HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » A watered down, try-to-ma...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:03 PM

A watered down, try-to-make-everyone-happy Assault Weapons Ban is worse than no ban.

False complacency is dangerous. An ineffectual AWB is worse than nothing since it simply causes us to lose focus until next time.

If I had my druthers, I'druther all guns were melted into slag. I know that won't happen and I am not asking for it. I mention it just so you know where I'm coming from - and what a guy like me is willing to tolerate and unwilling to tolerate.

If we "ban" only fully automatic weapons but allow semi automatics, what have we accomplished?

If we ban large clips/magazines/barrels, but don't make simple ownership of ones already in one's possession illegal and confiscatable, what have we accomplished?

Any AWB going forward needs to be a SERIOUS AWB. Not some pap to placate the gun owners and manufacturers and sellers.

Connecticut has , right now, on the books, a good example of the kind of AWB we *don't* need.




90 replies, 3688 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 90 replies Author Time Post
Reply A watered down, try-to-make-everyone-happy Assault Weapons Ban is worse than no ban. (Original post)
Stinky The Clown Dec 2012 OP
MotherPetrie Dec 2012 #1
Hoyt Dec 2012 #2
etherealtruth Dec 2012 #3
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #4
Stinky The Clown Dec 2012 #6
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #15
Recursion Dec 2012 #88
TheMadMonk Dec 2012 #7
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #10
Stinky The Clown Dec 2012 #16
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #20
hack89 Dec 2012 #11
Dirty Socialist Dec 2012 #14
hack89 Dec 2012 #17
Dirty Socialist Dec 2012 #22
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #24
Dirty Socialist Dec 2012 #25
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #26
Dirty Socialist Dec 2012 #29
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #31
Recursion Dec 2012 #89
hack89 Dec 2012 #38
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #39
shadowrider Dec 2012 #69
TheMadMonk Dec 2012 #81
TheMadMonk Dec 2012 #80
hack89 Dec 2012 #83
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #21
hack89 Dec 2012 #27
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #34
hack89 Dec 2012 #37
TheMadMonk Dec 2012 #82
hack89 Dec 2012 #84
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #90
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #41
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #47
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #51
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #52
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #55
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #59
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #63
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #67
uppityperson Dec 2012 #54
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #57
uppityperson Dec 2012 #58
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #61
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #62
shadowrider Dec 2012 #70
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #40
Iggy Dec 2012 #77
Xithras Dec 2012 #48
Recursion Dec 2012 #87
Dirty Socialist Dec 2012 #12
X_Digger Dec 2012 #19
bossy22 Dec 2012 #28
Dirty Socialist Dec 2012 #30
jmg257 Dec 2012 #44
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #5
Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #68
cali Dec 2012 #8
Kaleva Dec 2012 #23
former9thward Dec 2012 #43
Kaleva Dec 2012 #50
former9thward Dec 2012 #73
Kaleva Dec 2012 #78
former9thward Dec 2012 #79
Kaleva Dec 2012 #85
former9thward Dec 2012 #86
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #60
former9thward Dec 2012 #72
frazzled Dec 2012 #9
libdem4life Dec 2012 #36
hack89 Dec 2012 #13
Stinky The Clown Dec 2012 #18
backscatter712 Dec 2012 #33
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #45
backscatter712 Dec 2012 #49
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #53
backscatter712 Dec 2012 #32
shadowrider Dec 2012 #71
graham4anything Dec 2012 #35
former9thward Dec 2012 #42
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #64
former9thward Dec 2012 #74
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #75
forestpath Dec 2012 #46
Kaleva Dec 2012 #56
Dems to Win Dec 2012 #65
99Forever Dec 2012 #66
Iggy Dec 2012 #76

Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:04 PM

1. K&R (I vote for slag too)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:15 PM

2. I agree. A lot of the fun cultists have invested in his capable mags, and multiple assault weapons.

They need to be banned, and turned in. Rewarding bad behavior is not a good idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:18 PM

3. The time for placating gun nuts has passed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:18 PM

4. If you make them "illegal and confiscatable," how do you propose to ENFORCE that law?

Without enforcement, such a law is no less pointless than the previous laws that you rightly disparage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:27 PM

6. I do not propose raids on legal gun owner's houses. I DO propose serious penalty for failure . . . .

. . . . to surrender them. So serious, that surrendering will seem a good option.

And not jail time, maybe, but perhaps taking away the person's right to won *any* weapon, including a butter knife.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:37 PM

15. I think you'd see such a law widely ignored, frankly.

I also think you'd see widespread reluctance in very many local jurisdiction to do much to even passively enforce such a law (that is, to make an arrest even when presented with all but the most blatant evidence of illegal possession). In a great many parts of the country, there is virtually zero local law enforcement support for such measures...and the LEOs tend to be friends with a lot of gun owners. It would be a federal law...and federal law enforcement personnel are not high in number.

Perhaps we'll see how something like this plays out..but I think we'll have to break the GOP hold on the House first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:50 AM

88. Oh, you'd see the hammer come down on minorities who ignore the ban, anywhere

I can promise you that...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:28 PM

7. Same way we did here in Australia.

 

Had an amnesty period, and don't really care what you've got burried in your backyard. But if you're caught with it later, you're screwn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:32 PM

10. I have little doubt...

...that literally millions and millions of US gun owners would take that risk and ignore the ban. the net result? A barrier between those people and law enforcement, eliminating cooperation where it previously existed. Oh, and not the slightest reduction in rates of gun-related violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:38 PM

16. You mean there is no barrier between gun owners and the rest of us now? Cooperation???? Hahahaha

We already have that. If that's the worst of it, then I say we go for it right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:44 PM

20. Um...no, that's not what I meant at all.

I thought I was perfectly clear: I'm referring to the existing cooperation between the large majority of gun owners and law enforcement. that cooperation would cease in the face of a widely-ignored gun ban. The former group would suddenly have something to hide from the latter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:35 PM

11. You also bought back all those now illegal guns

I doubt the US government really wants to spend billions of dollars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:37 PM

14. I would vote for that

Buy 'em back!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dirty Socialist (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:40 PM

17. So how do you get all the criminals to turn in their weapons?

seeing how they don't obey laws?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #17)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:44 PM

22. Most mass shootings were done by guns owned by law abiding citizens

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dirty Socialist (Reply #22)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:47 PM

24. Yes, and...?

Mass shootings account for less than 1% of gun-related homicides in any given year. If the goal is to reduce the latter figure in a meaningful way, targeting spree killers is rather obviously not how to go about it. If, on the other hand, you're more concerned with mass shootings, then I'd have to call that a skewed priority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:49 PM

25. In Australia, the assault weapons ban decreased gun-related murders by 59%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dirty Socialist (Reply #25)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:50 PM

26. Are you claiming that nearly 60% of murders previously were committed by those weapons?

Or is this a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy...?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #26)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:57 PM

29. There might be a link

Also, there were 11 mas shootings in the 10 years before the ban. Thare has been only one massshooting in the 16 years following the ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dirty Socialist (Reply #29)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:01 PM

31. Then that could possibly lead one to believe...

...that a ban, with buyback, might reduce mass-shootings in the US, assuming that unaccounted-for differences between the respective cultures don't factor in. Oh, and assuming that sufficient numbers of US owners of the banned weapons elect to accept the buyback, of course...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dirty Socialist (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:51 AM

89. We've had a larger decrease in gun murders over the same time period

And we kept the guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dirty Socialist (Reply #22)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:11 PM

38. What about the other 95% of gun deaths that are not mass shootings?

don't they count?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #38)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:03 PM

39. Probably over 99%, and they don't seem to count.

And reducing mass-murder by bomb, arson, and other means doesn't count either.

And of course, touching the third-rail means good-bye WH, good bye Senate, and good bye SCOTUS. You can forget healthcare, forget addressing GW, forget gay marriage, forget blocking an overturn of Roe v Wade. Hello austerity for the 99% and hello Drill, Baby, Drill. Hello President Ryan. This country is teetering on the edge, the levee holding back extreme wingnutism is fragile...and the anti-gun zealots want to dynamite it. God help us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #39)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:12 AM

69. Exactly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #39)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:52 PM

81. You know something. If you collectively really are...

 

...such arseholes in America then the best thing for the rest of the world is total republican victory followed by the inevitable total breakdown in society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #38)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:47 PM

80. Well since a good many more of those deaths...

 

...are "accidental" shootings, getting rid of guns (or a large proportion of them) helps more than just the victims of mass murder.

Even ignoring mass murders entirely, banning semi-automatic weapons resulted in a nearly 60% reduction in gun related homicides here in Australia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #80)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:11 PM

83. No - most are murders

surely you are familiar with the bloody gang violence that permeates America's inner cities?

That is the real problem to be solved - the day to day criminal violence. Most places in America are just as safe as Australia - where I live there have been exactly two murders in 15 years. Violence is very concentrated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:44 PM

21. Cops in schools is going to cost billions, billions per year in fact

There's roughly 100,000 public schools in the USA, at one cop per school that's probably at least five billion per year.

And one cop isn't going to to much good in a larger school, some of them have thousands of students.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:52 PM

27. I would spend the money on physical security for school

locks, doors, cameras, etc - make it harder for a shooter to get into a school and gain enough time for the cops to arrive or to get students into safe rooms.

The proposed AWB will not be retroactive. Even if it was, it won't address handguns so schools will still be under the same threat they are under right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #27)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:10 PM

34. Then you're getting up into DoD level expenditures

Making schools physically secure is going to cost a great deal of money, hundreds of billions, this is particularly true if you're trying to avoid making the schools look like armed fortresses or prisons.

Look at the money spent on the TSA and they have yet to catch a terrorist through their efforts. There's a lot more schools than commercial airports in this country.

Lanza shot his way through a window to gain entry to the school, short of replacing all windows with bullet resistant ones there's no way to stop someone doing that unless the windows are all made smaller than a small adult can get through.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #34)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:06 PM

37. What other choice is there?

guns are not going to magically disappear. It is very unlikely that any legislation will actually ban anything and include actual confiscation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #37)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:53 PM

82. FUCKING GROW UP AMERICA! /nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #82)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:12 PM

84. My irony meter just blew up. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #84)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:27 PM

90. This place is endlessly amusing, innit?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #34)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:16 PM

41. You're wrong.

Just having bars on the front door would have prevented the gunman from entering the school, even after shooting out the glass in the door.About $250. And the gunman was able to walk into the classrooms because the teachers didn't have the keys needed to lock the doors from the inside. A lack of fucking keys. About $2 each.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #41)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:51 PM

47. You think?

Whole bunch of windows on that school.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #47)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:20 PM

51. A fence would keep him away from the windows,

Students would be relatively safe lying on floor, or in hallways. The security measures only need to hold long enough for police to arrive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #51)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:29 PM

52. But I thought putting bars on the door would be sufficient?

Will the fence have razor wire on top?

And will the fence resist having a car or truck driven through it at speed?

You really haven't thought this through, securing something like an elementary school against a determined and intelligent attacker is not a trivial task.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #52)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:51 PM

55. Its done in courthouses and other govt buildings around the country

There's no reason schools can't also be better secured.
inre cars and trucks: Isn't your arguement that banning assault weapons would prevent all mass murders? If you're now suggesting that mass killers will find alternate means, then you are making my case for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #55)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:13 PM

59. Certainly there are quite a few well secured buildings in the USA..

It's also rather expensive to get them that way, particularly if they weren't designed from the ground up to be secure.

Evidently you think the killer(s) will be walking and not driving to the school with their assault rifles, I have no idea why you would assume that.

Your problem is that you're thinking like a law abiding member of society, in order to stop a suicidal crazy person determined to instigate a mass killing you have to anticipate what that crazy person might do, like driving a car through a fence in order to breach it.

I'm not even remotely a security expert and I have managed to render your proposals ineffective with almost no thought.

Of course schools can be made more secure but to think it's going to be done for $250 to put bars on the front door is so naive I have difficulty believing you are actually serious.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #59)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:08 PM

63. There are any number of ways a school (continuing that example) could be attacked.

Yes, its possible an attacker builds a mortar, installs it in a fortified bunker, and lobs cannoballs at the school for several hours. However, that possibility is infinately small.
We have to look at the likely possibilities, which would vary from school to school. The likelyhood of an attacker tunnelling under a ground level school to plant a bomb is small. A school built above ground, or that has an accessable crawl space has a higher risk.
Some schools may already have a low risk to an attack by vehicle. Some schools may have vulnerable spots, but which could be protected by landscape elements like trees and concrete benches. A bridge near my house is protected from 800' freighters by concrete dolphins around the bridge supports.
Some schools may be so old that any expensive security devices are better off on hold, until a new school is built. In that case, there may be temporary measures that are suitable.
And, as I noted, this can be paid for with money taken from some combination of military or homeland security budgets, or gun tax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #63)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:40 AM

67. All of the scenarios will require analysis and design by trained (expensive) personnel

The whole idea of a crazed gunman attacking a school is a low probability event but with 100,000 public schools even fairly low probability events are going to happen from time to time.

Paying for it all is going to be another battle, one probably more difficult even than figuring out how to stop a killer in the first place.

Get the schools secured and the next attack may come at a school bus, those often have more than 20 kids on board and they are horribly vulnerable to a mass killer with guns.

Our society is headed down a rabbit hole of ever escalating violence and expensive ameliorating strategies that will serve to reduce all our freedoms other than the one to have a gun.

The rest of the developed world is looking at us in bewilderment, wondering why our culture is going insane when in reality it's only a relatively small minority of fearful individuals who are driving the insanity, those individuals are the ones that have been snapping up assault rifles this week. Something that bothers me a considerable amount is that most of those people look a lot like me, I even know some of them and for the most part they aren't evil at their core but they have bought into actively evil propaganda promulgated by the NRA and the Republican party for pecuniary and political gain.

I haven't the foggiest idea how to solve that problem.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #41)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:49 PM

54. Would a lock on the classroom door have stopped someone with this much firepower?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #54)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:06 PM

57. It stopped him from entering classrooms that were locked.

I don't know the door details of that particular school, but most schools already have pretty solid classroom doors to prevent fires from spreading. Yes, there's all kinds of scenerios where he might shoot through walls, etc. All the security has to do is slow him down enough until police arrive, and prevent him from getting into the classrooms where he picks off kids huddled in the corner at point blank range. He didn't get in the classrooms that were locked, all the kids in those classrooms survived.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #57)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:09 PM

58. You didn't answer my question. Would a door lock stop someone with that much firepower?

Yes, they might try a door and more on, but my question is would a simple lock stop someone with that much firepower? If they wanted to, could they not simply shoot out that $2 lock?

He passed by locked doors, this is different than not being able to enter. Could he have shot out a $2 lock?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #58)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:31 PM

61. The doors already have locks built in,

if they're the same as doors I'm familiar with. Its part of the door latch. They cost much more than $2 - that was reference to the cost of a key, the lack of which prevented the unlocked doors from being locked. The doors themselves are probably a thick, heavy, wooden core, encased in a steel shell. That is what fire code usually calls for. The door frames the doors are mounted in are even heavier steel. It is possible, with his .223, that he could eventually blast his way in. More than likely though, one of three things happens first: his gun overheats and jams after that many rounds are fired, he is injured by flying shrapnel from the door or riccocheting bullets, or the police arrive and kill him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #58)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:43 PM

62. Here is link:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_door

A heavy machine gun might blast through the door in a couple minutes. It would take him a while with an assault rifle. These are perfectly common doors, installed in schools and commercial buildings around the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #58)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:16 AM

70. A determined shooter will not waste time trying to shoot out a door lock

not when he/she can simply walk down the hall and find open ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #27)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:11 PM

40. I agree 100%.

We've already got physical security measures in places like courthouses, govt offices, and legislative buildings. I don't think doing so at schools is a problem at all. Very simple and inexpensive measures would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting, or at least greatly reduced the casualties. The money to do this can be taken from the military, homeland security, or a gun tax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:06 PM

77. SO WHAT??

 

let's say one cop at $80K per year salary per school-- that's $8 Billion per year.

Apparently you "forgot" Iraq cost us $8 Billion PER MONTH for years. why is that expenditure acceptable to you-- and not $8 billion per year? or even if the cost was $12 Billion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:03 PM

48. "Billions"? Try a hundred billion dollars, in all probability

While determining an exact average is nearly impossible (some guns are almost worthless, while others are worth thousands), let's say, for the sake of argument, that the average firearm in the U.S. is worth around $500. That's probably low, but you can extrapolate on your own from there.

According to the FBI, there are around 200 million firearms in the U.S. that are owned by purely private people (that factors out the police, etc).

200,000,000x500 = $100,000,000,000, or $100 billion dollars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:48 AM

87. I dunno. If it's the only way to pass a stimulus... (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:36 PM

12. Did that include a buy back program?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:42 PM

19. You also had a buy-back, at MSRP prices.

Good luck coming up with the funds for THAT in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:55 PM

28. Different cultures

Gun rights influence is alot greater in the u.s. then it was in australia

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #28)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:58 PM

30. Maybe

Unfortunately

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:26 PM

44. You think that would be hard? Pass laws with penalities severe enough

To make law abiding gun owners think REAL hard about becoming felons and losing everything vs. hording their stash for 'self defense'. Count on complaints by neighbors, let the ATF go through all those 4473 forms and see who bought what...watch those warrants be issued.

It won't take much...really. Just the ight laws, some stepped up law enforcement, attrition, and the willingness to see it done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:22 PM

5. Full autos are covered under the 1934 Gun Control Act

Yes, you could have a 50 cal machine gun, but boy you will be filling paperwork for months... Oh and the background check...my god.

Just so we are accurate. The law has worked so well that it's been decades since oh...a tommy was used in a crime.

I would like to see that law cover all semis. Won't happen. But proof, pudding and all that.

Will it happen? Not in this environment. If we get a limit on magazines and close the gun show loophole...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:40 AM

68. It's been many decades since an incredibly rare and valuable (not to mention archaic)

 

Thompson was used in a crime. But I will bet you whatever you like that several crimes were committed just last night with any number of fully automatic pistols and rifles.

That Act made the legal ownership of full-auto weapons very difficult. Criminals aren't concerned with legally owning them, they just steal, buy, or modify them.

Don't you live in LA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:29 PM

8. fully automatic weapons are already banned and have been since 1934

I think any movement is toward greater gun control is a good start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #8)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:44 PM

23. No they are not banned. It is legal for most any law abiding adult to own one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #23)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:22 PM

43. Yeah go to your local gun store and try and buy one in the same manner you would buy any gun.

You well know that you have to have a special license to get one, pay a huge tax and they are regulated as long as you own one. Very few people have them and they have not been involved in these mass killings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #43)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:18 PM

50. Nothing you say supports the statement that they are banned.

The tax isn't huge. It's $200.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink