1st Gun Experience

[sevoflurane]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Unrelated things are unrelated.
I don't know pgg but I'm sure he'd skip the target practice if it would save those kids. Obviously it wouldn't because his target practice had nothing to do with that psycho's actions.
If I were inclined to be easily offended, I'd be offended by the gun control advocates' using this tragedy to score political points.

Some people blow off steam at the shooting range. Kinda like carving some turns in the mountains after a big 3 foot dump. The way one clear his/her mind is a matter of personal preferance.

I honestly haven't read all the posts on this thread, but I am pretty darn sure PGG didn't put that photo up there in reference to the horrific tragedy. He's getting ready to get deployed and he likes his guns. So what? This is a perfect thread to show some gun nuts about his hobby.
You guys really think he put that up there on purpose... to try and get a rise? 😕
That would be extremely distasteful and I don' t believe that is in his nature. To assume otherwise is a big leap of faith on an internet forum.

Let's not make this a personal attack on anybody.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[pgg]

Recent events, remote events, the banter on the news....

Criminals and crazies will always have guns. Laws can ban objects but not ideas. Bad people will still ignore the laws.

I've never shot a pistol in my life. Guns scare me terribly. I am going to the range for the first time ever today and will be going to a gun safety class next month. At 3AM the home alarm might go off and bad people may try and get in my house and do my family harm. I do not think they will listen to reason, laws, or my golden retriever. Hoping to find a slender pistol with power to stop anyone who breaches my home. Hoping to find way over concern of guns so I can be comfortable knowing I can protect my family. I have no problem taking the life of another for that reason. We should ban criminals and crazy people. not guns. Both sides just as stupid. Thank you pgg. How about an XDs?

If you don't know someone who can help out in person, I would go to a range that offers rentals and training. Get some instruction and try a few guns out. The "CCW" classes aren't always the best place to start as they often focus on the legal aspects - important, but they sometimes assume the students already own and are comfortable with a handgun. Sometimes it's just better to start with a familiarization class.

The Springfields are very nice guns but you may find that you shoot a different one better, so try a few. Good luck!

 

[deleted480308]

Nra also has classes searchable online on their site

 

[pie944]

I've never shot a pistol in my life. Guns scare me terribly. I am going to the range for the first time ever today and will be going to a gun safety class next month. At 3AM the home alarm might go off and bad people may try and get in my house and do my family harm. I do not think they will listen to reason, laws, or my golden retriever. Hoping to find a slender pistol with power to stop anyone who breaches my home. Hoping to find way over concern of guns so I can be comfortable knowing I can protect my family. I have no problem taking the life of another for that reason. We should ban criminals and crazy people. not guns. Both sides just as stupid. Thank you pgg. How about an XDs?

How was your experience? What did you shoot?

 

[sevoflurane]

Lobelsteve,

So my wife is more into guns than I am (and we don't own any... yet).

She wants @ least one for xmas. What these guys are saying is absolutely right. Go out and get a bunch of guns and try them all. That's what we did for "pre-xmas" ideas today. Tried about 10 different pistols/revolvers. It's a little scary at first, but it goes away quickly. Def. take some courses... and posters on this forum def. can help with a lot of questions (I'm still a total new-B).

Amongst the ones she liked today:

sr9, sr9c, glock 19, glock 26, p226, p229, S&W 642. She didn't like the H/Ks although loading the 9mm was easy as pie.

My wife is a natural. She has totally suprised all the individuals who see her shoot. Def. kicks my ass (makes her so happy... and I hear about it frequently 🙂).
It is a sport she's good at and I happily encourage it.

All the people I met today were very friendly and responsible people.

The FN 57 is awesome.... but expensive.

Go get a bunch and figure out what you like.

So far, the sr9c is my fav. of the 9mm, but again... I'm a newbe that has shot less than 500 rounds in his entire life (most over the last year).

 

[bogatyr]

PGG, I'm not sure why the Navy, or is it the Army?, feels that it is necessary for you to fire the M2 and M249 prior to deployment. While fun, talk about waste and abuse. How much did you blow on ammunition when we have a looming 11% across the board budget cut? Mostly I'm just jealous because in my 11 years in the Army I've never even fired a rifle. Just the M9 at those pop-up men that are already half blown to bits.

So D712's poster from earlier that quotes the annual firearm deaths from West Germany!, says that ~10,700 Americans die of gun violence annually. Today in the WSJ it said that annually in the US 16,500 americans OD on prescription opioids. Which is a bigger problem to society? How many of you are going to stop prescribing opioids?

 

[doctor712]

What can I say?

That's where I stop reading. And thank GOODNESS others - from med students to Attendings - have chimed in here.

What CAN you say? What WILL you say? What COULD YOU HAVE SAID?

There are seven generally accepted forms in language in English. Yet you cannot bring yourself to modify to ANYTHING other than, "What can I say?"

How EXACTLY, as a human, did you sneak through the process? Just how?

👎

Your most recent apology is too late. It was preceded by comparing the killing rifle your rifle and saying it might as well have been an F-22 jet. Um: lemme clue you in, you shot a RIFLE, the killer USED A RIFLE to kill kids. Does it REALLY matter what the name of the rifle is?????

D712

 

[pgg]

We need to do something to encourage people to better secure the guns they own so nut jobs don't steal them. That law would need teeth in order for gun owners to pay attention.

No disagreement there. In California, when you buy a firearm, you need to sign a statement declaring that you have a safe. Handguns can't leave the store without a locking device.

I think California law does hold owners criminally liable if a negligently lost/stolen gun is used by a minor, but I'm not sure. I don't know the details. All of mine are kept in a safe at all times, unless I'm actively carrying or transporting them to the range.

Anyway, I don't object to this. It wouldn't have helped in this school shooting though, since it seems the guy killed his mother and took her guns. Safes stop children and casual thieves; all they can do is slow down determined people.

Second, every gun needs to be registered, and there need to be penalties for possessing an unregistered firearm.

I'm ambivalent toward this, mainly because I don't see how it would prevent attacks like this one. If the guns were registered to this shooter's mother, that wouldn't have made any difference.

All of my handguns are registered, per CA state law. Rifles aren't required to be now, but will be as of Jan 1, 2014 ... I think.

There will be enormous resistance to federal registration. History has shown pretty dramatically that confiscation is one endpoint to registration. You might think this is a silly and irrational fear, and it is ... in 2012. Will it be as silly and irrational in 2050? Or 2100? The nation has faced existential threats in the last couple hundred years; we need to be very careful about what do now that might affect us for the next couple hundred.

I might support a registration mechanism that would permit police to trace a firearm used in a crime to its lawful owner, but which would not make it possible for the police or other government agencies to compile a list of gun owners. (This is possible, cryptographic database structures exist that permit one-way searching.)

Third, people really should go through some kind of psych eval and background check before getting access to these things.

The background check exists, and functions pretty well to flag what it was designed to flag (criminal history), and obviously can't flag anything that isn't in the database.

A psychiatric evaluation would have to be done at government expense, otherwise it would impose a financial burden akin to poll taxes on poor people. Gun control has a long and glorious history of targeting minorities and the poor, so we'd have to be careful there.

How often would it have to be repeated? Who would do the assessments? We already have a shortage of mental health resources.

Perhaps they should be required to join and meet the approval of a local gun owners club where a few well chosen leaders could assess this person's candidacy for responsible ownership.

Who certifies these people, and what happens to them if someone they 'vouch' for commits a crime?

The problem here is that armed self defense is a civil right. Removal of such a right should be an active process initiated by the authorities. Ie, a felony conviction after appropriate due process.

One shouldn't have to go to the government, hat in hand, to request permission to exercise a fundamental civil right.

Second, regarding mental health. The issue is the scope of the problem. It's enormous, and no one wants to pay for all that psychotherapy and counseling. Meds alone won't cut it, and we as medical professionals know that. Just in the course of one day in my pain clinic the amount of psychopathology I see is vast.

Yes, it's a hard problem.

What do we do if it turns out there IS no practical solution for mental health screening?

Do we give up liberty for the illusion of safety? This school shooting, while tragic, should be kept in context. 3x as many people died the same day in traffic accidents.

Regarding AWB, suppressors, magazine size, transferrence rights.. these go beyond what I'm personally advocating, but I can see why one would support these measures. They are simple black and white restrictions that are easy to understand and implement widely. People who aren't gun nuts see these as reasonable compromises on the second amendment.

Actually, they are NOT easy to understand. The California AWB is presently being challenged in court as being unconstitutionally vague, after a law abiding citizen with a legally configured firearm was arrested multiple times by police officers who didn't know the law.

And who could blame them? This is the 'easy to understand' flow chart for identifying a firearm California classifies as an 'assault weapon'. (If you click the link, it's a PDF.)

Other civilized countries don't even regulate suppressors; it's just good manners to reduce the amount of noise you make. We put mufflers on cars for the same reason. (They were actually regulated by the 1934 NFA because starving poor people were using them to poach food during the Great Depression.)

The consistent feature/flaw of 'assault' weapon bans is that they regulate cosmetic features like grip position, stock type, muzzle devices ... all of which have nothing to do with the lethality of the round they fire.

I bring up these two points to illustrate that most gun control, specifically including the "reasonable compromises" you say "people who aren't gun nuts" want, are based on ignorance and emotion not actual facts, or real-life cause-effect relationships.

Regarding what's the point.. obviously it's impossible to prevent every tragedy. Who knows, maybe the next psycho will choose a home made bomb as his weapon. Or a knife like the guy in China. It's all about reducing the risk and balancing that with people's desire to own firearms.

As Steve said/implied, we can't ban crazy people or criminals. So we have to start somewhere.

Then let's start with something that
- might actually work
- won't infringe the rights of law-abiding people

It's a mental health problem, not a gun problem.

You're not going to get much sympathy from me if your best response is "do nothing because I'm afraid of the slippery slope".

We're waaaaay down the slippery slope. It's not theoretical. I gave multiple, concrete, actual examples of how gun control has progressed over 150+ years.

Like it or not, easy access to guns is a big part of this problem. You, as a responsible gun owner, would do well to lead the charge toward reasonable gun control laws.

100s of millions of guns are already in private hands in the US. Confiscation is clearly not an option, even if it was done in a way that somehow passed Constitutional muster. (A particularly tall order in a post-Heller/McDonald world.)

And again, I've written this many times before, but the 2nd Amendment isn't about deer hunting.

You are pathetic if condolences and blame shifting are all you have to offer. A crazy kid was one part of the equation, the other part was easy access to the tools of mass murder. Please consider becoming an advocate for solutions to the latter.

As I wrote above, I am absolutely open to solutions that
- might actually work
- won't infringe the rights of law-abiding people


I do my best to see the world as it is, and not how I'd like it to be.

Gun control doesn't reduce violent crime. If you really want policies and laws that will reduce violent crime, stop rehashing failed gun control ideas.

 

[doctor712]

PGG, I'm not sure why the Navy, or is it the Army?, feels that it is necessary for you to fire the M2 and M249 prior to deployment. While fun, talk about waste and abuse. How much did you blow on ammunition when we have a looming 11% across the board budget cut? Mostly I'm just jealous because in my 11 years in the Army I've never even fired a rifle. Just the M9 at those pop-up men that are already half blown to bits.

So D712's poster from earlier that quotes the annual firearm deaths from West Germany!, says that ~10,700 Americans die of gun violence annually. Today in the WSJ it said that annually in the US 16,500 americans OD on prescription opioids. Which is a bigger problem to society? How many of you are going to stop prescribing opioids?

Are there laws restricting and regulating opioid prescriptions to a certain section of society (Doctors?) Are there laws penalizing doctors for turning their practice into pill mills? Are there laws and stringent controls of opioids in the OR or workplace (that is, locked under numeric code, etc.. -- I've seen both I think, locks and no locks). Can I write you a prescription for an Opioid? Can a doctor in Seattle write a prescription for a patient he has never seen in Florida - without penalties for breaking laws, regulations, etc.

So, there are TONS of restrictions with opioids.

1) Are these restrictions good, or bad?

2) Would more or less people die if doctors all turned their practices into pill mills full of Opioids?

D712

 

[jwk]

That's where I stop reading. And thank GOODNESS others - from med students to Attendings - have chimed in here.

What CAN you say? What WILL you say? What COULD YOU HAVE SAID?

There are seven generally accepted forms in language in English. Yet you cannot bring yourself to modify to ANYTHING other than, "What can I say?"

How EXACTLY, as a human, did you sneak through the process? Just how?

👎

Your most recent apology is too late. It was preceded by comparing the killing rifle your rifle and saying it might as well have been an F-22 jet. Um: lemme clue you in, you shot a RIFLE, the killer USED A RIFLE to kill kids. Does it REALLY matter what the name of the rifle is????? Are you THAT dense? Holy **** you are insane.

D712

You know the saying - opinions are like a**holes - we all have one.

I'll bet you and Dukakis would be great buddies!

 

[pgg]

PGG, I'm not sure why the Navy, or is it the Army?, feels that it is necessary for you to fire the M2 and M249 prior to deployment. While fun, talk about waste and abuse. How much did you blow on ammunition when we have a looming 11% across the board budget cut? Mostly I'm just jealous because in my 11 years in the Army I've never even fired a rifle. Just the M9 at those pop-up men that are already half blown to bits.

We're all Navy individual augmentees, pulled from our parent commands singly to be sent to an area the Army is running. So the Army owns the pre-deployment training, and it's one-size-fits-all. In our group, there are doctors, nurses, attorneys, line officers, security specialists, supply, etc. Officer and enlisted. We all get the same course.

They put us through some team room-clearing and vehicle checkpoint work today. I spent the morning kicking a door in and riding around in a turret. Of course I'll never clear a room or search vehicles for bombs ... Some people in the course will though.

Maybe it costs less to throw the doctors, nurses, and lawyers in the course that already exists, than to make one special for us.

 

[pgg]

My wife is a natural. She has totally suprised all the individuals who see her shoot. Def. kicks my ass (makes her so happy... and I hear about it frequently 🙂).
It is a sport she's good at and I happily encourage it.

My wife is an outstanding shot.

More than one instructor has told me it's common for women to do well quickly, because they tend to have less ego tied up in it and take instruction better.

 

[doctor712]

To be honest I don't need to know why you think what you think, I'm sure you have your reasons behind the positions you hold. I do want to know what you think and why you think these things will prevent events similar to ones that have occurred over the past few years. I am interested in trying our best to prevent these events, but to create laws that wouldn't have prevented one of these commonly cited events from happening seems pointless to me. If an event is the basis for creating new laws, shouldn't these laws be aimed at preventing similar events in the future?

Hey Pie, Like you I'm pretty exhausted right now, so I'm going to pass on a lengthy well-thought out reply like yours above. In short, lemme hit some of the points though.

Yes, this is the reason for laws. As you state above.

I found varying positions based on certain posts in terms of how broad of control you want to implement.

Cool. Let's play...

1. Only handguns should be construed as 'arms.' That seemed to be the most broad sweeping statement.

To be clear, if SCOTUS found that the only weapons that could be protected under the 2nd amendment to be handguns, I would
be happier than I am now. So that's a yes, yes?

2. Ban any gun that can be converted into an automatic weapon, you cited AR-15s as an example in posts.

Yep. Ideally, if SCOTUS were to act, or allow states to act, in deaming AR-15s non-arms protected by the 2nd, then
I would immediately like to see AR-15s restricted from import (****, i can't get a Cuban cigar into the states without worrying
through customs at the airport, it's not that hard...) from manufacture in the US, and would not be protected weapons. This is in part
because it is my understsanding that an AR-15 can be made fully automatic. Is this correct? I THOUGHT Aurora IDIOT used it and
had converted to automatic using a huge magazine, but maybe it was semi-with the huge mag, can you clarify? Either way, no mas.
Limit and regulate and spends TONS OF BREAD on Border Enforcment and protection. on the flip side, I ask you: why WOULDN'T/SHOULDN'T
we do this? 2nd amendment? And what OTHER reasons?

3. Limit the 100 round magazines.

Same as #2 above, not covered under 2nd amendment. the 94 ban, to my knowledge limited mag sizes, no? Limit it again. In 1994 Aurora idiot could not have bought his AR-15 in Colorado legally. So, close loopholes and make him drive to Wyoming or Kansas, where it would also be illegal.
In medicine, don't you guys talk about Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Prevention? This is Secondary. Primary = better mental health resources. Secondary = better GUN CONTROL (please see my data and review at your leisure) and Tertiary is support for survivors. Improve the first two so we don't have to get to the 3rd so damned often.

4. Ban any gun that can hold 30 round magazine or greater.

Sure, why not. See #2 and #3 above.

5. Turn every state into NYC

Yes, I believe I am in the Mayor Bloomberg camp on this one. Aren't you fed up with the shootings that have escalated in recent years? I would HAVE NO PROBLEM with the US being a larger example of NYC laws. I expect SCOTUS will continue to uphold lower court rulings that what NY is doing is juuuuuuuuust fine. The only problem, it's specific to NYC, so, we must expand that. SCOTUS is well within their precedence to go ahead and find a way.

6. Require a colonoscopy for each and every bullet purchase?(I think this one was humor, just wanted to include it so we don't lose our sense of humor)

Absolutely, this is the most critical of the new stringent laws. Colonoscopy, random checks for Hydrocoel while we are at it, mental health counseling, and mostly, free condoms for all. As a matter of fact, I would be honored if, even prior to my GI rotation in med school, to provide PGG with a free colonoscopy at my hands. Or fists, as it were.

I cited the court rulings because I thought you implied that the judicial branch will soon support more gun control. I

there are many examples of judicial branch supporting gun control over the years, and recently.

I agree with you, especially with your example of inhaled anesthetics that it did evolve over the years. In fact, I'll agree with you that it is still improving and this will also occur over a long duration. I don't agree with you that this argument can be used in support of why a longer duration on the 1994 law would have led to its success. This is because halothane and prior inhaled anesthetics accomplished their main goal, which was to anesthetize a patient. The problems that remained were associated with non ideal pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and side effects. However, the main purpose of Halothane and other inhaled anesthetics was achieved.

Yeah, but Halothane had risks and a pharma profile that simply isn't as safe as Pick X anesthetic that is safer today. The question isn't was it perfect or not, I just use that example to say that we slowly perfect "Treatment". Saying Halothane got the job done is fine, but look at people who weren't served well, left the table dead. Maybe Ether would be a better example. I'm not saying Halothane killed people, but do you understand my argument here? Sevo is safer than Di-Ethyl Ether, yes? That's a better example...

As for the post with all the quotes, I see the narrative you were making, I just don't get the need for it. People are not exactly trying to crowd around the middle of the spectrum in this thread. I think people reading this thread realize where each individual stands.

I was being a prick to prove a point about PGG. At least I'm able to admit when I'm being a prick. Unlike some of us around here...

No, automatic weapons were not used in Aurora, those were semi automatic weapons.

I wanna check and see if they were converted, if you say they weren't then fair enough, however, IMAGINE the slaughter if they HAD BEEN...

I appreciate the posts today with the data, it'll take time to read over and analyze.

Please do, this is really key and crucial to the argument.

The two big questions seem to be

1. Is Gun Control appropriate?

Lemme rephrase that, I know semantics: Why wouldn't Gun Control be appropriate in 2012?

2. Will gun control lead to prevention of gun associated crime, specifically events like the one this week?

Yes, I cannot cause more deaths. So I argue, yes, it will save lives. Please see my Harvard data. And I hope PGG will as well.
I'd love to see his zealot knee-jerk response to the facts. It'll be lame, I'm used to it.

In the end, you believe that gun control is appropriate and that it will lead to improvements.

The only lack of improvement that is possible is in regard to a sheet of paper sitting on display in the national archives.
I'm willing to bend here. PGG bends in so many ways, where the US has changed from 1787, but he won't even bend an inch
because of his precious love for his weapons. So be it.

I don't believe gun control is appropriate in the ways people are discussing and I don't believe it will prevent these events in the future.

I really fail to see that logic, and yes, we will agree to disagree.

Thanks for the time taken replying to my posts

Likewise.

D712

 

[doctor712]

You know the saying - opinions are like a**holes - we all have one.

I'll bet you and Dukakis would be great buddies!

Points for attempt and sincerity, but falls flat on delivery.

We all know where you stand, we get it. Moving on. My job here on this THREAD has been well-documented. 👍

D712

 

[doctor712]

I post a quote from a Mentor. A medical doctor, PGG, not a writer. Though he has published a few books.

"I simply don’t understand why individuals in a civilized democratic society require assault weapons. It is illogical that in the name of an 18th century principle that children, teachers, movie goers, and democratic politicians are dead or maimed. I was born in a democracy where even the regular police aren’t armed. A country where in the 12th century the magna carta was signed, where parliament overcame royal tyranny in the 16th century, and stood alone against the Hitlerite threat in 1940. No citizen guns and a free society.This craziness has to stop!"

Couldn't agree more.

D712

 

[wanttoreadforum]

That's where I stop reading. And thank GOODNESS others - from med students to Attendings - have chimed in here.

What CAN you say? What WILL you say? What COULD YOU HAVE SAID?

There are seven generally accepted forms in language in English. Yet you cannot bring yourself to modify to ANYTHING other than, "What can I say?"

How EXACTLY, as a human, did you sneak through the process? Just how?

👎

Your most recent apology is too late. It was preceded by comparing the killing rifle your rifle and saying it might as well have been an F-22 jet. Um: lemme clue you in, you shot a RIFLE, the killer USED A RIFLE to kill kids. Does it REALLY matter what the name of the rifle is?????

D712

I'm mostly a lurker, and while PGG's original post that started your preaching may have been in poor taste, I can't read post after post of yours without saying:

You are completely insufferable.

I have shot a gun all of two times in my life, and have no plans to purchase one, but your posts contain a lot of vague platitudes and absolutely no specifics on what should change, how exactly it would benefit society, and how it would change the status quo in a palpable fashion. As a decidedly moderate person who is deeply conflicted about the issue at hand, I honestly find your bloviating to be counterproductive and equally as useful as the opposite end of the spectrum of arguments of people who argue that the "gubment gonna takeurr gunssss". Get over yourself. Seriously.

You're like the Skip Bayless of the Anesthesia forum.

 

[doctor712]

By the way, isnt the traditional teaching on schizophrenia that it presents in individuals in their 20s?

Anyone noticing a trend?

Yes, and PGGs gun collection is more important than that trend.

Obviously this was a horrific act. Dont misunderstand me.

Everyday I see people on the street outside the hospital where I work who mumble to themselves, and display other paranoid, psychotic type behavior.

I wonder what one of these mentally Ill individuals would do if they had access to a gun.

oh wait...

Precisely. Well said.

D712

 

[doctor712]

And tonight, as I sign off, I post the name of a TRUE AMERICAN HERO

VICKI SOTO, 27. Killed by an ASSAULT RIFLE in CT, while she stepped between a closet full of kids (that she was hiding) and an AR-15.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/newtown-teacher-vicki-soto-remembered-article-1.1221004

Remember her name. VICKI SOTO. GOD BLESS. A TRUE HERO.

D712

 

[doctor712]

I'm mostly a lurker, and while PGG's original post that started your preaching may have been in poor taste, I can't read post after post of yours without saying:

You are completely insufferable.

I have shot a gun all of two times in my life, and have no plans to purchase one, but your posts contain a lot of vague platitudes and absolutely no specifics on what should change, how exactly it would benefit society, and how it would change the status quo in a palpable fashion. As a decidedly moderate person who is deeply conflicted about the issue at hand, I honestly find your bloviating to be counterproductive and equally as useful as the opposite end of the spectrum of arguments of people who argue that the "gubment gonna takeurr gunssss". Get over yourself. Seriously.

You're like the Skip Bayless of the Anesthesia forum.

I'll respond to people with something to say about all this. You my friend, don't. So you get little of my attention. Take your 4 posts commenting on Obama elsewhere. Apparently, you're the real Bayless.

Ignore mode engaged. No more flame wars for me, just discussions that mean something.

D712

 

[Druggernaut]

As a matter of fact, I would be honored if, even prior to my GI rotation in med school, to provide PGG with a free colonoscopy at my hands. Or fists, as it were.

I deleted an earlier post in response to you both because I didn't want to get sucked into meaningless arguments on an internet forum days before final exams and because I felt it was in poor taste to be rude and violate the TOS with personal attacks. I regret it now.

You're behaving in an extremely childish manner and derailing a thread that you went into looking to be offended and upset. Completely unacceptable. Please stop, or someone please ban this guy already.

 

[doctor712]

Please also ban all the folks who agreed with my initial posting on this thread. All dozen of us.

First amendment and all, no. Second amendment yes.

Laughable.

Night all,
REMEMBER VICKI SOTO
d712

 

[Druggernaut]

I have no problem with you wanting stricter gun control or being offended by pgg's picture (actually, I do have a little bit of a problem with that, since, like I said, you seem to have come here looking to be offended, but that's a side issue). I do have a problem with someone shooting their mouth off (sorry, was it offensive to you that I said "shooting?" 🙄) and telling someone they're a failure as a human being, and when aspiring physicians talk about shoving their fist up someone's ass because they have a difference of opinion or because someone posted a picture that had nothing to do with a very sad situation. They're TOS violations, which is why I mention banning, and they're not things that adults and professionals ought to do.

I also question if it's within the rules to repeatedly post giant images that add nothing to the discussion. I think posting them, along with your "REMEMBER VICKI SOTO," is far more offensive than anything else in this thread. You're using it as a step ladder to climb up on your high horse and to try to win internet arguments.

Also, it's an internet forum: the first amendment doesn't really apply, and even if it did, I'm not trying to step on that.

I get that the anesthesia forums do things their own way, and for the most part I appreciate that, but there's no excuse for an adult to behave in the way that you are. Embarrassing.

 

[doctor712]

The fist colonoscopy thing was a joke. Get a sense of humor.

But if u were offended, then I'm sorry.

But it was a joke, so there's no reason to be offended.

But if u were I'm so so sorry.

But it was just a joke.

D712

 

[loveoforganic2]

I agree with D712. pgg is an *******. Posted that picture with pure malice, knowing full well that it would.......... make the regular posters in this gun thread incredibly jealous of his opportunity to rock the ma deuce.

D712 - regardless of whether it would be "right" or not to post an image of a rifle following recent news, the M2 is about as much of a rifle as the GAU-8 in A-10's. It's a weapon designed around being mounted to a vehicle or a tripod (the thing weighs about 100 pounds)




pgg - how high above the ground is the muzzle, and was it angled toward the ground when firing? The effect the muzzle blast had on the dirt is crazy

 

[NightNight]

That's where I stop reading. And thank GOODNESS others - from med students to Attendings - have chimed in here.

What CAN you say? What WILL you say? What COULD YOU HAVE SAID?

There are seven generally accepted forms in language in English. Yet you cannot bring yourself to modify to ANYTHING other than, "What can I say?"

How EXACTLY, as a human, did you sneak through the process? Just how?

👎

Your most recent apology is too late. It was preceded by comparing the killing rifle your rifle and saying it might as well have been an F-22 jet. Um: lemme clue you in, you shot a RIFLE, the killer USED A RIFLE to kill kids. Does it REALLY matter what the name of the rifle is?????

D712

Dude, shut the hell up, nobody here cares at all about what you think. Those who think like you are already on the bandwagon, and the rest (myself included) will never agree that you are the almighty bringing the knowledge we feeble-minded legal gun owners are lacking. I agree you have a right to spout off here with your bull****, but what are you actually accomplishing? I'm sure you get a real sense of pleasure re-reading your posts over and over again. I am too busy to spend even a moment of my time debating you about this, but the reality is you are accomplishing nothing by climbing a high horse here and screaming at the top of your lungs that you are so upset by these pictures. Nothing. Zero. It changes literally nothing. I'll assume you know that. I'll also assume you'll cook up some long-winded response to this that will engage all the things I didn't address here about your argument. Which is fine, you clearly have more time than I do. But at the end of the day, I'll probably spend more time in this forum trying to become a better anesthesiologist than you could ever hope to be. Good luck, I'd be ashamed to be at any residency program that accepts an a**hole like you.

 

[Perrotfish]

We're all Navy individual augmentees, pulled from our parent commands singly to be sent to an area the Army is running.

Did we run out Marines? How did you get stuck working for the Army?

 

[Prof Moriarty]

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...

PGG's post was insensitive. But your response is so far off the deep end that you make yourself and your fundamental argument look bad. Seriously man, you sound unstable, and at a certain point what you have to say just becomes unreadable, even for someone sympathetic to your basic premise. The recent events were horrific and I understand emotions are running high, but reel it in man. The extent to which you've personally vilified PGG is over the edge, whether you like his apology or not. You quoted some pretty thoughtful comments made by others, but those quotations are in sharp contrast to your maniacal rant. You're obviously a smart passionate guy and I wouldn't begrudge you making a vigorous argument or ruffling some feathers on the gun thread. But your responses here are beginning to border on the bizarre.

 

[lobelsteve]

PGG's post was insensitive. But your response is so far off the deep end that you make yourself and your fundamental argument look bad. Seriously man, you sound unstable, and at a certain point what you have to say just becomes unreadable, even for someone sympathetic to your basic premise. The recent events were horrific and I understand emotions are running high, but reel it in man. The extent to which you've personally vilified PGG is over the edge, whether you like his apology or not. You quoted some pretty thoughtful comments made by others, but those quotations are in sharp contrast to your maniacal rant. You're obviously a smart passionate guy and I wouldn't begrudge you making a vigorous argument or ruffling some feathers on the gun thread. But your responses here are beginning to border on the bizarre.

+1

Shot some 22s, 9, 40, 45. And an Israeli made weapon with a folding stock. That was the most fun but not needed unless zombies appear. But even the different 22's had way more recoil than the movies lead on to. I never knew how tiny the bullets were for the .22 and big they are for the .45. Anyway, the Springfield XD 4" 45 acp was perfect at 25'. People were coming up and telling me how nice my grouping was and they said I should save the target because it was uncommon for a newby for 6 shots center mass 2.5" spread with a .45 at 25'. Going with the gun that works best in my hands. I like to model with the extra thumb safety, especially as a first gun. I could see getting a sniper rifle to keep at the range and shoot targets at far off to blow off steam. The lock that comes with the XD is nice, but not useful for home protection. Getting a biometric safe for inside bedroom. I also brought my 7y/o son the range. I have 3 friends that met us there and they each brought their own arsenal of pistols etc. My son got to shoot off 2 different 22's and had fun. I made sure that either I or one of my friends had their hands around his body supporting his wrists and maintaining down range aim of the pistol while it was in his hands. My fears are out of the respect for the killing power of the weapon, not much different than a cervical epidural. Tiny movements through ligament, hands on the neck for control. But that C-arm overhead...I fear at any second the patient could jump 12" and push the Tuohy through their cord. Unreasonable, but not impossible. I treat the gun the same way. Squeeze the trigger a few times, check the barrel to see it's empty, lay it down pointing down range.

 

[deleted480308]

To the poster unsure about gun purchase.....definitely shoot a bunch of different ones prior to purchase. You propbably have a friend who owns at least 5-6 and we all love to show off our toys. Don't forget to consider if you will conceal carry when choosing. Also, or a personal defense I'd recommend not going smaller than 9mm. When you look at ballistic lethality tests for hollowpoint style rounds their is little difference between 9mm and .40 but you get a big performance drop getting down into 22 ans 380. Also 9mm is cheaper so you migh practice more and practice is the only thing that makes more difference than what you have in you hand (misses don't stop bad guys).

Good luck and be safe

 

[doctor712]

PGG's post was insensitive. But your response is so far off the deep end that you make yourself and your fundamental argument look bad. Seriously man, you sound unstable, and at a certain point what you have to say just becomes unreadable, even for someone sympathetic to your basic premise. The recent events were horrific and I understand emotions are running high, but reel it in man. The extent to which you've personally vilified PGG is over the edge, whether you like his apology or not. You quoted some pretty thoughtful comments made by others, but those quotations are in sharp contrast to your maniacal rant. You're obviously a smart passionate guy and I wouldn't begrudge you making a vigorous argument or ruffling some feathers on the gun thread. But your responses here are beginning to border on the bizarre.

Dude, shut the hell up, nobody here cares at all about what you think. Those who think like you are already on the bandwagon, and the rest (myself included) will never agree that you are the almighty bringing the knowledge we feeble-minded legal gun owners are lacking. I agree you have a right to spout off here with your bull****, but what are you actually accomplishing? I'm sure you get a real sense of pleasure re-reading your posts over and over again. I am too busy to spend even a moment of my time debating you about this, but the reality is you are accomplishing nothing by climbing a high horse here and screaming at the top of your lungs that you are so upset by these pictures. Nothing. Zero. It changes literally nothing. I'll assume you know that. I'll also assume you'll cook up some long-winded response to this that will engage all the things I didn't address here about your argument. Which is fine, you clearly have more time than I do. But at the end of the day, I'll probably spend more time in this forum trying to become a better anesthesiologist than you could ever hope to be. Good luck, I'd be ashamed to be at any residency program that accepts an a**hole like you.

The entire country cares Nightnight, sorry, not sure if you've caught the news lately. And if you've been paying close attention, I wasn't only annoyed by PGG's posting, that's not really the crux of the problem, what the problem is, the ANGUISHING problem, is his take on Gun Control. That's the problem, and this ENTIRE NATION cares about it right now.

As for Moriarity, you're right, I have had it with PGGs attitude and let this thread be here on SDN so people can take a good look at his POV. It's readable, people are reading, you read. I realize not everyone will love what I'm writing. But it needs to be written. Period.

Unstable? Easy tiger. This entire nation is outraged and you're going to sit here and pick apart my writing and psyche on an internet forum? Unstable is collecting guns, killing your mother and 20 children, not to mention six adult women in an elementary school. Sparking debate about gun control in the throes of such an event, isn't unstable. But thanks for rushing to PGGs defense, poor poor vilified PGG. Please.

On the other hand, you are right in that he's had enough. And don't miss the point here, Moriarity: it's not his picture that's reprehensible, surely that was the catalyst. It's his general stance on the right to kill kids with Rifles that I find appalling. I hope this post was less...unstable, in your eyes. But I doubt you'll feel that way, and I take it with a grain of salt. If anyone else wants to debate this with me, just continue to send stuff to my PM. Or post here. PGGs picture opened the door to this sort of response.

D712

 

[doctor712]

PGG, you can have your precious gun thread back now. I've said what I had to say... (and I think I've said that more than once).

D712

 

[countingdays]

If stricter gun control is going to take shape, it should be based on a rational, dispassionate weighing of benefit vs harm, not a knee jerk reaction to a tragedy.
If you want to debate the second amendment, start a thread.

 

[BLADEMDA]

The recent tragedy in Newton, CT was the worst one since Columbine. But, what does the Assault Rifle Ban have to do with this tragedy?

I own AR15s and several other "non assault rifles." I believe my non assault rifles could do just as much harm at close range as my AR15s.

Now, handguns are a Constitutional Right and well accepted by even Moderate Democrats for self defense. The killer here also had a 9 mm semi-auto pistols. This type of gun is not likley to be banned anytime soon.

The Second Amendement was written to allow me the Citizen to own and bear arms to protect myself from the government. The founders knew that a well armed Citizenry was the best defense aganst tyrranical government. That is why I support the right a every US Citizen to own an AR 15 provided a background check has been performed along with other reasonable preacautions.

Part of the problem for this tragedy lies with the Mother who allowed her mentally ill son access to firearms.

 

[BLADEMDA]

The murder weapon:

_ Bushmaster .223-caliber: lightweight with a high capacity, it also is popular with law enforcement and the military, and is commonly seen at shooting competitions. Two men convicted in a series of sniper killings in the Washington, D.C.-area in 2002 used a Bushmaster .223-caliber rifle that they fired from the trunk of a car at randomly picked victims. Some models have a detachable magazine that can hold up to 30 rounds. The medical examiner in Connecticut said it appeared all the children and school staff were shot with the same high-powered rifle, some repeatedly, some at close range.

Also found in the school:

_ Glock 10 mm: a larger and more powerful weapon than the widely popular 9 mm, it is in many respects similar to the 9 mm. It is a lightweight and comparatively affordable weapon that is often used for target shooting and for personal protection.

_ Sig Sauer 9 mm: considered an upper-tier, quality product, it's comparatively expensive, and its range of uses include elite military and police units.

The Bushmaster and two other weapons were found near the body of Lanza, who killed himself at the school.

It was not clear the make of the weapon found outside the school.

Investigators are combing gun shops and ranges in the area, and looking into the ownership of the weapons involved. Lanza's mother had legally registered four weapons, and his father had two.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[GoodmanBrown]

First, if you MUST re-re-re-re-re-re-re-open the gun control debate, this is a nice article to read.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...se-for-more-guns-and-more-gun-control/309161/

pgg, can you tell me the strengths of this article as you see them? I'm a pretty avid fan of the Atlantic, but this article struck me as mostly philosophical and fairly unconvincing. The two main facts I saw were: 1) the estimate that guns are used in 108,000 - 2.45 million crime prevention incidents per year, and 2) In GB, 45% of home invasions happen when someone is in the house vs. 11%(?) in the US. (I think it was 11%...).

On the counterside, I think it's hard to deny that guns make mass murder much easier. You cited the Chinese stabbings to demonstrate there are psychotic people everywhere. I don't disagree, but your own article indicates how difficult it is to kill large numbers of people with a knife. 22 children were injured, not killed in that incident. Many of the Chinese attacks have seen 1-2 deaths instead of the double digit body counts we've experienced in the US.

I think the gun control issue is hard because it's kinda like religion. Some people believe the 2nd amendment protects their right to own and use any type of weapon they care to purchase. Other people believe the 2nd amendment was meant for militias and is now an anachronism. No one will really convince a strong believer of the other side to switch beliefs.

You asked for some sensible regulations that wouldn't infringe upon your second amendment rights. A couple ideas off the top of my head: 1) Eliminate the gun show loopholes for background checks. 2) Create some sort of mental illness background check. 3) Standard 5-day waiting period for purchase of a new gun. 4) Limit the number of guns one can buy at a given time or over a given period of time (to help prevent strawman purchases).

None of the above would prevent a legit citizen from buying essentially any type of weapon they currently can, but I think it would help make it a little more difficult for mentally ill individuals from getting guns. These laws would also hopefully slowly reduce the number of illegal guns moving around the black market. It would take time (years, easily), but I think they would also make it harder for people to get illegal guns as well.

 

[i want out]

If stricter gun control is going to take shape, it should be based on a rational, dispassionate weighing of benefit vs harm, not a knee jerk reaction to a tragedy.
If you want to debate the second amendment, start a thread.

712,

After you spend at least one deployment in an area where your gun is your primary protection from people who are actively trying to kill you, you may gain some perspective.

Killings at schools aren't new (look up the Bath Michigan massacre from 1927).

There are many criminals here that want what you have and would like nothing more than to have a government assurance that you are less armed than them.

As was mentioned by someone with a lower post count, you are insufferable, and were you in my home I would invite to leave.

Good luck, and please go away (to your recruiters office and sign up)

I want out

 

[pie944]

The original site where this article appeared is overwhelmed from traffic, server down, but here is the same article.

I think regardless of which side of the fence one sits when it comes to regulation of guns, I believe both sides can agree that a lot of energy(financially, politically, etc) will be wasted on any attempts at implementing further regulation, regardless of outcome. It does not seem to be the most efficient use of the energy people, special interest groups, and politicians currently have.

It would be wise to focus some of the energy on mental health.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...er-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html

 

[doctor712]

712,

After you spend at least one deployment in an area where your gun is your primary protection from people who are actively trying to kill you, you may gain some perspective.

Killings at schools aren't new (look up the Bath Michigan massacre from 1927).

There are many criminals here that want what you have and would like nothing more than to have a government assurance that you are less armed than them.

As was mentioned by someone with a lower post count, you are insufferable, and were you in my home I would invite to leave.

Good luck, and please go away (to your recruiters office and sign up)

I want out

I'm back.

That's a pathetic excuse, I want Out. War isn't civilized. It's WAR.

The US public are not fighting a WAR against IRAQIS and AFGHANS in the US.

Was that fact missed on you when you went through redeployment and became a citizen again in the United States, within our borders?

Pathetic excuse.

Make a distinction between WAR and A CIVILIZED DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY. And move on.

As far as my local recruiters office, save it. My entire family are MIL and Law Enforcement Officers. My father who is a retired FED AGENT, would like harsher gun control laws. He spent 30+ years -- DAILY -- fighting the scum of the earth. Would you like his POV on facing an AR-15 in a gun battle?

Your logic is ridiculous and, now that I've pointed it out, faulty.

D712

p.s. perhaps if your MIL recruiters would return a phone call, some of us who were interested before we hit age limits, would have gone into the MIL. It's a pervasive problem with the MIL, you cannot get a call back from recruiters. Period.

 

[doctor712]

KILLED this CHILD...

MAYBE, just MAYBE if it were a Glock, or a revolver the HEROIC TEACHERS would have had a chance to fight back, overwhelm, etc. I'm CERTAIN if it were a 6 revolver, less people would have died than from this HIGH POWER ASSAULT (i.e. WAR) weapon.

If that is the case, shame on you 2nd amendment proponents.

D712

 

[countingdays]

So we need to join a militia to buy firearms? That's no barrier.
Waiting period? Is there any data on criminals using firearms to commit crimes within five days of purchase much more than after 6 of more days?

 

[deleted480308]

I myself own two pistols (a glock26 for carrying), a shotgun and an ar style rifle. My hope is to do some three-gun competitions.

The reason people use larger magazines (20-30) is because reloading mags when you are out at the range is a pain, and larger mags aren't any more danger to anyone than small ones when held by someone who isn't doing something stupid.

The important thing for everyone to remember when carrying is that pulling that gun means someone can literally die and you will face a jury to explain yourself. It's a ton of responsibility an should not be taken lightly. A lot of situations can be handled with calmness, some unfortunately require a gun.

 

[BLADEMDA]

NEWTOWN, Conn. — Adam Lanza lived among guns.

His mother, Nancy, collected them. She showed them off to her landscaper.





Mother of shooter, Nancy Lanza, collected guns, ‘prepared for the worst'


Peter Hermann and Michael S. Rosenwald DEC 15

First victim of rampage collected guns, told landscaper she took son to firing range to practice his aim.


"Guns were her hobby," said Dan Holmes, the landscaper of Nancy Lanza's sprawling yard here on the edge of town. "She told me she liked the single-mindedness of shooting."

Holmes said she even spoke of taking her son to the firing range to practice his aim.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...9c2732-4706-11e2-8061-253bccfc7532_story.html

 

[BLADEMDA]

KILLED this CHILD...

MAYBE, just MAYBE if it were a Glock, or a revolver the HEROIC TEACHERS would have had a chance to fight back, overwhelm, etc. I'm CERTAIN if it were a 6 revolver, less people would have died than from this HIGH POWER ASSAULT (i.e. WAR) weapon.

If that is the case, shame on you 2nd amendment proponents.

D712

I don't get it D712. Adam's Mother bears some responsibility here. Also, what if a mentally ill person obtained weapons from his SWAT TEAM father? Would the Assault weapons ban be of any use then?

My 9mm Carbine would be just as deadly as that AR15 in a home/school/mall setting where close range killing is the goal. My 9mm Carbine can also hold up to 30 rounds of 9mm hollowpoint ammo per magazine.

A glock 9mm pistol is also available with 30 round magazines as used in Arizona.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[countingdays]

I don't get it D712. Adam's Mother bears some responsibility here. Also, what if a mentally ill person obtained weapons from his SWAT TEAM father? Would the Assault weapons ban be of any use then?

My 9mm Carbine would be just as deadly as that AR15 in a home/school/mall setting where close range killing is the goal. My 9mm Carbine can also hold up to 30 rounds of 9mm hollowpoint ammo per magazine.

A glock 9mm pistol is also available with 30 round magazines as used in Arizona.

Some bike locks, a few gallons of gasoline, and a match might have done more harm than the ar15.

 

[RT2MD]

Hi RT2MD,

First off, I owe you a PM, sorry about that, sigh, but I'm really happy to have read YOUR update, and always appreciate your support for me and my medical goals. : ) 👍 Soon, very soon! : )

Well, I think we would have to agree to disagree on the Gun issue. I did look at your map, and I think, apart from Subsaharan Africa, which is a unique situation, and what looked like Venezuela, I see that the United States leads all of Europe in these stats, China, North Africa, Australia, Cuba, and is equal to Western South America, or so. We're ahead in murders/homicide of Iran, India, Afghanistan, Turkey and Libya. That's what I sort of take away. We have to be better.

I think there will always be a problem in such a compact, technological world that we live in. All I'm advocating is for a political and social climate change. And a cease to the argument that guns don't cause gun violence.

Lastly, and to remain equally not inflammatory to you - because I have a great respect for you, I didn't really tell PGG not to post his pics, and thereby limit his free speech, I just felt that if he was going to be so tasteless, I would follow my own promise (to myself and the board) to always be there when I think his Gun talk/actions are out of line. So, you can yell fire in a crowded theater, but there's a penalty for it, yes? I felt the responsibility to comment on his post, being that he's a moderator here and and should be held to a much, much much, higher standard. And also, I do believe, like every other right in the CONS and BILL that even first amendment rights have limits. And gun rights should as well. Stricter than today's limits.

But I respect your opinion and debate. I wanted to reply to you on this, but I wanna also keep to my aim of not getting into a Gun Control debate on the night of these heinous 26 murders.

Good night all, I feel I said what I had to say here tonight, RT2MD -- keep taking numbers and kicking butt over there! : )



I'm sorry sb247. The US Constitution provides me the right to talk here, and not pm you, or school you somewhere else. So, because the US Constitution provides me that right, whether or not I have good or bad intentions, I shall exercise that right until which time I am limited by SCOTUS from enjoying that right. So, please don't infringe on my precious 1st amendment rights... (do you get what I'm doin? sounds kind of ludicrous doesn't it? So do the unwavering - we have our rights, so screw everyone's safety nuts that argue 2nd amendment rights.)

D712

Holy cow... I step away from this thread for a bit and it exploded.

D712: agree to disagree it is! 🙂 no worries about the PM, it's all good!

I think I'm going to bow out of this one now... I don't have enough time to read all these posts, and I don't think that any minds are going to be changed one way or another here. All I know is that I've been hugging the heck out of my kids, and my thoughts are with the victims... To me, that's the most important issue.

Unsubscribing to this thread... Good luck to all involved. 🙂

 

[BLADEMDA]

Adam tried to buy a rifle three days before the attack from a Dick's Sporting Goods store in Danbury, Conn., but was turned away, employees confirmed.

The madman was rebuffed because he refused to follow the mandatory waiting period or undergo a background check, NBC News reported.

* Officials were also investigating whether Adam had an "altercation" with four school employees the day before the killings, NBC reported.

* The victims of the slaughter were killed at close range by rifle shots, according to the state's chief medical examiner.

"Everybody was hit more than once," said Dr. H. Wayne Carver at a news conference yesterday afternoon outside the school.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Obama, GOP pressured to act on gun control
By DAVID SEIFMAN, S.A. MILLER and MICHAEL GARTLAND
Last Updated: 9:25 AM, December 16, 2012
Posted: 1:16 AM, December 16, 2012


Gun-control advocates slammed elected officials from both parties yesterday, vowing to make their lives miserable until tougher firearm laws are enacted.

"The main thing we're encouraging people to do is to call the White House every day until President Obama offers us more than thoughts and prayers," said Ladd Everitt, spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

"If politicians are cowards — and it seems they are — then we need to play the political game."

Obama reiterated calls to "take meaningful action" yesterday, emphasizing the need to "prevent tragedies like this from happening, regardless of politics." But he offered no specific solutions following the massacre that took 27 innocent lives in Newtown, Conn.



Mayor Bloomberg, one of the nation's most vocal advocates for tougher laws to restrict illegal guns, blasted Obama for his failure to act quickly and decisively.

"The country needs him to send a bill to Congress to fix this problem," Bloomberg said Friday. "Calling for ‘meaningful action' is not enough. We need immediate action."

Bloomberg is certain to step up pressure on Washington in the coming days.

"The president should lead the nation in mourning, but he also needs to lead the nation in acting," said John Feinblatt, the mayor's criminal-justice coordinator, yesterday. "I think the American public wants a plan — is demanding a plan — how the president is going to keep them safe."

PHOTOS: SANDY HOOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SHOOTING

REMEMBERING THE KIDS KILLED IN THE NEWTOWN MASSACRE

MOTHER SHARED HER GUN OBSESSION WITH SHOOTER

HEROIC TEACHERS MADE THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE FOR KIDS

He said that under Obama's tenure, gun laws have actually been loosened, not strengthened, citing relaxed rules for carrying guns in national parks as one example.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a Democrat whose husband was killed in the Long Island Rail Road massacre in 1993, has pushed gun-control bills in the House for years, but they continue to gather dust in committee.

McCarthy blamed Republicans.

"We're confident that with the current leadership in the House, nothing's going to happen," said her spokesman, Shams Tarek.

McCarthy wants a ban on high-capacity magazines and background checks for everyone who purchases a gun in the country.

But other elected officials contend that stronger gun laws aren't the solution.

"We tend to misdirect our energies in times of tragedy," said Rep. Bob Turner, a Queens Republican. "Somebody just hacked up children with a machete in China less than a year ago. I suspect whatever was wrong with that person might be the same thing wrong here."

GUN BUYBACK AFFECTED BY NEWTOWN SHOOTING

SANDY HOOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NURSE'S BRUSH WITH DEATH

COLUMN: OUR CULTURE OF KILLING

WATCH: 'SNL' PAYS TRIBUTE TO CONN. SHOOTING VICTIMS

Democratic leaders vowed a renewed push to pass tougher laws.

"Politics be damned," said Rep. John Larson, the House Democratic Caucus chairman. "Of the 12 deadliest shootings in our nation's history, half of them have happened in the last five years. There is not a single person in America who doesn't fear it will happen again."

New York state's gun laws may also be strengthened in the wake of the Newtown shooting.

The biggest gun-related issue before the state Legislature is micro-stamping, which makes it possible to trace shell casings to whomever purchased the bullets.

A measure passed the Assembly this year, but was blocked by the Republican-controlled state Senate. One government source said the new power configuration in the Senate, where Republicans are teaming up with a small band of renegade Democrats to control the majority, means the measure could be revisited.

"If it gets to the floor, it'll pass," predicted the source.

Additional reporting by Gerry Shields and Erik Kriss.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

The reason people use larger magazines (20-30) is because reloading mags when you are out at the range is a pain, and larger mags aren't any more danger to anyone than small ones when held by someone who isn't doing something stupid.

But isn't this the entire point? That larger clips and faster firing are convenient and fine in the context of legal use, they also make it easier to do more damage when you're "doing something stupid?"

So we need to join a militia to buy firearms? That's no barrier.
Waiting period? Is there any data on criminals using firearms to commit crimes within five days of purchase much more than after 6 of more days?

GS, I'm not sure if you're responding to me or to D712. I blocked his messages, so I'm not sure what he's writing. If you're responding to me, I am not suggesting the militia thing. My point with militias was that many people feel the 2nd amendment is a historical anachronism and does not apply to personal gun ownership.

Regarding point #2 (the 5-day waiting period), after a bit of research, I'm not sure I'm that into it after all. I found a few postings for and against it, and the against posts were more convincing to me.

Perhaps the most logical direction for gun control is a federal law that all states must report mentally ill patients to the NICS registry. That would not have prevented this tragedy, but there are other examples where it would have.