HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » A thought about an assaul...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 10:42 AM

A thought about an assault weapons ban

I heard this on Mark Thompson's radio show "Make It Plain" on Sirius radio yesterday.
The idea was that a law banning assault weapons will not ban all assault weapons but it will start a dialog or a conversation about the weapons that could have more effect than the law.
For example can you see a relative showing off their Bushmaster AR 15 and someone asks "isn't that the type of gun used in those mass killings?"
Just something I heard that seemed relevant.

108 replies, 5556 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 108 replies Author Time Post
Reply A thought about an assault weapons ban (Original post)
upaloopa Jan 2013 OP
Hoyt Jan 2013 #1
krispos42 Jan 2013 #2
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #14
laundry_queen Jan 2013 #97
krispos42 Jan 2013 #107
sadbear Jan 2013 #3
Lesmoderesstupides Jan 2013 #4
clarice Jan 2013 #96
sylvi Jan 2013 #76
Recursion Jan 2013 #5
upaloopa Jan 2013 #7
hack89 Jan 2013 #9
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #16
hack89 Jan 2013 #20
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #26
hack89 Jan 2013 #31
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #44
hack89 Jan 2013 #50
nick of time Jan 2013 #54
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #89
hack89 Jan 2013 #92
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #95
hack89 Jan 2013 #98
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #100
hack89 Jan 2013 #101
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #103
hack89 Jan 2013 #104
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #106
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #15
Recursion Jan 2013 #19
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #28
Recursion Jan 2013 #42
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #65
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #21
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #29
Recursion Jan 2013 #41
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #64
derby378 Jan 2013 #36
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #55
sylvi Jan 2013 #77
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #81
aikoaiko Jan 2013 #6
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #18
dkf Jan 2013 #37
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #57
Recursion Jan 2013 #61
nick of time Jan 2013 #62
Recursion Jan 2013 #59
aikoaiko Jan 2013 #67
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #68
aikoaiko Jan 2013 #71
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #78
aikoaiko Jan 2013 #82
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #85
aikoaiko Jan 2013 #93
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #99
hack89 Jan 2013 #8
upaloopa Jan 2013 #10
hack89 Jan 2013 #12
upaloopa Jan 2013 #38
hack89 Jan 2013 #39
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #30
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #22
hack89 Jan 2013 #27
derby378 Jan 2013 #40
Recursion Jan 2013 #58
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #43
hack89 Jan 2013 #48
slackmaster Jan 2013 #11
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #23
slackmaster Jan 2013 #35
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #53
slackmaster Jan 2013 #60
cherokeeprogressive Jan 2013 #74
sarisataka Jan 2013 #13
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #24
sarisataka Jan 2013 #32
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #46
nick of time Jan 2013 #49
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #83
sarisataka Jan 2013 #72
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #84
sarisataka Jan 2013 #88
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #90
sarisataka Jan 2013 #91
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #94
sarisataka Jan 2013 #102
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #105
sarisataka Jan 2013 #108
hack89 Jan 2013 #33
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #47
hack89 Jan 2013 #51
jmg257 Jan 2013 #63
hack89 Jan 2013 #69
jmg257 Jan 2013 #70
jmg257 Jan 2013 #66
slackmaster Jan 2013 #80
TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #73
Recursion Jan 2013 #34
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #52
Recursion Jan 2013 #56
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #17
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #25
guardian Jan 2013 #75
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #79
guardian Jan 2013 #86
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #87
regjoe Jan 2013 #45

Response to upaloopa (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 10:58 AM

1. I agree. That dialog is important in changing how we view guns and gun owners, particularly those


who are into acquiring these type weapons, toting in public, practicing to shoot people, promoting more and more guns, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 11:04 AM

2. The idea of creating a catagory of weapons based on arbitrary features, then banning them...

...was designed to make the Democrats look tough on crime while not agreeing with the methods of traditional Republicans who want to be tough on crime.


It was a farce, of course. People of America seem shocked, SHOCKED, that the ergonomics and layout of rifles should evolve past Elmer Fudd's weaponry and tried to knock them back to 1940.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 11:50 AM

14. the idea of creating the 'cateGORY of weapons' was the gun MAKER'S idea, really. gory indeed

here is some advice from a pro-gun bunny-
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012/11/25/the-wrong-way-to-argue-about-assault-weapons/
Leaving aside Hamilton’s argument in Federalist No. 28 (which would only serve to strengthen my point), it is unwise to argue that the stipulations of the assault weapons ban are merely cosmetic or incidental. Any weapon that has a detachable magazine that contains more than ten rounds is considered to be an assault weapon, and this includes handguns.

***

now, this 'farce' you speak of-
In February 2006, Smith & Wesson, the storied gunmaker founded in 1851, unveiled its first-ever semi-automatic assault-style rifle. The company dubbed it the M&P15, for "military and police," but the gun was very much aimed at the retail market.

Consumer response was "overwhelming," Mike Golden, the former CEO, told investors in a conference call the following year. Sales of the M&P15 and other military-style weapons were playing a crucial role in pulling the company out of a deep sales slump, he said.

Sales continued to surge, with more than 100,000 M&P15 rifles built in 2010, up from 4,600 in 2006, according to federal firearms manufacturing data. Smith & Wesson's revenues broke records and its stock price quadrupled. Then tragedy struck.

-skip-

"That category of firearms has been a primary growth engine and profit driver for firearms companies for the last seven or eight years," Dionisio said.

(that's the fuckin' tragedy, i think...)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/assault-weapon-sales-military-style_n_2333584.html

***

The next year, Weatherby introduced three additional shotguns, including two variants to the PA-459, as part of its relatively new “threat response” line. “hese new shotguns are designed for easy operation, fast handling and dependability in threatening situations,” Ruddell said in that year’s release. “They offer affordable and formidable protection for two of the most priceless basics of life: home and family.” Weatherby’s Threat Response line now includes four products: two rifles, and two shotguns, both with the 459 model number.

None of this might be worth mention outside of gun shows or publications aimed at enthusiasts, except that Weatherby is known for making weapons for hunting, not home defense or “threat response.” Indeed, it spawned a non-profit, the Weatherby Foundation International, which describes its mission as “educat the non-hunting public on the beneficial role of ethical sport hunting and its contribution to wildlife conservation.”
And it was at the Weatherby Foundation International’s 2013 Hunting and Conservation Award Dinner, held on Tuesday night, that the National Rifle Association executive director Wayne LaPierre first responded to President Obama’s inaugural address, and offered a preview of the N.R.A.’s stance toward the new assault-weapons-ban legislation that Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat of California, would announce on Thursday.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/01/the-nra-dystopia.html

i won't post waynoid's 'response', because it is paranoid hysteria...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:17 AM

97. So

Just so I have this straight:

Democrats commissioning/forcing gun makers to make a 'tough looking' gun just so said Democrats could then ban those guns and look tough on crime so they could get elected = not woo on DU.

Any questioning about JFK assassination = woo.

M'kay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #97)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:45 PM

107. *sigh*

No, the "tough looking" guns that incorporated the latest features in ergonomic and durability design were made first. This was an adaptation of improvements made for the military, which as you may have guessed, buys a lot of guns and has a vested interest in things like ergonomic and durability and accuracy and reliability and other petty things.

Remember, the Tommy Gun was adopted by the Army before WW2, and it had a protruding pistol grip. As did the German MP38 and the US M3 "Grease Gun", among others.

Then gun-control advocates, upset at military-styled guns being sold to American civilians, created a new term, "assault weapon", and defined it such that it applied to certain shotguns, rifles, and handguns that were semi-automatic in operation, were fed from a detachable magazine, and had too many secondary features from a list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Criteria_of_an_assault_weapon


After creating and defining "assault weapon" (see above link) they then proceeded to ban new sales of such guns. The legislation that created and defined the classification of "assault weapon" and then banned such guns was part of the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994". This crime bill also included funding for more cops, a magazine-capacity limit, and mandatory background checks.

I don't know about you, but I call that Democrats trying to be tough on crime in a way that the Republicans traditionally have not been.

Any questions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 11:06 AM

3. I thought part of the gun culture was pride in how quickly you can kill a person, if you wanted.

Does that kind of shame even register with them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 11:10 AM

4. NO not at all they would take pride in the fact their gun was the same model used in mass killings

 

We are not dealing with reasonable or sane people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lesmoderesstupides (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:16 AM

96. agreed nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 06:28 PM

76. You only have to kill (or incapacitate) them quickly enough to stop them from killing you

 

or another innocent. That's neither a point of pride nor shame as far as I'm concerned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 11:11 AM

5. The problem is there's not really a distinction between assault and "non-assault" weapons

I think there's this strong vaguely-articulated belief that weapons have been getting deadlier and more dangerous recently, but the weapons available to civilians are basically the same as they have been for a century or so. Now, gun manufacturers certainly don't like advertising that fact, and that is a problem. But modern-looking rifles really aren't any different from less-modern-looking rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 11:19 AM

7. To the discussion I was talking about none of that matters.

As a positive those expressing surprise maybe, don't know shit about weapons and there in lies the power of the dialog.
I don't think some will ever get the fact that people don't need to know gun lore and most people don't give a shit. They want killings to stop and that want doesn't require a good understanding of the weapons used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 11:21 AM

9. There is no strength in ignorance

you are not going to shame a huge swath of America into giving up their guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 11:55 AM

16. there is strength in stopping all sales of the stupid guns

again, we've been over this, you aren't going to give up your damn gun, so try another tack, perhaps.

told ya already, those finnish ones are better guns. not too pricy, either...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:03 PM

20. They are not better guns

my wife and daughter laughed when I showed them your post. They want adjustable stocks, light weight and light recoil - which they have already. They see no need to compromise to placate your fear of scary looking rifles.

But that is besides the point - there will be no AWB. I think even you know that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:17 PM

26. says you!

adjustable stocks? are you married to the incredible shrinking woman?

post #14.

have fun being a sucker for a marketing ploy.

oh, wait, you don't even want a new gun, so there's really no reason for you to care about an AWB.

weird.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #26)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:25 PM

31. Both my wife and daughter are small framed

that adjustable stock allows them to adjust the gun to them.

The point is we have our rifles. We like them and have a lot of success with them. We have no need or desire to get rid of them and buy a completely different style weapon to placate your fears. You are the one with a problem - we are not going to solve it for you.

You don't like semiautomatic weapons. We get it. We also don't care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #31)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:02 PM

44. so pony up and get them a sweet tikka lite

you don't care sums it up pretty well.

so stop yapping?

you aren't being forced to get rid of anything, just hang on to it, cause the tide is turning against the silly murderous things.

you might have to give up your 30 round mags, better stock up in case they break on ya.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #44)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:11 PM

50. I don't care what you think is an accurate statement, yes.

And no, the tide is not turning:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced a new version of the assault weapons ban on Thursday. And it’s already looking like a lost cause.

1. Joe Biden is downplaying it

The same day that Feinstein introduced the bill, Biden suggested that magazine sizes were the most important part of a gun control package. ”I’m much less concerned, quite frankly, about what you call an assault weapon than I am about magazines and the number of rounds that can be held in a magazine,” Biden said in a Google Hangout. He added that “more people out there get shot with a Glock that has cartridges in a (high-capacity magazine)” and also suggested that shotguns are more deadly than so-called assault weapons. Biden then again downplayed the ban again during a two-hour roundtable discussion on Friday.

2. The votes aren’t there

As Bloomberg reports, red-state Democratic Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) and Joe Manchin (W.Va.) have all suggested they won’t support an assault weapons ban, as have independent Sen. Angus King (Maine) and moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins (Maine). And that list doesn’t include some other red-state Democrats who are up for reelection in 2014, including Sens. Mary Landrieu (La.), Mark Pryor (Ark.) and Tim Johnson (S.D.).

3. Time is the enemy

While there was arguably more impetus for gun control after Newtown than there has been in years, it’s clear that the momentum has waned to some extent and people have, as the always do, refocused their attention on other political things, like illegal immigration, the budget and Obama’s Cabinet nominations.

4. Obama and Biden don’t need the ban

Even if the final result includes universal background checks and some of the other items, with no assault weapons ban, Obama and Biden can still lay claim to the most significant gun legislation in years/decades. They — and the red-state Democrats mentioned above — can still say they did something to avert future massacres and feel good about their efforts.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/29/why-the-assault-weapons-ban-is-probably-going-nowhere/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #50)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:19 PM

54. And don't forget that Feinstein was against the talking filibuster

 

which virtually ensures the defeat of her AWB.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #50)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:57 AM

89. why does ol' wayney lapuko keep having hissy fits about it? he says it is the spawn of satan

which is ironic, because HE is.

the guy that wrote that sounds like a pissant-
It's not every day that you see a reporter call the media useless, but that's precisely what Aaron Blake of the Washington Post did today when he published this piece giving cover for politicians -- Mitt Romney in particular -- who attack their opponents with wildly out-of-context quotes. The true context won't really matter, argued Blake, because the attacks work.

sounds a little screwy, journalism-wise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #89)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 06:25 AM

92. I don't care what he thinks - he is an idiot.

Last edited Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:15 AM - Edit history (1)

As for the reporter and this story - he is only the latest to write about how the AWB has no chance of passing. You haven't been paying attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #92)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:12 AM

95. good for you! i'd think he would be a major embarrassment to ANY sane gun owner!

i'm sure people said the NFA and GCA wouldn't pass either.

i was arguing with aikoaiko last night, and realized something- this may be obvious, but...

the reason detachable stocks and pistol grips are BAD BAD BAD is they make a high powered rifle CONCEALABLE.

like the classic tommy gun under the raincoat thing.

it would be helpful for the AWB folks to point these things out...

also, a friend of mine pointed out you can tape a 30 round mag upside down to the one in the gun, flip them around and keep blasting.

instead of digging thru your pocket for the next one (chance for madman to get tackled...)

hope that helps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #95)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:25 AM

98. There are good reasons only a tiny percentage of gun owners are NRA members.

And you are wrong about the stocks.

By law no rifle can be shorter than 26" - that is still a pretty long weapon. Most stocks are not fully collapsible (none are detachable) - they are merely adjustable in length to have the gun better fit the shooter. Rifles are still hard to conceal. That is why rifles are so seldom used in violent crimes - they attract too much attention while handguns are easy to carry and hide.

If concealablity is the threat then handguns are the problem. You can stick multiple handguns in a backpack as you walk around a college campus and no one would notice. Just like the Va Tech shooter did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #98)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:20 PM

100. um. yes, and no.

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/concealed-carry-issues-discussions/95685-heres-poser-you-2.html

type 'ar-15 without stock' into google, and click images.

http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=122&t=501555

That is why rifles are so seldom used in violent crimes - they attract too much attention while handguns are easy to carry and hide.

again, yes and no- handguns used twice as often, often BOTH types used, rifles kill similar amount.

and those ar-15s sure as shit don't look like rifles!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #100)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:32 PM

101. Did you notice the comment on BATF paperwork? Think about it for a second

I am sure it will come to you.

Handguns are used in about 60% of all murders. Rifles and shotguns in 3% of all murders.

Here is a good breakdown from the FBI on murder weapons - note that knives kill many more people than rifles.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #101)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:01 PM

103. well, then, think about WHY handguns are as common and easy to get as DILDOS

Gun Violence: How Research on an American Health Crisis Has ...
www.forbes.com/.../gun-violence-americas-secret-health-crisis/
Dec 17, 2012 – In 1996, Congress cut the CDC's budget by $2.6 million and passed ... industrialized countries of the world, our gun-homicide rate is about 20 ...

How The NRA Kills Gun Violence Research - Business Insider
www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-...
Jan 16, 2013 – The CDC isn't allowed to pursue many kinds of gun research due to the ... available statistics regarding the gun debate are raw gun homicide ...

Gun Deaths Cost U.S. Billions Each Year While Firearms Makers ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../guns-deaths-sandy-hook-shootin...
Dec 19, 2012 – Two years ago, 30,470 people died from homicides or suicides using firearms, according to data compiled by the CDC. Guns were the most ...

here's a serious facefull- i'll let you browse it. (those spaces are skips)

Based on the CDC data, almost 60 percent of U.S. firearm homicides occur in the 62 cities of the country’s 50 largest metros. However, only 27 percent of suicides do. In 2006, firearm suicides were a primarily suburban (and non-central city) phenomenon, which is likely weighing down the relationship between firearm deaths and the city unemployment rate.

Let me start by pointing out that the overall rate of death by gun is closely related both gun-related suicide (.80) and gun-related homicides (.83). But gun-related suicides and homicides are far less related to one another (with a correlation of .35).

We found substantial negative correlations between the rate of gun deaths and states that ban assault weapons, require trigger locks, and mandate safe storage requirements for guns.
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/12/geography-us-gun-violence/4171/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #103)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:06 PM

104. I have no problem with the CDC researching gun violence

with actual data we can move away from these one size fits all laws like the AWB. We can concentrate on those specific groups of people and social conditions that are responsible for gun violence.

Such research would actually strengthen gun rights by removing much of the emotional hyperbole that dominated the discussion right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #104)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:27 PM

106. good! kinda awful how the nra hampers the CDC

they really are more of the problem than feinstein or CERTAINLY uncle joe.

cheers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 11:53 AM

15. then why, pray tell, did the GUN MAKERS INVENT IT??

refer to post #14.

'modern looking rifles' sounds suspiciously the the nra's BS 'modern sporting rifle' crap.

why does the model number stand for military and police, again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #15)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:01 PM

19. To sell more.

If people realized their grandfather's rifle was just as good as an AR they wouldn't buy an AR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #19)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:21 PM

28. thank you for your agreement

so...

a sales ploy, not some 2nd amendment claptrap.

whew. admit it, it feels good to get that off your chest!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #28)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:55 PM

42. Not sure what you mean by "get it off my chest"

I've said that several times already. It's a sales ploy and an integral part of consumerism. You want to outlaw consumerism now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #42)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:46 PM

65. i'm not quite sure what you mean, ever, soo...

regulate consumerism-
no cigs in bars
no booze ads on kids shows
toaster safety
no exploding bullets

get it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #15)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:05 PM

21. Oldsmobile had a model called a "Rocket 88." It did not fly. It sold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #21)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:22 PM

29. olds never made a tank or troop transport

or guns, so...

bad try!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #29)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:54 PM

41. Oldsmobile made most of the self-propelled artillery the US used in WWII

They invented the automatic transmission for a military contract, in fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #41)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:44 PM

64. we have 2 GMC army trucks on the farm, actually. NOT automatics...

It didn't take William S. Knudsen long to make up his mind. President Roosevelt needed him, so there was only one answer the General Motors president could give.

Each division of General Motors joined the war effort. Pontiac made anti-aircraft guns, Cadillac made tanks, Oldsmobile made shells and assembled cannons. Military vehicles roamed the expanse of GM's Milford Proving Ground outside Detroit where technicians tackled the problem of excessive noise in combat vehicles.

nyhoo, they sure never sold artillery to civilians, soo...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #15)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:35 PM

36. Are you sure you don't mean Josh Sugarmann of the VPC?

He's the guy most responsible for hammering the term "assault weapon" into people's heads for at least two decades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #36)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:22 PM

55. no, like i frikin' said, i mean smith&wesson calling them 'M&P"

as in military and police.

which was, and is, a lame tactic to sell more guns.

'there are 8 guns for every 10 americans, our sales are slumping, let's invent a new type of gun to appeal to those people that already have them.'

get it?

how does 'any gun that holds more than 10 rounds' sound?

i'd go with 8, personally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #55)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 06:52 PM

77. "our sales are slumping"

 

Ever wonder why you don't see a firearms manufacturer ad on TV, or anywhere beside a gun mag for that matter? You might see an occasional ad for a local sporting goods or gun store, but that's about it.

It's probably because all they have to do is wait for the next round of anti-2A demagoguery to rear its head, and their inventory for the year flies off the shelf.

You guys have sold more guns that Sam Colt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sylvi (Reply #77)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 09:42 PM

81. right, without the corporate BS doublespeak, it means 'our sales aren't increasing fast enough'

2011: 10,037,110 (3,217 per 100,000)
2010: 8,753,555 (2,835 per 100,000)
2009: 8,927,138 (2,907 per 100,000)
2008: 8,426,245 (2,771 per 100,000)
2007: 7,530,727 (2,499 per 100,000)
2006: 7,361,033 (2,467 per 100,000)
2005: 6,935,952 (2,346 per 100,000)
2004: 6,599,292 (2,253 per 100,000)
2003: 6,333,371 (2,182 per 100,000)
2002: 6,347,492 (2,206 per 100,000)
2001: 7,207,720 (2,528 per 100,000)
2000: 7,067,634 (2,504 per 100,000)
1999: 7,857,932 (2,816 per 100,000)

As you can see, over the past 13 years, the per capita "sales" figure has fluctuated between a high of 3,217 per 100,000 in 2011 and a low of 2,182 per 100,000 in 2003. But there have been no "dramatic" spikes in either direction dating back to the final two years of the Clinton administration.
But let me stress again... Even these revised figures only provide a very crude estimate of gun sales in the United States (for the reasons listed above)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/the-truth-about-gun-sales_b_1193498.html

whatever.

you guys have bought more than enough guns, i'd say.

more guns than people, yet only 1/3 of people own guns.

ever see that tv show hoarders?

edit: (from same link)
With fewer Americans choosing to own firearms, the gun industry understands that it must sell additional firearms to people who are already gun owners. To this end, the NRA has dramatically ratcheted up the promotion of gun confiscation conspiracy theories since the election of Democratic President Barack Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 11:16 AM

6. That's the plan?


When the AWB fails there will be lots of opportunity to ask rhetorical questions of AR15 owners because AR15 sales will be through the roof for the next 2 - 3 years.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:01 PM

18. no, not the plan, what you typed makes no sense

Last edited Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:23 PM - Edit history (1)

obvioulsy the AWB would be a fail if it didn't stop people from buying guns.

but if it is passed-

they are scarce, on back order, and really expensive now, how could a ban on import and production cause more to be sold?

and don't say the last one didn't work, this AWB is different, of course.

feinstein specifically says 'to dry up future supplies' to paraphrase her.

get it?

there are 150+ guns on the list whose sales will be zero?

and don't say they'll change the friggin' sights or grip, they factored that into the new plan too.

they can add something to the list faster than makers can retool their factories and of course, get the license to sell it FROM THE SAME GOVERNMENT THAT IS MAKING THE LAW.

really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #18)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:36 PM

37. It's not going to pass but it will cause a run on the guns.

 

This the end result will be more AR-15s in the hands of the public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #37)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:24 PM

57. there IS a run on guns now, yes. and they are in short supply.

so, when banned, supply goes away.

simple concept, why do i have to repeat it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #57)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:26 PM

61. There will still be a new model next year, with its grip shape changed. That will sell too

Yet another huge product roll-out. People will buy it specifically because it pisses you off that they do. It's stupid and juvenile, but there we are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #57)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:26 PM

62. And the manufacturer's will just change the name

 

and modify the shape to be compliant with the law and sales will just keep on increasing.
The AWB is nothing more than a feel good do nothing law that will just rile up gun owners in the country, which is already happening judging by the massive increase in firearms purchase's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #37)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:25 PM

59. It's about a month too late for that worry

Stores are empty. This will probably show up in this quarter's GDP numbers, the panic buying has been so intense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #18)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:58 PM

67. Can you show me the part of the law that allows guns to be listed without amending the law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #67)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 02:12 PM

68. nbc news can

“Her new bill demonstrates that the Senator has learned valuable lessons from the previous federal ban that was in place from 1994-2004,” the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence said in a statement. “In particular, the change from a 2- to 1-feature test shows that she has taken significant steps to eliminate the loopholes that allowed the gun industry to manufacture ‘copycat rifles’ under the previous law, thereby violating its spirit and intent.”- NBC News

why would i read that whole thing FOR you?

the words listed or amending aren't in that doc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #68)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 02:23 PM

71. You said one thing in post 18 and something different in post 68.

In post #18 you said:
and don't say they'll change the friggin' sights or grip, they factored that into the new plan too.

they can add something to the list faster than makers can retool their factories and of course, get the license to sell it FROM THE SAME GOVERNMENT THAT IS MAKING THE LAW.


I didn't read that in the senate bill, but thought I missed it.

in post #68 you cited NBC news as saying:
“Her new bill demonstrates that the Senator has learned valuable lessons from the previous federal ban that was in place from 1994-2004,” the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence said in a statement. “In particular, the change from a 2- to 1-feature test shows that she has taken significant steps to eliminate the loopholes that allowed the gun industry to manufacture ‘copycat rifles’ under the previous law, thereby violating its spirit and intent.”- NBC News


These are really different things. The second quotes doesn't say that they can "add something to the list".

As far as I can tell the language in Feinstein's SB allows for this AR inspired rifle to be bought new:





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #71)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 09:07 PM

78. no, both statements are 'no more copycats' - it bans the listed guns AND new ones with the features

The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:

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.

(so you can still get a 10 round detachable mag)

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.

***

it bans the one in the pic, i'd guess- detachable mag, too big. is it on the list?

you could buy that one holding 10 rounds, which wouldn't stick out below the trigger guard, the pic is a 30 round mag, right?

it looks like that might be a threaded barrel- no idea if that counts as a pistol grip, is it swept back enough not to?

what the hell is that grip thing anyway? looks clumsy more than anything.
can't really say without knowing what it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #78)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 09:52 PM

82. Its an AR with a monsterman grip and no other evil features except detachable mag


It meets the requirement for not being banned. It takes detachable mag but doesn't have any of the other evil features such as pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.

That rifle is essentially the same rifle used in Newtown except with a different grip.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #82)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 11:03 PM

85. ok, the monsterman thing is what they used to get around laws in cali

A Monster Man Grip is the gun owner’s response to Liberal stupidity and, if installed on a rifle negates the need for a mag lock or a bullet button but, of course, it destroys the ergonomics of the rifle itself.

from some gun site.

just looked at bushmaster- AHA!

looks different to me in that you could remove the stock and STILL USE IT with the pistol grip!

so, easier to carry CONCEALED, like at a....movie theatre? campus?

that's what the hulaballo is about.

your gun doesn't have that option. (detaching stock)

and again, the 30 round mag is bad, too. a buddy just pointed out you can tape a new mag to the old one and flip it around and keep shooting. BAD.

http://www.tikka.fi/t3models.php?tac

other than the mag, yours is ^^ lot like that one

it would seem to me a real pistol grip would also make it easier to shoot from the hip, as a maniac would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #85)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 08:26 AM

93. Such a grip will also make an AR compliant with the proposed AWB


Again, banning firearms is futile based on AWB logic is futile.

Pistol grips do not help or hinder "shooting from the hip". And, frankly, if I had a choice between someone shooting at me from the hip or from the shoulder, my chances of survival are greater with the former.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #93)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:30 AM

99. great, keep the AR, just no 30 round mags

it is only BANNING the future production-

there are ~ as many ARs in the US as nra members (funny, huh?)

the logic is- we are flooded with these guns, let's reduce the numbers.

3 mass murders in 6 months with the same gun (2 bushmasters and an M&P)

On May 22, law enforcement officials said Holmes bought a Glock pistol. Less than a week later, he upgraded to a shotgun. The following week he bought an AR-15 rifle, versions of which had been outlawed under the assault weapon ban in 1994. But that prohibition expired in 2004 and Congress, in a nod to the political clout of gun enthusiasts, did not renew it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/us/aurora-gunmans-lethal-arsenal.html?_r=0

doesn't a pistol grip make cramming a new mag in faster and easier? or enable you to use a rifle and pistol AT THE SAME TIME???

Well, while all ARs might look alike upon first blush, it’s actually been a matter of “close but no cigar” if you wanted a genuine Colt M4 like those used by the military. Until now.

That’s because, for the first time since the introduction of the iconic and standard-setting M4 in the 1990s, Colt Defense is offering a new rifle — they call it the LESOCOM — to law enforcement and civilian shooters like you and me. And son of a gun if this thing isn’t as close in configuration to the M4A1 military carbine as anything you’ve ever seen. The Colt LESOCOM rifle is ideal for any law enforcement officer, marksman or hunter looking for a firearm that is most similar to what is used by the military.

and the beat goes on. from ^^^ gun digest.

blaaaaaargh, those guns aren't going down too well...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 11:20 AM

8. Which would segue into a conversation about handguns?

which are the true killers in society as well as the choice of the majority of mass shooter?

Interesting idea.

How about we just pass laws that will have an actual and significant impact on violence? The idea expressed in your OP just makes it easier to dismiss the AWB - "what do you mean it is just a dialog starter?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 11:22 AM

10. I am not going to respond to gunner questions anymore.

I put out there an idea I heard. Do with it what you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 11:26 AM

12. Invincible ignorance is not a path to victory

just saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #12)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:37 PM

38. I'm not playing games

Just saying win lose what's the difference. I'm not here to win anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #38)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:38 PM

39. I agree - it is only a discussion board after all. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:23 PM

30. i've got your back

this guy will at least admit he read what you posted...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:10 PM

22. sure, why not? it already IS part of the convo, so try agin. no, dont try again...

yes, we all knoww blah blah handguns kill the most people.

we also know you support obama's EOs (or say you do) so...

one of them is BG checks on ALL WEAPONS SALES, which will certainly reduce handguns, too.

all of the experts agree that is the 1st, easiest, and BEST way to start.

handguns are NOT the choice of most mass killers, that is just a falsehood.

a dialog such as-
your idiot brother is showing off his stupid rambo gun and someone says 'don't you realize its against the law to keep that loaded .45 pistol in your unlocked closet? you MORAN?"

like that kinda thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #22)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:20 PM

27. Handguns are actually the choice of most mass shootings

have you forgotten Va Tech?

Myth: Restoring the federal ban on assault weapons will prevent these horrible crimes.

Reality: The overwhelming majority of mass murderers use firearms that would not be restricted by an assault-weapons ban. In fact, semiautomatic handguns are far more prevalent in mass shootings. Of course, limiting the size of ammunition clips would at least force a gunman to pause to reload or switch weapons.


http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2012/12/top_10_myths_about_mass_shooti.html?camp=obinsite

James Alan Fox is a professor of criminology at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts, in the United States. He is the Lipman Family Professor of Criminal Justice and former dean at Northeastern University. He has published 15 books and dozens of journal and magazine articles and newspaper columns. Fox holds a bachelor's degree in sociology (1972), a master's degree in criminology (1974), a master's degree in statistics (1975), and a Ph.D. in sociology (1976), all from the University of Pennsylvania.

Fox is known as "The Dean of Death," for his research on mass murders. USA Today says that "Fox is arguably the nation's leading criminologist." As an authority on homicide, he appears regularly on national television and radio programs, including the Today Show, Meet the Press, Dateline, 20/20, and 48 Hours. He has been a guest numerous times on Oprah.


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

I support universal background checks and limits on magazine sizes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #27)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:39 PM

40. I'd even ditch the magazine restrictions, too

"10 rounds good, 11 rounds bad!" Someone had to make that arbitrary decision. Someone we don't necessarily trust. Just remember what happened up in the PRNY, where magazines are now restricted to only 7 rounds. Why 7? Don't ask me - ask the state legislators who rammed this through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #40)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:24 PM

58. Meh. Consumer culture is full of arbitrary decisions like that.

Pick a limit, pass a law. I don't really care either way but at least it stops being a distraction in this debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #27)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:59 PM

43. not really. they are easier to conceal, sure. there is one thing in common in mass shootings..

of course we agree on that. MAGAZINES.

i will agree that it doesn't make a hell of a lot of difference what kind of gun it is when there's a 33 round mag in it.

(rifles being more deadly, of course)

so, yes twice as many handguns,
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

but i'll hazard a guess the total killed is pretty similar...
http://www.nycrimecommission.org/initiative1-shootings.php

a lot use BOTH pistol and rifle so...

those columns won't expand @ the MJ link, but bear with me..for once?

Reality: The overwhelming majority of mass murderers use firearms that would not be restricted by an assault-weapons ban

that means the AWs that weren't banned by the OLD ban, INCLUDING AKs and ARs...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #43)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:09 PM

48. An AR-15 that is compliant with the new AWB will still be just as deadly

it will have a new name and a new grip.

That point doesn't seem to be getting through. The AWB does not regulate things like rate of fire and caliber of bullet. It regulates cosmetic features that can be easily changed.

Two pictures that illustrate this:

This is illegal under the AWB:




This is legal under the AWB (no pistol grip):



They are both Ruger Mini-14s

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14TacticalRifle/models.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 11:26 AM

11. Insulting people is generally not a good way to get them to cooperate, or to change their minds.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:11 PM

23. not really an insult, the answer to the ? posed is a simple yes.

which might lead to 'what do you use it for'

and cause embarrassment, perhaps.

fine with me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #23)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:34 PM

35. Please spare me the sophistry, farminator4000. The innuendo is obvious.

 

My response would be along the lines of "Real mass killings aren't done with firearms at all."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #35)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:18 PM

53. no innuendo about a resonable person saying 'why do you have that silly gun?'

your response seems like it is to a different question...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #53)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:25 PM

60. If you can't see the TWO insults inherent in that reply, I can't help you understand any better.

 

You've escalated the hypothetical discussion to calling someone unreasonable because of his or her choice of a firearm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 06:13 PM

74. Oh, I beg to differ... The next time someone ties my penis around a gun, I'm going to melt ALL of my

guns, and if I can't melt them with charcoal, well maybe I'll take them on a boating trip LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 11:26 AM

13. So the purpose of a new AWB

is to ban some guns (without a real effect) to start a conversation about banning other guns (which may have an effect)

Happily I have my ice cleats on today...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:12 PM

24. read the new AWB

and tell us what you think the purpose is.

BG checks on all sales make ya nervous?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #24)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:30 PM

32. I have

The ban part is more feel-good-do-nothing-cost-us-An-election BS

The BG checks are something we should have done before. I will neither sell nor buy without a BG check. I figure if a person won't do a BG check before selling, that gun's history is suspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #32)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:06 PM

46. banning 150+ crappy guns and allowing 900+ good ones is nothing?

cost an election? you are stuck in the past perhaps.

if the majority of people are pro-gun control, what does election results have to do with this?

you are in the minority as a clean dealer, for sure.

thousands of AR get sold by shady dealers just for profit every day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #46)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:10 PM

49. Thousands of AR get sold by shady dealers just for profit every day?

 

I assume you can prove that or have stats proving that.
When you say shady dealers, what does that mean?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #49)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 10:11 PM

83. i think i meant 'guns', but if you want a guess at how many ARs, sure

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.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html

that makes 1000 a day for 10.2 years.

so i was a bit off, depending on what i meant- if 40% of sales are 'shady' there easily could be 400 ar-15s a day sold on the black market.

And keep in mind, the AR-15 is just one of the many assault weapons on the market.

***

so...shady indeed...

Available research shows the harms of policies which inadequately hold gun sellers
accountable for dangerous and illegal practices. In a national survey of armed criminals, illegal
purchases from licensed gun dealers (e.g., no background check conducted) were as common as
were legal purchases from licensed gun dealers.38
Data from federal gun trafficking
investigations indicate that scofflaw gun dealers are the most important channels for diverting
guns to traffickers and criminals.39
Phone surveys of gun dealers reveal that many are willing to
bend or break the law to make a sale.40, 41
Findings from a study of Chicago’s underground
illegal gun markets found that certain retailers, set up just across the city’s border, colluded with
traffickers to funnel large numbers of guns to gang members.42


-skip-

The case of a large gun shop near Milwaukee demonstrates how accountability measures,
or the lack thereof, can have a dramatic effect on the diversion of guns to criminals. In 1999, a
report was released that indicated that Badger Guns & Ammo had sold more guns that were later
traced to crime than any other retail gun seller in the nation.
Within days of the report being
publicized in the news, the gun dealer voluntarily changed his sales practices. Abruptly after this
change, the diversion of guns to criminals in Milwaukee within a year of being sold by the dealer
dropped by 73 percent.46
The enactment of the Tiahrt amendments, which, among several
protections for gun sellers, prevented the release of data connecting gun shops to crime guns,
was associated with a 204 percent increase in the diversion of guns to criminals soon after sales
by Badger Guns & Ammo.47
http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/WhitePaper102512_CGPR.pdf



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #46)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 05:08 PM

72. Banning 150+ of the most popular guns

which are used in a minute fraction of total crime is nothing

Pro-gun people tend to be more politically active than their opponents. Most people are more apathetic than pro-control. They favor tighter controls but it is not a hot button issue that will get them out to vote. T,hat gives the NRA and by association, the "other" party, a free voting block. There is no guarantee that '94 will repeat but if we wish to expend a large amount of political capital, I would rather it be on something that can show concrete results or at least does not involve the word ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #72)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 10:23 PM

84. popular to who? the nra and gun makers, really. if they never started pushing them, would you gun

people be crying out for them? of course not.

if you are trying to say i should worry about the nra or their clout or anyone who associates themselves with those scumbags, give up.

check out their list of enemies.

check out how truly paranoid that maniac is- (i mean, #2, he's really talking about himself, that's kind of MEGALOMANIA)

1) Gun-free schools zones “tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.”

2) “There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.

3) “iolent crime is increasing again for the first time in 19 years! Add another hurricane, terrorist attack or some other natural or man-made disaster, and you’ve got a recipe for a national nightmare of violence and victimization.”

4) “We need to have every single school in America immediately deploy a protection program proven to work —and by that I mean armed security.”
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/21/1372001/the-10-craziest-quotes-from-the-nra-press-conference/?mobile=nc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #84)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:12 AM

88. I find it funny

that the NRA is at once the big boogeyman who has an iron grip on DC's balls while sending truckloads of guns to inner cities and hands them out like Halloween candy. At the same time they are a bunch of racist buffoons who are powerless and should be ignored out of existence. Which is it

To un-revise history, the NRA nor manufacturers pushed military style rifles. I distinctly remember AK clones selling for $100-150 in '93. A dealer offered to sell me a case of ten at $110 a piece. I turned it down because I did not want to loose money. Had I bought them and waited until '95 I would have been able to sell the rifles at $1800-$2000 each no problem. It would have been perfectly legal (except not being an FFL I could have been arrested by the ATF for being an unlicensed dealer) as each gun was documented grandfathered.

It was the quarter-assed old AWB that pushed these guns into the spotlight and gave them their gotta-have-it status. Now in 2013 we are marching to the same tune played by the same CA senator- and expect different results.

Remember what happened in those midterms? Do you really expect different? The NRA had 1/10th the clout with gun owners back then...

“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Sir Winston Churchill

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #88)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:12 AM

90. it isn't funny, people are dying every 45 minutes, so stop laughing.

yes the nra are boogeyman, they are insane lunatics (not you- wanyey and ted nugent, for sure)

they have NO IDEA where the guns go, nor do they care.

how many not-white people are in the nra? they are also racist (not all, but most)

there were 19 specific weapons in the 1994 ban, and 150+ now, gun makers have been REAL busy, huh?

i really don't care about some political BS from 20 years ago.

which is it, the 1st AWB was meaningless, or caused everything?

"If you go on with this nuclear arms race, all you are going to do is make the rubble bounce."

also Churchill

Consumer response was "overwhelming," Mike Golden, the former CEO, told investors in a conference call the following year. Sales of the M&P15 and other military-style weapons were playing a crucial role in pulling the company out of a deep sales slump, he said.

Sales continued to surge, with more than 100,000 M&P15 rifles built in 2010, up from 4,600 in 2006, according to federal firearms manufacturing data. Smith & Wesson's revenues broke records and its stock price quadrupled. Then tragedy struck.

-skip-

"That category of firearms has been a primary growth engine and profit driver for firearms companies for the last seven or eight years," Dionisio said.

(that's the fuckin' tragedy, i think...)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/assault-weapon-sales-military-style_n_2333584.html



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #90)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:05 AM

91. I meant funny strange, not funny haha

I am all too familiar with terminal ballistics to laugh

The old AWB was both- ineffective at reducing crime, in any meaningful way, and spurring interest in what it banned and the close cousins.

I do hope you are right, I would be happy to be wrong and have no political cost to the party on this issue. I think the EO's are a great start; if the administration could integrate more moderate pro-gun groups in further reasonable steps it will chip away the NRA monopoly. Some days I do think it is best to give wayne and Ted the microphone and let them talk freely; it will do more to further gun control than most recent shootings. (re reading that makes me sad; I think I am spot on)

Mr. Churchill could turn a phrase , they do not make orators like him any more.


I understand you passion on this issue and appreciate the lack of insult and snark. Though coming from different places, we both would like to reach the same point. Peace and good night

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #91)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:04 AM

94. ok, gotcha!

we agree the old awb sucked.

what would be great would be wayne+ted debating say, joe biden and gabby giffords on national tv!

that would be like 100 years of positive gun control in 30 minutes!

a serious question, to a responsible FFL-

went into a gun store the other day (1st time in 30 years)

of course the owner was showing gun pics on his phone and snarking about obama. (DARK blue state)

why would a store in a state that has an AWB ban AND large mag ban have 30 round mags for $29.95?

it was just a few, but does that mean they've just been sitting in the case for 19 years? they looked pretty dusty...

also looked like there were some smaller than legal pop guns.

i'm not going to drop a dime or anything, but wtf with the 30 round mags?

no guns in the shop to match- is the guy just making some kind of 'statement' of independence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #94)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:51 PM

102. Couple possibilities

Could be grandfathered- either he had them or somebody sold them who couldn't/ didn't want to keep them and he's trying to make a buck or 30. Other is that most rifle mags are not well marked for date of manufacture. It is hard to prove if they are pre or post ban; they could be post ban and he is saying prove it.

His inventory does sound strange. I don't run a real shop, more special orders for a small clientele, FTF, give me references and I am still checking you ass even if you were my best man. I have a few mags for guns I don't have but know one of my friends will likely need it eventually so I keep them around. I wouldn't keep stuff on hand I had no use for if I ran a brick and mortar.

If it seems shift, talk to any LEO friends or attorney you may know. He may be overdue for an audit. I am thinking of one NRA prefect stereotype dealer who spent seven years as a guest of the government for... shall we say inventory issues . I have no idea who tipped off the ATF though I did have two close friends who worked at the shop for a year- pure coincidence I am sure

It is sad so many dealers play the part to look tough. I have no trouble telling people I voted for Wellstone Never lost a customer over that yet. Then again most of my gun bunny friends are hard core Dems. My few Repub friends are pro-control, go figure

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #102)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:24 PM

105. thanks! reality can be shadowy...another ?

first of all, reality-
the atf probably hasn't been in there in 20+ years, right?

or he'd know if they were stopping by? (thanks tiahrt?) so just throw them in his truck?

the local sheriff prob. doesn't care.. there ARE state cops, but doesn't it kinda boil down to who the cop voted for?

now another twist-
its 5 mins from the border of a less-gun-law state (where i live)

i asked him (after he tore himself away from the obama snark) if he had a .410 shotgun for scaring birds (i am a farmer)

he looked at me like 'for your wife?' whatever.

didn't have 10 gauges either, so i asked him how much my 60+ year old .22 might be worth, he said i had to bring it in.

basically, what % chance is there this dude would ask me for ID?

would he have to keep records for buying such an old gun (no idea if there is even a serial #)

is a 60+ year old .22 LR an antique? (mossberg)

not my responsibility to offer ID, right?

also, guns cost like 4 times as much, or more, than 30 years ago!

the guy didn't seem THAT bad, not dropping n-bombs or anything, just...weird.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #105)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:23 PM

108. Sounds like fireworks here

MN doesn't allow good stuff- rockets, high shooting stuff, fire crackers M-whatevers... In WI it is all legal. There are probably 50-100 fireworks stores and stands in WI with ten miles of the borders. They all have big signs telling you what is legal in each state, you have to show ID and sign a form where you "promise" to not transport illegal fireworks into another state.

ATF rules are a bit harder to get around, but seems this guy is playing the system. If you want to sell, little chance of ID, to buy you can't being from out of state. If he gets to know you, he may have a friend who happens to have what you want for sale as a private party...

One reason I am all for opening up NCIS. To fully work it would require registration- which I abhor, but sometimes ya just have to take a bite of that famous sandwich

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #24)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:30 PM

33. The AWB is to force gun makers to make cosmetic changes to their rifles

primarily to the grips.

That's how I read it.

BTW - universal background checks have nothing to do with the AWB.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #33)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:07 PM

47. that's the OLD awb, silly

yes, BG checks are an EO, no congress needed. whew!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #47)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:12 PM

51. You better read closer

This is illegal under the AWB:




This is legal under the AWB (no pistol grip):



They are both Ruger Mini-14s

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14TacticalRifle/models.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #51)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:41 PM

63. Not so sure...

‘‘(H) All of the following rifles, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof:


NOT arguing, but seems the ban is covering these cosmetic and name changes.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #63)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 02:12 PM

69. It specifically calls out the Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rife M–14/20CF

while specifically exempting the Ruger Mini 30 and Ruger Mini-14 (w/o folding stock)

Secondly, how hard it is to change the looks of a semi-automatic rifle to make it look less "military"? Nothing in the bill addresses how the rifles actually function - it does not regulate rate of fire or caliber of bullet. Strip an AR-15 down to its core components and then wrap it in different stock and grips - it is not an AR-15 anymore. There is no unique "AR-15" technology in the firing mechanism - semi-automatic rifles are all pretty generic on the inside.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #69)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 02:22 PM

70. Thanks for the clarification. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #51)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:49 PM

66. Wow - 122 page bill, of which 99 pages are a list of exemtions...wild! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #66)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 09:29 PM

80. Look at that list. Most of the "exemptions" are bolt-action rifles.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #33)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 06:08 PM

73. The hard on for grips is wanting less safety and accuracy in hopes of accidental shootings

and/or discharge in a effort to softly pad stats.

This isn't about safety, it is about control. A little collateral damage to grease the wheels to move toward the goal, nothing more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #24)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:33 PM

34. Here's the proposed AWB. It doesn't do what you seem to think it does about BG checks

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4

Now, I support background checks on all purchases, period. This mandates them for transfers of grandfathered weapons. While that's not bad, it's also the class of weapon I really don't care about. But this framework: required check by an FFL with a statutory fee, is IMO the way to go. Just expand it to handguns, where it really matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #34)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:17 PM

52. BG checks are mentioned precisely ONCE

you have to transfer grandfathered semi-autos thru a dealer.

One interesting side note: There is actually common ground between the NRA and the White House on the issue of expanding background checks. When I talked to NRA President David Keene about the possibility of expanding background checks to unlicensed dealers at gun shows, he was open to the possibility. According to the most recent study by the National Institute of Justice, about 4% of gun purchases in 1993 and 1994 came through gun shows and flea markets. Another 17% of guns were acquired from members of the family, and 12% came from friends or acquaintances. So requiring background checks at gun shows could be a starting point for compromise, but it would only affect a sliver of gun sales.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/01/24/fact-check-the-gun-registry-red-herring/

i'm sure that 4% is WAY higher 20 years later-

honest question- do they have to repeal the tiahrt amendment to to the BG check thing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #52)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:22 PM

56. It infuriates me that both the NRA and our party agree on this in substance, and it keeps...

... not happening.

The Tiahrt amendment would have to go for private sellers to have access to the NICS system themselves. If it goes through an FFL, the privacy safeguards of the amendment are already in place -- that's why I think this way of doing it is probably the most workable system. Adapt your existing institutions whenever possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 11:59 AM

17. Seems like a "lite" version of the stuff you see on DU...

I don't think you shame some deer hunter in Pennsylvania because his Remington 760 is the same model used to kill MLK.

The American civilian population is re-arming itself, as it is wont to do from time to time, and the utility weapon of choice is no longer the .38 on the nightstand or the shotgun in the corner. It is the semi-auto carbine of medium power. This is an accelerating trend, as should be clear by now.

The future of crime reduction -- be it in schools or on the streets and in homes -- is new approachs to institutional security and enhancing the reputation and visibility of tens of millions of gun-owners; this last action is essential in order to better set the standard of responsibility of gun-ownership. This is already underway, but big changes are around the corner, IMO. Gun owners have a responsibility to do this.

But shaming has already been tried and has failed, according to the knowing ones up thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #17)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:14 PM

25. look at post #14

and the point is, only people who want those silly guns think they are any good for anything.

there are over 200 million people who think they are just plain silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #25)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 06:20 PM

75. In other words

 

you think the wishes of 120,000,000 people should be ignored. Very egalitarian of you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #75)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 09:23 PM

79. you must of read some other post, not mine

i said it sucks that gun makers are pushing assault weapons just to improve their profits.

and that the MAKERS started the whole 'assault weapon' name by calling it a M&P military police model, which they are still doing today

and i also mentioned it was the fault of the SCUMBAGS leading the nra, not you or the other 3,999,999 members.

your number is WAY too high.

i will for sure ignore anyone who denies that wayno laparanoid is a complete lunatic and asshole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #79)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 11:10 PM

86. No I was reading your post

 

you said "and the point is, only people who want those silly guns think they are any good for anything. there are over 200 million people who think they are just plain silly."

The implication being that balance of the country's population that want and own guns are silly and their wishes are unimportant. I guess you are one of those that believe the wishes of 1/3 to 1/2 the population are unimportant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #86)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 11:31 PM

87. then what are you talking about?

As of 2012, there are an estimated 2.5-3.7 million rifles from just the AR-15 family of rifles in civilian use in the United States; the total number of assault weapons in the United States among all types is not known. AR-15 rifles are a favorite for target shooting, hunting, and personal protection.

wiki ^^

Population, 2010 308,745,538
Persons under 5 years, percent, 2011 6.5%
Persons under 18 years, percent, 2011 23.7%

200,000,000 think silly
~90,000,000 under 18
~10 - 15 million possibly think not silly

only ~4 million nra members, or 'true believers'.

your numbers are WAY OFF!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:04 PM

45. Sorry, but pointless

 

Why would somebody wanting to see your rifle ask a stupid question like that?

You're better off keeping on trying to convince people to live in fear of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread