Assault Weapons Ban

84 posts / 0 new

The law passed in 1994 did not stop killings and a new law will also not work. All such laws just make simple people feel good. There are laws against killing your mother, stealing her guns, bringing guns onto school grounds and killing women and children, but all these laws did not stop the killings in CT. By the way, CT has it's own assault weapons ban and it also did not work.

Marlin60
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2012 4:04 am

Comments

The definition of assault weapon was written by the NRA. 100 round magazines are not assault weapons If it didn't have a bayonnet mount, and a telescoping stock, and a pistol grip.

The number of assault weapons did decrease.[manufacturing seized] The number used in crimes decreased [those used in crimes were confiscated, so each one confiscated was one less used...it's that abhorant thing called math]. Further data on the effectiveness of the ban was outlawed by the NRA. Further research and data compilation was outlawed by the NRA. Public release of the ATF data base reflecting firearms risk or lack thereof was prohibited by the NRA. They need to scrub the data to fit their twisted narrative. Recalculate the stats, put the perentages into an irrelative comparison, and further their statistical lies. They then feed them to pseudo intellectuals like George Will to parrot on sunday corporate talk shows.

There are laws requiring the notification to a community when a sex offender moves in. The same laws could apply to NRA members. Neighbors knowing an unhinged family member resides in an NRA member's home ought to have that right. At least then they could install Lexan glass windows.

NRA comparison goes something like this, the percentage of gun owners has fallen [it is about 47%, but they own all 310 million], but more people died [cardio, auto accidents old age], gun control doesn't work.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

With all due respect, you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about. Pretty much every post you have made on this topic is full of misinformation and lies. Maybe you should get a radio show.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 5:12 am

Redwing,

You make a serious charge! In my humble and limited experience, the worst insult to a conservative is that they are a coward, while the worst insult to a liberal is that they are a liar!

However, that does not mean that a conservative can't lie and that a liberal can't be a coward.

This is just an observation. Nothing personal against Redwing or DouglasLee.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

Gun ownership rates are inversely proportionate to educational achievement

The NRA is using it's members to lobby. It's interests are solely profit for gun manufacturers. Those with higher educational achievement don't like being used. Watch the membership role-out of some pseudo grass roots action, complete with pre-printed hand made signs, and watch the members jump through the hoops for their masters. Instead of a fish like the seals get the member will get a bullet keychain, or some token signifying their importance to staving off washington tyranny. It's quite entertaining.

the_nras_war_on_gun_science/ is the source of my lies or misinformation. They probably contradict your NRA talking points after their thorough scubbing of the facts..

Over the past two decades, the NRA has not only been able to stop gun control laws, but even debate on the subject. The Centers for Disease Control funds research into the causes of death in the United States, including firearms — or at least it used to. In 1996, after various studies funded by the agency found that guns can be dangerous, the gun lobby mobilized to punish the agency. First, Republicans tried to eliminate entirely the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the bureau responsible for the research. When that failed, Rep. Jay Dickey, a Republican from Arkansas, successfully pushed through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget (the amount it had spent on gun research in the previous year) and outlawed research on gun control with a provision that reads: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”
douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

On that we do agree. The NRA is a lobby group for the shooting sports industry. The good they do such as sponsored teaching programs, and wildlife conservation will all go unnoticed by progressives. Yes, they use their members, just as Hartmann and others use their listeners, to sign petitions and go to websites that favor their opinions. All to incite a call to action.

My complaint is the knee jerk reactions and misinformation put out on this board regarding a large number of topics to numerous to mention. Hartmann is a master at getting his listeners jacked up by giving them half truths and personal hatred, and pumping them out as absolute facts. Best examples are the overly repeated recordings of politicans of years gone past. He would do well to enter the modern era we currently all live in. At least Limbaugh and Schultz believe less than half the crap they spew out on the air.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 5:12 am

Quote, "The Centers for Disease Control funds research into the causes of death in the United States, including firearms — or at least it used to. In 1996, after various studies funded by the agency found that guns can be dangerous, the gun lobby mobilized to punish the agency."

It took $2.6 million to fund various studies that their conclusion was guns can be dangerous?! Typical example of one of 1000's government programs with a political agfenda that waste taxpayer money to conclude something as obvious as that. I would have voted to do away with the taxpayer money wasting CDC , also.

To ban any kind of weapon will not prevent their availibilty, just like the war on drugs, just make them more expensive and therefore profitable for dealers. Criminals and crazies will still be able to get guns of most any type.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am

The gang members, the drug cartel members, the mentally off the deep end, the Lanzas.....none of them are in the least bit guilty, muchless responsible. All the fault and guilt lies with the guns themselves. It fits the progressives agenda of eliminating "personal responsibility and accountability".

The underground black market for weapons is huge. Guns cannot and will not be controlled.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am
Quote Marlin60:

The law passed in 1994 did not stop killings and a new law will also not work. All such laws just make simple people feel good. There are laws against killing your mother, stealing her guns, bringing guns onto school grounds and killing women and children, but all these laws did not stop the killings in CT. By the way, CT has it's own assault weapons ban and it also did not work.

Let me guess what your solution is.......MORE GUNS?

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

businessinsider.com/shooting-gun-laws-2012-12

The first chart shows gun deaths per capita graphed against gun ownership per capita. Notice the upward trend — the more guns per capita, the more gun deaths per capita. The US has the most guns, ergo it has one of the highest rates of gun deaths.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/shooting-gun-laws-2012-12#ixzz2FVoXuOlt

more guns=more gun deaths and the numbers work in every country studied. The only country with more gun deaths than US was a country that bought our guns, Mexico. Canada has 1/7th the number of gun deaths. They have training courses for semi-automatic and automatic. You also have to get checked on it background and profficiency. The majority of gun deaths appear to be Canadian gangs coming to America to buy guns no questions asked and going north to kill. Such a nice neighbor America is. Both Canada and Mexico can attribute gun deaths to America, the number one country in firearms, and the least regulated country in firearms.

Reid's final chart is also interesting. In order to find nations similar to the United States and Mexico on guns, you have to allow every country in the world into the data set, even ones with ongoing wars:

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/shooting-gun-laws-2012-12#ixzz2FVpB64k1

Since it appears as if the US has an ongoing war at home, why do the chicken hawks have to go abroad to fight? From the comments on the link
@Constitution First:Its not people like you who concern me. If gun owners ubiquitously locked up their guns as you do, it would save hundreds of childrens' lives a year. I suggested it as a requirement once, and the vitriol was harsh!

As for cars, the police & insurance industry don't even use the term "accidents" for car wrecks anymore because most aren't accidental - they could have been avoided by responsible driving. Same thing with gun accidents. As you can see in these threads, many Americans have come to consider the notion of personal responsibility as "histrionics".
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/shooting-gun-laws-2012-12#ixzz2FVsjLU9B

Again, I want ownership responsibility, if your gun kills you are responsible. [That's why the NRA was against registration and licensing] The owner held liable both criminally and civilly might reduce the number of deaths by accident and loons. The NRA ought to offer liability insurance to members. My credit card does so, and I don't even pay a membership fee. If they ever started being held accountable for the externalities of gun ownership, you would see some swift risk assessment corrective actions taken. No policy without an approved gunlocker. No loaning without approved training. No loaning to mentally unstable persons. No straw purchases for an unstable person.. Redwing, there are a lot of gun clubs, some specializing in historical guns and rifles. The members aren't taken for granted or manipulated. We have a community run one, and I took my daughter there for target shooting practice and competition.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Lanza's mother was responsible. You don't give matches to an arsonist either.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The first post you have made on this topic that is totally accurate. I hope you are starting to see the picture. All the laws in the world will not stop stupid.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 5:12 am

Instructional video of what is an Assault weapon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yATeti5GmI8

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 7:38 am
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:

The gang members, the drug cartel members, the mentally off the deep end, the Lanzas.....none of them are in the least bit guilty, muchless responsible. All the fault and guilt lies with the guns themselves. It fits the progressives agenda of eliminating "personal responsibility and accountability".

Coming from someone who blames the victims for not being armed, that's quite a statement.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Redwing:All the laws in the world will not stop stupid.
Unless there are laws that must be followed in spite of stupidity. If there had been a law against having any guns in a house where there are any people who must not have access to guns — this would not have happened.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm
Quote Karolina:
Quote Redwing:All the laws in the world will not stop stupid.
Unless there are laws that must be followed in spite of stupidity. If there had been a law against having any guns in a house where there are any people who must not have access to guns — this would not have happened.

Who are these people who must not have access to guns.... women?

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 7:38 am
Quote Karolina:
Quote Redwing:All the laws in the world will not stop stupid.
Unless there are laws that must be followed in spite of stupidity. If there had been a law against having any guns in a house where there are any people who must not have access to guns — this would not have happened.

And who is to decide who can and can't have guns in their home? Who is going to enforce such a law? To hell with the 4th amendment, as long as it fits the anti-gun nut agenda, right?

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am
Quote douglaslee:

Lanza's mother was responsible. You don't give matches to an arsonist either.

Perfect! You've summed it up in two simple sentences. Now all we have to do is figure out how to pass a law against being stupid.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

A teachable moment?

Shouldn’t the president be calling for a moratorium on the manufacture and sale of assault weapons while congress debates gun control legislation? According to news reports, gun sales are currently booming. I suspect the manufactures will be working overtime on Christmas day to produce even more MASS MURDER WEAPONS. There’s no telling how many more assault weapons and accessories will hit the streets before any legislation is enacted.

The president says that he will do everything in his power to prevent another tragedy like Sandy Hook. So where’s the call for a moratorium? Instead he says that in the coming weeks he’ll speak more specifically about what he thinks we can do, moving forward. Yeah, what’s the hurry? Australia enacted their assault weapons ban twelve days after an eye-opening (teachable moment) mass shooting took place. That was fifteen years ago, and they haven’t had a mass shooting incident since.

organican's picture
organican
Joined:
Nov. 30, 2012 4:24 am
Quote organican:

A teachable moment?

Shouldn’t the president be calling for a moratorium on the manufacture and sale of assault weapons while congress debates gun control legislation?

Tell me what an assault weapon is....

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 7:38 am

Very little has been mentioned about Austraila's handling of this issue ... I wonder why.

New Town to Newtown: How ’96 Massacre Spurred Gun Laws in Australia — and No Mass Shootings Since

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm

In the context of firearms, the weapon that was used to kill 20 children at Sandy Hook elementary school is an assault weapon.

organican's picture
organican
Joined:
Nov. 30, 2012 4:24 am
Quote Paleo-con:
Quote douglaslee:

Lanza's mother was responsible. You don't give matches to an arsonist either.

Perfect! You've summed it up in two simple sentences. Now all we have to do is figure out how to pass a law against being stupid.

Florida has done that, [unless scott repealed it]. Parents are reponsible for guns in their house. If that gun is used by their kids and kills another, or wounds another, the parent is responsible criminally and civilly. You mention lawsuit in FL and see the gunlocks vanish from the shelves. That is what it takes to motivate, it will cost you in your wallet, you could lose your kids [that happens when you go to jail], probably lose your guns [liquidation to settle lawsuit]

I have written my senator to push for a public service announcement "There are currently 12 million sociopaths in America, do you know where your guns are?" It's short, to the point, and allows responsible gun owners to prove they are responsible.

The other one was "I in 5 Americans exhibit symptoms of mental illness, do you know where your guns are".

The 12 million is a genuine data point, the 1 in 5 is based on symptoms which half the country exhibit sometime, especially in high density population centers where at least 10+ percent are psychotic. That's also why Bloomberg's thing makes sense, urban dwellers are prone to psychosis and it doesn't mix well with assault weapons.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

OK Cap, we have the research version already. But let's just talk guns. Unless we buy into the idea that you own a weapon to repel serious armed forces, the large capacity mags and instant fire mechanics fit no legitimate civilian purpose or function. If we do buy into the idea that this is a form of protection against dangerous force(s), we have decided that Dread is our human context and that fear is not allowed to turn over the thinking to reason.

The argument Darlin' makes about all the guns in the hands of the criminals also misses the point of outlawing assault (military type) weapons and regulating access to anything beyond hunting and sport shooting tools and toys. Possessing a "weapon" would be illegal, so it would not be in homes. The guns available for the next crazed kid would be less lethal by a lot. And, there would be no mystique of mass killing, power or just suicide big time. We might even take the glamor out of war.

When assault weapons are outlawed, only outlaws and the cops and the US military will have assault weapons. Which means the cops can bust them for having them before they are used. It is a step forward in gun safety for people who want to live in a civil society. It does not end the obscene war weapon industry or the wars they must have.

As to the NRA, Redwing, to say that they lobby for hunters and sports shooters is either naive or duplicitous. The NRA has been pushing the 'weapon of self-defense' mantra for a long time and is the lobby for gun manufacturers in general, not for the less than assault level it ought to represent. I want the whole weapon of self-defense meme opened for public discussion so the right to own a tool or a toy for legitimate social purposes can be separated from the lunacy of the "law of the gun." I can appreciate the rite of passage to a rural kid who gets his or her first gun. Who gets to learn how to use the tool to hunt and the toy to shoot well, and who is neither macho nor paranoid about what owning a gun is all about. I do not see the same symbolism in the first 'piece' owned by an urban dweller to repel invaders.

I will go farther and add to the NRA the whole culture of licensed and righteous violence expressed in our dominator imperialism and our National Security State at homeland. In our national narrative, our violence is righteous, cleansing and healing. The violence of those who oppose us is evil and a threat to the whole world. The good drones v. the senseless violence at Sandy Hook. Blood is on our hands and the dragon's teeth have been sewn. Even "silver bullets" can't clean up the gore.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

In TX you don't need self defense to kill. Someone looks suspicious, blow'em away like Joe Horn did. I think you can shoot shoplifters there, too. Their SC accepts hallucinations and paranoia as not unordinary. schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjournals. Illustrates what I was posting above. The term is urbanicity. Cities and genetics lead to schizophrenia. Treatment is possible, or move to TX and be considered normal. Loony Gomer is average in TX.

http://schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/content/31/4/795.full might work better

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote drc2:

OK Cap, we have the research version already. But let's just talk guns.

You didn't watch the video I posted... what makes an "assault weapon" is a mechinism inside the rifle.

If we do buy into the idea that this is a form of protection against dangerous force(s), we have decided that Dread is our human context and that fear is not allowed to turn over the thinking to reason

Why would anybody think that? The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm

1,246,248 violent crimes in the US 2010

14,748 murdered 2010

84,767 raped 2010

367,832 robbed 2010

778,901 assaulted in 2010

Boy scout motto: "Be Prepared"

When assault weapons are outlawed, only outlaws and the cops and the US military will have assault weapons. Which means the cops can bust them for having them before they are used. It is a step forward in gun safety for people who want to live in a civil society. It does not end the obscene war weapon industry or the wars they must have.

what happens then the "assault" rifle look identical to the sporter rifle? Or are we outlawing things that look similar to "assault" weapon.

As to the NRA, Redwing, to say that they lobby for hunters and sports shooters is either naive or duplicitous. The NRA has been pushing the 'weapon of self-defense' mantra for a long time and is the lobby for gun manufacturers in general, not for the less than assault level it ought to represent.

Strange notion since they have had a military slant since their inception, ran a program that transfers "military weapons" from the Army to the civilian population for the purposes of marksmanship. They have backed the 2nd Amendment and the right to own guns since 1871. So I don't think it should have surprised anybody.

I want the whole weapon of self-defense meme opened for public discussion so the right to own a tool or a toy for legitimate social purposes can be separated from the lunacy of the "law of the gun."

By all means. Have a discussion. If/when you believe the extreme position of banning guns in the US. I suggest starting the constitutional amendment process or stack the Supreme Court. Although the Later would never have any legitimacy on the issue.

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 7:38 am

How saying "don't politicize shootings" favors the NRA ...

Respect for the deadly

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm
Quote marlin:The law passed in 1994 did not stop killings and a new law will also not work. All such laws just make simple people feel good. There are laws against killing your mother, stealing her guns, bringing guns onto school grounds and killing women and children, but all these laws did not stop the killings in CT. By the way, CT has it's own assault weapons ban and it also did not work.

Agreed.

I don't think that high-capacity magazines, however, are necessary for hunting and recreational purposes.

stuff's picture
stuff
Joined:
Nov. 24, 2012 4:59 pm

Cap, the point was to ban military weapons from civil use. How about single shot for each trigger pull as a start instead of "automated?" I would be quite willing to have hunters have to hit their target with a minimum of two bullets before reloading. Sports shooters have little use for automated, and should love single fire skill over spraying destruction as a thrill.

My controversial argument is about the idea that guns protect their owners from violence when the stats show otherwise. It is also about that mindset of suspicion and justified violence that permeates the vigilante outlook. I think this is a negative to culture and a wrong-headed approach to safety. Because there is a cross fire and other consequences not borne by the individuals who make the decisions to pack and to draw and fire, I object to their 'right' to put me in danger.

Yes, the 2nd has been bastardized for some time. We did not invent all this crazy crap in the past few decades, it only seems that way at times.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

The original assault weapon ban was in effect at the time of the Columbine shootings. Pass laws, feel good.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 5:12 am

Let us agree that the first bill was watered down and relatively ineffective; but you have to note that things got worse after it was lifted.

Even if you want to dispute that, we still have the militaryesque rapid fire, big load weapons of war, civil style, being sold and glamorized as "safety." This is insanity. It is not only irrational, it is psychotic in the obsession with Dread. Even were there some reason to fear walking the street, the answer is not likely to put a lot of guns in the hands of the not so well-regulated even if they are individually sane. We can be a lot smarter than that about what we have legitimate reason to fear.

I don't remember "feeling good" about having to act as if these NRA approved or compromised regulations had solved anything. All I remember is not being able to get what we have needed. So take your pass a law and feel good smarm and stuff it where the sun don't shine.

What I do remember clearly is a ton of macho insecurity and violence glorification from wars against the heathen terrorists to guarding your castle against heathen terrorists. I remember ammo and gun sales after Obama was elected the first time and again. Until now, he has said less than nothing on the subject.

When it comes to "feeling good" for less than substantial reasons, there is no way we can compete with those who want to believe that happiness is a warm gun. Thank you master ironist, George.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

California has had an assault weapons control act since 1989. No one seems to complain here about it. That's what the feds should adopt. I'm not for banning handguns altogether. That seems a little extreme and more the thinking of the weird segment of liberals who are a really into authoritarianism otherwise known as Stalinists.

captbebops's picture
captbebops
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

If a person wants to have a high capacity clip ,that should be all that matters, If they want one and they can have one.Do they need one? Probably not. Is it personal needs or personal rights? And if that person commits a crime while using a gun they should be punished to the full extent of the law. how many people are killed by automobiles everyday? Do we want to outlaw cars, no! We hold the drivers responsible.

whiskeyman's picture
whiskeyman
Joined:
Mar. 7, 2012 6:57 pm
Quote Capital1:

Instructional video of what is an Assault weapon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yATeti5GmI8

This man would have you believe that the ONLY factor that matters in classifying a weapon is the firing mechanism. That is a fallacy. Of course other factors matter.

Let me give you an example for the less informed on the board. Allow me to introduce you to bump firing:

This guy explains the technique (see about 1:30): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD213VW6WjY

This is a technique that uses a semi-auto rifle to achieve fully automatic firing speeds. This is typically only possible with lighter semi-autos with the right amout of recoil and weight to allow the operator to control the weapon and not lose their finger while doing so. I challenge any of you gun nuts on the board to post a video of someone achieving this effect with a hunting rifle. Now this is something that primarily relies on the firing mechanism and recoil of the gun to work but let's delve a little deeper on other aspects of the classification of assualt weapons that this guy would like to lead you to believe doesn't matter.

So, let's talk about what he changed in that weapon in the video near the end that changed its classification - 1) modified stock, 2) pistol grip, 3) a bipod. Having a certain number of modifications on different types of weapons will change its classification and this is for good reason.

A fold out stock allows for concealability. The only reason a hunter would need one is for a minor boost in portability of the weapon but this would be a lovely thing for someone to have that wants to conceal a rifle under a long coat or something to that effect. Pistol grips make bump firing much easier because it is easier to pull forward on the weapon and maintain control over it with one of these attached. The bipod by itself would not change the classification of a gun on its own and would have uses for a wide range of users.

But let's look at another type of modified stock for you to mull over:

The bump firing stock (go to about 4:00): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnBAyOAiUIM

Combine these types of mods with a high capacity cartidge and you basically have a fully auto machine gun.

Anyway, the point is, if the firing mechanism was the only part of the weapon that mattered, then the entirety of the classification system for the assault weapons ban would have focused on firing mechanisms but it didn't and for good reason. MORE THAN THE FIRING MECHANISM MATTERS.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm

If the assault weapons ban was not doing anything then why did gun attacks double after the ban lifted and victims from these shootings triple?

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/14/did-the-federal-ban-on-assault-weapons-matter/

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm

Whiskeyman,

You make a point about confusing the actions of a criminal with the role of the tool used in the crime. However, while the car in an accident is not blamed for that accident, there are "indirect" rules in the form of regulations that make the car "safer." I concede that cars will never be 100% safe and that guns will never be 100% safe. However, the debate is what can be done to make the presence of guns in society "safer," acknowledging that it will never be 100% safe from guns with out banning guns entirely, which is an action that could never be 100% enforced.

I personally try not to focus on the guns and focus instead on the people who use guns in a negative way, namely criminals and the suicidal/violent mentally ill. I feel, and I could be wrong, that banning certain types of guns is of less importance than to keep guns away from certain persons, namely criminals and the mentally ill.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm
Quote whiskeyman:

If a person wants to have a high capacity clip ,that should be all that matters, If they want one and they can have one.Do they need one? Probably not. Is it personal needs or personal rights? And if that person commits a crime while using a gun they should be punished to the full extent of the law. how many people are killed by automobiles everyday? Do we want to outlaw cars, no! We hold the drivers responsible.

Using that logic. If a person wants to have hand grenades, Bazookas, land mines, Mustard gas, C-4, flamethrowers, etc, then they should have it. If a disturbed kid steals it from them and uses it to commit a mass murder suicide, tough shit. It’s all about freedom dammit!

organican's picture
organican
Joined:
Nov. 30, 2012 4:24 am

Of those shootings how many were commited by an " assault weapon" ? How many of those shootings were a person defending his or herself or property? Not every shooting is a crime, some maybe self defense. If you think banning guns will solve the problem of mass killings you are sorry to say, mistaken. Evil people will find a way to do harm. Why do you want to force the 99.9% of law abiding citizens to give up their freedom because of a small minority of people doing evil.

whiskeyman's picture
whiskeyman
Joined:
Mar. 7, 2012 6:57 pm

Organican your response reeks of ignorance and you really should be ashamed of yourself. Do you understand what you are asking the american public to do? You are asking them to give up a right. If you don't want a gun, don't buy a gun, but don't stop others from owning one. Maybe you feel that a right is something that can be taken away because of a small minority doing harm. Are the people really asking to have grenades and mustard gas?

whiskeyman's picture
whiskeyman
Joined:
Mar. 7, 2012 6:57 pm

I’m not the least bit ashamed of wanting to ban high capacity MASS MURDER WEAPONS. If you want a reasonable utilitarian purposed firearm, then be my guest. Assault rifles are nothing more than weapons of mass destruction and should be considered as such. I have never said that all guns should be banned.

organican's picture
organican
Joined:
Nov. 30, 2012 4:24 am

What do they do in Switzerland? I think the evidence shows that far more people die from handguns every year than in these terrible tragedies like Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc. Maybe there is a way to reconcile the left and the right in this country by making handguns illegal (and switchblades and other small weaponry), and by making freely available military-style assault rifles, perhaps even mandatory annual licensing in handling. And of course severe penalties for not having these weapons properly locked and safe.

There are lots of experienced servicepersons after our adventures in the Middle East. Perhaps we can use this as an opportunity to redefine the meaning of "part of a well-regulated militia" so that every person with a rifle must have a "militia leader" who is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the citizen is a responsible gun owner, and if they are not responsible, the "militia leader" can withhold some required license. (And yes I know the Supreme Court has pretty much tossed out the "militia" component of the Second Amendment.)

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Very little has been mentioned about Austraila's handling of this issue ... I wonder why.

New Town to Newtown: How ’96 Massacre Spurred Gun Laws in Australia — and No Mass Shootings Since

Same in Scotland following the Dunblane school shooting in 1996. The public mood demanded that guns be banned, which they were. Not had any mass shootings since.

Different cultures I guess.

KennyMac's picture
KennyMac
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Boozerguy has struck again, and the analogy of driving a Mad Max Deathstar 500 down the freeway until the cops can stop him is my response to the idea that any citizen should have the right to possess seriously lethal shit that can wipe out a lot of other people. No, I don't want to live next to a guy who loves his bomb collection. Nor his anthrax and smallpox viral lab. No machine guns. Nothing military in civilian life is appropriate. It is not about your jones for military weaponry or the thrill of a big clip blasting away. It is about us, and the children.

This may be our tippiing point on this NRA 2nd Amendment nonsense. It is time to point out that the government has affirmed the personal right to own guns despite the wording of the text. The government, the Supremes, have done what the Founders clearly did not intend. Not after Shay's Rebellion, they didn't. The right to armed rebellion was hardly affirmed in that context! They wanted the right to repel invaders, not to form rebel bands and take down elected officials. They might as well have just formed the armed forces and skipped this militia idea given the trouble the wording has caused. But we ought not blame them for how these words have been twisted.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote KennyMac:

Very little has been mentioned about Austraila's handling of this issue ... I wonder why.

New Town to Newtown: How ’96 Massacre Spurred Gun Laws in Australia — and No Mass Shootings Since

Same in Scotland following the Dunblane school shooting in 1996. The public mood demanded that guns be banned, which they were. Not had any mass shootings since.

Different cultures I guess.

They tend to value life over profit, or property. Whiskeyman says it's alright to kill to protect property, no self defense bs, just hands off my stuff. In Europe you are not allowed to kill people for trespassing, especially unarmed people. In 'merica unarmed trespassers are killed and approved for doing so. Life vs stuff. Pro-life or pro-profit, BP went for pro-profit, but would be prevented from doing so in the North Sea off Norway, but when conducting business in the US, f#¤K safety, americans know money counts more.

The profits on the assault style are huge, [notice I wrote assault-style], and I wager republicans are pro-profit more than they are pro-life.The poorest states just happen to have the highest number of gundeaths. Mississippi, Louisianna...

The assault ban ended the manufacture of them. There are enough out in circulation that no one that wants one will be denied one, so quit making them and in 50 years they will have been purged based on natural selection. Crimes- they get confiscated accidental shooting- confiscated pending investigation suicide-confiscated pending notification of next of kin, children play mishap- confiscated pending criminal charges [in FL].

Cars are registered, drivers.are licensed, drivers are charged with vehicular homicide,cars are impounded.

Military posts ought to make available controlled exercises using fully automatic on base for the gun fetish crowd, for a fee. Target ranges can have flexibility, too. Every year you pay a license and registration fee for your car, why not the same for the assault weapons registered to you [since the car vs gun door has been opened] An exemption if they're kept at the NRA approved armory and shooting range. Upon renewal a questionaire answering if you're on ant-psychotic medicine, or anti-depressants with known suicide impulse side effects. Certain medicines advise do not operate heavy machinery, I think a military rifle in bump fire mode is fairly heavy.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

What percentage of guns are used for mass murder? I would venture to say a very small percentage. The point is that there is a very large percentage of gun owners that don't use their weapons to commit crimes. But you want to impose greater restrictions on all gun owners.Because of a small percentage of the population chooses to misuse a firearm .If a person is a law abiding citizen he or she should be able to have a gun. For personal safety or sports shooting or just to hang on a wall. Identity theft people and pedophiles are using computers to do harm, should we out law them? The point is that a computer and a gun can be used to bring harm to people and children, when being used by a bad person. But these items can and have been used to help people. Did we outlaw box cutters after 9-11 ? If a person wants to do harm they will find a way to do harm. And your chances of surviving an attack increase if you have a gun than if you didn't have one.

whiskeyman's picture
whiskeyman
Joined:
Mar. 7, 2012 6:57 pm
Quote chilidog:

What do they do in Switzerland? I think the evidence shows that far more people die from handguns every year than in these terrible tragedies like Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc. Maybe there is a way to reconcile the left and the right in this country by making handguns illegal (and switchblades and other small weaponry), and by making freely available military-style assault rifles, perhaps even mandatory annual licensing in handling. And of course severe penalties for not having these weapons properly locked and safe.

There are lots of experienced servicepersons after our adventures in the Middle East. Perhaps we can use this as an opportunity to redefine the meaning of "part of a well-regulated militia" so that every person with a rifle must have a "militia leader" who is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the citizen is a responsible gun owner, and if they are not responsible, the "militia leader" can withhold some required license. (And yes I know the Supreme Court has pretty much tossed out the "militia" component of the Second Amendment.)

What they do in Switzerland is absolutely everything Progressives suggest and more.

1. Everyone is required to have two years of military service and is thus required to have training on the upkeep and safety of firearms.

2. Ammunition availability is extremely restricted. While those in the reserves do keep and maintain their military rifle - an assault weapon by our standards - the ammunition is NOT available in public. These people can obtain it at firing ranges for practice with a special permit and the military has it but it is not available to the general public.

3. They have heavy licensing laws, background checks, MENTAL HEALTH restrictions.

4. ALL sales require permits to sell - INCLUDING SALES BETWEEN PRIVATE OWNERS/INDIVIDUALS (the gun show loophole in the US).

5. ALL firearms are REGISTERED by serial number. AMMUNITION SALES ARE RECORDED at point of sale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Buying_guns

Ever notice that when we talk about gun regulation, conservatives always bring up Switzerland - "What does Switzerland do?" and they mention ownership per capita and the low death rate - but then they NEVER ACTUALLY GO INTO THE LAWS THAT MAKE THIS THE CASE?

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm

Technically a woman witha gun is 50% more likely to die from that gun. I don't care about the gun fetish at all, but the responsible gun owners or dealers are not patrolling their fetish cousins. Ski patrol will suspend you lift ticket for reckless ski practices. Reckless gun owners are just shrugged off as 'some people are that way' or 'that's not me' or 'you can't stop all gun nuts' which leads to if you can't stop all then you can't stop any.A bullshit conclusion for lazy gun nuts that think an NRA membership exempts them from observing at risk gun behaviour. When given the most freedom of any country in the world [not in the midst of a civil war] with firearms freedom, the firearms afficionados have failed miserably, but your membership entity has made a fortune for the gun manufacturing industry, and has only asked you to wear a tri hat and carry a sign, when your neighbor guns down the local kindergarden.

Its probably just me but responsiblity carries a higher burden where I come from.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote douglaslee:
Quote Paleo-con:
Quote douglaslee:

Lanza's mother was responsible. You don't give matches to an arsonist either.

Perfect! You've summed it up in two simple sentences. Now all we have to do is figure out how to pass a law against being stupid.

Florida has done that, [unless scott repealed it]. Parents are reponsible for guns in their house. If that gun is used by their kids and kills another, or wounds another, the parent is responsible criminally and civilly. You mention lawsuit in FL and see the gunlocks vanish from the shelves. That is what it takes to motivate, it will cost you in your wallet, you could lose your kids [that happens when you go to jail], probably lose your guns [liquidation to settle lawsuit]

I don't have a problem with that. If one wants to own a gun, then they should also be willing to own up to the responsibility of that ownership. Trigger and barrel locks are inexpensive, but valuable. A good gun safe cost a bit, but nothing compared to the loss of a child. If a gun owner thinks there is a choice between being stupid or being safe, then they deserve the punishments outlined by the Florida laws.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Redwing:The original assault weapon ban was in effect at the time of the Columbine shootings. Pass laws, feel good.

The 1994 law was frought with loopholes, two of the most important of which were: (1) grandfathering existing weapons and ammunition from the effect of the "ban"; and (2) defining an "assault weapon" in a way that was not easily circumvented by manufacturers and owners.

These same issues remain and would likely make any new "ban" also susceptible to legal loopholes.

stuff's picture
stuff
Joined:
Nov. 24, 2012 4:59 pm
Quote drc2:

Cap, the point was to ban military weapons from civil use. How about single shot for each trigger pull as a start instead of "automated?" <snip>

CT has a ban on military weapons for civil use. For that matter there is already a federal ban on civil use of military weapons. How did that work out for the dead at Sandy Hook? Also, civilian weapons are already limited to one shot per trigger pull. How did that limitation work out at Sandy Hook?

I have yet to see any talk here about a solution. Feel free to point to any suggestions that would have spared the lives of the Sandy Hook children, the Amish children, or the Columbine children. All we seem to have going on here is a political attempt to banish the Second Amendment using dead children as a shield... disgusting...

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ah2:If the assault weapons ban was not doing anything then why did gun attacks double after the ban lifted and victims from these shootings triple?

There is little evidence that the "Assault Weapon Ban" made any difference in gun-related crimes, mostly because the "ban" itself was ineffective.

stuff's picture
stuff
Joined:
Nov. 24, 2012 4:59 pm

Currently Chatting

Who Should an Economy Serve?

The top one percent own half of all the world's assets. In stark contrast, the bottom fifty percent of the world owns less than one percent. According to the 2014 Global Wealth Report from Credit Suisse, global inequality has surged since the 2008 financial collapse. The report explains that while global wealth has more than doubled since the year 2000, the vast majority of overall growth has gone to those who were already wealthy.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system