If Twenty Dead First Graders Won't Do It... And Six Dead Adults... What Will ???

[WillyT]

[onehandle]

1. The inevitable blue takeover of America.

Assault weapons are gone in a short matter of time.

Tick-tock, gun fucks.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. There have been many more deaths since then and they are not going to make an impact either

[TheMastersNemesis]

3. The Only Thing That Might Do It Is If A Bunch Of GOPPER Politicians Or Gun Nuts

suffer the same fate as those innocents.

What is ironic is that even after Reagan was shot the GOP apposed any gun control. And the assault weapons ban barely passed and had an expiration date and is now gone.

So I do not know what will work in a society that seems mentally ill and gun obsessed.

[BainsBane]

4. reassemble the Black Panthers

and have them go out with assault rifles. You'll see an AW ban right away.

[KharmaTrain]

8. That May Have Been The Case In 1967...

...but with today's unhinged NRA they'd only suggest more guns and push to make them more accessible and cheaper. The bloodlust has overcome all common sense.

[BainsBane]

12. alternately, congress could pay attention to public opinion

rather than the gun lobby.

[KharmaTrain]

15. Not With Rushpublicans In Control Of The House...

...sadly more innocents will die. Public opinion doesn't pay for the big money campaigns we're sure to see in 2014. The public only matters one day every 2 or 4 or 6 years...the rest of the time it's the $$$ that talks and the NRA knows it.

[BainsBane]

17. we make them pay for their intransigence

with the jobs. And we have to pressure Democrats and Republicans alike.
Republican voters support all of the president's proposals except for the AW ban, and even then 45% support it (Washington Post poll, Jan 10-13).

[KharmaTrain]

19. Except...

...as Rachel explained, on their individual merits majorities of both parties favor some form of gun control, but the second you put a partisan label on it (especially if it's supported by President Obama) the rushpublicans go in the opposite direction. They just can't support anything this President is in favor of.

The disconnect is the politicians only pay attention to polls when it's close to election time...the rest of the time it's to those who throw the money at their campaigns. The rushpublicans fear the NRA throwing money at teabagger challenges and then the thousands of dollars they need in the general. The NRA's grip on the rushpublicans is iron...and there are a number of Democrats in red and purple states who also cherish their NRA contributions and ratings. As long as the money means more than lives there will be only lip service to any real gun control.

I'll be somewhat content if we can get a background check bill and closing loopholes in existing laws.

[BainsBane]

21. so is this all your way of discouraging action?

Nothing is going to happen if you decide in advance it can't. That's exactly how injustice prevails.

[KharmaTrain]

57. I'm An Observer...

...and very saddened that there isn't the political will in this country to do meaningful gun control or even the enforcement of existing laws. I don't have a vote in the House or Senate on this matter...all I can do is support Democrats with votes and money and hope for the best. The problem is there are too many politicians who do fear the NRA...won't take the tough steps. If they were we'd have background checks or other loopholes closed. 10 years ago I served on a straw gun buyer's case in a federal court. I saw first hand how arcane the laws were and how the gun lobby has made sure it stays that way. It's injustice for the innocents who have and will die as long as this country has a fascination with guns...and with death. Any laws passed will be welcome, but I am very cynical that those laws will do much to cut down on the gun bloodlust that some claim (including here on DU) self defense or "their right" over our rights. Wish I could be sweetness and light...just how this observer sees what's going on...

[BainsBane]

79. Wow, I appreciate your efforts

that's amazing. I believe Sandyhook has created a sea change. I think we must continue to pressure our government officials and the state and local level. I know you've already done a great deal, and I understand your frustration. But I do believe there is some reason for hope. I myself had given up on this cause until Sandyhook. It reignited the issue for me, and I believe it has done the same for many Americans.

[MrSlayer]

5. Do what?

Just what did you think would get done with this Bagger House and sellout Senate?

[Nevernose]

6. Free guns for poor people

Arm the poor, arm African-Americans and American Indians, arm anyone who can speak a language other than English.

We'd have gun laws so g-d fast you'd get whiplash watching them go by.

[WillyT]

7. LOL !!! - Nevernose Speaks Truth !!!

& Rec !!!

[Ian Iam]

14. Quite true!

[Paladin]

78. Trust Me: That's Been Advocated In The DU Gun Control/RKBA Group (Or Its Predecessor).

[Starboard Tack]

111. Nail on the head! Perfect!

[Selatius]

9. If you look at American history, major change came with supermajorities in both the House/Senate.

The New Deal Democrats of the 1930s are gone. The New Deal Coalition died by the end of the 1960s. They were the last coalition in American history that commanded such numbers of seats in both the House and Senate that they instituted massive projects across America that changed the landscape and changed the course of American history. It has been a long time, and times have changed.

Today, there is no last alliance, no grand coalition that could marshal the numbers needed in the House and Senate to pass sweeping change. All I see is more gridlock.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

10. Won't do what, exactly?

I think we have a good shot at a few different safety measures that seem to poll with ipartisan support. Namely, 100% background checks, tightening up NICS checks, and CDC gun study funding.

[BainsBane]

13. all of the measures in the president's plan

have majority support. 60% of the public support an assault weapons ban, according to a poll Rachel Maddow went through on her show tonight.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

18. IMO, the AWB is DOA. I don't think it can pass. MAYBE the magazine ban.

Will the senate even VOTE on something they don't think will pass the House? But stepping back from the reality of them passing or what is required to get them to pass... niether measure has the teeth nor ability to significantly impact real-world crime/homicide rates. Military-style assault weapons simply don't constitute a majority of gun-homicide nor mass shootings and tens of millions of "high cap" magazines will remain in legal circulation & use.

And in 5-10 years, when the measures HAVEN'T shown much, if any effect on crime rates and homicide trends and there has been another half a dozen school shootings... who will be blamed? The people that wrote, promoted, and signed the laws. I think we can not only stop more crime with laws aimed at curbing illegal/criminal firearm aquisition... but we can do so without setting ourselves up for future failure.

FWIW, I support all of the presidents proposals except the Assault weapons ban renewal and the Large Magazine Ban.

[BainsBane]

20. Everyone knows they don't account for a majority of murders

but the point of the AWB is to strike a balance by getting rid of the most horrific weapons used in mass murders while still respecting the 2nd Amendment. But if you force us, we can work on changing that by getting in Supreme Court judges who can actually read the second amendment. Thanks for the tip. Why bother compromising with you people when the truth is your fetish for handguns is really the problem. No AW, no semiautomatics of any kind, and no handguns. Since you insist, that works for me.

Who cares what the American public thinks anyway. As long as you have a multibillion dollar corporate lobby standing behind you, the hell with democracy. Your side can afford to buy the politicians, so what else counts?

[Recursion]

30. No, it's not

the point of the assault weapons ban is to control what the most horrific class of legal weapon, all of which are equally capable, can look like.

[BainsBane]

50. No, that is not the point

the point is not cosmetic. We don't care what the guns look like. We care about their capacity to kill dozens of people within a minute, without reloading. The point is to make it more difficult to commit mass murder. Moreover, that is not how the proposed legislation specifies banned guns. The new bill is not the same as the expired law.

[Recursion]

51. If that is your goal, you will find this law very disappointing

Because what I described is what it does. What you describe is something I would support, and I wish somebody would write a law that did that.

Moreover, that is not how the proposed legislation specifies banned guns.

Yes, it is. Seriously. It is.

It names several models, so these guns will have to get new brand names to be sold again.

It goes from a two-feature ban to a one-feature ban. The only feature a ban-compliant AR like Lanza still had was the grip, so if this passes, next year's models of AR will need differently shaped grips.

We don't care what the guns look like.

Then stop supporting laws that ban based solely on that.

[BainsBane]

53. so write to Feinstein and suggest how to improve it

Why not try to make it better? To claim the point is to regulate appearance is absurd. If you think that is the effect, then do something about it.

[Recursion]

54. I've written my Congresswoman, who can't vote in the House

That said, the problem is not that Feinstein is unaware of what the law does; she has had her credibility staked on it for 20 years now and can't let it go.

Back when it passed it made some political sense; military-styled semi-automatic rifles were not very popular. Currently it's basically every rifle sold for the past decade and a half.

[BainsBane]

55. so you don't want any law?

Or can't be bothered to send another letter of make a phone call?

[Recursion]

56. Two things you apparently missed

1. I would support a ban on semi-automatics with detachable magazines, which is what anecdotal evidence leads me to believe most people wrongly think this is

2. Senator Feinstein is aware of what this law does and supports it for reasons I can only call very cynical, so it's not clear what a letter would do

[BainsBane]

58. um, you're mistaken

"All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this page)."

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

[Recursion]

61. You just posted exactly what I said

All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.

"And". it has to both be a semi-automatic with detachable magazines and have one of the listed features.

A ban-compliant AR like Lanza had has only one of those features, a pistol grip. So, when the manufacturer changes the grip shape so it's not a pistol grip anymore, and renames it something that's not on the list of prohibited names, it's legal. Do you see that?

That's what I mean when I say it's a regulation of what a semi-automatic rifle can look like. Because that's what it does.

[BainsBane]

63. Yes

She says they are implementing ways to prevent work arounds, but specifically how they would do that I don't know.

Question: why do you think she doesn't just say all guns with detachable magazines?
Which guns are they trying to allow in that people want? It's obviously an effort to appease gun owners or the gun lobby.

[Recursion]

65. That is the $64,000 question

Question: why do you think she doesn't just say all guns with detachable magazines?

I wish I knew. It even polls better than an AWB, according to Pew, and it actually addresses the capabilities of guns to kill a lot of people.

I think the argument is that there are some semi-automatic rifles that look like hunting rifles (wood finish, curved grip inline with the stock, etc.) and if we don't grandfather them in, Wayne la Pierre holds one up at a press conference saying "Dianne Feinstein wants to ban your grandpa's hunting rifle!" That said, they are just as capable of being used in a mass shooting as an AR-15 is (probably moreso, since they're generally higher caliber). Guns like the ShortTrac or Woodsmaster.

Then again, more cynically, I also think she knows that people see an AR-15 and mistakenly think it can fire more bullets more quickly than a Woodsmaster can, and she is capitalizing on that.

[BainsBane]

67. no one champions this for political mileage

She came to office when the Mayor of San Francisco was killed along with Harvey Milk. She's not supporting this for some cynical political reason. It probably has to do with hunting guns. But existing guns are already grandfathered in. So people could keep grandpa's gun regardless.

[jmg257]

71. She seems to be holding the actual text close to the vest..I think there is something

in there she doesn't want out yet - maybe an Attorney General authority to update the list, registration..something.

[BainsBane]

60. also see

Second, the bill bans large-capacity magazines and other ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. These devices allow shooters to fire numerous rounds in rapid succession without having to stop and reload.

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=5dffbf07-d8e5-42aa-9f22-0743368dd754

[Recursion]

62. I like the large-magazine ban.

It could probably pass, too. Too bad it's tied to this piece of legislation rather than passing on its own.

[BainsBane]

64. it's called politics

Nothing is set in stone. They pull bills apart all the time. There are several different bills being proposed. Carolyn McCarthy has a few.

[Recursion]

66. Forgive me if I'm not ecstatic about her chiming in here

Are you familiar with the "shoulder thing that goes up" fiasco? Hopefully she can avoid something like that this time.

[BainsBane]

68. no, I don't know much about her

In fact I hadn't heard of her before a couple of weeks ago. But the point isn't her personally. It's getting effective legislation passed.

[ManiacJoe]

113. Congress is not the least bit interested in effective gun legislation.

Effective gun legislation is difficult to write, difficult to pass, and political suicide.

Congress is very happy to pass silly gun legislation, pay it lip service, and quickly move on.
Examples, Feinstein's AWB (all versions) and anything from McCarthy.

[Nevernose]

22. So how many murders does it take?

Obviously you have some sort of threshold in mind, and 26 isn't it. So how many murders would it take, per year, before you would support the AWB?

[Recursion]

26. No amount of murders, because an AWB doesn't address the problem

Last edited Fri Jan 25, 2013, 03:15 AM - Edit history (1)

I would support banning semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines.

I will not support restricting what they can look like.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

36. No amount of murders make the use of a logical fallacy OK in debate.

I'm not cool with using emotional appeal as a debate tactic in writing legislation or solving complex social problems. If you must insist on asking 'how many', a logically correct answer would be "a statistically significant number of assault weapon enabled murders".

[Nevernose]

74. I think 26 is statistically significant

What about you? How do you define statistical significance?

[Recursion]

106. Out of 8000 gun deaths a year?

And anyways, the AWB does not say "you can't have the rifle Lanza used" it says if you have that rifle, it has to have a different grip than it currently does. What does that accomplish?

[Duckhunter935]

70. because if you really wanted to have an effect

ITS HANDGUNS not scary looking rifles that account for actually very few deaths

[Lizzie Poppet]

96. hit.nail.head

The measures with the least likelihood of accomplishing anything in the effort to reduce homicide might pass (thus putting Democratic control of the Senate on the endangered species list...). The measures which might be of actual use probably won't. What a fucking farce...

[Recursion]

11. The problem is the "it"

we don't all agree about what would actually help

[BainsBane]

16. a majority of the public agree with all the proposed

changes Biden and the President have put forward. Even 60% of American support an assault weapons ban, according to a poll Rachel Maddow went over on her show tonight.

[Recursion]

23. A majority also think the stimulus was pointless

Democracy. The worst form of government except everything else we've tried.

[BainsBane]

25. yeah, let's go with the multibillion dollar corporate gun lobby

rather than the American people.

Imagine the majority of Americans caring about human life. What is wrong with them?

[Recursion]

27. People support the AWB because they think it's a semi auto ban (nt)

[BainsBane]

28. they support it because they've seen too

many mass murders, particularly involving children. The majority of gun owners support the ban. I'm going to assume they know the difference between an ordinary semi-automatic weapon and an assault weapon.

[Recursion]

29. Given that activists on this board don't

I'm not inclined to think the average voter does. Hell, we had legislators in 94 who thought it was a semi auto ban. The most common response I get when I show people what the bill actually says is "why the hell are we pushing for THAT?"

[BainsBane]

31. most people here don't own guns

Only 22% of Democrats own guns. This isn't a reflection of gun owners. My Republican brother-in-law is an avid hunter and supports the ban.

[Recursion]

32. Only 18 percent of gun owners hunt

Back in 94, military styled weapons were not very popular. Now they are basically every rifle sold.

[jmg257]

34. We know your against the ban because it doesn't go far enough, too

Feature dependant. But you would support a ban on all semi-automatics?
Or all repeaters without fixed mags?

[Recursion]

37. I would support a ban on semi autos with detachable magazines

It's not my preference, but it at least makes sense and could do some good.

It's not that the AWB doesn't go far enough or goes too far; it goes sideways. There's not even a rights-based argument against it because it doesn't actually keep anybody from buying any particular class of firearm. Even if it passes, there will be AR 15s on sale next year, with a different brand name and shape. Unless the current appearance of the rifle actually makes people do bad things, we've wasted our chance at passing a law on something pointless.

[jmg257]

40. There will always be another chance...Just wait until the next mass massacre.

Pathetic, really fucking sad and pathetic.

So...Might as well get what ya can now. *Get more next time.
Get some states involved..NY was just the beginning.

* Next time the slippery slope NRA BS will fall on even more deaf ears.

[Recursion]

41. I think states are probably the way to go

Particularly given the House and SCOTUS.

[BainsBane]

46. well, all I can say

is that they sound like some seriously twisted people. No wonder our country is the most violent in the industrialized world.

Thankfully, public opinion polls don't reflect that level of irresponsibility.

[Recursion]

47. I don't know. They are popular for reasons...

... that almost never have to do with mowing down innocent people.

I think that is one of my hot buttons here: if you think only a nutjob would buy an AR 15, that's just not true. Plenty of rifles are exactly as capable as an AR but look more traditional. Both non-psychos and psychos seem to prefer the AR, but both could use a traditional looking rifle to do the exact same things.

[BainsBane]

49. what do they need them for?

And is whatever that is really worth the loss of children's lives?

And I don't think your assessment of the guns people own meshes with the surveys of public opinion polls. If that many people owned "military style" weapons, they would be unlikely to support an AW ban. If that is a reflect of the number of guns being sold, it seems to me a lot of those guns are going to a smaller percentage of people, many of whom are criminals involved in drug trafficking, etc. . .

[Recursion]

59. Last I saw 60% or so support an AWB

And something like 40% own guns, about half of those own rifles and nearly all of those are "assault weapons" nowadays. I'm sure there's some crossover, but the 60/40 split seems pretty intuitive to me.

And is whatever that is really worth the loss of children's lives?

If I thought making AR's have a differently-shaped grip would prevent a mass shooting I would certainly support doing that. Can we at least give each other that much benefit of the doubt?

many of whom are criminals involved in drug trafficking

Negative. They use pistols. Street criminals don't like having weapons that are easy to spot.

[BainsBane]

81. another question

I understand your opposition to the existing proposal because of how easy it is to make modifications, and I appreciate your explaining that to me how that works. But my question is: if the ban gets some deadly guns off the street, why isn't it better than nothing?

[Recursion]

88. Because after 1994 the sale of weapons skyrocketed

Semi-automatic rifles with military stylings were not terribly popular before 1994; essentially immediately their popularity took off and a lot of them were sold.

Secondly, no ban being discussed removes any currently-owned rifles, so nothing is coming off of the street.

why isn't it better than nothing?

Because in my judgement we get one swing here, and it's going to have backlash. Wasting that on a law that is fundamentally silly but emotionally satisfying to the base is not something I want to see happen. Universal background checks will be hard enough, and I think we can get one or the other, and that's much more important to me.

Then again, Manchin has just announced support for universal background checks, probably because he won't support the AWB but has to support something, so Feinstein may be a lot smarter than I was giving her credit for. (Or the party as a whole has finally learned from the GOP: put forward your strongest position in order to get your fallback.)

[BainsBane]

92. polling shows 91% support background checks

If they can't pass that, they need to lose their jobs.

I have read that law did reduce gun violence over the long run, before it expired. Do you content that isn't true?

[Recursion]

95. 80% support single payer as long as it isn't called that

You know the joke about Philadelphia fans? They love their teams, just not the actual players on them. Voters love Democratic policies until they are actually put into laws, which they then hate (while still loving the actual provisions in them). This is just a fact of life, and has been since the New Deal.

I have read that law did reduce gin violence over the long run, before it expired. Do you content that isn't true?

Violence of all kinds has been dropping pretty significantly since the mid-1990s. Nobody is entirely sure why. Gun laws have been changed a lot in that time (the 94 AWB was in place during the first half of that drop and gone during the second half, and state laws have been all over the map but no matter what a state did, it saw a drop -- DC literally completely banned guns until 2004, and then Heller forced DC to allow people to have guns in their homes, and violent crime just kept dropping during both periods). Some people credit getting rid of lead gasoline and paint (there were several threads on that), some credit Roe v. Wade (that's in Freakonomics), some credit better policing, some say it's because we've basically locked up all the young poor males. Even more oddly, nobody is really stepping forward to take credit for it because solving problems is actually bad for business in DC: you need a crisis mindset to get donations and people marching. When you say "violent crime is down 59% since 1995" then most people say, "Oh, great, I can go back to playing Angry Birds, then!"

[BainsBane]

97. a criminologist told me

the number one factor determining violent crime is the size of the population of young men, from somewhere like 16-28. I don't recall the specific ages, but it's in the range somewhere.

There probably is a lot of gin violence, vodka violence, and whiskey violence. I need to proof read better.

[Recursion]

98. Ha! I was going to let that one go

Somebody posted about the perfidy of ginmakers earlier and I got sad, because I do make gin at home (it's just infused vodka, really).

I think there's a lot to the point the criminologist made: demographics are probably the strongest driver of crime in a given population, and everything else is just on the margins. If you have a lot of young males, you will have a lot of violence. (c.f. World, The Developing.)

[GreenStormCloud]

138. Impossible for the 1994 AWB to have reduced crime.

The 94 AWB did not take any guns "off the streets" nor did it prevent the sale of any guns. Because it was cosmetically based the gun manufacturers simply changed the cosmetics to comply with the new law and continued to sell the guns with the same internal works. In some cases they had to change the names of the guns. For example, the TEC-9 lost its barrel shroud and became the AB-10. (AB=After Ban). So if it didn't stop a single gun from being sold, how could it have effected crime?

[BainsBane]

139. not a single gun?

Really? That is was easy to work around the law doesn't mean it didn't stop guns from being sold. Your post doesn't pass the smell test.

[Berserker]

72. Bullshit

Democrats' self-reported gun ownership spiked to 40% in 2011 and I am sure more Democrats than what is reported own guns.
Gun ownership is more common in the South (54%) and Midwest (51%) All of these owners are not republicans. And many guns are in homes and NOT reported. So go on shitting yourself about the numbers.
We all know for a fact that the last AWB in 1994 to 2004 stopped ALL gun violence right? It didn't work then and a new one will not work now.
Maybe when the Gunbaggers pull their heads out of their ass and stop blaming guns and look for the real reason our society is sick things will change.
So keep up the personal attacks on gun owners and see where we are as Democrats in 2014 and 2016.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

[BainsBane]

76. Nate Silver says otherwise

so read that.

I don't blame guns. I blame the people who have them, especially the ones who think their capacity to stockpile all weapons of their choice is more important than human life.

Since you're so interested in public opinion polls, look at the recent ones showing that 60% of Americans support the assault weapons ban.

It can hardly be a personal attack when I wasn't even talking to you.

[Berserker]

80. Polls

can say anything you want them to. I used gallop just like you did that's why I posted it. How about we take a national vote on the gun problem and proposed ban in this country and we will see if your 60% holds out. Most intelligent people know that there is already an assault weapons ban.

Oh and when you post in a public forum you post to everyone.

[BainsBane]

83. intelligent people

Your definition of intelligence is one I strongly reject. The notion that intelligence depends on spending one's life immersed in the machinery of death is perverse. Funny, all the time and money I spent getting a PhD when all I needed to do was to spend my days practicing to kill instead.

A national vote would be fantastic. Then you'd have to deal with public opinion rather than relying on congressmen bought with money from the gun lobby.

Nate Silver vs. Gallup is hardly a close call. If you actually care about the rates of gun ownership, you'd read what he's written. Unless of course you don't actually know the difference between Silver and a single poll and got your election projections for 2012 from Fox.

[BainsBane]

77. this is your idea of a personal attack

to the post you responded, and what you call bullshit:
"31. most people here don't own guns

Only 22% of Democrats own guns. This isn't a reflection of gun owners. My Republican brother-in-law is an avid hunter and supports the ban."

Compare that to your comment "gunbaggers with their heads up their asses."

So what's so insulting? The contention that the majority of DUers don't own guns, or that my brother-in-law supports the AWB?

[Berserker]

85. Only 22% of Democrats own guns

Bullshit.
"gunbaggers with their heads up their asses." Fact

[BainsBane]

87. Nate Silver

vs. irate, profane gun zealot. Not a tough call.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/in-gun-ownership-statistics-partisan-divide-is-sharp/

[BainsBane]

89. you are asserting the President, Vice President

and vast majority of the Democratic Party are "gunbaggers with their heads up their asses." Lovely. Nice to know where you stand.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

33. I have to say that my knowledge of the difference is very small.

And I do think that not knowing is a problem. Not just for me, but for others as well. We need some sort education on the issue. Many got the word about tobacco with those old 30 second commercials. Maybe some like that can be started with this.

[Recursion]

35. The ten second version

Take all the weapons that fire once every time you pull the trigger AND have magazines you can replace with pre- loaded magazines. These are the kind of weapons a mass shooter needs.

Rather than ban them, write a law about what shape their grip, stock, and barrel can be, and what brand names they can be sold under. That is the assault weapons ban.

[jmg257]

38. This has been dicussed over and over. The issue

Isn't a lack of firearm knowlege, it is knowlege that gunners will NOT let you pass effective laws.

So you try to pick out features that can be used to lawfully distinguish a gun you would like to target - like ARs and AKs, from ones you don't - like traditional hunting rifles. You add lists identifying models by name, you do what you can to get what you can, knowing the manufacturers will avoid the intent of the law by finding loopholes in the letter of the law.

It'll make a difference, but it will not be enough. If it even passes.

Too much fear, too much selfishness, and the bodies just keep stacking up.

[Recursion]

39. And still we aren't talking about handguns

What are they, 90% of firearm deaths? Including the deadliest school shooting in history.

[jmg257]

42. Yep. You and I have talked this out, so not worth going thru again. :) Cheers! Nt

[Recursion]

43. Tru dat

sometimes when insomnia strikes I vent frustrations. Cheers!

[jmg257]

44. I know! I really should be sleeping!! TGIF. Nt

[WillyT]

24. Yeah... We're ALL In The The Little Short Bus Now... Huh ???

[condoleeza]

45. 7 Adults - let's not forget Adam's Mom n/t

[Lady Freedom Returns]

48. Many forget his mom.

Why is that?

[condoleeza]

110. Maybe people blame her, I don't know

but she's just as dead, just didn't happen at the school, so I suppose that's why.

[shill baby shill...]

136. Because she dropped off the map much like her son.

Stinks to high heaven. Adam wasn't known in their area. The people who DO remember him do so from way back.

[shill baby shill...]

135. Right.

I wonder who killed her?

[graham4anything]

52. The NRA has been fatally shot. Unfortunately getting the problem of Gun murderers will take 6+yrs

but the wound suffered by the NRA and gun groupies was fatal.
Like the Knights who say Ni, they still stand, but they are finished.

the seed is planted
it takes decades for a redwood to grow from seed into the majestic redwood it is.

but the NRA has passed away.

and wait til 2014, the Great Equalizer will be financing deeply any candidate anywhere who is against the NRA.

sad thing is, many more will die.

but we don['t need just a specific type of ban

We need all guns off the street.
And it has begun.
We need all LEGAL guns off the street, then deal with the remaining ones

It is now out in the open it was never for hunting, never for sport, never to collect
It was solely to overthrow the government and change an issue, like the slaughter of the doctor in a church completely stopped abortions in Kansas

like Zimmerman in Texas

the NRA is dead.

the corpse is still moving, but they are dead. They won't be reanimated either.

And a scorecard is being kept for every person forward who dies or gets hurt.

And we need MORE security, but it needs to be federal security, and we need more cameras everywhere and metal detectors on every street corner

and zero tolerance on any private citizen with a gun once it is mandatory that no guns be in the street.

remember it is Gun Murderers.

took decades to fester.
but look at cigarettes. the culture changed
90% used to smoke. now 90% don't.

[metalbot]

109. Ironically, I think the opposite is true

Had Sandy Hook not happened, and if we'd gone another 4 years without a significant move toward national level gun control, the NRA would have been seriously weakened by the fact that they had been screaming for 8 years that "Obama is coming for your guns", when he was arguably more second amendment friendly than Ronald Reagan.

The NRA couldn't have dreamed up a bigger windfall than this.

Sandy Hook is not a particularly good argument in favor of gun control. It got news and attention precisely because killings like it are so rare. If you want to make a reasonable argument for gun control, one should start from the common case, not the rare one. The common case is gang related violence that is linked to drug trade. If you can't address that, "common sense" measures like assault weapon bans and magazine bans are simply feel good measures that aren't going to statistically affect the murder rate in a measurable way. In any given year, less than 350 people are killed with rifles in the US, and only a handful die because their attackers had magazines carrying 11 rounds or more. If one were to support gun control as a mechanism for murder reduction, the only mechanism by which that might be successful would be if you could really disarm the entirety of the American public, and that isn't going to happen in our lifetimes. And once gun control advocates really acknowledge that they DON'T support "the right of Americans to own firearms for hunting and sport", it makes opposition to ANY form of gun control that much of an easier position to defend.

[cbrer]

69. Sorry, wrong thread. I thought this was about drones.

[exboyfil]

73. One parent doing the EMMITT TILL Open Casket?

and the media having the guts to cover it. I can't ask a parent to do that, but could you imagine the shock of seeing an unprepared body shot over 10 times.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

75. I think you have it wrong.

Seeing a small child's shot up dead body would make me rush out and buy a machine gun! No way would I want to be disarmed while nutcases still keep their guns..and they will.

[IdaBriggs]

82. Evil Suggestion: Somebody setting off "sound effects" of gun fire at a gun show?

My common sense says "bad things would happen" (which I obviously would NOT want to see happen) but maybe they could solve the problem for us by taking themselves out? Or maybe scaring themselves senseFULL as they realize how BAD things *might* have been with a bunch of paranoid armed people all in the same place at the same time?

[BainsBane]

84. evil indeed

don't do it!

[madville]

86. It took 3,000 at one time to destroy the fourth amendment

Don't have a number on the second amendment yet, we haven't seen it yet.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

99. It is not destroyed.

Black and blue,but still with us.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[JoePhilly]

90. A large number of armed black men walking around with open carry licensees.

[ManiacJoe]

114. Open carry normally does not require a license/permit.

[JoePhilly]

116. Even better.

Lots of armed black guys waving guns in the open.

[ManiacJoe]

117. Waving a gun would probably get you a brandishing charge.

Regardless of you skin color.

[JoePhilly]

118. They'd just be displaying their "appreciation" for guns.

Like this guy ...

[ManiacJoe]

119. You probably need to brush up on your gun laws.

[JoePhilly]

120. I just added pictures to my last response ... is he ...

showing his appreciation for guns, or "brandishing" them?

And can't black guys do the same?

[ManiacJoe]

121. That would appear to be an entertainment show/demonstration.

[JoePhilly]

122. Whatever you say.

How about lots of black guys doing this ...

[ManiacJoe]

123. Whatever _I_ say?

You posted the pics with no context. Feel free to supply some if my interpretation of the pictured event is not the same as yours.


JCP rifle man: Perfectly legal, at least where I live. However, mall management would have probably asked him to leave, as they can for any reason or no reason since the mall is private property.

[JoePhilly]

124. And, if a large number of black guys open carried in JC Penney, the SWAT team would be called.

As for he guy I posted in JCPENNY ... no ... JCPENNEY did not ask him to leave.

[ManiacJoe]

125. The response black guns carrying in JCP might depend on where you live.

If they were dressed well, the response they got might be the same as the white guys get. If they are dressed like your stereotypical gang members, the response would probably be as you expect.

I am not surprised JCP let the rifleman stay as he was spending money there. However, mall management is a completely different entity to be dealt with.

[JoePhilly]

127. If they are "dressed well"????

LOL.

What, are the gang members wearing hoodies?

Look .... when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

[ManiacJoe]

132. Good advice. Would you like a hand up from your hole?

[Auntie Bush]

91. Looks like NOTHING

The killing will escalate. The gun salesmen, manufactures and NRA etc will get richer.
The crazy gun nuts will get crazier.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

93. The killing actually has been declining

There are any number of ways to slice the data, but mass killings are down.

[Auntie Bush]

115. Well that is such a relief! I can sleep soundly tonight...nary a worry.

[randr]

94. There will be a next time and there will be more families

grieving for their lost children. With each instance a growing population will become disgusted with gun ownership. Everyone who opposes the sane regulation of weapons needs to be held accountable from this point forward. The NRA knows this is inevitable and that is why they can promote the myth that "someone is coming for your guns". If we do not do anything a new generation of surviving children will take the 2nd amendment down. The greatest threat to the ownership of our guns is the NRA and the wing nuts that follow their nonsense. The rights of 70 million gun owners are being threatened by the madness of 4 million NRA members.

[Paladin]

100. Well Said. (nt)

[rightsideout]

101. Absolutely nothing will

After 1,345,000 dead in this country from guns since 1968, 26 dead isn't going to make a difference.

The Second Amendment has backfired on it's own citizens and nothing is going to change.

It's like global warming. No one really cares or feels the slow warming trends so nothing gets done. Same with guns. A few dead here or there doesn't change anything.

Just hope you don't find yourself in the crossfire if a gun fanatic looses it or misfires.

This country is it's own worse enemy.

[Tikki]

102. Those people's conscience got lost in translation..The gun is their god..

and rather than look for the truth, find the truth and let it hurt...they make up
little stories, fantasies and hold on to any shred of light thrown their way
that their gun wouldn't do such an unspeakable thing.

The problem with this master is he doesn't always know right from wrong.



Tikki

[demwing]

103. Someone opening fire on a country club

When 20 multimillionaire s are killed--instead of 20 school kids-- then the people who really own our Congress will take action.

[srican69]

105. you are absolute correct .. ships sinkings were not uncommon .. but nothing was done about it until

the Titanic sank and took a bunch of rich men.


The laws were enacted in response that dictate the number of lifeboats on each side of the ship - life jackets, communication equipment and provisions on lifeboats etc ...

[Stuart G]

126. Yes...that is it..but there must be more than 20 dead..here is something that might do it.

Some gun nut goes into a crowded country club bar/restaurant during Friday dinner and shoots up 100 dead.
....say they are diners ,staff and people just drinking. All shot with the same weapon that killed those children. In that group, would be a couple of prominent Republican politician..and some had guns,..and the shooter had a disguised friend in the crowd with more weapons.. and the shoot out was far worse..

that might do it....if enough are killed...in a gun state...

[srican69]

104. a mass shooting at the NRA headquarters

[Tikki]

108. I'm pretty sure that the last man standing in that one...WINS

and if no one makes it out alive then the site becomes a National Monument.



Tikki

[appleannie1]

107. It would have to be in a red state, bigger and armed guards would have to also be victims. Then

maybe a couple of them might wake up.

[spanone]

112. for some folks, the 2nd amendment trumps human life...

history will wonder....

[Thinkingabout]

128. I have noticed when trolls are posting "definitions" and you point out banning all of them

They start to back off. I am thinking those who raise so much hell only be allowed a single shot BB gun until they can prove by their gun safety and mental standing they are prepared for heavier weapons. Like the father pulling his new AR-15 on his daughter because of grades proved the nuts are still buying weapons of wsr they are not able to handle.

[LittleBlue]

129. Honestly? Probably a series of massacres

Big massacres. Not in low-income areas, these have to be white kids from at least a middle-class background or college-age young adults. The brown kids here get scarcely more sympathy (anchor babies, welfare babies etc) than the drone victims in Yemen, so don't expect their murder to mean much to the media.

Probably 3 or 4 such massacres within 1 year will do it. Sad but true, that's how I feel about it at least.

[WillyT]

130. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

[liberal N proud]

131. Until the gun nuts are wiling to have a civil discussion, nothing will be done.

[shill baby shill...]

133. THERE OUGHTTA BE A LAW!!!!!

Problem/Reaction/Solution: it's what's for dinner...

[shill baby shill...]

134. Hey...

http://consciouslifenews.com/paid-internet-shill-shadowy-groups-manipulate-internet-opinion-debate/1147073/



Cha-ching!

[shill baby shill...]

137. So fuckingly stoopid...

Most gun deaths occur with HANDGUNS! :grrr:

Signed, a person who detests guns but detests fascism that much more!