The goal isn't to take away all guns.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
The goal isn't to take away all guns.
Mon, 01-07-2013 - 11:48am

Despite the scare tactics so typical of the right - see health care - there is no desire to take away all guns amongst most on the left. That is how the right wants to define the debate, as all or nothing. It knows it wins in that case.

All we want is common sense, but listen to, see the howls and declarations of 'you won't take away my gun!'

Which position is actually rational and reasoned?


iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sun, 02-10-2013 - 9:23am

Seems you're being deliberate again.

No hand gun can do the same degree of damage that was done in those massacres discussed unless of course said gun has a large capacity ammunition feeding device and that was part of the ban that was in place 19 years ago due to the degree of damage it can cause.  Also, you missed the entire point of my last post about bans on planes.  We have bans off planes too.  Certain kinds of explosives are banned because of the extreme danger they pose to the public.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-31-2013
Sun, 02-10-2013 - 4:49pm

Of course I'm deliberate, I know what I'm talking about from personal experience when I state that even a handgun can inflict the number of injuries seen at SH.  And the ban in question was on new manufacture and sale, not possession or use.  So even re-enacting the ban would not eliminate the existance or use of these firearms or magazines.

Certain kinds of explosives are banned because of the extreme danger they pose to the public.

Explosives are not firearms, and are covered by a different set of laws addressing explosive devices.  Nor are explosives covered under the umbrella of the 2nd Amendment.  So that's just another invalid analogy on your part.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-31-2013
Sun, 02-10-2013 - 4:53pm

 The NRA should be ashamed of itself.

For trying to protect our rights?  If that's the case then the ACLU should be ashamed of itself as well for engaging in precisely the same thing. 

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Sun, 02-10-2013 - 5:59pm

  "No hand gun can do the same degree of damage that was done in those massacres discussed"


     What information you are absorbing is incomplete and inaccurate.  Your kitchen and cleaning supplies properly combined can make explosives.  People who can't read construct IED's.  Did you know flour can be made to explode?  Most of the mass shooters use multiple guns just like the did over 100 years ago. 

"the ban that was in place 19 years ago due to the degree of damage it can cause."

1. those bans rightly were overturned

  2. it takes less than .5 sec to change magazines on any gun

  Now anyone with a 3D printer can make a weapon at home.  The technology will be even better in the coming years.  There is no way of stopping progress.  The future always wins.


iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sun, 02-10-2013 - 6:41pm

Just because we can make things explode with cleaning products is not a coherent reason to allow dangerous explosives that were once banned back in the hands of the general population.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sun, 02-10-2013 - 6:43pm

"Of course I'm deliberate, I know what I'm talking about from personal experience when I state that even a handgun can inflict the number of injuries seen at SH."

 Unless a hand gun has a large capacity ammunition feeding device, it cannot do that kind of damage in the same period of time with the same degree of damage (in this case the high velocity of bullets projecting out of the gun) which illustrates the extreme kind of damage such a weapon is fully capable of in a shorter period of time.  To debate differently is just being deliberate.

You may not be able to eliminate with a ban but you certainly can reduce with a ban.

Also, I can't tell if you are purposely changing my argument or have some difficulty comprehending what I've said.  To clarify, I didn't say explosives were firearms.  I listed an item banned due to the potential danger to the public.  We've had bans before on firearms so we certainly can do it again. It's not an analogy it's a thing called facts.


iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sun, 02-10-2013 - 6:47pm

To clarify, I was responding to this exact quote from XXXs, "Greed is more important than the welfare of the population. "

Pretty ironic btw.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-31-2013
Sun, 02-10-2013 - 7:03pm

So just let me ask since you've repeatedly espoused your certainty about various issues surrounding firearms and their capabilities, care to elaborate on what your practical experience level is with firearms?  Perhaps a military background?  Law enforcement?   Anything above or beyond personal belief and bias?

The reason I inquire is that the number of rounds fired does not equate to actual damage/casualties caused.  The Army discovered that years ago.  That's why they stress accuracy and focus, sight picture and alignment above what you would call "pray and spray".  And at the ranges involved and density of the teachers & students involved at SH a handgun, even one with a ban-compliant magazine in place, could easily have caused the same number of casualties as the use of the rifle/magazine combination which was used.  This was demonstrated at the Ft. Hood shooting.

Any firearm can be used as a deadly weapon Mom.  The number of rounds it's magazine holds won't change that, nor the fact that it has a pistol-grip, or a flash hider, a bayonet lug, or any other feature you care to name.  That's the nature of firearms.  Trying to single out one as especially deadly is foolish, especially in light of how seldom this particular one is actually used in a crime. 

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Sun, 02-10-2013 - 9:07pm

to address a few points...

Now let's say our own government decides to attack its citizens for whatever slippery slope argument fits for the day, wouldn't they have an advantage because they have (oh let's say) stinger missles or better yet nuclear weapons?

Your argument is false.  Uprisings and revolutions in the modern era, and more specifically those that have occurred recently in the Middle East, demonstrate that a determined citzenry can, in fact, overturn their respective governments with "modest weaponry."

Right and those weapons suitable for militia service are high powered weapons that can wipe out a large group of people in a few minutes.  Insanity to allow that to civilians.

Your allegations of "high powered" are relative.  Certainly an AR-15 is "high powered" when compared to a sling-shot, but not at all "high powered" when compared with a host of other rifles not included in the proposed gun ban, as the video proves.  I've cited a video below of a demonstration of the firepower of several types of weapons.  Jump to 7:55 to see the shooting demonstration, but I'd advise you to watch the entire video to better inform yourself about the topic your are arguing.

Logical people do not want these type weapons available to the general public especially if you are refusing to have them registered. 

There are an estimated 310 million guns in the US...of which, 110 million are rifles...and approximately 3.75 million are AR-15 style rifles.  The US has a population of approximately 314 million.  Apparently there are a LOT of logical people who want these types of weapons available to the general public.

I'm also finding it tragic to allow paranoid people to have very dangerous weapons.

And yet, the left is paying only lip service to the actual problem behind mass shootings...which is mental health and the ability of someone to report observances of unstable behavior and the authority of government institutions to act on those observances.  Instead, Democrats focus on the ridiculous to push their anti-gun, anti-Constitution agenda.

If the same weapon used in the CT killing was used against Gabby, she may not be with us today. 

This again, is a ridiculous statement.  Gabby Giffords survived by the grace of God, not because x-number of bullets were fired by the shooter.  In fact, one man in attendence, with a permit to carry a gun, commented on his remose for not having that gun with him that day.  If he had, he would have been able to stop the shooting and save lives.

It is fact that this high capacity magazine sprayed bullets on people and killed them in seconds. These types of weapons have no place in a civil society.

As has been mentioned before, high capacity magazines do not "spray" bullets.  The AR-15 fires a single shot each time the trigger is pulled...the same is true with most handguns.  But here are a few salient FACTS about the Newtown shooting...

Lanza entered the school at 9:35 and conducted his shooting rampage for roughly 15 minutes.

He carried an AR-15 style rifle and three semi-automatic handguns...and left a high-capacity shotgun in the trunk of the car.

He fired between 50 and 100 rounds.

He used 30-round magazines...reloaded FREQUENTLY...and often fired only 15 rounds from his 30-round mags.

It was only when he realized the police had spotted him that he hid and killed himself with a handgun.

So what can we learn?  That the Lanza conducted his assault UNMOLESTED for 15 minutes...and that when confronted with "good guys with guns" he killed himself.  If there had been a security guard or other armed individuals in the school, they would likey have ended the shooting sooner and saved many lives.

We also know that Lanza reloaded many times, ejecting half-full magazines, so limiting the number of bullets in a magazine would only have slightly inconvenienced the shooter, not deterred him or saved a single life.

We also know that Lanza carried THREE semi-automatic handguns that could have committed the same kind of carnage as the rifle if he chose to use them.  Again, reloading was not a deterrent for the shooter, and as a gun can be reloaded in a second or two, it would not offer a sufficient "window" for a brave person to "take down" the shooter.

We also know that Lanza had a shotgun in the trunk of his car that he chose not to carry.  Absent the AR-15, it would have been as easy for Lanza to rack up the same body count with the shotgun using even less ammunition.

And now lets examine another school shooting...Columbine.

What isn't commonly reported is that the shooters placed several propane bombs in the school caffeteria that failed to explode.  Had they succeeded, it is likely that nearly 450 students would have been killed and a portion of the building would have collapsed.

Instead, the shooters began their rampage at 11:19am and walked through the school unmolested, shooting and setting off bombs, for 32 MINUTES...killing themselves only 2 minutes after police entered the building.

Again, what lessons were learned at Newtown are the same lessons that should have been learned with Columbine.

And sadly, the biggest lesson we've learned is the left's assault on the Second Amendment is frivolous and supported by lies and an anti-gun agenda...and will do nothing to protect our children or prevent mass shootings in the future.  They should be ashamed.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sun, 02-10-2013 - 9:10pm


I find it interesting you say the number of rounds fired does not equate to actual damage/casualities and then use Fort Hood as an example saying the shooter used a large capacity ammunition magazine.  As a matter of fact, not opinion, he fired 214 shots in approximately a 4 minute period of time.  13 people dead in a matter of 4 minutes is jaw dropping.