The Sandy Hook Tragedy

Green Mountain Guns wrote: 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.

You did prove my point. The ad was intended to appeal to those want to emulate professionals in their choice of weapons. Why do law enforcement, security personnel, etc. choose semi automatic or automatic firearms? To be able to defend against multiple criminals with lethal force. So now an untrained individual with minimal background check as to their intentions for use or mental health can use the same weapons as those of professionals. and with the same or even greater high capacity magazines. And yes, you are correct, in the hands of highly trained professionals even bolt, lever, pump and semi auto firing rates are close. But with the AR-15 and others, untrained individuals can approach that rate of fire. Individuals can achieve that rate of fire without regard to their training, their mental health, their intentions.

And your comments re competition shooting. Are those not intended to simulate combat situations against multiple individuals?

I have no problem with weapons such as these in the hands of highly skilled, highly trained, well vetted professionals. I do have a problem with weapons with such lethal firepower in the hands who may misuse them, with mental health issues, with no monitoring of their intended uses. Just show up with cash, go through a minimal background check, and posses a highly lethal instrument whose primary purpose is to kill masses of individuals in a short amount of time. This is the debate we should be having.

Raw data:

Year .. Homicides .. Multiple .. Mass
2011 ..... 12,706 ...... -- ..... --
2010 ..... 14,748 ..... 672 ..... 29
2009 ..... 15,399 ..... 737 ..... 37
2008 ..... 16,272 ..... 611 ..... 32
2007 ..... 16,929 ..... 638 ..... 28
2006 ..... 17,030 ..... 653 ..... 37
2005 ..... 16,740 ..... 670 ..... 25
2004 ..... 16,148 ..... 610 ..... 29
2003 ..... 16,528 ..... 685 ..... 39
2002 ..... 16,229 ..... 653 ..... 31
2001 ..... 16,037 ..... 611 ..... 19
2000 ..... 15,586 ..... 516 ..... 23
1999 ..... 15,522 ..... 565 ..... 32
1998 ..... 16,974 ..... 542 ..... 21
1997 ..... 18,208 ..... 634 ..... 29
1996 ..... 19,645 ..... 652 ..... 21
1995 ..... 21,606 ..... 780 ..... 49
1994 ..... 23,326 ..... 863 ..... 26
1993 ..... 24,526 ..... 813 ..... 40
1992 ..... 23,760 ..... 851 ..... 42
1991 ..... 24,703 ..... 674 ..... 37
1990 ..... 23,438 ..... 631 ..... 39
1989 ..... 21,500 ..... 617 ..... 34
1988 ..... 20,675 ..... 559 ..... 35
1987 ..... 20,096 ..... 617 ..... 21
1986 ..... 20,613 ..... 635 ..... 28
1985 ..... 18,976 ..... 632 ..... 25
1984 ..... 18,692 ..... 538 ..... 31
1983 ..... 19,308 ..... 598 ..... 31
1982 ..... 21,010 ..... 650 ..... 48
1981 ..... 22,520 ..... 625 ..... 32
1980 ..... 23,040 ..... 691 ..... 44
Total ... 595,784 .. 20,223 .... 994

(Source: U.S. Justice Department and a Scripps Howard News Service analysis of FBI computer files and Freedom of Information Act requests to individual police departments by Scripps Howard.)

Rate of fire doesn't equate to anything other than putting rounds out faster. If you look at number of rounds per enemy killed during combat, the rate of fire was about 50,000 rounds per enemy killed during Vietnam, much higher than any previous war (police action?).
What is your fear of combat type shooting competitions? How would you respond to a home invasion with multiple threats? A few rounds, then harsh language while watching your loved ones die. How about riot or civil unrest situations?
I'll gladly put my skills and training against criminal and mentally ill to protect my family.
Apparently the Constitution and Bill of Rights mean little to you. Since people aren't required to demonstrate racing level skills to operate motor vehicles, then you would deny citizens the right to defend themselves as well.

Raw Data
2012 Mass killings
Aurora Colorado - July 2012 - 12 dead, 58 injured Weapon AR-15
Wisconsin August 2012 - 7 dead, 5 injured weapon 9mm semi-auto
Minnesota September 2012 - 6 dead, 2 injured 9mm semi auto
Oregon November 2012 3 dead Weapon: AR-15
Connecticut December 2012 27 dead, Weapon AR-15

Notice a trend?

Green Mountain Guns wrote: Rate of fire doesn't equate to anything other than putting rounds out faster. If you look at number of rounds per enemy killed during combat, the rate of fire was about 50,000 rounds per enemy killed during Vietnam, much higher than any previous war (police action?).
What is your fear of combat type shooting competitions? How would you respond to a home invasion with multiple threats? A few rounds, then harsh language while watching your loved ones die. How about riot or civil unrest situations?
I'll gladly put my skills and training against criminal and mentally ill to protect my family.
Apparently the Constitution and Bill of Rights mean little to you. Since people aren't required to demonstrate racing level skills to operate motor vehicles, then you would deny citizens the right to defend themselves as well.

I am a devout follower of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and actually have taken them time to understand them. The most conservative Supreme Court Justice, Scalia, stated in the Heller opinion, that the government certainly has the right to regulate the type of weapon, the place of the weapon and the individual possessing the weapon under the 2nd Amendment. He even went so far as to state that assault weapons and military style weapons may certainly be prohibited under the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment does not grant a blanket right to own any firearm that you desire.

I am not in fear of combat type shooting competitions despite your attempt to smear me. My point was that even your chosen activity in using these firearms is to pretend that you are killing multiple individuals in a short period of time, which is the intended use of that weapon.

You can continue to insult me and try to smear me, or we can have a discussion of opposing viewpoints in an attempt to learn from the other. Your choice. Just remember that I, and others like me, are the ones who you need to convince, not the other way around. There will be a political debate on the banning of assault style weapons and high capacity magazines.

The only trend is your apparent glossing over of questions posed to you. All the largest mass murders were initiated by oppressive governments, not like the numbers you present. When did you get access to the unreleased crime scene data on Sandy Hook? Having found a XM-15 from Bushmaster doesn't mean it was the only firearm in use.
You say you study the Constitution, where did it limit the means to defend? Muzzle loaders were the most advanced weapon of the time, no limitation was stated.
A Supreme Court ruling is a decision or opinion based on law, prescedence and so on, not part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

As any one who ever had a basic civics lesson in high school knows, the Supreme Court is the final interpreter and arbitrator of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is their rulings that interpret how the Constitution and Bill of Rights are to be understood and applied.

We are not discussing the size of mass murders by "oppressive governments", we are discussing whether or not the American public will allow the continued sale of certain styles of weapons and magazines that have little purpose other than to kill masses of individuals in a short time span. Such a prohibition is allowed under the 2nd Amendment as interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court. We are a nation of laws and it is simply a political question as to whether such a ban should be enacted. This is the political debate that will occur and is occurring. You may not like it, but it is not your decision to make.

There is no convincing those with a closed mind, to state that they wish to debate is a lie.

and you must be referring to yourself by chance? You have not offered anything of substance that would change any mind.

No you prove my point.
In your first post you state the sole purpose is the mass killing of people and ignore the legal uses that I stated. Ignoring or disregarding evidence is proof of a closed mind. Then you state that it is to emulate the professional while disregarding ones right to self defense. You may have thought professional referred to "The Professional" movie, another Hollywood fantasy about a hitman. When did you become the advertising police? Where is the illegal remarks in their ad? Why do you believe that this or any other individual with minimal training can carry out this type of crime with your definition of high capacity magazines? In the Paducca, Kentucky school shooting incident, the lone gunman was a gamer that only shot the gun used on one previous occasion, yet the gaming skills carried over to actual shooting. Then you presume that people again wish to emulate the professional instead of considering the terms train with, become proficient in the use of and so on. This indicates a prejudice against something whether you're willing to admit it. You stand on the Scalia "opinion" which is not a Supreme Court ruling. I suggest you look up NFA firearms to define the limitations on owning any firearm that you seem to be hung up on. There is already ample limitations on the ownership thereof. You are free to percieve any or all of my statements as an attack on you as you are clearly a very sensative sort, and to say otherwise is a waste of my time.