My neighbor has as far as I know, 2 guns. If he had given them up last week, or last year, this tragedy would still have happened. I believe we would all be safer if nobody has a gun. I don’t think that is a realistic goal in a country with more guns than people.
Today, it’s as if God were some chilling mad-scientist running grotesque experiments to test our theories regarding social violence:
The article notes that two were “seriously” wounded, and that over the past three years a spate of similar knife attacks have cost the lives of nearly 20 children–tragic, but still fewer than were killed just today in Connecticut.
Undoubtably, but I figured this thread was about CCW holders and how they affect society, in a positive or negative way. If this fellow was not a CCW holder then his actions would be of little significance to this thread.
It was apparently a Sig Sauer .223 rifle, rather than a handgun. I don’t think this line of argument is very relevant in either event, though; a handgun may not be as deadly, but it’s a lot easier to kill someone with one in most circumstances.
I didn’t kill any children, or anybody else, today. Whatever this asshole did is still no reason to restrict what I may own or do. When I commit a crime, penalize me.
Actually, it’s easier to kill someone with a rifle. Not only are rifle cartridges generally more powerful (and thus inherently deadlier), a rifle is much easier to aim accurately. as the long barrel produces a more accurate sight alignment. The ONLY way in which a handgun is superior to either a rifle or a shotgun is that, being small, it’s easier to carry around.
(Why am I not surprised this asshole used a rifle? Most of these spree shooters do!)
Hence the qualification “in most circumstances”, since it’s much easier to walk up to a person or into a school with a handgun than with a rifle.
Yeah, I’ve driven drunk plenty of times, never caused an accident. Don’t take away MY rights because some assholes can’t handle their liquor.
:
Everything I’m reading says two handguns. Handguns, like the weapons used in the VT shooting, to which today’s is second in terrms of number of victims.
Here are two very facile tests anyone (in the US) can carry out to see the integrity of license-based gun control (versus prohibiting guns outright):
Firstly, with one of your hands, make an sideways L-shaped gun hand gesture, point it to your temple and pull the ‘trigger’ (thumb). Repeat the process if you like–the results should be the same for each ‘round’ fired.
Secondly, take a semi-automatic firearm and place it in the arms of an unhinged person. Now, hold his plastic gun owner’s license ID card up to you forehead and tell the person holding the gun to aim for the card.
If you get back to me, gun licensing works. 
Yeah I do. So I’ll be bowing out of this thread for now. (I’ll be* incommunicado* in a couple of days anyway). (Nice chatting with you Zeriel.)
Ha ha, only serious. We definitely should be doing more, as a nation, about mental health in general and restricting firearms rights of those who are at a high risk of mental breakdown (since you mentioned “unhinged”)
Huh? Are you implying the default assumption should be he was a CCW holder?
He’s reported as being 20 years old. A CCW in Connecticut requires the holder be 21 years old. It’s logical to assume he is not a CCW holder.
Which begs the question of what the heck you meant in your post to Miltonyz…
That’s because they’ve plum run out of states that ban CCW outright.
You should move to DC. Soon it’ll be the only place in the continental US that doesn’t allow some form of concealed carry. And as a bonus, it’s both a liberal mecca and renowned for it’s low crime rates.
At the time I posted that I didn’t know that it wasn’t his 24 year old brother that was the killer, as was reported erroneously by several news agencies, and all I was implying was that it was a bit early in the game to make assumptions in either direction.
A Sig Sauer handgun and a Glock handgun were used in the slaying. He also brought in a semi-automatic rifle. The guns were legally bought by another member of the family.
Why would someone who carries a firearm in a belt holster that can be seen by everyone be assumed that they DON’T want to whip it out and fire it? And how do I know what kind of experience they have in threatening situations where guns have been used on them in the past?
I think if a citizen walks around with an un-concealed firearm, they’re scared as shit and are anxious to use it.
a.k.a. “the yahoo argument”. Gun carriers are not Dirty Harry wannabes; and the portion of gun carriers who favor open carry do so because they believe it’s a visual deterrent against violence, and because they want the public to see non-violent, law-abiding citizens carrying guns.
People who plan to fire their gun (aka criminals) prefer to carry concealed, actually, as it gives them the element of surprise.