmen and women who enjoy the entire range of shooting sports.  It is all about being Australia.  Or the UK.  Or Canada.  It is about power and the exercise of that power.

You know as well as I do that as soon as 30 round magazines are outlawed - like they were so ridiculously for 10 years with no discernible difference other than infringement and interference with sports - the next step will be to outlaw 20 round....after all, why would anyone need 20 shots at a time.  Hey, we're Americans - known worldwide for our laziness - we don't want to have to keep making all that effort to reload all the time.  Just like we don't want to have to make the effort to cook at home when we can go to McDonalds'.  It's about personal liberty and choice.  Oh, wait...that's right, that doesn't really "benefit the most people" does it?


The real efforts should be focused on changing something that would make a difference for the largest common good.  Isn't that one of the responsibilities of government?  Focusing on something that could save hundreds of thousands or even millions of lives per year.

Or maybe soccer, where there were over 1.25 million hospital emergency visits by children between 1999 and 2004.  Gotta wonder what the long term affect of the large number of concussions that occurred in that population.  I'm betting they are now starting to see some of the side effects - probably leading them to become advocates of intrusions into other people's lives....


And Hoss, at the same time, there is nothing in the 1st that addresses the use of social media either, since that, too was uninvented at the time it was written.  I bet you would scream if someone wanted to take away your "connectability".  Free speech means exactly that - go out on the street and speak.  Don't fall into the Brady Bunch trap....

[DolfanBob]

How bout banning any "Assault Weapons" used by Police or Military units.

[Hoss]

..snip..

And Hoss, at the same time, there is nothing in the 1st that addresses the use of social media either, since that, too was uninvented at the time it was written.  I bet you would scream if someone wanted to take away your "connectability".  Free speech means exactly that - go out on the street and speak.  Don't fall into the Brady Bunch trap....

Apples vs oranges argument.  Social media can be taken without recourse, simply because it's provided by a company and/or individual and not the government.  I'm pretty well versed in that part of it having owned several websites and run several forums.  Much like this one.  Wrong argument to make.

But whatever.

Oh, and BTW, Justice Scalia wrote this opinion back in 2008:

Highest Court Reaffirmed That Regulation Of Firearms Is Permissible Under The Second Amendment In Landmark 2008 Case. In the 2008 Supreme Court case, District Of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority that the Second Amendment is "not unlimited" as "commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Justice Scalia continued:

 

[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [United States v.] Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."

[heironymouspasparagus]

One place where I would very much want to have at least a 20 round, and even 30 if they were dependable enough...is if I were hunting feral hogs.  And semi-automatic - never full auto.

Two reasons - first so you can take a second, third or fourth shot (or 5 or 6) as quickly as possible and still have plenty of ammo left...hunting them can be very dangerous.  And second, again, so many shots can be taken as quickly as possible at multiple targets.  They often roam around in packs of more than half a dozen.  As the whole point is to eliminate as many as possible, as well as get some bacon, I would want the opportunity to shoot as many as possible at any one time.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Apples vs oranges argument.  Social media can be taken without recourse, simply because it's provided by a company and/or individual and not the government.  I'm pretty well versed in that part of it having owned several websites and run several forums.  Much like this one.  Wrong argument to make.

But whatever.

Oh, and BTW, Justice Scalia wrote this opinion back in 2008:

Highest Court Reaffirmed That Regulation Of Firearms Is Permissible Under The Second Amendment In Landmark 2008 Case. In the 2008 Supreme Court case, District Of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority that the Second Amendment is "not unlimited" as "commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Justice Scalia continued:

 

No, it's not...it's the same argument.


And no, I don't argue that the right should be unlimited.  I argue that the set of laws we have in place and have had for the last 45 to 75 years are more than adequate for any valid social situation. 

Tanks and artillery also fall under the same rules as machine guns, I think.  Would like to get a MIG 29 sometime - fully operational - now THAT would be worth the $200 license fee!!

[Red Arrow]

To my knowledge, individuals are not allowed to own or operate fully functional mortar launchers, grenade launchers, grenades, tanks, fully armed fighter aircraft, or bazookas. 

Darn!  I was saving up for a F-18.   

[heironymouspasparagus]

Darn!  I was saving up for a F-18.   

There were some MIG 29's for sale a few years ago at $5 million each.  I think they took the cannons out before sale, though.

[patric]

How bout banning any "Assault Weapons" used by Police or Military units.

These AR-15's?