Impact of Assault Weapons Ban - Illustration-

world will we ever be able stop gun violence if don't allow the NRA/Gungeoneers to "Name This Killing Machine?"

Here is a definition from a gun dealer that pretty much sums it up:

AR 15 Assault Rifles For Sale At ProGuns.com

The AR 15 can serve many functions, from military use to home security to hunting wild game. The most popular of the assault rifles, the AR 15 is perfect for any gun enthusiast looking for a well-rounded firearm.

http://www.proguns.com/assaultrifles.asp

I guess the NRA and the Gungeon dwellers will just have to take this dealer out behind the barn and deal with him for not following the script.

Or is it just a marketing gimmick to draw in the "cold dead hands" crowd?

is that military style semi-automatic weapons were still being sold during the AWB. The manufacturers merely made minor cosmetic changes to their weapons.

California presently has a stricter AWB than the 1994 AWB - this gun is legal right now in California:



http://www.coltsmfg.com/Catalog/ColtRifles/ColtCaliforniaCompliantRifles.aspx


Connecticut has an AWB - the weapon used at Newtown was legal. It was not legally an assault weapon.

As usual.

then just how did the AWB have an impact on mass shootings?

Manufacturing of rifles actually peaked in 1999:

You could buy the exact same rifles, minus a few ancillary widgets. Since widgets like telescoping stocks, bayonets, or flash suppressors never played much role in a weapon's effectiveness for a mass shooting, the weapons retained the same capabilities. If you wanted a knockoff of the military's M-16 assault rifle, you could still buy one under the ban. Lanza's own AR-15 (one such knockoff) was purchased under CT's Assault Weapons Ban, which already prevented the sale of any weapon which met the same definition of "assault weapon" used by the federal ban. His mother was able to buy it precisely because it WAS NOT an "assault weapon."

In short, trying to claim that an impotent law "caused" changes in crime rates isn't a credible argument.

so the fallacy in your argument is that the ban had no effect when there is no doubt that it did

there was nothing stopping people from buying weapons - AWB compliant military style semi-automatic rifles were in the stores before the ban was even in place.

Manufacturing of rifles actually peaked in 1999:

The high-cap magazines couldn't be manufactured or imported, but could still be sold, and were.

Military-style rifles weren't terribly popular before the ban, but immediately became very popular and are now the most commonly-sold type of rifle. Back then it was guns that look like the AK-47, but the AR-15 passed them as shooters realized it's a very good lightweight low-power rifle.

Remember, the definition of an "assault weapon" is a semi-automatic gun fed from a detachable magazine, that ALSO had more than a certain amount of secondary features.

For rifles such as an AR-15, it could have a pistol grip, or a bayonet mounting lug, but not both.

There were similar restrictions for shotguns and pistols.




The companies that made magazines went into overtime production and made as many regular-capacity magazines as they could before September 14th, 1994. Once the ban was in place, they could still legally sell the brand-new regular magazines that they had made prior to the start of the ban. Just at a premium price.


And of course, used pre-ban magazines could still be bought and sold.

Turns out that California's laws define an "assault weapon" as a rifle that has a detachable magazine, and one of the following features including a pistol grip, collapsible stock, flash suppressor, grenade launcher, or forward pistol grip. Since the above-pictured rifle has three of those features, if it had a detachable magazine, it'd be an illegal assault weapon.

This particular rifle probably has a device called a California Compliant Magazine release. It doesn't have a simple button you can press to eject the magazine. The magazine release is something that you have to insert a tool like a screwdriver into in order to activate it.

Actually not a bad concept - makes reloading MUUUUUUUCH slower, turning the lethality knob down a tad.

Because my PERSONAL definition of an "assault weapon" is fuzzy, but is directly related to the raw number of bullets it can fire in a specific time period, say 15 seconds. 30 bullets in 15 seconds is too many. 10 is an OK compromise. So if in California law, magazines that hold more than ten bullets are banned, and evil-baby-killing-looking rifles have to have a widget built into them that makes reloading a pain and slows it down a lot, then I'm a lot happier.

Under California law, the gun cannot be shorter then a certain length - this stock does not fully collapse to ensure that length is maintained.

That is not a flash suppressor - it is a muzzle compensator. It is designed to port gases in a specific direction to reduce recoil.

The "tool" used to release the magazine is the tip of a bullet - with a little practice it takes hardly any time at all. And with a $20 kit one can restore the gun to a standard magazine release when you move out of California.

http://www.calegalmags.com/-Standard-AR-15-Magazine-Release-Button-Magazine-Catch-Spring-Not-CA-Compliant_p_512.html

My point is it is a poorly written law that does nothing for public safety. Like the AWB being proposed in Congress.

Why bother doing anything at all about speeding? After all, all you have to do to is step on the gas a little more... That's right, because breaking a law is easy, that means there shouldn't be any law at all!

my only point is that the AWB did not do what people think it did and that military style semi-automatic rifles were on sale for the entire ten years. That's all.

should cause a critical thinker to want to learn more before coming to any conclusions.

body counts?

Or criminals engineering more effective rampages, i.e. Holmes choosing a confined movie theater.

I'm sure there are many variables glossed over if they do not support a particular narrative.

... video games and movies do!

mass shooting = four or more deaths. The Va Tech shooter used two handguns for example.

Here is a link to mass murders in 2005 - from there you can get to every subsequent year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mass_murder_in_2005

Look at the US mass shootings listed - most are handguns.

And finally - CT has a very strict AWB. The gun used in Newtown was perfectly legal - it was not an assault weapon.

The only thing we are talking about are the mass shootings, which the corporate media loves to cover for days on end.

But an extremely unlikely event is being used as an excuse for extremely drastic legislation in an attempt to affect these extremely rare events, while doing nothing to change the common events that are the bulk of murders.

This is feeling more and more like post 9/11 BushCo politics every day.

http://www.ojp.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/2011/BJS_PR-111611.pdf

And it is as I suspected, the worst of the problem when it comes to gun violence is handguns.

The discussions on DU & Media are centered around mass shootings using assault weapons which are a very, very small fraction of homicides.

There is so much more involved in fixing America's violent culture.

And don't anyone dare label me as "pro-assaut weapon" because I am not.

I just loathe the inability of so many DU'ers to dig deep and really look at this issue.

I was pointing out that 55% of statistics quoted in the gun regulation debate are cherry-picked; the remaining 45% are made up.

Really REALLY want to dig deeper. What is going on. Personally, I think a huge chunk of the problem is America's Institutionalized violence like poverty, lack of social services and a broken welfare state (I don't use the word welfare as a pejorative).

Semi auto hand guns 68
ALL other categories of guns combined 74.

Seems to me the biggest impact would be in the semi auto hand gun category.

It just seems sexier somehow to be always talking about/blaming/showing 'assault rifles'; on both sides of the argument(s).

Or so it would seem.

I bet if we have an absolute ban on the AR-15, the rate of homicide by handgun will probably remain unchanged.

And our country's population is about 20% higher than in the mid-1980's, so if the absolute number of gun-related homicides remains steady while the population increases, I call that progress, because the per-capita declines by 17%.


The bulk of violent crimes comes from poverty and drug-gang activities. If you mapped out on Google Maps every single homicide in the country, there would be clusters. If you are not in or around a cluster, then your homicide rate is pretty damn low, probably approaching the European levels we compare ourselves to.

We have to stop the War on Drug, and we have to return to some kind of economic sanity. We need to cut our prison population by about 2/3rds, we need better schools, we need unions, we need to tax the rich to keep them from distorting our economy and our representative government, we need USP health insurance, we need to get out of the WTO and NAFTA, we need to break up the corporate monopolies and oligarchies, and we need cheap college.

Really?

Also, if the bulk of violent crimes comes from gang activity, are they just really bad at it? Because they represent at most 6% of homicides, per DOJ.

The US population in 2008 is about 6/5ths that of 1985 or so... an increase of 1/5th or 20%.


According to the article you quoted, "Despite the recent decline, the number of gun homicides committed by teens and young adults in 2008 remained similar to the counts of the mid-1980s."

If the absolute number of teen/young adult gun homicides is consistent year to year, then when the population increases to 6/5ths of 1985, the per-capita rate of such an occurrence drops to the inverse of 6/5ths...

That's 5/6ths of the 1985 per-capita rate, or a 17% drop.


That's what I was referring to.

In 1991 there were 24,703 murder and non-negligent manslaughter deaths. In 2010 there were 14,748.

In 1991 the violent crime rate was 758.2 per 100,000. It is now 403.6

Every category of violent crime has seen significant drops since 199.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

By every objective measure America has become a significantly safer place in the past 30 years.

Deadliest shooting incident by a single gunman in U.S. history.

No "assault weapons" involved, just two handguns with standard (not high-capacity) magazines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

Banning "assault weapons" will solve nothing.

yup

The AWB banned over 10 rounds.

It's basically "the number of rounds that fit in the grip". The '94 ban was over 10, and last time I checked that's what the proposed ban does too.

According to your link.

It really doesn't take much practice to get speed-reloading down to a fine art, especially with those short standard-capacity magazines.

Part of the reason Loughner fumbled with his magazine in Tucson was because it was a clumsy extended magazine which don't fit easily in the pocket or hand.

In that sense, his extended magazine may have actually saved lives by giving people an opportunity to pounce on him, whereas he may have had no malfunction at all if he was speed-reloading standard-sized mags.

1. The argument that this was not a high capacity magazine is refuted. Period.

2. Several mass shooters were stopped while reloading.

3. "Change in seconds"

http://www.parentsagainstgunviolence.com/writing-better-magazine-ban-legislation/#more-170

"Opponents of the high-capacity magazine ban will point out that smaller capacity magazines can be rapidly exchanged, and will argue that such a ban will not slow or hinder a mass shooter. Online videos show expert shooters removing an empty magazine and replacing it with a fully loaded magazine with dazzling speed. Let’s remember, though, that these videos are impressive precisely because the reloading skills depicted are remarkably rare—it takes years of practice to achieve such proficiency, and the perpetrators of most mass shootings are young men with limited experience. There are cowboy trick shooters who can operate a single-action revolver or lever-action rifle with astonishing speed—but Annie Oakley doesn’t fit the profile of a mass shooter. We’re not seeking laws to stop Wild Bill; we’re seeking laws to stop Jared Loughner."


4. There is a strong correlation between fatalities in mass shootings and fatalities.

Seems most of the shooters only stopped when confronted by someone else with a gun, at which point most of them took the coward's way out (suicide).

http://www.parentsagainstgunviolence.com/writing-better-magazine-ban-legislation/#more-170

The 1993 LIRR shooting perpetrated by Colin Ferguson
The 1998 school shooting perpetrated by Kipland Kinkel
The 2011 Tucson shooting perpetrated by Jared Loughner.

Note that this does NOT count shooting incidents that were not categorized as "mass shooting" because the shooter was stopped before killing at least four people. One example not included in those stats is the Knoxville Church shooting in 2008 (2 fatalities):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_Unitarian_Universalist_church_shooting

The Aurora shooter's 100-round magazine jammed and was not used.



That means the higher body count is not related to the size of the highest capacity magazine present.

First - the drum didn't jam until he had fired around 30 rounds, not sure how many rounds were in the shotgun or Glock

Second even if you adjust the chart for 30 for that one incident, the correlation is still very significant for this and the other mass shootings.

Hey. Duh. More bullets = more death.

Edit Update: Glock 22 aparently has a 15 rounds magazine.

1) Banning assault weapons will solve the presumably minuscule number of assault weapons killing problem.

2) No one has advocated for banning anything. Legislation that is being proposed include requiring owners to be more responsible for their guns, including, possibly, liability insurance, frequent training, lock gun storage cases, and other requirements for responsibility. There has been no proposals for banning the sale of any particular sort of gun, AFAIK.

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

But I don't think its going anywhere in this Congress.

If Biden's Task Force came up with some of your safety recommendations though, that would be a step in the right direction, and might actually have a chance of passage.

on number two, numerous members here are in favor of bans and legislation has is already being proposed to ban cosmetic features of weapons and weapons by name. AKA the new and improved assault weapons ban. I think you are wrong there.

task force headed by Joe Biden.

teeth in the "registration, re-registration, background check" areas. Higher penalties, as well.

I agree that these are far more likely to occur, and far less likely to be fall under the initial justification for colonial muskets in 2nd Amendment interpretations.

All weapons must be registered, or subject to confiscation along with other legal penalties.

Not only have I given up on banning weapons, but also in the public leadership currently available to "control" these weapons. Just bring them out in the legal light of day and charge owners for the responsibility of owning them, should they be used inappropriately.

I see you admire the skill set more than you mourn the loss of life.
Too bad he can't offer classes to his admirers.

I try to stay out of these gun threads, but this one is interesting. There is definitely an increase in the mass shootings. What I would be interested in seeing is the weapon used for those 54 shootings. As some have said pistols were used in the Virginia shooting I wonder how many were pistols/shotguns/longguns/assaultweapons. Would this mean that the gun control talk should include more than just "assault weapons"?

Didn't involve guns, at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Couple of things to note though, it considers a .22lr as an assault rifle. and it differs on the amount of shootings than your graph. But definitely some really good info there, at least a place to start.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

have a prior history of mental illness. I think we should put more stock in background checking for that than cosmetic features ban.

And I mean the exact model of rifle he used (CT actually uses the exact same definition of "assault weapons" as the federal ban). Clean if off, send it back in time, and it would have been legal to manufacture and sell during the ban. Magazines would have have cost several times as much as post-2004 mags, but were still purchasable.

So, I'd be a little more cautious before diving into the old "Correlation=Causation" fallacy. Since functionally-identical (And 99% visually identical) weapons remained legal under the AWB, it's more than a little questionable to claim that it actually had much effect on the firepower available to shooters, or on mass shootings in general.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

It breaks each shooting down, Lists the types of weapon used, fatalities, and wounded. Its a place to start. But to answer your question, they are used less than pistols, but more than shotguns or revolvers, but not combined.

I think a lot of wool is being pulled over a lot of Democrats' eyes here, unfortunately. What do you think reinstating an AWB would do?

Duh.
We have to start somewhere.

No Assault Weapons Ban has ever banned guns based on how many bullets they can fire rapidly. They take the class of guns that can fire a lot of bullets rapidly and regulate what they can look like.

For example, under the 94 Federal ban and the current Connecticut ban, the rifle Lanza used was legal because it didn't have a bayonet lug. Under the ban Feinstein is working on, the manufacturer will have to change the shape of the grip.

It doesn't do what you think it does. It's not even that "it doesn't go far enough"; it's going at right angles to what you're trying to do.

Thank you for providing me with more information.

If we want to make mass shootings impossible (and I question whether events that are such outliers and generally sui generis should be driving gun policy rather than the significantly more common "normal" shootings that kill orders of magnitude more kids every year), what we need to do is ban semi-automatics with detachable magazines. Not screw around with how they can look.

If the party wants to do that, I'm on board (it's not my preferred solution, but it at least does what we're trying to accomplish). But I'm incredibly frustrated that Feinstein's response again is to regulate how this class of weapons can look.

not my preferred solution but I think it is the only workable one.

Possibly with an expedited licensing process for people who want to buy but not resell them; that way states who want to ban can simply refuse to give ATF the go ahead and states who want to keep them can just use their current infrastructure.

I keep seeing people complaining about the old AWB saying it was "ineffective". Well, the main reason is that Lobbyists worked hard for compromises that would make it ineffective. Therefore, the very thing that NRA supporters complain about in the AWB was put there by NRA supporters.

I have seen lots of complaints about the former AWB (most of them invalid) but I have yet to see any real solutions being offered. "If at first you don't succeed, f*ck it."

NRA supporters should stop being part of the problem and work with the rest of us for a viable solution!

That's not my preferred course of action, but it actually does what you're trying to do, and I'd the party got behind it I would support it.

?v=8CDC8CD46F4B0C0

I see no reason for anyone to own a rapid fire weapon.
The law needs to be looked at and carefully changed.

It has the bayonet lug, and flash suppressor along with a pistol grip and detachable magazine which made this weapon illegal. The smaller image does not have a bayonet lug, and flash suppressor which made this gun legal.

This is why people are saying that the AWB did not work, I agree.

I stand corrected.
Reinstating the old AWB will not work.

For all I know, one or both of them could be made by Mattel.

One has the suppressor and lug, the other doesn't.

I am sorry you think that. the weapon used in Newtown would no be covered unless they seriously change it change the prior ban. and all semi-automatic rifles fire at the same rate, even if they look scary and have a pistol grip. There are millions of magazines over 10 rounds that would be grandfathered. And most mass shootings are done using handguns. Focus on mental health treatment and prescription drug use if you want to make a dent in the mass killings and suicides. I have no problem with background checks, even removal of weapons for mental health reasons after a court order. Waiting period for initial gun purchase, fine but not if you already have one. Magazine limitations, what fits in the grip of the weapon for a handgun. I could live with ten for rifles but I do not think this will help a lot. Do not like over 20 round magazines anyway as they tend to jam and it upsets the weapons balance.

I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
If every gun owner had to go through the background check I went through it would help.

I have no issues on that. I also have a CCL but normally do not carry. I just wish more people would think about what would actually work and how weapons actually operate. I heard an outright LIE again on MHP this morning about buying a weapon over the internet without background checks, and they just let it fly. I have done this and had to go though the check and have the firearm shipped to an FFL for pick-up. If a vender sales a certain amount of weapons at a gunshow they also have to do a background check and have an FFL. not sure of the number but it is very low.

There needs to be tighter regulations for every gun sold.
But that would be opening another can of worms.



off topic . . . I also have a TWIC.
The only thing not on file somewhere is my DNA.

Do not have TWIC but after 20 years in the military my SSN (service number) and DNA is out there and filed with the big bad governmnent

as a meaningful expression of what is usual.

There are 61 shooting events in this data set and they aren't uniformly distributed between the three time periods.

Within the small number of events in each time periods the 'average' is easily influenced by a few events with large numbers greatly distort the averages which is especially true of the 2005-2012 time frame.

I think the picture would be similar using medians, and it would be less vulnerable to criticism.

such as the shooting actually went down after the ban expired ????!!

i tend to believe this graph.

Nobody's entirely sure why (see the threads on lead abatement for some arguments).

Mass shootings seem to come in clusters. We had one in the 1990s and we're having one now.

to the victims, it doesn't matter whether the number of shootings have gone down

All forms of violent crime are, as are most types of accidents.

We're basically safer right now than any Americans have ever been, though you wouldn't know it from the news.

than Americans have been at any point in history.

FWIW, I don't feel particularly at risk in such places. Spree killings are such astronomically rare occurrences that to be especially fearful of them seems irrational to me. I'm generally far more concerned about the far, far more common "ordinary homicide or violent assault...but those don't commonly happen in theaters.

that they for some reason want to give up their 20million dollar speaking fees and instead order a takeoff of the civilian areas.

Do you remember how bad crime was in the 1990s?

Injuries from gun assaults have actually risen quite a bit over the last decade. It is true that gun homicides are down, albeit only slightly. Part of the difference here is due to improvements in emergency medicine.

Moreover, regardless of the direction, what remains clear is that the US has far higher rates of homicide and gun violence than the rest of the industrialized world.

Here's CDC data on firearm assaults and firearm homicides over the last decade.

In the last ten years. The same guns were for sale and high capacity magazines were still available during the ban. It was an impotent law that cost Democrats a bunch of elections and caused people to run out and add millions of more weapons to their stockpiles.

The expiration of the ban didn't really make anything more deadly available.

I will buy the idea that the enactment of the ban and then it's expiration made people panic buy and stockpile, leading to much more proliferation of assault weapon style firearms and adding to their popularity.

I would say the bans themselves have caused these weapons to become more common and more widely used.

I have yet to see a graph or a chart of the financial costs/repercussions to the families of any one of these "statistics"...that would include the injured, as well.

And beyond a chart of the cost, including grief and emotional pain, the cost of losing a family provider, or a parent, or a child. What were the medical bills for those who died or those who lived, how many families savings were wiped out or crippling debt incurred, plans for college or vactions or home repair, the unexpected burial and funeral charges ($5,000 average) for those who died, the psychological costs of counseling, the damage to buildings, to businesses that perhaps had to close thus costing others their jobs, the jobs/income lost due to disability?

Adults may have life insurance to help with the costs, but children don't. The poor often don't. Our family was involved in a car accident with no fatalities fully covered by insurance, not at the fault of our driver, but the injuries and subsequent effects impacted and reorganized the other family members in a myriad of ways.

Statistics and facts are important...and our family's ordeal will never show up on a graph. But it's time to start including some real life faces and human beings. How does one "rate" the loss of a primary financial provider of a family vs. a small child, for instance? Or, a child who has become permanently disabled and needs a primary provider to stay at home now. The marriages...thus families...that fail in the wake of the sorrow and pain.

Much like wars, the real violence ... at the level where it is borne ... is sanitized because it is too painful and/or instructive...for the observers. But until that pain is felt, either by increased consciousness or god forbid personal experience, it can be ignored and put off.

This is neither maudlin nor obsessing...it is to hopefully influence and justify a system of gun management that is supported and participated in by those who do not posses and those who do posses weapons. To coin a phrase, it will Take A Village.

We who abhor even the owning of weapons, as do those who feel them necessary for their safety, sport, skill, food etc. must each become more honest, aware and flexible in order to compensate for the violence to society and our families. The NRA (non-profit in name only) must evolve, or be replaced by a sane organization and management entity that can see beyond their prolific balance sheet and political control. Perhaps Gabby Gifford's new organization will take hold, based on her highly personal, highly public assault and slow, painful recovery.

Even the name is outdated and refers to a time when guns were primarily for protection and hunting. The National Rifle Association, which evokes memories of Bonanza, The Rifleman, John Wayne, good guys with 6-shooters at most guns et al and would now be more appropriately updated to be referred to as the NWMDA...National Weapons(including those, of Mass Destruction) Association. More appropriate description of the newer role models for our children/society ... The Terminator, Die Hard, Rambo...good guys as glorified revenge fanatics with machine guns.

I feel certain that there are 26 more families readjusting their lives...and those of their extended families and social groups...to reasses the potential of gun violence, its causes, its remedies and its place in our society....based on exceedingly personal experience.

The conversation continues.

:kick:

all of it.

"I feel certain that there are 26 more families readjusting their lives...and those of their extended families and social groups...to reasses the potential of gun violence, its causes, its remedies and its place in our society....based on exceedingly personal experience. "

the ripples keep widening, when they cross maybe we will do something. I hope much sooner.

Agony

irrefutable.

All I've seen in this thread from that quarter is spin, spin, spin, and deflect and obfuscate. Facts are not on the "law abiding gun owners" side, and neither is history: meaning gun control is coming to America, and that means no more deadly assault rifles or 30 round magazines and, eventually, then end of the "concealed carry permit" save under the most stringent of circumstances, and for cause only.

That's right, "pro gun progressives": the day of the "Shall Issue" state is coming to an end, and in our lifetimes. Bank it.

Good OP; Kick, Rec.


*( )

the OP says that the AWB impacted mass shootings. How is that possible when this was perfectly legal:




That is a hard, cold fact that seriously undercut's the OP's premise.

As for the rest of your rant - nice story bro. Happy to see you have an active imagination. Lets bookmark and revisit in a couple of months to reassess what has happened.

irrefutable.

All I've seen in this thread from that quarter is spin, spin, spin, and deflect and obfuscate. Facts are not on the "law abiding gun owners" side, and neither is history: meaning gun control is coming to America, and that means no more deadly assault rifles or 30 round magazines and, eventually, then end of the "concealed carry permit" save under the most stringent of circumstances, and for cause only.

That's right, "pro gun progressives": the day of the "Shall Issue" state is coming to an end, and in our lifetimes. Bank it.

Good OP; Kick, Rec.


*( )

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here yah go, "hack": since you apparently didn't read so well the first go round, I gave you a reprint. Reading slower & better is the key to understanding the written form of communication so many of us use in the modern world. Good luck on your second go round!


Edit: just like the original with (1) edit, so the reader in need of a re-read doesn't lose his place or break concentration.

what you seem to forget is that millions of American voters have supported the expansion of gun rights at the state level - CCW being the best example. And you think they are all going to do a 180 and change their minds? That's delusional.

Pay attention. The only people making a fuss about gun control are the same people that have been fussing for the past decade. They think their moment has finally come. They are going to be disappointed. A couple of states will pass some stricter laws but that is it. You will see nothing significant at the national level for a very long time.

Well, it's only one do-over per customer, but you still have the opportunity to take two cracks at it again as often as you wish. Bright side time!

You could even employ the Bookmark function the DU Admin's have thoughtfully provided, in the event you wish to take a break and get a fresh start on tackling it later in the week - tomorrow might be rushing it - so that the full measure of what has been written might fully come into focus.

All the best to you, my friend.

so goodby until next time we meet.

there room for reality in their world view

there were only a handful of incidents in which two or more non-perpetrators were killed by firearms at a school .....

..... Eli Lilly introduced the very first SSRI drug PROZAC in 1987.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022170975