School Shooting in Connecticut - Multiple Fatalities

[AiliailiA]

So not only is the Westboro Baptist Church planning on picketing the school, they are also blaming Carrie Underwood for the shooting.

I am officially confuzzled.

It's the Westboro Baptist Church. They're like a petulant toddler who threatens to hurt themselves when a sibling or parent is sick or injured. Obviously the focus is not on them so something is wrong.

Really, if we treated the WBC for what it really is, that is a bunch of yokels from Kansas with not much to do and no personality save for the one the head yokel in charge has, and simply ignored them wherever they went, including the media, they'd go away, or at least just be Kansas' problem.

In other words: Ignore.

[Northern Dominus]

It's the Westboro Baptist Church. They're like a petulant toddler who threatens to hurt themselves when a sibling or parent is sick or injured. Obviously the focus is not on them so something is wrong.

Really, if we treated the WBC for what it really is, that is a bunch of yokels from Kansas with not much to do and no personality save for the one the head yokel in charge has, and simply ignored them wherever they went, including the media, they'd go away, or at least just be Kansas' problem.

In other words: Ignore.

Pretty much.

Belive me I know it's hard. I've had to deal with those sycophants more than once. I'm a Patriot Guard Rider as well, and the temptation to put my rear wheel in gravel or roadside debris and twist the throttle to shower them with it is enormous.

But really, they're a lunatic fringe group in search of airtime and a platform. They're far less dangerous and damaging then groups like the American Family Association or Family Research Council, hate groups that get monetary support from like minded hateful bigoted wealthy entities themselves. Money equals power in the socio-political landscape, and those kinds of groups have access to it.

[AiliailiA]

In other words: Ignore.

Pretty much.

Belive me I know it's hard. I've had to deal with those sycophants more than once. I'm a Patriot Guard Rider as well, and the temptation to put my rear wheel in gravel or roadside debris and twist the throttle to shower them with it is enormous.

But really, they're a lunatic fringe group in search of airtime and a platform. They're far less dangerous and damaging then groups like the American Family Association or Family Research Council, hate groups that get monetary support from like minded hateful bigoted wealthy entities themselves. Money equals power in the socio-political landscape, and those kinds of groups have access to it.

I like the Riders, because they're fulfilling a function besides being a counter-protest. They're protecting the privacy of funerals which for some bizarre reason the WBC is allowed to intrude on.

Apart from that, and as much as possible, those people should be ignored. Freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone has to listen.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

I'm with LG and Farn on this...I want to know why as well....I also feel that to have been driven to do something so heinous there has to be a reason. If it is not politically inspired of course. Which does not seem to be the case here.

Good luck with that. We'll never know. The only two people who could have ever told us exactly why or at least given us a clue are dead and anything else is pretty much speculation at this point. Maybe if Lamza kept a journal or something to shed light on his motivations, maybe then we'll have a clue. But for now any speculation is just grasping at straws in pitch black.

Edit: Oh I just love waking up to this
Bryan Fischer: God did not protect Connecticut shooting victims because prayer not allowed in school...

You know what, I've tried to be civil about stupidity like this, but that's it. There's really only one sentiment left to express when confronted with that sort of statement.

Fuck you Bryan Fischer, you and all of your empty-headed simpleton inbred spiteful hateful wastes of oxygen and carbon audience who listens to you. While I'm at it fuck you too Mike Huckabee, you said the same goddamn thing. You two and EVERYONE like you are just as bad as the pro-gun fetishists that come out of the woodwork right away the second a heinous act of gun violence is brought up. The difference is at least they're topical, whereas people like you think that anytime is good to spout your particular brand of zealot pious bullshit, nevermind the pulpit you're using made from bodies and blood.

So guess what? You two and everyone like you can just go the hell away and leave us decent human beings alone. There are religious people who put healing and community first and not your bullshit pithy views. If you can't help Sandy Hook heal, then you're not welcome or needed, period.

You missed the context...which was that some people just regard the shooter as nothing but scum and to be disregarded. Scum I can get...disregarded...no.

Re Fisher...I posted that back on page 20 - viewtopic.php?p=12052916#p12052916

I can agree with with your sentiment.

[Northern Dominus]

Pretty much.

Belive me I know it's hard. I've had to deal with those sycophants more than once. I'm a Patriot Guard Rider as well, and the temptation to put my rear wheel in gravel or roadside debris and twist the throttle to shower them with it is enormous.

But really, they're a lunatic fringe group in search of airtime and a platform. They're far less dangerous and damaging then groups like the American Family Association or Family Research Council, hate groups that get monetary support from like minded hateful bigoted wealthy entities themselves. Money equals power in the socio-political landscape, and those kinds of groups have access to it.

I like the Riders, because they're fulfilling a function besides being a counter-protest. They're protecting the privacy of funerals which for some bizarre reason the WBC is allowed to intrude on.

Apart from that, and as much as possible, those people should be ignored. Freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone has to listen.

Unfortunately, the 1st Amendment does apply to the speech we don't like as well, as you mentioned. Trying to legislate against that or trying to hand down some sort of single-day ordinance has gotten municipalities in trouble before. Although there are certain municipalties local to me (South Holland, looking at you for this one), that seem to welcome them in. Either way, the most that can be done is leave it up to the police on the ground to keep the peace and use their discretion that way.

As I'm sure you'd agree, the WBC problem is all down to the sensationalist media giving them a larger platform than they really need. If nobody came out to cover them odds are they wouldn't be seen out of the ass end of the midwest.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

there are other areas that can be explored...from making ammo very expensive (and making home manufacturing highly illegal) to having yearly checks on gun owners and their weapons (storage etc) to restricting firearms to non semi automatic weapons, remove all vestiges of firearm militarization (sorry but why do you need a AR15 lookalike to go hunting?)...hell even make pistols and revolvers illegal. Illegal ownership carrying a hefty sentence...say ten years...or fifteen.

there is no one single solution is my point but a range of measures need to looked at.

So LG...thoughts? Am interested in knowing if you understand my position...

To be honest, the only idea I can agree with is making ammo more expensive. I can't really support making home manufacturing of ammo illegal, the yearly gun checks, the restriction to single shot weapons, or the like. There's a reason to encourage the public to train with the same styles of small arms the military uses. HOWEVER, after writing down and discussing out loud the notion that there should be limits on what kind of firearms can be CARRIED for personal defense, I'm starting to get behind the idea. I just don't see very many plausible self-defense scenarios where one needs 15 or more rapidly fired rounds as opposed to to 6 to 10 from a revolver or lower capacity pistol. But I don't think it's appropriate to ban ownership of semi-automatic pistols and rifles entirely. It's against the intent of the Second Amendment.

But nothing in the Second Amendment protects ammo. I don't think you can regulate the manufacture of ammo at home without infringing on a person's rights. But here's something to consider: Mandate that all ammo slugs must be made of tungsten instead of lead. That would increase the price of ammunition both pre-made and home made.

[DogDoo 7]

So LG...thoughts? Am interested in knowing if you understand my position...

To be honest, the only idea I can agree with is making ammo more expensive. I can't really support making home manufacturing of ammo illegal, the yearly gun checks, the restriction to single shot weapons, or the like. There's a reason to encourage the public to train with the same styles of small arms the military uses. HOWEVER, after writing down and discussing out loud the notion that there should be limits on what kind of firearms can be CARRIED for personal defense, I'm starting to get behind the idea. I just don't see very many plausible self-defense scenarios where one needs 15 or more rapidly fired rounds as opposed to to 6 to 10 from a revolver or lower capacity pistol. But I don't think it's appropriate to ban ownership of semi-automatic pistols and rifles entirely. It's against the intent of the Second Amendment.

But nothing in the Second Amendment protects ammo. I don't think you can regulate the manufacture of ammo at home without infringing on a person's rights. But here's something to consider: Mandate that all ammo slugs must be made of tungsten instead of lead. That would increase the price of ammunition both pre-made and home made.

You have to have your car inspected and registered each year. And once you get old, you have to take driving tests every so often. Why not the same with guns?

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

So LG...thoughts? Am interested in knowing if you understand my position...

To be honest, the only idea I can agree with is making ammo more expensive. I can't really support making home manufacturing of ammo illegal, the yearly gun checks, the restriction to single shot weapons, or the like. There's a reason to encourage the public to train with the same styles of small arms the military uses. HOWEVER, after writing down and discussing out loud the notion that there should be limits on what kind of firearms can be CARRIED for personal defense, I'm starting to get behind the idea. I just don't see very many plausible self-defense scenarios where one needs 15 or more rapidly fired rounds as opposed to to 6 to 10 from a revolver or lower capacity pistol. But I don't think it's appropriate to ban ownership of semi-automatic pistols and rifles entirely. It's against the intent of the Second Amendment.

But nothing in the Second Amendment protects ammo. I don't think you can regulate the manufacture of ammo at home without infringing on a person's rights. But here's something to consider: Mandate that all ammo slugs must be made of tungsten instead of lead. That would increase the price of ammunition both pre-made and home made.

Ok...well its a start. You are open to regulation of some kind and perhaps even new types of regulation.

The stuff I suggested were just that...suggestions. The point being that all aspects need to be scrutinised...from mental health to regulation.

Regarding the 2nd...certainly agree that that amendment was there for a reason. Written by men who come from an age where war is the norm. Had they foreseen the level of advancement in arms in a relatively short period of time (WWI) I suspect they might have considered another method for the populace to remove tyrants. This is a legitimate point and needs to taken on board by pro gun activists. Pro gun activists cannot continue the entire "freedom from tyranny" liturgy. There has to be change to the way things are done.

Reducing magazine sizes, using more expensive materials...thats great...but the illegal weapons trade needs to be addressed as well...and that is only done through very tight regulation. Its not perfect but it does further than any other method to reducing illegal guns hitting the streets.

[Chernoslavia]

So LG...thoughts? Am interested in knowing if you understand my position...

To be honest, the only idea I can agree with is making ammo more expensive. I can't really support making home manufacturing of ammo illegal, the yearly gun checks, the restriction to single shot weapons, or the like. There's a reason to encourage the public to train with the same styles of small arms the military uses. HOWEVER, after writing down and discussing out loud the notion that there should be limits on what kind of firearms can be CARRIED for personal defense, I'm starting to get behind the idea. I just don't see very many plausible self-defense scenarios where one needs 15 or more rapidly fired rounds as opposed to to 6 to 10 from a revolver or lower capacity pistol. But I don't think it's appropriate to ban ownership of semi-automatic pistols and rifles entirely. It's against the intent of the Second Amendment.

But nothing in the Second Amendment protects ammo. I don't think you can regulate the manufacture of ammo at home without infringing on a person's rights. But here's something to consider: Mandate that all ammo slugs must be made of tungsten instead of lead. That would increase the price of ammunition both pre-made and home made.

I understand how people might feel about looking at a firearm after this tragedy, and yes I honestly might not look at an ar-15 the same way for a while, but making ammo more expensive isnt going to do anything let alone banning any sort of firearms.

Lets say we're still in the era of the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban, maybe he might not have gotten himself an AR-15 with 30 rounds, but he'd still would have stolen one that can only accept 10 rounds, and still would have caused trouble. He stole those firearms from his mother, so it didnt matter if we had the ban because he would atleast have obtained a firearm. Now, the media claimed that the murder weapon was a ''Bushmaster M4'' but the truth is it wasnt an M4 and neither does Bushmaster make any firearm under that name. No M4 has ever been legal to own and neither will it be anytime soon.

And while the 2nd amendment doesnt specifically say ''the right to bear ammo'' it does in a sense protect them. Thats like saying since the 1st Amendment doesnt say anything about ''right to free internet'' people would still view regulating the internet as an infringment and it actually is in a sense.

Rapid fire weapons were already regulated three times, and to the point where it demands a huge premium (around $6,000 to $30,000) for one pre-ban full auto.

[Galloism]

To be honest, the only idea I can agree with is making ammo more expensive. I can't really support making home manufacturing of ammo illegal, the yearly gun checks, the restriction to single shot weapons, or the like. There's a reason to encourage the public to train with the same styles of small arms the military uses. HOWEVER, after writing down and discussing out loud the notion that there should be limits on what kind of firearms can be CARRIED for personal defense, I'm starting to get behind the idea. I just don't see very many plausible self-defense scenarios where one needs 15 or more rapidly fired rounds as opposed to to 6 to 10 from a revolver or lower capacity pistol. But I don't think it's appropriate to ban ownership of semi-automatic pistols and rifles entirely. It's against the intent of the Second Amendment.

But nothing in the Second Amendment protects ammo. I don't think you can regulate the manufacture of ammo at home without infringing on a person's rights. But here's something to consider: Mandate that all ammo slugs must be made of tungsten instead of lead. That would increase the price of ammunition both pre-made and home made.

You have to have your car inspected and registered each year. And once you get old, you have to take driving tests every so often. Why not the same with guns?

In what state(s) do you have to take driving tests every so often when you get old?

EDIT: It's also worth noting that you need to no license to own or drive a car. You only need a license to operate it on public roadways.

[Blackbird]

To be honest, the only idea I can agree with is making ammo more expensive. I can't really support making home manufacturing of ammo illegal, the yearly gun checks, the restriction to single shot weapons, or the like. There's a reason to encourage the public to train with the same styles of small arms the military uses. HOWEVER, after writing down and discussing out loud the notion that there should be limits on what kind of firearms can be CARRIED for personal defense, I'm starting to get behind the idea. I just don't see very many plausible self-defense scenarios where one needs 15 or more rapidly fired rounds as opposed to to 6 to 10 from a revolver or lower capacity pistol. But I don't think it's appropriate to ban ownership of semi-automatic pistols and rifles entirely. It's against the intent of the Second Amendment.

But nothing in the Second Amendment protects ammo. I don't think you can regulate the manufacture of ammo at home without infringing on a person's rights. But here's something to consider: Mandate that all ammo slugs must be made of tungsten instead of lead. That would increase the price of ammunition both pre-made and home made.

I understand how people might feel about looking at a firearm after this tragedy, and yes I honestly might not look at an ar-15 the same way for a while, but making ammo more expensive isnt going to do anything let alone banning any sort of firearms.

Lets say we're still in the era of the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban, maybe he might not have gotten himself an AR-15 with 30 rounds, but he'd still would have stolen one that can only accept 10 rounds, and still would have caused trouble. He stole those firearms from his mother, so it didnt matter if we had the ban because he would atleast have obtained a firearm. Now, the media claimed that the murder weapon was a ''Bushmaster M4'' but the truth is it wasnt an M4 and neither does Bushmaster make any firearm under that name. No M4 has ever been legal to own and neither will it be anytime soon.

And while the 2nd amendment doesnt specifically say ''the right to bear ammo'' it does in a sense protect them. Thats like saying since the 1st Amendment doesnt say anything about ''right to free internet'' people would still view regulating the internet as an infringment and it actually is in a sense.

Rapid fire weapons were already regulated three times, and to the point where it demands a huge premium (around $6,000 to $30,000) for one pre-ban full auto.

The media isn't entirely wrong in reporting it as a "Bushmaster M4." I assume that when they're talking about the Bushmater 223, they're talking about their "XM-15" series, which is essentially an M4 that doesn't have full auto, and is 16'' rather than 14.5''. You can see them here: http://www.bushmaster.com/firearms/xm-15.asp

[Gun Manufacturers]

I have a CT resident pistol permit, and there was a mixture of classroom work and range work in the NRA Basic Pistol course that's required.

http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?a=4213&q=494614

Okay, that's one. He did say "in almost every state." That implies in more than, oh, 40 or so. That would be "almost every." Not that I disbelieve him, or you, but you chose to answer.

I was merely verifying that CT is a state that requires training, since that's the state whose permit procedures I'm experienced with.

[Bug Out]

To be honest, the only idea I can agree with is making ammo more expensive. I can't really support making home manufacturing of ammo illegal, the yearly gun checks, the restriction to single shot weapons, or the like. There's a reason to encourage the public to train with the same styles of small arms the military uses. HOWEVER, after writing down and discussing out loud the notion that there should be limits on what kind of firearms can be CARRIED for personal defense, I'm starting to get behind the idea. I just don't see very many plausible self-defense scenarios where one needs 15 or more rapidly fired rounds as opposed to to 6 to 10 from a revolver or lower capacity pistol. But I don't think it's appropriate to ban ownership of semi-automatic pistols and rifles entirely. It's against the intent of the Second Amendment.

But nothing in the Second Amendment protects ammo. I don't think you can regulate the manufacture of ammo at home without infringing on a person's rights. But here's something to consider: Mandate that all ammo slugs must be made of tungsten instead of lead. That would increase the price of ammunition both pre-made and home made.

Ok...well its a start. You are open to regulation of some kind and perhaps even new types of regulation.

The stuff I suggested were just that...suggestions. The point being that all aspects need to be scrutinised...from mental health to regulation.

Regarding the 2nd...certainly agree that that amendment was there for a reason.

Written by men who come from an age where war is the norm. Had they foreseen the level of advancement in arms in a relatively short period of time (WWI) I suspect they might have considered another method for the populace to remove tyrants. This is a legitimate point and needs to taken on board by pro gun activists. Pro gun activists cannot continue the entire "freedom from tyranny" liturgy.

There has to be change to the way things are done.

Reducing magazine sizes, using more expensive materials...thats great...but the illegal weapons trade needs to be addressed as well...and that is only done through very tight regulation. Its not perfect but it does further than any other method to reducing illegal guns hitting the streets.

.

Written by men who come from an age where war is the norm. Had they foreseen the level of advancement in arms in a relatively short period of time (WWI) I suspect they might have considered another method for the populace to remove tyrants. This is a legitimate point and needs to taken on board by pro gun activists. Pro gun activists cannot continue the entire "freedom from tyranny" liturgy.

If you look at countries with tyrants that are trying to rid themselves of them, I think you will find that statement in error. I think the Syrians would not make anywhere near as much progress with revolvers and bolt guns. As previously stated, the owning of AUTOMATIC weapons is already regulated to the point that it's almost impossible to own one legally The background check is extensive and the weapon is expensive. You can buy nice cars cheaper. Then you have to find one for sale as they are limited to which ones the public can own. I believe it's pre 1986 as none produced after that can legally be owned by the public. This drives up the prices to say 10-20 times of their semi-auto counterparts. The process is as follows:
First, you have to pay for the gun.

Once the seller is satisfied with the payment plan and has his funds, he will begin the paperwork. This requires a little bit of work on your end. You will need to get a few things in order for the process to be complete. You will need to get two sets of fingerprint cards done, two passport photos, and fill out a Form 4 (to include the signature of the CLEO of the area you live in) and write a check to the Department of the Treasury for the $200 transfer tax. It is this special tax that will allow you to legally own the weapon. Once you have all this together along with the required paperwork from the seller, you will ship it all to the BATFE who will then have one of their 10 or so inspectors sit down and review it. Any little error will cause it to be rejected and sent back. This is where the frustration begins as the wait starts. It generally takes anywhere from 50-90 days for them to process an application. The main thing that they will be doing is running an extensive background check on you through the FBI criminal database using all your information as well as your fingerprints.

Once the paperwork finally comes back, the seller can then legally ship/transfer the weapon to you. You CANNOT take posession of it before this time or it will be the same as being in possession of an unregistered machine gun which carries a stiff penalty in federal prison.

[SaintB]

A lot of people are talking about Gun Control Ideas, I'm interested in what people's feedback on the Fix Gun Checks Acts (HR 1781 and S 436) the two bills have slight minor differences but their overall purpose is to make sure that the NICS database is always up to date so that background checks are more accurate. One of the two also has a proposed amendment in committee so that background checks would also be necessary to purchase a weapon at a gun show.

I personally think that this is a good common sense measure that doesn't infringe on people's right to own weapons in any unreasonable way and with the mentioned amendment might actually prevent some people who aren't legally allowed to own weapons from purchasing them.

[Bug Out]

A lot of people are talking about Gun Control Ideas, I'm interested in what people's feedback on the Fix Gun Checks Acts (HR 1781 and S 436) the two bills have slight minor differences but their overall purpose is to make sure that the NICS database is always up to date so that background checks are more accurate.

I personally think that this is a good common sense measure that doesn't infringe on people's right to own weapons in any unreasonable way and with the mentioned amendment might actually prevent some people who aren't legally allowed to own weapons from purchasing them.

One of the two also has a proposed amendment in committee so that background checks would also be necessary to purchase a weapon at a gun show.

This is already the law. If you buy from a dealer, you must pass the background check. If you buy from an individual in NC, you must show them a permit. They don't have the authority to take it, but must see one with your ID. To get a permit, you must pass the background check. This is just one of many laws, especially gun laws that are duplicated instead of enforcing the laws we have. The politicians pass new laws without repealing the old just to throw the smoke screen that they have done something for this generation of voters as we don't bother to research the laws already in existence.

[Choronzon]

In what state(s) do you have to take driving tests every so often when you get old?

Only Illinois and New Hampshire

Eighteen states require that elderly drivers renew their licenses more often than younger drivers, but only Illinois and New Hampshire require road tests for older drivers, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nat ... vers_N.htm

[Gun Manufacturers]

So, according to CBS reports on what the medical examiner said, all of the people killed were killed with a rifle.



I thought they were all killed with the pistols. No idea why.

Paper said he was armed with two pistols and a ".223 rifle." The pistols were a Glock and Sig Sauer, and the rifle was most likely an AR-platform semi auto. that's only a guess, but it's the most prolific .223 out there.

The Ruger Mini-14 is also a very popular .223 caliber rifle.

[Blackbird]

Paper said he was armed with two pistols and a ".223 rifle." The pistols were a Glock and Sig Sauer, and the rifle was most likely an AR-platform semi auto. that's only a guess, but it's the most prolific .223 out there.

The Ruger Mini-14 is also a very popular .223 caliber rifle.

I read it was a bushmaster 223, which makes me think it's one of their "XM-15" models.

[SaintB]

A lot of people are talking about Gun Control Ideas, I'm interested in what people's feedback on the Fix Gun Checks Acts (HR 1781 and S 436) the two bills have slight minor differences but their overall purpose is to make sure that the NICS database is always up to date so that background checks are more accurate.

I personally think that this is a good common sense measure that doesn't infringe on people's right to own weapons in any unreasonable way and with the mentioned amendment might actually prevent some people who aren't legally allowed to own weapons from purchasing them.

One of the two also has a proposed amendment in committee so that background checks would also be necessary to purchase a weapon at a gun show.

This is already the law. If you buy from a dealer, you must pass the background check. If you buy from an individual in NC, you must show them a permit. They don't have the authority to take it, but must see one with your ID. To get a permit, you must pass the background check. This is just one of many laws, especially gun laws that are duplicated instead of enforcing the laws we have. The politicians pass new laws without repealing the old just to throw the smoke screen that they have done something for this generation of voters as we don't bother to research the laws already in existence.

The amendment would make it a Federal Law so that it becomes mandatory everywhere. For instance in Pennsylvania I can win a gun at a raffle, buy one at auction, or purchase one at a gun show with no background check or waiting period.

[Choronzon]

The amendment would make it a Federal Law so that it becomes mandatory everywhere. For instance in Pennsylvania I can win a gun at a raffle, buy one at auction, or purchase one at a gun show with no background check or waiting period.

Which is fucking absurd.

[SaintB]

The amendment would make it a Federal Law so that it becomes mandatory everywhere. For instance in Pennsylvania I can win a gun at a raffle, buy one at auction, or purchase one at a gun show with no background check or waiting period.

Which is fucking absurd.

Which part?

[Daelos Tribes]

from the article, which you clearly didn't read...

No, I read it. I read through his cherry picked studies. You know what counts for way, way more than cherry picked studies?

Studies that analyze all shoots in the last 20 years. Looking at 62 shootings. Looking at all the major shootings since the 1980s.

So, its partly my fault. I shouldn't have asked you merely to show me a study. I should have asked for a study with equal methodology and rigor.

Point that should be made here--a study looking at every shooting isn't actually better automatically.

Because not all 62 shootings would have had civilian interference. Kind of a noticeable difference.

But then, I shouldn't expect you to examine your sources with actual rigor.

[Czechanada]

Just ban the production of guns, and only allow the production and sale of medieval weaponry like swords, axes, and halberds.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Absolutely I understand. None of the targets I posted simulate a living animal, therefore they can't be use to simulate killing something/someone.

Edited because I misspoke.

Ok...you don't understand the word simulate. Fair enough.

I've never seen a person or animal that could be confused with a bowling pin, playing card, round steel plate arranged around a wheel, or that dynamic target.

Explain how any of those targets imitates an animal or human shape.

[Gun Manufacturers]

So LG...thoughts? Am interested in knowing if you understand my position...

To be honest, the only idea I can agree with is making ammo more expensive. I can't really support making home manufacturing of ammo illegal, the yearly gun checks, the restriction to single shot weapons, or the like. There's a reason to encourage the public to train with the same styles of small arms the military uses. HOWEVER, after writing down and discussing out loud the notion that there should be limits on what kind of firearms can be CARRIED for personal defense, I'm starting to get behind the idea. I just don't see very many plausible self-defense scenarios where one needs 15 or more rapidly fired rounds as opposed to to 6 to 10 from a revolver or lower capacity pistol. But I don't think it's appropriate to ban ownership of semi-automatic pistols and rifles entirely. It's against the intent of the Second Amendment.

But nothing in the Second Amendment protects ammo. I don't think you can regulate the manufacture of ammo at home without infringing on a person's rights. But here's something to consider: Mandate that all ammo slugs must be made of tungsten instead of lead. That would increase the price of ammunition both pre-made and home made.

Tungsten rounds would suck for self defense and hunting, due to them not expanding as much as lead core rounds (since tungsten is a much harder metal than lead). They would also increase over-penetration, and be more capable of penetrating body armor.

How would you prevent people from melting and pouring their own lead rounds, especially when lead is in fishing weights, car wheel weights, car batteries, etc.