Elementary school shooting gun control pissing contest

[Fate]

Yes, but the eschatological frenzy these loose groupings generate, might help to push looser wing-nuts over the 'edge' so to speak.

Meh, I sincerely doubt this kid's pathology was fueled by prepper stockpiling.  Anti-social sociopaths don't work that way.

We don't know if he was formally diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder. We do know mommy was certifiably insane. Planning for the government to collapse but living the life of luxury off of her sugar daddy's $330,000/yr alimony and child support payment.

[MadImmortalMan]

A great many of these attackers (like this one, or the Batman movie one) are kids who got their guns the easy way (the school guy even got his mommy to get him his), and I suspect that, in a regulated enviroment, they would not know where to go to get an illegal weapon. They'd probably be afraid to go to the illegal gun dealers.

Yes, a gun ban won't prevent criminals/determined guys from getting guns, but then again:

1 - Criminals want to use their guns for crimes. That often means robberies and the like, not going into a school, killing a bunch of kids and then turning the gun on themselves.

2 - Determined guys more often want guns for protection/bawl at them; few would really be the type to go on a killing spree.

Take me as an example: though Portugal has all guns ultra-banned, I got my Walther PPK and ammo from an illegal dealer. I'm a prime example that gun laws don't stop determined folks to get them. On the other hand, I also had the brains to know how to get it, and those very same brains tell me doing this kind of shit is incredibly stupid and cowardly; i'll never do anything like that. But we don't get kids going around shooting schools and cinemas, just the occasional well-organized robber gang.

Basically, what I mean is: tight gun laws prevent stupid kids (and their dumb parents) from getting guns. And those are usually the types that make these massacres.

Where I live, we make laws with the expectation that people will follow them. Not with the expectation that some hypocrites who are smart enough to circumvent them is ok. 

[OttoVonBismarck]

I had read that from the school security guy about Lanza not being able to feel if he was being burned with a match. I've heard of that disorder before, there was actually a guy in his early 20s years ago when we first moved to this house, one of the neighbor's sons who had a similar issue. He was also, incidentally, MR/DD or ID (whatever the PC term was, he was high functioning mentally retarded / intellectually disabled--and not autism spectrum.) I think eventually they had to put him in a group home as he wasn't around for long after we moved here, but he had some serious care issues because of his diminished mental capacity and his inability to feel pain. He wrecked a dirt bike in the woods once and walked around for awhile unconcerned with a seriously injured leg.

[Berkut]

I am no gun nut.

I don't think the 2nd Amendment protects anyone's "right" to own a handgun.

Even if it did, I would argue that it is a stupid "right", and should be repealed. The right to tote around a gun is NOT, IMO, a fundamental human right, or necessary to a free society. This is easily proven by noting that there are plenty of perfectly free societies that function quite well without the citizens therein being allowed to pack a gun.

All that being said, gun control won't stop things like this from happening. No amount of it that is realistically possible in the US today will make any difference. There are already too many guns, and too ingrained of a culture to matter in any meaningful manner.

I tend to think it does, and think the Roberts court actually got Heller "right." If you read the Heller decision, despite how vilified the Roberts court is by the left (and in many cases with justification) Scalia actually makes a sound argument. Basically, if you haven't read the ruling, the majority held:

1. The linguistic structure of the Second Amendment is consistent with other declarations of rights written around that time in America. The "regulated militia" prefatory clause is no indication that the objective clause which declares the right is only in existence because fo the prefatory clause. Many declarations of rights have a prefatory clause with an "example of why this right is important" in early American State constitutions and etc, and those prefatory clauses were never intended to limit the scope of the right being declared.

2. The Second Amendment is not an individual right to own any weapon by anyone with no regulations. It leaves the door open for various regulatory schemes.

3. However, it says the second amendment is an individual right to own firearms.

4. It further says, it is an individual right to own firearms in "common usage", and that handguns are "common usage" so while regulations on firearms are constitutional blanket bans on handguns are not, because they are a firearm in common usage. They specifically do not overturn Miller, and still assert bans on weapons not in common usage are fine (things like Tommy guns which inspired the 1934 NFA.) The door is still open on regulations of magazine capacities and things like that. And a licensing regime would not run afoul of any of the plaintext of the ruling.

5. It also states an intrinsic right to self defense, and says gun regulations cannot be written in such a way as to deny someone the means to use a gun in their home for self defense.

Meh, whatever. I think the language is ambiguous enough that it means whatever the reader wants it to mean.

More importantly (at least to me) is that even if I were to agree with you about what it says, it would not change my opinion about it's modern relavance any. If I thought it said that, I would have no problem supporting an amendment to ditch the 2nd altogether. Note that is not saying that I think there should or should not be more gun control - only that I think the decisions about what is or is not reasonable gun control should be made without deference to some fundamental right, because I don't think any such fundamental right exists to begin with (at least in the manner we define and believe in "fundamental rights").

Like I said before, I don't think you can take away the right to free speech, or freedom of religion, or freedom to congregate and still have a free society. I think you can heavily restrict gun ownership and still have a free society, therefore I would much prefer us to be able to make our laws without any restrictions that are fundamentally designed to protect a free society.

The "right to bear arms" is a means to an end, and I think it is clear that in reality, a bunch of people owning guns on modern society does nothing towards keeping us free.

[MadImmortalMan]

Keep reading and hearing today that the. 223 was the primary weapon used.

Yeah, it was a rifle after all.  Kind of obvious in hindsight, given that there were so few wounded.

Like Meri said, he shot them all several times to be sure. Maybe he had to with such a small caliber round.

[derspiess]

That round does terrible damage. I doubt multiple shots would be necessary at all.

[Queequeg]

Wouldn't the extra power from a rifle make it at least as powerful as a short from a mid-range semiautomatic pistol?

[MadImmortalMan]

Wouldn't the extra power from a rifle make it at least as powerful as a short from a mid-range semiautomatic pistol?

IIRC that's an extra powder round as well. Like a magnum, only little. Not like a kiddie's .22 plinker.

[CountDeMoney]

Like Meri said, he shot them all several times to be sure. Maybe he had to with such a small caliber round.

.223 Remington is what police tactical teams use.  It's a nasty round to begin with, and he slaughtered them.

[Berkut]

That round does terrible damage. I doubt multiple shots would be necessary at all.

Yeah, that is a brutal round, especially against freaking little kids.

Christ.

[PDH]

A .223 isn't a .22.  Against soft targets it is nasty.  He shot them each several times not because he had to...

[DGuller]

Keep reading and hearing today that the. 223 was the primary weapon used.

Yeah, it was a rifle after all.  Kind of obvious in hindsight, given that there were so few wounded.

Like Meri said, he shot them all several times to be sure. Maybe he had to with such a small caliber round.

I wouldn't call a .223 round "small caliber".  Yeah, it's narrow, but it's really going to fuck you up a lot more than a pistol round, especially when it goes through a child.  It's going to tumble and give you hydstrostatic shock.

[derspiess]

It won't tumble as much as fragment and leave a big wound cavity. The hydrostatic thing is likely though.

[dps]

Small entry wound.  Big exit wound.

[Queequeg]

Is there any chance we could stop this conversation?  I really don't need any more mental images of the effect multiple high-powered rifle peculiarly hideous rounds would have on first graders.