HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why is it that the main o...

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:45 AM

 

Why is it that the main objection concerning gun control

seems to be centered about definitions and nomenclature regarding guns?

as in "See! You don't know anything about our fantasies!"

Frankly, i could give a whit. I want to see fewer guns in the hands of idiots and psychotics and if that infringes on someone's ability to go plinking or shooting paper targets so be it.

142 replies, 6061 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 142 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why is it that the main objection concerning gun control (Original post)
Whovian Jan 2013 OP
BainsBane Jan 2013 #1
Recursion Jan 2013 #18
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #35
Recursion Jan 2013 #45
BainsBane Jan 2013 #51
Recursion Jan 2013 #56
BainsBane Jan 2013 #49
Recursion Jan 2013 #52
BainsBane Jan 2013 #58
Recursion Jan 2013 #60
BainsBane Jan 2013 #62
Recursion Jan 2013 #63
BainsBane Jan 2013 #65
Recursion Jan 2013 #68
BainsBane Jan 2013 #70
Recursion Jan 2013 #71
BainsBane Jan 2013 #73
Recursion Jan 2013 #74
BainsBane Jan 2013 #75
Recursion Jan 2013 #76
Marr Jan 2013 #121
Recursion Jan 2013 #122
Marr Jan 2013 #124
Sherman A1 Jan 2013 #2
Travis_0004 Jan 2013 #12
baldguy Jan 2013 #14
Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2013 #140
Sherman A1 Jan 2013 #19
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #55
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #78
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #88
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #90
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #91
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #94
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #110
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #113
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #116
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #118
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #125
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #137
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #138
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #139
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #115
sarisataka Jan 2013 #130
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #136
dairydog91 Jan 2013 #82
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #89
Marr Jan 2013 #123
dairydog91 Jan 2013 #25
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #77
Sherman A1 Jan 2013 #79
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #93
Sherman A1 Jan 2013 #105
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #114
rightsideout Jan 2013 #3
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #15
appleannie1 Jan 2013 #28
Recursion Jan 2013 #29
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #67
Recursion Jan 2013 #72
Jenoch Jan 2013 #80
Kolesar Jan 2013 #4
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #5
Kolesar Jan 2013 #6
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #13
bongbong Jan 2013 #39
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #81
bongbong Jan 2013 #83
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #99
bongbong Jan 2013 #101
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #102
bongbong Jan 2013 #104
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #107
bongbong Jan 2013 #108
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #111
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #8
Kolesar Jan 2013 #10
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #20
Kolesar Jan 2013 #43
Recursion Jan 2013 #48
former-republican Jan 2013 #54
LonePirate Jan 2013 #22
Recursion Jan 2013 #27
bongbong Jan 2013 #37
Recursion Jan 2013 #47
bongbong Jan 2013 #57
Recursion Jan 2013 #59
LonePirate Jan 2013 #41
Recursion Jan 2013 #46
RC Jan 2013 #92
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #96
RC Jan 2013 #97
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #100
dkf Jan 2013 #7
bettyellen Jan 2013 #117
jmg257 Jan 2013 #9
Kolesar Jan 2013 #11
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #21
jmg257 Jan 2013 #24
Recursion Jan 2013 #16
backwoodsbob Jan 2013 #17
Paladin Jan 2013 #23
slackmaster Jan 2013 #61
Paladin Jan 2013 #84
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #26
jmg257 Jan 2013 #32
oldhippie Jan 2013 #44
jmg257 Jan 2013 #53
oneshooter Jan 2013 #103
appleannie1 Jan 2013 #30
Thinkingabout Jan 2013 #31
koiwoman53 Jan 2013 #33
dairydog91 Jan 2013 #87
Publiuus Jan 2013 #135
bongbong Jan 2013 #34
slackmaster Jan 2013 #36
MineralMan Jan 2013 #38
gollygee Jan 2013 #40
hack89 Jan 2013 #42
Paladin Jan 2013 #66
hack89 Jan 2013 #95
Paladin Jan 2013 #98
hack89 Jan 2013 #112
Paladin Jan 2013 #119
hack89 Jan 2013 #120
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #50
kudzu22 Jan 2013 #64
rrneck Jan 2013 #69
Hugabear Jan 2013 #85
sarisataka Jan 2013 #86
Coyote_Tan Jan 2013 #106
cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #109
CTyankee Jan 2013 #133
patrice Jan 2013 #126
AndyA Jan 2013 #127
upaloopa Jan 2013 #128
graham4anything Jan 2013 #129
Jenoch Jan 2013 #131
Fresh_Start Jan 2013 #132
Publiuus Jan 2013 #134
Taitertots Jan 2013 #141
loose wheel Jan 2013 #142

Response to Whovian (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:56 AM

1. it's all part of deligitimating gun control

You want to ban assault weapons, provide a list of the the guns. (Never mind that we aren't actually writing the legislation). You don't know every gun ever made? You're too stupid to advocate gun control. You don't want you're talking about (NRA meme).

I don't know the story about the fantasy reference above, but I can tell you that I've seen some gungeoneers post some gun fantasies--discussions about why they think certain guns are necessary--that are bone chilling. They freak me out. Prior to reading posts by gun proponents on DU, I had no idea that they devoted so much time to thinking very specifically about exactly how to kill people. Nor did I know they planned to violate the law and rise up against the government if gun control is imposed. It creeps me out. I'm so glad I don't know these folks in real life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:19 AM

18. We're trying to point out two things

1: Doing this well is much harder than proponents think, and the last time we did it we didn't do it anywhere close to well

2: Most gun control proponents are fundamentally mistaken about how guns work and are concentrating on aspects of guns that don't matter (for example by banning "assault weapons": we keep bringing up the definition because the definition is completely stupid and there's not a definition that does what you want short of bans that are way too broad to even have a chance politically)

You're convinced opponents are hung up on terminology; we keep bringing it up because there's a fundamental category error at the heart of the AWB.

You don't know every gun ever made? You're too stupid to advocate gun control.

No, but personally when I advocate for something I don't like to do it from a position of ignorance; that's how Republicans operate. I personally don't have a problem with somebody supporting an AWB without knowing what it does, but I get really tired of being called crazy for not supporting the AWB by people who have no idea what it does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:56 AM

35. two more points...

1. perhaps gun controls folks are going to one extreme because the gun lobby is so firmly entrenched on the "NO GUN CONtROL AT ALL" idea.

2. i agree that "assault weapon" is a LOADED term (no pun, of course...), but the idea is to classify weapons that are really meant to be used for military attacks, and have questionable use in everyday life. there has to be a distinct line drawn somewhere, as simply as "no full automatics". there are simple places to start- 10 round clip max, for instance. i'd say 8 rounds max is better...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #35)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:42 AM

45. Good points both

1. perhaps gun controls folks are going to one extreme because the gun lobby is so firmly entrenched on the "NO GUN CONtROL AT ALL" idea.

Hey, you will find no defense of the NRA here, though there's more common ground than either side likes to admit. "Gun folks" are fine with background checks and even want to close "the gun show loophole" but get completely turned off the second it's called that (it has nothing to do with gun shows, it's a term as dishonest as "partial birth abortion"; people only use it because suburban people find gun shows scary, and people who go to gun shows are well aware of that).

2. i agree that "assault weapon" is a LOADED term (no pun, of course...), but the idea is to classify weapons that are really meant to be used for military attacks, and have questionable use in everyday life. there has to be a distinct line drawn somewhere, as simply as "no full automatics". there are simple places to start- 10 round clip max, for instance. i'd say 8 rounds max is better...

It's a hard sell for me to say that the most popular type of rifle is of questionable use in everyday life. People like the AR platform because it's the Linux of firearms; it's entirely modular and you can do pretty much whatever you want with it. 18 years ago, when the first AWB was passed, everybody was worried about the WASR (though they called it the "AK-47" because it looked like one), but people for the most part didn't own WASRs ("AK-47's") or ARs ("M-16's"). One troubling unintended consequence of the ban is that both the WASR and the AR were still legal if they took the bayonet lugs off (this is why we keep trying to hold people's feet to the fire about definitions) and people got very interested in them; they went from something like 2% of new rifles sold to something like 90%.

That said (and we keep harping on this because we think it's important), in terms of what a gun is actually capable of, an AR-15 is no more deadly than any other semi-automatic with detachable magazines. But that's basically every rifle that's been sold for the past 20 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #45)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:50 AM

51. some of the pending bills do specify number of rounds, generally ten

and they ban all extended magazines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #51)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:54 AM

56. Magazines are a different matter, and I'm all for a high-cap ban

So are most of my legit "gun nut" friends. But a magazine is a different thing from a gun (it's usually even made by a different manufacturer), and ultimately it's just a box with a spring in it. That said, I think you'd find more compliance in the long run with a magazine ban than with a gun ban, even though magazines are easier to manufacture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:47 AM

49. we don't like guns that spit out a 100 rounds in a few seconds

and murder dozens of children. Is there some reason any human being should find that acceptable? We don't need to have an intimate knowledge of the machinery of death to venture a political opinion. Of course, if you find our views so objectionable, we could always accommodate you by moving for far more dramatic bans on guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #49)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:51 AM

52. Me neither. Those have been essentially banned for close to 80 years

The Newtown shooter killed 26 people over the course of 20 minutes; rate of fire wasn't an issue.

We don't need to have an intimate knowledge of the machinery of death to venture a political opinion.

No, but being petulant when people who do have an understanding of guns point out realization flaws in your ideas doesn't help.

Of course, if you find our views so objectionable, we could always accommodate you by moving for far more dramatic bans on guns.

I would support a "far more dramatic ban on guns" before I would support another Assault Weapons Ban. It's not my preferred course (it hasn't worked well for drugs and I don't think it would for guns), but it would actually do what you are trying to accomplish if you banned all semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines. If the party feels that's worth the political hit we'll take, I'll get behind it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #52)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:57 AM

58. the Aurora shooter used one

He used drums of 100 rounds. And the AK-15 can be modified to shoot like an automatic weapon. Yeah, I'm sure I have some terminology wrong, but it slaughters lots of little children. That's what I care about. I'm just human that way.

When you site NRA talking points, count on me to be petulant.

If it were up to me, I'd get rid of every gun other than non-semi automatic shot guns for hunting. But people are trying to accommodate the concerns of gun owners. Every day I care less and less about that. Gungeoneers don't realize it, but they are the best salesmen for gun control on the planet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #58)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:59 AM

60. The "if it were up to you plan" would actually do something; I would support it if the party does

Particularly if the ban extends to hand guns which are something like 90% of the guns used in homicides.

I won't support another law that keeps the weapon the Aurora shooter used legal, which is what another AWB would be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #60)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:02 AM

62. no, it doesn't

You are assuming the same bill would be reimplemented. Feinstein's legislation bans specific guns by type, not just characteristic. There are a variety of bills out there, and they are not simply repeats of the old ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #62)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:07 AM

63. Doesn't it simply ban the AR platform by name?

The last time a platform was banned by name (the TEC 9) they resold it as the AB 10 (for "after ban").

But, yes, assuming the ATF doesn't get rolled this time around, it would take gun companies a couple of years to re-engineer a modular semi-automatic rifle platform, so that would limit sales during that time. *shrug*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #63)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:15 AM

65. don't you think you should read the legislation

before assuming it is useless? This is the summary from her website: A summary of key provisions in the updated bill:

Stops the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of more than 100 specifically-named firearms as well as certain semiautomatic rifles, handguns and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
Stops the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
exempting more than 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting and sporting purposes; and
exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons."

The right have decided the bill is the Apocalypse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #65)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:18 AM

68. I have read her website. That's why I mentioned the "by name" problem.

The part I don't like is "certain semiautomatic rifles, handguns and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine" because the test means (for all practical purposes) that the rifle can't have a pistol grip. I don't want to ban semi-automatic rifles with pistol grips and leave only less-safe traditional grips legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #68)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:22 AM

70. that summary is cursory to say the least

I'm trying to find the actual bill. There are all kinds of right-wing accounts of it, on the Daily Caller, for example. I don't think it's appropriate to draw the conclusions you have based on that brief summary on her website.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #70)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:29 AM

71. It's a one-test ban with most of the features from the 94 ban listed...

...but the only one of those that gun owners actually care about is the pistol grip (it makes the gun easier to control and so safer to use).

That's also the one feature that many people who don't understand guns seem to associate with a high rate of fire, I assume because the M-16 has a similar grip, and it's a very noticeable feature that wasn't present on guns (even automatic or semi-automatic guns) from 60 years ago (its design was in some ways as revolutionary as the AK-47's, and kind of illustrates the "US spends millions to give astronauts a pen that writes in space, while Cosmonauts used a pencil" dichotomy).

The other features remain things that nobody cares about for the most part, though at least the bayonet lug and threaded muzzle are off the list, but the barrel shroud is on this one, and that's entirely a safety feature and has no business being banned. The barrel shroud also occupies a huge place in gun control rhetoric, ever since Cynthia McKinney talked for 10 minutes about how important it was to ban them and then couldn't say what they were -- that's the "Shoulder Thing That Goes Up" meme you may see from time to time. (If you're curious, it's something that wraps around the entire barrel rather than just the bottom of it to keep a shooter from accidentally burning himself on a hot barrel.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #71)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:32 AM

73. don't you think they have the ATF helping them with that legislation?

Why do you people assume you're the only ones on the planet that know about guns?
It specifically lists over 100 models by name. Hopefully it has some method to account for future manufacturing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #73)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:40 AM

74. It would surprise me if the ATF were helping

It specifically lists over 100 models by name. Hopefully it has some method to account for future manufacturing?

Yes, it gives ATF the flexibility to declare renamed models "substantially identical", which they didn't have in '94.

I still don't understand why you think it's a good idea to ban the safer kind of grip and leave the less safe kind of grip legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #74)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:42 AM

75. I did't say that

and it's quite clear I know squat about guns. I want something done, the more aggressive the better. Write Feinstein and tell her how to improve the bill. Arguing with me accomplishes nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #75)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:48 AM

76. I have written my (non-voting) Congresswoman

Lacking Congressional representation sucks sometimes.

I know why Feinstein wants to ban pistol grips: they look scary and it builds up support (like I said, people see them and think "it's a military weapon", so you can get people behind a ban that wouldn't be behind it if you held up an equally capable weapon that looks like a hunting rifle). The problem is that this means those equally capable weapons that look like hunting rifles end up not falling under the ban. And the whole thing is so frustrating because the military-looking weapon is a safer design, which is why the military uses it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:29 PM

121. Who defines what has a chance politically?

I'd say a civilian has no business owning any gun besides a bolt action rifle or a handgun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #121)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:33 PM

122. Handguns are the vast majority of murder weapons

Like, 90% of gun homicides are with handguns. Immediately you're focusing a control regime only on 10% of crimes.

Who defines what has a chance politically is, roughly, a majority of voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #122)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:46 PM

124. Exactly, voters.

And attitudes on this subject are rapidly evolving away from the "My Own Private Arsenal" interpretation of the Second Amendment.

I'd be quite happy outlawing handguns as well, but you have to start somewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:09 AM

2. I am perfectly okay with the 2nd Amendment's right to keep & bear arms

and think we should do so as strict constructionists returning to having the muskets of the late 1700's. If the supporters of the RK&BA are insistent on holding on to the strict definition of the 2nd then let's return to the technology of the time it was written. If not then let's have a real discussion and bring a reasoned discussion forward to today.

Yes, there is a right to keep & bear arms, however the people going to a movie, a mall, a school, a temple all have rights as well and I am wondering where in the discussion are their rights to Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sherman A1 (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 07:32 AM

12. So if I want to follow the 1st admendment, can I only do it with technology from the 1700's

I always wonder why people think the 2nd amendment only applies to guns made in the 1700's. Basically what you are saying is that the founding fathers were dumb asses, and couldn't predict that better guns would be invented. Even in George Washington's day, there were semi auto guns that shot 20 rounds. They were bulky and heavy and unreliable, but it didn't take a genius to figure out that the design kinks would be worked out sometime in the next 200 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 07:57 AM

14. Do you know when movable type & the printing press were invented?

People were certainly familiar with the actuality of mass communication in 1789. (Ben Franklin was trained as a printer, fercrissakes.) And they would have well understood that subsequent advances in technology would only made it faster & easier for individuals to disseminate their ideas - but would never improve those ideas themselves to any degree.

The Founders weren't dumbasses - that's why they were suspicious of standing armies, and intended for individuals bearing arms to be part of a well regulated militia because without an army, a militia was necessary to the security of a free state. Subsequent advances in military technology have since made standing armies the norm, and have made militias - and the 2nd Amendment - obsolete.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #14)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 10:02 AM

140. The army was founded in 1775.

The current constitution was adopted in 1787 (came into effect in 1789) and the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1789 (came into effect 1791).

That means the army predates the Constitution which in turn predates the Bill of Rights. So, while it is true the founders were suspicious of standing armies based on history the US had a standing army 14 years before the 2nd Amendment was written. From that it seems the militia was meant to serve as a counter-weight to, not in lieu of, a standing army.

It should also be noted that since so many want to gut the US military for budgetary reasons then private ownership of assault weapons should be encouraged to fill the gap, per the 2nd Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #12)


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:54 AM

55. No, not quite. It was the 1980s when NRA friendly judges

Started the process of talking of the individual and forgetting of the two dependent clauses.

There is a slew of lawyers and experts who are starting to subscribe to the idea of well regulated militia that was left in the dust in the 1980s.

So you want an assault weapon, join the Guard.

That is the actual original interpretation. The founders were concerned of maintaining the militia system. The social contract included drill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #55)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:24 PM

78. Not so. The individual RKBA is acknowledged (even by controllers) as

the "standard model" of 2A interpretation by legal scholars. Laurence Tribe, the most noted proponent of the "militia clause" theory, has also come around to the individual rights view.

BTW, contrary to the oft-repeated controller "talking point," there are few SCOTUS decisions referencing the Second at all. But scholarship on 2A has always been weighted heavily toward the individual RKBA. Well before Scalia et al.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #78)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:36 PM

88. Recently, tribe "came around."

There is more recent body of work.

Sorry, you want an assault gun, join the guard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #88)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:07 PM

90. Can I keep my Winchester .03 .22, made in 1905?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #90)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:14 PM

91. That is not an assault weapon

Missed it by a mile. Didn't you? And this is a classic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #91)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:31 PM

94. Why isn't it? While enshrining my "classic," could I keep a Remington M8 (1906)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #94)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:51 PM

110. Lets start with detachable magazines.

You can physically limit the size of a magazine a riffle can carry to ten rounds ( hunting legal in most states) you want to keep your scary looking gun, by all means.

You miss this by more than a mile. There s a chasm. But hey, I am all but shocked you have.

It is also NOT modular and able to accept a few attachments found in military riffles these days either.

But hey, I think the distance is farther from here to the sun.

Anyhoo, change is coming, no matter how much you do protest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #110)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:10 AM

113. So the Model 8 & 81 are to be outlawed or not?

When doing a Thelma and Louise over a canyon you may consider this relatively ancient weapon was modified for police and civilian use so that it could accept a 15-rd mag. A detachable mag. Again, would you ban the Model 8?

Happy landing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #113)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:21 AM

116. I see what you doing

NRA tactic, problem is it no longer works.

Ain't that great?

People who I know in real life are either completely disarming, or just keeping a shotgun, not a semi automatic either.

These were, until recently, on your side. I guess being a grand father helps them too see this clearly.

I even helped one contact the local cops, he's surrendering his collection to the cops, except the shotgun.

I guess, you either get it...or you don't...sandy hook was quite likely one mass shooting too far.

I will repeat this...CHANGE IS COMING.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #116)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:19 PM

118. So, just another "NRA tactic," eh? Try a specific argument, then 'poof?'

"this...CHANGE IS COMING."

What is that change? Or is merely asking the question another "NRA tactic?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #118)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 04:35 PM

125. ask the VP of tbe US

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #125)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 11:20 AM

137. Actually, I support the universal NICS and strengthening reporting requirements.

The mag limits will be ineffective, but within reason, I have few objections. I believe most pro-2A folks feel the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #137)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 12:31 PM

138. So you are arguing just to argue?

Got it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #138)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 09:11 AM

139. Check the mirror...

I support universal NICS, but even the media (PBS last night) acknowledged that the president's executive powers could only, maybe, somewhat strengthen the reporting requirements, and not mandate compliance (commerce clause). Magazine capacity probably requires an act of Congress (to say nothing of that measure's inherent ineffectiveness).

Nadin, there is an opportunity for activism, here (if I may argue). POTUS could open NICS to all states' citizens. THEN activists could push the various legislatures to require a BG test of all gun purchases (NICS or others of their own devising), thus the ICC wouldn't be applicable. I'll bet you could get many pro-2A folks behind a state-by-state campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #88)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:16 AM

115. Now it's an "assault gun?" Pray tell, what is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #115)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 04:48 PM

130. This


Sturmgeschütz III Ausf E "Forward and at the enemy ! Assault guns are an offensive weapon and give the infantry immediate, powerful support through mobility, fire and striking power."
Sturmgeschütz Training Manual.


And it is legal to own

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #130)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 11:15 AM

136. LOL! Thanks for light moment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #55)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:40 PM

82. Earliest SCOTUS case I know which treats RKBA as an individual right is from 1857.

Admittedly, it is in dicta, and the case is the infamous Dred Scott v. Sanford. In Taney's majority opinion, which held that people of African descent could never be citizens under the Constitution, he listed a parade of horrible things that would happen if African Americans were citizens under the Constitution. Were they citizens under the Constitution, he thought, "it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dairydog91 (Reply #82)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:37 PM

89. And we both know how right Justice Tanney was

With Dredd Scott, right? Right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #55)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:41 PM

123. Exactly-- and if you're willing to ignore the "militia" part, why should anyone else accept

the assumption that "arms" means "guns"?

It obviously doesn't extend to all arms, since you can't have surface to air missiles. I'd say you have a right to a baseball bat. Or a sword. Or a very filthy looking knife. But there's no Constitutional right to a gun, per se.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sherman A1 (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:08 AM

25. But you're not advocating constructionism, you're advocating turbo-originalism.

Strict Constructionism requires the judge to apply the text as it is written, with absolutely no interpretive gloss. Constructionism would be more likely to lead to the conclusion that since the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," any law which even infringes upon the right of "the people" to keep and carry any "arms" is unconstitutional. First Amendment jurisprudence has headed towards strict constructionism, hence the reason for modern free speech cases which adopt Hugo Black's position that "Congress shall make no law" means that Congress actually can make no law abridging the freedom of speech (Many earlier Justices allowed Congress to make quite a few laws abridging abridging the freedom of speech).

What you're advocating is originalism, taken to the point of self parody. Even Scalia or Thomas would probably guffaw at the idea that a right which protected use of a technology, the technology being defined generally, only protects specific examples of that technology which date back to the time the Constitution was signed. For example, when Scalia wrote the opinion for the video-games as free speech case, he wasn't looking back to the technology of the 1700s to determine whether video games were a technology protected under the right of free speech or freedom of the press.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sherman A1 (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:09 PM

77. Misreading. 2A says "arms," not muskets. 1A says "press."

Yet you are posting here, ink-free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #77)


Response to Sherman A1 (Reply #79)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:28 PM

93. Your answers...

"Arms" were considered then and now as firearms capable of being fired in one or both hands. Be thankful for that context.

As for your tanks/missiles/fighters, etc. you CAN own them, but they are much more regulated since these do NOT fall under the context of "arms" when 2A was written. Note: "musket" does not appear in the BOR & the Articles; the much more proscriptive "press" does. Thank goodness we liberals take a much more expansive approach to "press," thank goodness (for controllers) "arms" is treated as a suitable infantry weapon for military service and not, as you suggest, a wide-open tech field awaiting the latest communicative app.

BTW, since before the Rev, Americans owned rifles in large numbers, and not merely smooth bore muskets. So that is 2 types at least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #93)


Response to Sherman A1 (Reply #105)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:12 AM

114. Glad to be of assistance!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:28 AM

3. In a correlation to Cigarettes

All Americans all possible victims of second hand bullets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rightsideout (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 07:59 AM

15. How about putting Surgeon Generals warnings on firearms too ...

 

Something in print on the actual gun to really demonstrate to people the hazards of guns:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:32 AM

28. How about making gun free zones around and in all public buildings like smoke free zones?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appleannie1 (Reply #28)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:34 AM

29. We pretty much have as far as I know (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:18 AM

67. For frack face the warning on my ammo box

Say that this product could be lethal (I hope so).

Yes, it is on the side of the box...joke fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #67)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:30 AM

72. The last chef knife I bought said "Blade is sharp; avoid contact" on the package

Even my pop-tarts say "Caution: pastry will be hot after heating". As the night follows the day...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:34 PM

80. I have a Ruger .22 handgun

in which there is a warning stamped on the receiver that reads:

BEFORE USING GUN - READ WARNINGS IN INSTRUCTION MANUAL AVAILABLE FREE FROM"

Then the name and address for Ruger Is there as well.

This is on a gun manufactured over twenty years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:58 AM

4. That is merely the NRA/RW talking point used to end discussions on a message board

Then the yapping gungeoneers circle around themselves, giving high fives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 06:54 AM

5. The primary objection is that some people don't want

 

restrictions that will end up having little/no desired effect. Why would you want restrictions on your hobby when society has literally no real benefit?

One reason that people will focus on the technical intricacies of bans is because without understanding of WHAT is actually being banned, it is very difficult to understand the actual effect on gun crime and gun culture. So all you end up with are a bunch of restrictions and red tape that law abiding citizens end up having to jump through hoops to obey, but at the end of the day, it changes nothing. People don't necessarily like limitations on their freedom and more laws to follow... and they like them even less when no social benefit is gained for the additional restrictions. For example, the old assault weapons ban (1994 AWB) certainly had alot of restrictions (that effected people who cared to obey them), but in the end it was doomed to fail in effecting actual crime rates because:

a) Assault weapons actually make up VERY little crime. Even successfully eliminating assault weapons and high capacity mags from public couldn't have decreased gun crime by more than 1-2%. Such a measure wouldn't even avert most mass shootings because most of them use handguns, non military style rifles, and shotguns.
b) The fact that a gun has a high/low capaity mag isn't nearly as beneficial to firepower as the ability to change mags in about 2 seconds. Shooting a 30 round mag in "X" seconds and shooting three 10 round mag in "X+6" seconds is effectively the same thing.


Someone with a technical understanding of how these things (semiauto rifles) work could have seen the AWB as a HUGE failure from a mile away. In short, "control" implies knowledge and technical application of that knowledge in order to manipulate. When people question the technical aspects of legislation in addition to its supporters' technical knowledge of what they want to control, it's probably a pretty good predictor of what kind of chance the legislation has of achieving its goals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Kolesar (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 07:40 AM

13. I'm sorry, but statistics and real world occurrences are not "talking points".

 

They're not even complex statistics involving any sort of trending, fitting, regressions, or extrapolations. They are FBI governemnt tallies of people killed with what kind of guns. That's not "talking points", that's just arithmetic. When people try to demonize a class of firearm that is literally responsible for about 2% of total firearm deaths and 25% of mass shooting deaths... it makes me wonder why they care so much about a gun that is is such a small part of the problem. (?) There are other more fruitful gun control efforts to pursue that won't cause nearly the political shit storm that's about to hit.

Odd how you keep calling the two FACTS below "NRA Talking Points" when neither comes from the NRA and the NRA is responsible for neither set of circumstances. You can call them talking points all you want... but they are true statistics regardless of what meme you want to throw at them. If simply jeering "talking points" every time you hear a disappointing counterargument is your idea of successful debating, I think the gun control lobby has simply become a little too complacent with getting their asses kicked all over Washington.

The FBI "talking Points" on scarcity of rifle gun crime:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20

Mother Jones "talking points" on Mass shooters firearm choice 1982-2002:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:08 AM

39. Good old games with statistics!

 

Seems like the NRA has trained some people very well.

In this case, raw numbers are meaningless. Maybe more people were killed with semiautomatic handguns, but how many were killed by each type of gun when compared to the raw numbers of guns out there? That's all that matters. And the Mother Jones graph doesn't even have the units that each column represents. Is it shooting events? Is it the number of slaughtered? What?

This "factual graph" is the equivalent of saying "there are X gun type 1s out there, and X/100 gun type 2s out there, and gun type 2 only did half the slaughter that gun type 1 did, and gun type 1 can't be banned, so we can't do anything!"

Transparent as hell, and like all NRA Talking Points, maddening.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #39)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:35 PM

81. So MJ is another NRA "talking point" promoter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #81)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:51 PM

83. LOL

 

You should probably read my post before responding to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #39)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:57 PM

99. "Games with statistics"? LOL, it's a numerical count of gun crime.

 

If you don't want a straight numerical count, then go dig up the rates of ownership by type and simply compare to the FBI stats.
The mother Jones graph is actual shooting events.

A quick google search shows some articles that touch on assault weapon ownership.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html
Add everything together, make all the necessary caveats, carry the two, and we reach the conclusion that there are somewhere around 3,750,000 AR-15-type rifles in the United States today. If there are around 310 million firearms in the USA today, that means these auto-loading assault-style rifles make up around 1 percent of the total arsenal. And keep in mind, the AR-15 is just one of the many assault weapons on the market. Overstreet estimated that more than 800,000 Ruger Mini-14 rifles—the rifle that Anders Behring Breivik used in the Oslo summer camp shootings last year—had been produced since 1974. There are other types, too. This is only the tip of the gunberg.


So 3.75M AR5s and 800k Mini-14. Based on those numbers, we can do some rough estimation on a few other popular types. AK type rifles aren't nearly as popular as ARs... probably only half as many, so lets say 1.9M AK types. Large caliber semiauto mil type rifles (FALs, Hks, .308 AR, RPK, etc.) aren't all that common compared to the others. Lets say they are 1/4 as popular as AR15s, so 950k. Sub caliber assault weapons (pistol caliber guns like the sub2000), like the large caliber assault rifles, are also pretty niche - 950k here too.
So that's about 8.35M assault style guns so far just based off common range observations and participating in several large online gun forums. There's probably a fair bit that's unrepresented here, so add in 30% or so that puts us in the 10.5 million assault weapons ballpark - almost half of which we extrapolated/estimated. This is a crude estimation, so if you can find solid figures on ownership rates by type then I would be interested in seeing those figures.

If there are over 310M firearms (referenced from the slate.com article) then assault weapons comprise about 3.4% of aggregate gun ownership. Seeing as how the FBI UCR puts deaths from ALL rifles at 3.7%, and Assault Weapons comprise only SOME of those, then it would appear that, at the worst, assault weapons about equally represented in gun homicide when considering ownership rate. Of course some of those deaths came from regular non assault rifles, so the assault style rifle is likely a bit more underrepresented than shown here.

Of course, feel free to dismiss all of this as "Talking Points"... because I'm sure you're not going to bring any better statistics so we can get a more accurate look at the situation. But by my best honest estimation along with the other available stats, military style assault rifles do not seem to account for an overrepresented portion of gun deaths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #99)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:02 PM

101. numbuz

 

> Seeing as how the FBI UCR puts deaths from ALL rifles at 3.7%, and Assault Weapons comprise only SOME of those, then it would appear that, at the worst, assault weapons about equally represented in gun homicide when considering ownership rate.

That "fact" is only true if you count a Delicate Flower who murders 1 or 2 people with a bolt-action rifle as equal to somebody who slaughters 10-20 with a semi-automatic.

As always, more games with numbers from the NRA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #101)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:10 PM

102. LOL wut? Gun deaths from semi-automatic mass shootings should somehow count more than

 

deaths from bolt action rifles?!? A gun death is a gun death. You cant be more or less dead based on how you were killed.

That doesn't even make sense. Please tell me I've mistaken your comment and please clarify.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #102)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:20 PM

104. Your stats are flawed

 

You said "deaths from ALL rifles at 3.7%"

3.7% of WHAT?

If assault rifles accounted for 3.4% of all deaths, and rifles of all types accounted for 3.7%, that would mean that assault riles accounted for about 90% of murders.

I don't think you understand the numbers you posted, or you cherry-picked them, or who knows what.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #104)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:29 PM

107. They're not my stats, they are the FBI's.

 

I provided a clear link to the FBI UCR states in my prior posts.

Deaths from all types of rifles account for 3.7 of all gun-homicides. (assault weapon homicite rate)
The 3.4% number is an approximation of assault weapons owned based on the slate.com article coupled with estimation/extrapolation of other assault weapon types. Of all guns owned by American, I estimate that 3.4% of them are assault weapons. (assault weapon ownership rate/composition).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #107)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:31 PM

108. Those numbers don't support your argument

 

Without RAW numbers (not percentages) of people killed by assault rifles and the number of assault rifle incidents, vs the same stats for guns and rifles in general you can't make any of the conclusions you did in your original post.

Like I said, more NRA games with numbuz.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #108)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:10 PM

111. There are no raw numbers of assault weapon crime, just rifle crime.

 

And there is no exact count of assault weapons in circulation.

All we do actually know is that military style rifles must account for somewhere less than 3.7% because the FBI tracks fewer than 3.7% of gun homicides as rifle homicides (military style assault rifles fall under that category).

Congressional studies can give an accurate figure for total weapons at around 310 million. Unfortunately, all we have to go on for assault weapon ownership is statistical sampling and extrapolation of a very limited dataset. Slate.com outlined available data on the topic and came up with about 4.55 million AR15 and Mini-14 rifles... although this ignores the dozens of other kinds of assault rifles out there too (AKs, subcaliber, FAL, etc). Nevertheless, you could safely say there's probably AT LEAST 5 million semiauto military style rifles out there. Do you agree with that as a reasonable estimate, or do you think the number is higher/lower? Honestly, I think it's alot higher than 5mil due to that figure ignoring many other of the types of assault weapons. Moving on...

So the worst case scenario for Assault Weapons (conversely, the best argument for their restriction) would be where the least amount of them cause the most death. That is the case where they will be most likely to produce a disproportionate amount of homicide relative to their presence. In this case, that would be the scenario where they account for ALL of the rifle-attributed 3.7% of FBI gun-homicide (obviously not the case, but let's just pretend ALL rifle death is cause by assault style rifles). So if we ignore the fact that a 5mil assault-style weapons figure may only account for two particular rifles - that's a minimum ownership composition of about 1.6% (out of a total of 310 million guns).
So the WORST case scenario painting assault style rifles as unnecessarily dangerous are that 1.6% of the total guns out there (assault weapons) could be responsible for 3.7% of the total gun deaths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 07:10 AM

8. thank you

CT already has one of the toughest laws on the books and it still happened. everything was legal. For all we know the weapons were safely secured in a gun safe and the son broke into it or learned the combination. I would like a biometric lock to prevent this. What kind of drugs was he on or not on? Most people that own guns that I know have no problems for background checks and the closing of the wrongly named gun show loophole. Banning high capacity mags, fine. My AR was designed for 20 rounders and I do not like the long magazines anyway. The reason I like the AR platform is I can just change the upper receiver and have another weapon. 10 round magazines, pain when I am target shooting but I have some 20 round magazines on back order now. Do not think that would help. Waiting period OK. limit number of purchases per month OK, but all of this still would not have prevented these from happening. Health care would have been the best possible prevention that would have helped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 07:16 AM

10. unsupportable comment

but all of this still would not have prevented these from happening
--
I also see the "mental health care" deflection.

I didn't need a magazine when I was on the rifle team. That's target shooting , btw. We used bolt action 22s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:36 AM

20. I also have bolt action rifles

mental health needs to be part of the solution. I think this would help more.

Just one question

define assault weapon? that way I will know how to respond to the proposed ban

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #20)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:35 AM

43. "a) Assault weapons actually make up VERY little crime"=NRA-deflection

Can't you chair occupants find something else to do with your time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #43)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:46 AM

48. Why is it a deflection to point that out?

Long guns are almost never used in crimes. Are there other subjects where you don't like to use data, or is it just guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #48)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:53 AM

54. Stop with facts we are talking guns!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:42 AM

22. Sounds like a repeal of the 2nd Amendment and a complete ban on all guns is what we need.

What petition can I sign to support this? I am in full favor of the repeal and a total ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:27 AM

27. Well, here's a petition for that

http://www.petition2congress.com/7389/repeal-2nd-amendment-to-constitution/

Congress would have to pass the amendment and then be ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures.

Out of curiosity, how much of a reduction in the number of guns out there do you think a ban would bring about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #27)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:00 AM

37. LOL

 

> how much of a reduction in the number of guns out there do you think a ban would bring about?

NRA Talking Point Alert! NRA Talking Point Alert! NRA Talking Point Alert! NRA Talking Point Alert!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #37)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:44 AM

47. So, tell me? How much?

I haven't seen any studies about that and I'm curious what people think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #47)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:56 AM

57. The Talking Point

 

is "we can't ban guns because nobody would follow the law". Yours is a variant - the interrogative form.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #57)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:57 AM

59. So, tell me, what do you think the compliance rate would be?

I have no data, but I'd guess about 75%, which is 25% higher than the compliance with the marijuana ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #27)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:24 AM

41. Once we start tacking on 5-20 year prison terms for gun possession, ownership rates will drop.

I don't expect any immediate or overnight solutions or results. We need to start somewhere and be patient. We must change minds no matter how long it takes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #41)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:43 AM

46. Do you think fewer people do meth now than would if it were legal?

I don't

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:24 PM

92. Twenty some kids might disagree with you.

 

a) Assault weapons actually make up VERY little crime.


Why would any civilian need an assault weapon. Or even a civilian knockoff of a military weapon?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #92)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:39 PM

96. I'm sure alot more than just 20 kids disagree with me.

 

However, the facts of reality rely very little on the mere opinions people. Facts are facts.

EDIT: changed title to more accurately address the emotional-appeal logical fallacy being tossed my way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #96)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:46 PM

97. Maybe I should have said dead first graders.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #97)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:00 PM

100. So what's worse, "NRA Talking Points" or "Logical Fallacies" (ie: emotional appeal)

 

Facts are still facts, even when they're sad facts.

EDIT: So then I guess I'll go ahead and edit my previous post to accurately address the intent prior post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 07:00 AM

7. Sorry but being an idiot doesn't prevent you from getting a gun.

 

You can be an idiot and have kids too which is even more of a travesty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:01 PM

117. you're the expert!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 07:16 AM

9. We all do. But unless laws are passed that would actually accomplish that goal,

we are just wasting time and money. Those that argue about definitions and nomenclature will tell you exactly what has to be done.

We hear the 1994 AWB was ineffective? Expand it...greatly.
We hear that AW aren't the real issue? Target the guns that are too.
We hear that mag capacity isn't the issue? Make guns without fixed mags/capacity illegal.
We hear about the millions already out there? Make them contraband.
We hear that criminals get their guns illegally? Registration and background checks on every tranfer.
We hear how many won't obey the laws? Make the penalties severe and mandatory.
We know the dangers from gangs, repeat offenders and drug issues? Crack down on those elements too.

You will never be able to legislate against idiots, but you can certainly substantilly reduce the number of guns available to them, by starting to remove the most dangerous weapons from society.

All it takes is the decided sense of the public, and the will to get it done.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 07:18 AM

11. Expect the gunboarders to act like you never posted that comprehensive summary...eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:41 AM

21. ok

-We hear the 1994 AWB was ineffective? Expand it...greatly

how, ban all semi automatic rifles?

-We hear that mag capacity isn't the issue? Make guns without fixed mags/capacity illegal.

that would affect a lot of weapons, but more power to you if you can get that passed

-We hear about the millions already out there? Make them contraband.

take them from me and pay me

-We hear that criminals get their guns illegally? Registration and background checks on every transfer.
-We hear how many won't obey the laws? Make the penalties severe and mandatory.
-We know the dangers from gangs, repeat offenders and drug issues? Crack down on those elements too.

agree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:52 AM

24. More detail...

how, ban all semi automatic rifles?

see below...

Make guns without fixed mags/capacity illegal.

that would affect a lot of weapons, but more power to you if you can get that passed

Yes - yes it would. And especially those deemed most dangerous that a compelling interest shows should be removed. Power wouldn't be to me, power is to, & from, those who consent to be governed.

take them from me and pay me

No problem...make the guns illegal to possess, then offer fair market value, or tax credits. Offer such buy-backs during the grace period. After that? Criminals don't get re-imbursed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 07:59 AM

16. Because our last major Federal gun control law was completely pointless, because of definitions

Seriously. The 1994 AWB was an absolute disaster that nobody who understands what it did supports. We're trying to avoid repeating that mistake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:06 AM

17. the tone of this OP really makes me want to answer

oh,wait...no it doesn't

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:44 AM

23. Pro-Gun Activists Are Attempting To Control The Vocabulary.....

....and thus control the issue. This has been going on for way too long.

And I say that as a gun owner and former gun enthusiast, somebody who actually knows something about the terminology. Don't be fooled by any of this; in virtually all instances, a full mastery of gun esoterica means exactly dick with regard to supporting and articulating meaningful limitations on gun trafficking and gun-related damage. This is an online discussion site, for Chrissakes, it's not a Senate markup session. Gun control advocates, make your arguments without fear of using "clip" instead of "magazine"; I promise you, the two terms have been interchangeable for decades, regardless of what our resident Gun Enthusiasts say to the contrary.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:01 AM

61. Everyone on every side of every debate does the same thing

 

Thus we now have the latest euphemism "gun violence prevention" or whatever the prohibitionists are calling it now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #61)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:54 PM

84. Widely Used Debate Technique, No Doubt. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:26 AM

26. The answer is that statutes must be reasonably related to their goals to be Constitutional.

 

Just as some were willing to disregard the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack but they were willing to support a war against Iraq, there are those who are willing to advocate for statutes which are unrelated to their intended goals.

The use of words by anti-gun advocates which are unrelated to their intended goals illustrates this.

There are many examples of this. One of the easiest to understand is the misuse of the word "clips." If a goal of an anti-gun advocate is to restrict the number of rounds carried in a magazine, any proposed legislation should be directed towards that. However, when an anti-gun advocate seeks to ban "high-capacity clips" or "assault clips," they are showing that they have no interest in limiting their anti-gun advocacy to things that are related to their goals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:44 AM

32. THAT's the one you pick?? Clips vs mags???

(b) DEFINITION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 110102(b), is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(31) The term `large capacity ammunition feeding device'--

`(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but

`(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.'.



Seems that is one they got right. They included clips AND magazines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:41 AM

44. The word "clip" doesn't appear in that definition ....

 

How can you say they included clips AND magazines? (And a "feed strip" is not necessarily a "clip". There are clips that are not feed strips.) That definition fails to do what you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippie (Reply #44)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:52 AM

53. It certainly didn't fail to do what they wanted it to do...ban hi capacity mags.

Of course it didn't go far enough cause it did little/nothing about the millions already in circulation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:17 PM

103. It was amended by the BATFE to exclude tubular magazines

in lever action rifles. Including centerfires.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:43 AM

30. In my neck of PA people sell guns at yard sales. It amazes me how easy it is in

this country for some nut or criminal to get their hands on a gun. Yet if someone suggests even a tiny regulation or restriction people scream to high heaven. Do we have to wait until every family in America has a loved one affected by gun violence before we are willing to do something about it? By then, it will be too late.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:43 AM

31. There should be a multifaceted solution to the problem of mass shootings.

Mental health has been put on the back burner for years, too much negative opinions which should nit be happening. Video games and movies featuring blood and guts apparently is not in the best interest of some people. Perhaps the good old cowboy shoot outs may nit be good either. The bottom line is in the end there are weapons which have large capacities available to be used in the mass killings. It does not just happen in schools, it is occurring everywhere. It is time to stop the insanity, weapons can and need to be regulated even to having to allow inspections of security the weapons are kept. Mental evaluations should be required of owners to be licensed yearly and liability required. The ones who does not want these restrictions needs to be a list which does not allow them to possess weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:55 AM

33. Alaskan State Troopers: disturbing scene

Flipping channels Monday night looking for some kind of television show that doesn’t insult your intelligence. Okay, we have Honey Boo Boo, Duck Dynasty, Mudcats, Moonshiners, Ax Men, Cajun Pawn Stars and finally found the least of the worst: Alaskan State Troopers. Real Alaskan Troopers protecting the citizens of Alaska. Started out pretty mundane: Trooper A breaks up a fight between two drunks over a pint. Trooper B checks out a empty house where teenagers broke in to have a party. Trooper C serves a warrant on a driver with multiple DUI’s. But then Trooper D pulls over a pick up truck driving erratically. He approaches the driver and then this happens:
Trooper: Sir you were driving erratically, have you been drinking any alcohol?
Driver: No, my truck has been giving me trouble and I’m on the way to have it fixed.
Trooper: So you have any weapons on you?
Driver: Yes, I do. I have a 22 pistol and an AK-47 assault rifle. I am a convicted felon but I have the right to own this weapon.
Said trooper then asked the driver to hand over the guns so he could check them. He takes them back to his squad car and the AK is fully loaded with a round in the chamber. He calls in to see if the driver had a record. Yes, he is a convicted felon, his conviction: assault of a police officer. And what does Trooper do? He gives the assault weapon and the pistol back to the driver and tells him to have a good day and what a nice weapon he has. How is this possible? Is Alaska exempt from any gun laws at all? I thought a felony was just that a felony not a states rights issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to koiwoman53 (Reply #33)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:14 PM

87. Police and prosecutors have discretion.

The driver was probably in violation of federal law, but police usually have some discretion to choose not to arrest someone. Passing a law which says "It is illegal to do X" is not the same as a law which says "Any police officer who sees someone doing X MUST attempt an arrest."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to koiwoman53 (Reply #33)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:19 PM

135. AK gun laws

 

Most of the gun laws in AK are limited to Fedeeal restrictions. Concealed carry is universally legal. The Municipality of Anchorage does issue permits but they are 100% voluntary. Some years ago the state Supreme court cut down a law requiring permits. Loaded firearms in a car are legal. The felony issue is interesting. As far as I know felons are prohibited by Federal law from owning firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:55 AM

34. I posted on this subject last year

 

Including a data point showing that gun-nut terminology changes ANYWAY.

The "you can't talk about gun control unless you know the Rambo Super X-443x Mega-Killer shoots 2.3% faster than the DieHard Y-443p Super-Killer gun!" crap is just a diversion. Another NRA Talking Point designed to keep gun control under wraps, and gun sales high.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022081819

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:56 AM

36. My objection is the potential for "control" leading to the unjust taking of property

 

First, I have no problem with requiring background checks on all transfers of modern firearms. I think it's great that we have a system that requires checks on all original buyers of new firearms, i.e. the Brady Act and the National Instant Check System (NICS) in spite of its flaws. Obviously there is room for improvement, particularly in the prompt reporting to the federal government of ALL events that disqualify a person from owning a firearm, including mental incompetence adjudications and involuntary commitments.

That said, please let it sink in for a moment and calm down. Again, I am in favor of background checks on all transfers of modern firearms.

The BIGGEST weakness in the present system is that THERE IS NO WAY in most states for individuals who have used firearms to sell, to check the background of a prospective buyer. Some states like California require sales to be done through federally licensed dealers, but MOST do not and except for three states there is no provision for a sale to voluntarily be done through a dealer, i.e. with a background check.

NICS is not available for use by non-licensees. I have a type 03 Federal Firearms License (Collector of Curios and Relics) and even I can't use it. It's for dealers (type 01 FFL) only by federal law. THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE, and I think that is the best opportunity to improve "gun safety" or "prevent gun violence" or whatever the current euphemism is.

OK?

I am dead-set AGAINST permits because permit lists can be misused. One way that can happen is what recently happened in two counties in New York, which released wholesale lists of pistol permit holders to a White Plains newspaper called the Journal News. Because that can happen, I cannot trust any government body to keep confidential the names and addresses of permit holders.

Another form of permitting is "registration." In 2000 and 2001 the state of California flubbed up registration of a certain type of rifle, which led to a court case and a cluster operation that ended in the state ordering people who had in good faith registered their rifles, to either dispose of them or surrender them to the state. The state never followed through because there would have been a big mess in court considering that the people who got the confiscation letters also had letters from the state telling them their rifles were lawfully registered, but obviously the potential is there.

As for further limits on the types of firearms that are available, I'll simply say that the line was drawn correctly in 1934 with the National Firearms Act and that there is no reason to change it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:01 AM

38. It is a deliberate strategy to discredit

arguments for firearms regulations. It's not just a coincidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:13 AM

40. It's called "baffle them with bullshit"

Spew out a bunch of data that doesn't mean anything to anyone but them so people just leave the conversation because they don't know the definition of clip or magazine or whatever.

But particularly keep people from talking about any limits, about whether private sales should be allowed or whether all sales should go through a licensed dealer in some way, etc. Keep bringing the conversation back to bullshit to baffle with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:26 AM

42. Because precise language is critical for effective laws

the drafters of the first AWB are the classic example - they wanted exactly what you wanted. They failed miserably because they didn't understand guns.

How will you know if a law is effective or nor unless you understand exactly what it says and you are able to see the loopholes?

Emotion never trumps ignorance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #42)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:18 AM

66. And I Repeat What I Said, Up-Thread:


This is an online discussion site, not a Senate markup session. The precise language that pro-gun activists are demanding here is an obfuscation and deflection maneuver---high school debate team-level stuff. A deranged individual uses an AR-15 rifle to turn an elementary school into a slaughterhouse, and as usual, our resident Gun Activists get bent out of shape because initial news reports didn't get the description of the firearm exactly right. Think what that says about your values and priorities.....


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #66)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:35 PM

95. ok. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #95)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:47 PM

98. Nice To Find Agreement With You. Honestly. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #98)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:13 PM

112. Not agreement. Weariness is more accurate.

Last edited Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:29 PM - Edit history (1)

I am tired of everyone talking past each other. The discussion has become pointless - just different groups of democrats bashing each other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #112)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:27 PM

119. My Mistake. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #119)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:28 PM

120. No big deal. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:49 AM

50. It's a distraction tactic

It's important when writing law that those doing it concentrate on the inner workings of the firing mechanism. (I told as much to my former congresswoman, redistricting). I told her to stay away from scary features and concentrate on the firing mechanism. This gets away from the discussion you are talking about, this is not friendly to the NRA.

If you are not writing policy, where it does matter, they are trying to get you distracted and prevent regulations in a whole slew of weapons, some of which don't look scary at all. Since some of them, unlike the scary ones, really are not modular and are used in hunting, and in a few cases have a real hard limit on how much ammo they can carry...sure...it's a weapon I would have no issue used in hunting.

But the true scary, highly adaptable, detachable magazine...unless we can come with mechanical solutions...they don't belong in civilian hands.

But the short of it...they are trying to distract, you "ignorant gun grabby fool" and it is an NRA tactic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:09 AM

64. The tricky part is drawing the line

If you declare that you want to ban some guns but not all guns, then you have to draw a line somewhere and say these guns are legal and those guns are not. It's harder than it sounds. If you want to tell people you just want to get the "death spewers" (not an industry term) off the street, you have to define what one is, and definitions must be precise. If you define it too narrowly, you get an ineffective law (ala 1994 AWB). If you define it too broadly, you piss off a lot of people for banning ordinary guns, and maybe run into a constitutional problem.

The anti-gunners trying to define an assault weapon are even clumsier than the pro-lifers trying to define a partial birth abortion. They don't know what it is but they know they want it BANNED!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:21 AM

69. Theology is out of place at revival meetings. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:57 PM

85. It's what Gungeoneeers do best

If you don't know every little detail about their precious semi-automatic weapons, if you slip up just the slightest when discussing various guns - they're quick to jump all over you and claim you don't know what you're talking about.

They're more worried about keeping their death dealers than they are in protecting American lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:08 PM

86. I should probably skip this

but I'll try

Frankly, i could give a whit. I want to see fewer guns in the hands of idiots and psychotics.
Excellent- I believe that is the goal of 99.9% of the population- maybe slightly less if all idiots are counted

Frankly, i could give a whit. I want to see fewer guns in the hands of idiots and psychotics and if that infringes on someone's ability to go plinking or shooting paper targets so be it.
Problem- would you say such about other rights? Example, government can regulate what churches preach and if it pisses off Westburough, so be it. We have to consider unintended consequences.

Back to the goal
centered about definitions and nomenclature regarding guns
When we choose to regulate something we must define how it is regulated in consistent, easy to understand fashion. Example, we have speed limits. We could say 'don't go too fast'. It is too vague and means too many things to too many people. We could say a vehicle with 15" tire must have an RPM no more than 2000. Way too technical and motor heads would tell you that would not have anything to do with speed for a variety of reasons. This was the old AWB.

We regulate speed in MPH. Simple to measure, easy to post roads, everyone can understand it. You need to know nothing about a car except how to read one gauge. This is why nomenclature becomes important. Not everyone needs to know every little detail about every model of gun, but it must be clear and understandable to those who use/sell guns and those who enforce the laws what is legal and what is not.
Then we must have a system of punishments, because as with speeding there will be those who choose to disobey. Depending on what restriction is violated, it could be fines, forfeiture or jail time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:27 PM

106. If you can't define what you are legislating...

 

... you shouldn't be legislating it.

Makes for bad law...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:37 PM

109. Perhaps because you can't ban something you cannot define? Duh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #109)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:11 PM

133. I think it is important to distinguish a couple of things here.

I am pretty far to the left on gun control/bans. However, I am not who will be considering/writing the upcoming legislation on guns. I won't be testifying in committee hearings on the Hill. People who know a lot about guns will be doing the testifying and staffs of lawmakers will have assistance in drafting these bills.

So the definition of which you speak will be forthcoming. I have no doubt about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 04:40 PM

126. I want to be able to go where I want in this town without the chance of being caught between

competing fantasies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 04:43 PM

127. It comes down to one thing for me:

What's more important--life or guns? There are other rights besides the Second Amendment rights. One of them is life. Without life, there is no need for any other rights. The right to life is supreme.

I have no issue with some people having guns. Law enforcement, those with jobs that put them at risk, such as security guards, armored car guards, etc., but that's pretty much where I draw the line.

I don't need or want to know all the nuances about guns. As for hobbyists, I think they should find something less destructive to play with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 04:44 PM

128. Most of the gunner memes are distractions.

Only criminals do bad things with guns not law abiding citizens.
I need an AR-15 for hunting or target practice.
Gun violence is on the decrease
Man shoots intruder
Man in church or restaurant stops gun toting crimnal
No gun laws work
People were killed in the state with the strictest gun laws
Pro RKBA is a liberal value
Cops can't protect you.
On and on

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 04:47 PM

129. it's a common internet board trick to insert minutia instead of the big picture

 

it matters little what the weapon is called or if it is or isn't

a gun and a bullet

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 04:55 PM

131. Because without precise terminology

the issue is not clear. I don't think you are correct in your supposition anyway. I think the main issue of gun control is that the proposals being made either have failed in the past or are perceived to be ineffective in the future.

There are many misconceptions about guns out there. Here are a couple:

Assault weapons are commonly used in crime. Rifles of all kinds are used in fewer than 4% of gun crimes.

Most guns used in crime are stolen from people who own them legally. Only 10 to 15% of guns used in crimes are obtained in this manner.

I think some new legislation on gun control will be passed. I also believe it will have little effect on crime rates.

I think stiffer penalties should be assessed for all crimes in which guns are used. That includes long prison terms for straw purchases.

There was an unintened consequence from the last federal AWB. Prior to the '94 - '04 law there were not that many so-called assault weapons in general circulation. The supply was reduced, (tempoararily, new assault weapons that were legal were sold during the ban) and the demand skyrocketed. Now, there are so many AR-15s (and AR-15 clones) that a ban will not be too effective. The political shitstorm that is predicted if mandatory gun buyback laws are passed might be enough to keep them from being discussed, let alone passed. (I am sure the gun manufacturers would welcome such discussion, it's good for sales).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 04:59 PM

132. K&R nt



nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:12 PM

134. The Constutional Issue

 

My perception is that the MAIN issue is the constitutional issue. It was largely undiscussed until SCOTUS took up Heller. Since Heller various cases have come before the courts, and many gun control measures have fallen. We recently heard about the measures being proposed in IL, even has Chicago is faced with rewriting its laws because a Federal judge decided they were unconstitutional. The proposed measures in IL lost steam, and my suspicion is that the party didn't deam the expenditure of political capital worth pressing laws that would likely fail in court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 10:20 AM

141. There is no reason to believe draconian regulations on guns will decrease the levels of violence

We currently live in the most peaceful era in history (including before guns were invented).

Also, there are many places in the world with draconian gun control and pandemic rates of violent crime. There is no reason to believe that draconian gun laws will reduce violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 10:58 AM

142. Human nature

 

Guns are used every day to deter crime. Often the mere possibility or sight of a gun is enough to deter a would be criminal. Criminals hate victims that can fight back.

Timothy McVeigh murdered 300 people. He did not use a gun. All of the materials he used are still available for sale.

Al Qaeda murdered over 3000 people in a single day. The only weapons they had were box cutter knives.

The single worst school massacre in US history was committed using a bomb.

There was an incident in China a few days prior to the Sandy Hook Massacre in China. That guy did about the same damage while wielding only a knife.

The Red Sticks of the Muscogee Creek indians massacred Fort Mims without using a firearm.

In an enclosed space, like a classroom, any weapon is really just about as good as any other.

It isn't the weapon. The weapon could be a knife, a baseball bat, a sword, a bomb, a gun, or a large pointy stick the list is quite endless. The best tool in the world is of no consequence, it is the person wielding it that we need to worry about. The person is the real weapon, and a truly dangerous person is dangerous so long as they are still conscious and can still move a hand.

Personally, I think some of the video games and SSRI drugs combine to be the largest part of the problem. In the 1960s, the US Military changed rifle training to pop up human shaped targets which resulted in more soldiers firing at their human shaped enemies in combat, video games do almost the same thing but repeat it over and over and over again with no real safeties. The side effects of SSRI drugs are known to cause psychotic and sociopathic behavior. Combine these two items and you have a potentially deadly cocktail. It won't effect every single person that takes these medicines and plays video games, but it will effect some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread