The Sandy Hook Tragedy

First off, we wish to express our sincere condolences and prayers to those affected by this horrific event.
Regarding gun control, crime bills and so on. Criminals, and in so many recent cases, the mentally ill have never followed the existing laws, why would an addition restriction on law abiding citizens make any difference?
Please consider the following examples of how to deal with significant life threatening situations.
1. The United States. Countless laws with little to no impact on our safety. Depending on the statistical source, we have approximately one law enforcement officer for every 400+ persons in our population. Even if that number were significantly increased regardless of economic effect, it will never be enough to gaurantee our individual safety. If there were an all out ban on so called assault weapons (so called because it is a propaganda term applied to demonize semi-automatic firearms), it will only increase illegal gun smuggling through other nations. Our military uses select fire and fully automatic firearms, actual assault weapons, and even those are the lowest form of weapons at their disposal. Remember the Rahm Emanuel video clip where he stated "never let a significant crisis go to waste"? The President recently stated "we need to change." Who is we? As this sort of tragedy is happening all over the world, it is not a US or societal problem. Our nation's present path has allowed the problem to continue and get signifcantly worse.
2. Look at Israel, surrounded by those that are sworn enemies and wish to eliminate their existence. How do they deal with this ever present danger? By arming themselves and remaining ever aware of their situation, not passing more irrelevant laws that achieve nothing. Parents regularly stand guard at their childrens schools while armed, on a voluteer basis.
3. Switzerland, where all males between 19 and 34 years of age are part of the militia (another demonized term in this country as only about 5% are active military), and keep their issued full auto and select fire firearms at home. The females of that age group are allowed to volunteer to be part of the militia by choice.
4. The former Soviet Union, where the people lived under continuous marshall law or a police state. Appears somewhat safe, but with conplete media control who could really say?
Yes we are at a time of critical deciscion making, to continue a path of failure (our present laws and policy), or towards a path of better security through understanding that we live in a dangerous world and act accordingly.

Green Mountain Guns wrote: First off, we wish to express our sincere condolences and prayers to those affected by this horrific event.
Regarding gun control, crime bills and so on. Criminals, and in so many recent cases, the mentally ill have never followed the existing laws, why would an addition restriction on law abiding citizens make any difference?
Please consider the following examples of how to deal with significant life threatening situations.
1. The United States. Countless laws with little to no impact on our safety. Depending on the statistical source, we have approximately one law enforcement officer for every 400+ persons in our population. Even if that number were significantly increased regardless of economic effect, it will never be enough to gaurantee our individual safety. If there were an all out ban on so called assault weapons (so called because it is a propaganda term applied to demonize semi-automatic firearms), it will only increase illegal gun smuggling through other nations. Our military uses select fire and fully automatic firearms, actual assault weapons, and even those are the lowest form of weapons at their disposal. Remember the Rahm Emanuel video clip where he stated "never let a significant crisis go to waste"? The President recently stated "we need to change." Who is we? As this sort of tragedy is happening all over the world, it is not a US or societal problem. Our nation's present path has allowed the problem to continue and get signifcantly worse.
2. Look at Israel, surrounded by those that are sworn enemies and wish to eliminate their existence. How do they deal with this ever present danger? By arming themselves and remaining ever aware of their situation, not passing more irrelevant laws that achieve nothing. Parents regularly stand guard at their childrens schools while armed, on a voluteer basis.
3. Switzerland, where all males between 19 and 34 years of age are part of the militia (another demonized term in this country as only about 5% are active military), and keep their issued full auto and select fire firearms at home. The females of that age group are allowed to volunteer to be part of the militia by choice.
4. The former Soviet Union, where the people lived under continuous marshall law or a police state. Appears somewhat safe, but with conplete media control who could really say?
Yes we are at a time of critical deciscion making, to continue a path of failure (our present laws and policy), or towards a path of better security through understanding that we live in a dangerous world and act accordingly.

Look at Japan, strict gun control laws, nearly zero gun related homicides.

Look at Somalia, zero gun control laws, complete anarchy.
and let's look at Switzerland. Individuals must provide a reason for possessing a gun. Not by right, by reason. Then they must go back and renew their permit for their gun every six months, which is renewed only if the reason is still valid.

Israel is in a state of war, not really applicable with the United States. Even so, their laws are very strict as to who may possess a weapon and the type of weapons they may possess. Military, ex-military, and a few select others may own a handgun (not assault, not semis,). Reservists above a certain rank may also possess a rifle. Settlers in the settlements are issued (may not own) assault rifles after they have completed training, but these are still considered the property of the military and may be confiscated at any time for any reason. Out of 7 million people, only about 250,000 are licensed to possess firearms (3.5%) with another 150,000 having licenses due to their occupation.

The United States has the highest rate of gun related homicides than any other developed nation. to say that we can not have an intelligent discussion about the regulation of the types, places and individuals in regard to guns is ridiculous. The most conservative justice in regard to 2nd amendment rights has stated that the government may certainly do so in the Heller decision. If the people of this country decide through their representatives that the regulation of those firearms whose sole intent is the mass killing of people is appropriate, then there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits that. If we can not have that discussion now, when can we?

Gun related deaths typically includes suicide, which is self homicide. Japan is nearly double our suicide rate. Somalia isn't just at war, it is normally facing genocide by government of its own citizens. Guns are just a tool that can be used for legal purposes or abused for illegal purposes. When you or your loved ones life is on the line from a criminal or mentally ill person, you too are in combat. War is a very vague term now that Congress doesn't have to declare it anymore.
Something the dog said wrote the following:
The United States has the highest rate of gun related homicides than any other developed nation. to say that we can not have an intelligent discussion about the regulation of the types, places and individuals in regard to guns is ridiculous. The most conservative justice in regard to 2nd amendment rights has stated that the government may certainly do so in the Heller decision. If the people of this country decide through their representatives that the regulation of those firearms whose sole intent is the mass killing of people is appropriate, then there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits that. If we can not have that discussion now, when can we?
In your above statement, what is a firearm whose sole intent is the mass killing of people? I've yet to see a manufacturer that advertises it as such, just an extreme opinion by some.

Switzerland gun ownership is ranked fourth highest in the world per capita.

Really? You don't consider a weapon that has a high rate of lethal fire to be a weapon that is intended for killing multiple individuals? For what purpose is such a weapon designed?

Perhaps you should look at the advertisements by the manufacturer before you make a statement. Here is the advertisement for the Bushmaster AR-15 (the one used in the Connecticut mass murder).


The bottom line, if you can't make it out, says:
"If it's good enough for the professional, it's good enough for you."

Hmm, wonder what they meant by that?

Professional is someone that carries a gun as part of their job, ie. operator, security personnel, law enforcement, etc. Nice stretch of what something means, do you have something against those professionals listed? Please define high rate of lethal fire. Years ago several gun experts used all types of actions to determine, what other than full auto, had the fastest cyclic rate. The difference between bolt, lever, pump and semi auto was measured in tenths of a second. In the hands of those very proficient all are extremely fast. The actual fastest depended on experience, not action type.

In response to your question regarding use of such a weapon, I like three gun competitions and self defense, both very legal. With limited capacity magazines (5 rounds or less) legal for hunting depending on caliber and species being hunted. Many use these for target competitons including long range and plinking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsLx5ISBXw4
This is a video showing competitive shooter Jerry Miculek with a double action revolver.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hujvVmuLuoM
This is a video of Bob Munden with a single action revolver. Bob is acknowledged as the fastest shot in the world.

Both videos simply show that an action type doesn't determine speed of use.

A quick search of news on this site shows, record gun purchase background checks and the stats that show mass killings are remaining somewhat constant, while overall murders continue to decline while guns in private hands increases. A few posters here wish to catagorize the gun purchases as "right wing, NRA gun nuts" when my concealed carry classes show mostly first time gun owners or buyers that the realization we are no longer immune from violent crimes.