Senate Panel Votes for Ban on Assault Weapons

[SecularMotion]

WASHINGTON — The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved a measure to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, the first major Congressional vote on the issue since the ban expired in 2004.

The vote to approve the measure — now ostensibly headed for the full Senate — went firmly along party lines; the 10 Democrats on the committee voted aye, and the 8 Republicans of the committee rejected it. The legislation would also limit the size of ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.

In debating the measure — as well as amendments offered by Senator John Cornyn of Texas designed to chip away its provisions — the committee laid bare the essence and emotions of the debate over how to prevent gun violence and the meaning of the Second Amendment, a fight that is likely to continue on the Senate floor.

The measure, the fourth and most controversial passed by the committee, is almost certain to fail if brought before the entire Senate and has almost zero chance of even receiving a hearing in the House.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/us/politics/panel-approves-reinstatement-of-assault-weapons-ban.html?hp

[premium]

1. It's already DOA in the full senate.

I believe there are 6 Dem senators who have already expressed opposition to it and it's most definitely DOA in the house.

The measure, the fourth and most controversial passed by the committee, is almost certain to fail if brought before the entire Senate and has almost zero chance of even receiving a hearing in the House.

We should concentrate on the bills that stand a decent chance to pass.

[upaloopa]

2. We should concentrate on bills people want passed.

last count 60% of Americans want stricter gun laws. It's not going away. Too many people are invested in this.
Today no it won't pass but we won't give up.

[premium]

4. I have my doubts that a new AWB will ever be instituted,

but you never know.

[Pullo]

5. One can only hope n/t

[av8r1998]

7. what 60% is that?

Please provide a link to a poll.
Would love to see the questions.

Hell, I want stricter gun control.
Just not mag bans, feature tests, registration, taxes, ammo bans, or anything else anti rights hoplophobes conjure up.

[upaloopa]

9. Look it up. It was a poll just a couple of weeks ago and

a long segment on the Maddow show. Seems the percentage has been growing.
I won't react to gunner debate traps. Say what ever you want about me I don't give a shit.

[av8r1998]

10. dont be offended

Poll results depend on the questions asked.
You made the assertion.
I just ask that you substantiate it.

[upaloopa]

12. If you really want to know about it you can look it up.

[av8r1998]

15. dont waste my time nt

[upaloopa]

17. How can I waste your time. You decide what to

do with your time not me.

[krispos42]

45. We can have stricter gun laws

This is a dumb law. It's stupid. It's pandering by people that want publicity and YOUR VOTE and YOUR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS to TAKE ON THE NRA... without actually doing anything useful. Universal background checks aren't sexy, but BANNING ASSAULT WEAPONS shows what tough cookies they are, right? And in full view of the public, too.

There are plenty of useful, smart, and effective laws we can pass. Banning protruding pistol grips on rifles isn't one of them. It won't do anything except mobilize the right, who sees through the bullshit on this issue.

It's like Democrats are deliberately, uselessly inflaming the right so they can scare Democrats into giving them money and votes next election. The prospect of a reenergized gun-fueled right would make voters forget that the Democrats completely capitulated on a whole bunch of issues.


I mean, who here wishes that Congressional Democrats went after the Wall Street as hard as they are the NRA?

[Pullo]

81. Well freakin' stated!!!

The whole "assault" weapons meme needs to be discarded. It's counter-productive to the party as a whole, I just wish more would recognize that.

[Pullo]

3. LOL the scary-looking gun ban is going nowhere

The only things the push to ban scary-looking guns has succeeded in is galvanizing supporters of the right to own firearms, and ironically, sell a crap-ton of scary-looking guns.

I see what you did there, DiFi.

[upaloopa]

14. No new gun owners just repeat customers.

And if the ban won't happen why the need to buy more guns?
I don 't think it is a protest move. If so you look pretty silly with a rack of AR 15's in your house.
My guess is gunners are more afraid of DiFi then they would like to admit.

[Pullo]

29. Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better

I personally know several people who never owned an AR-15 or other scary-looking gun before, who have recently purchased one or are actively looking to buy one. The gun shops I've visited will tell you there's been an influx of first-time gun buyers showing up in their stores, buying a wide variety of firearms.

At the end of the day, the number of "assault weapons" in private circulation is increasing at a rapid rate since they've been targeted for banning. Nice job, DiFi.

[upaloopa]

37. Why do you say scary looking gun?

Why the need to be condescending.
You have a side I have a side. Neither of us is superior or has a more valid position.

[Pullo]

53. Because this legislation focuses mainly on cosmetics, not functionality

For a an example, a Ruger Mini-14, a semi-automatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and fires .223 ammunition, is exempt under this bill.

An AR-15, a semi-automatic rifle that accepts detachable magazines and fires .223 ammunition, would be banned because it has certain cosmetic features such as a pistol grip that some people feel look scary. Its just silly.

[upaloopa]

56. If there was an easy way to draft the law they would do it.

[ManiacJoe]

73. There is an easy way to draft a new law.

Unfortunately, your goals and the goals of the current drafters do not match.

[Duckhunter935]

58. one Mini-14 is banned

One is exempted. Same function. just some cosmetic differences. Oh and the scary black one is banned. Go figure.

[upaloopa]

41. They must feel there is a reason to get a gun now rather then later

[Duckhunter935]

57. I bought one

Always wanted one, got it before the prices skyrocketed and before the shortage. AR is a great target rifle.

[Clames]

32. My girl and her mother are new gun owners this month.

Including my brother and father that makes four new gun owners in the last calendar year...

[upaloopa]

44. Taken as a whole gun ownership has been declining since the

70's

[gejohnston]

46. if it is

it is simply returning to the 1950s and 1960s level. The increase in ownership were mostly people who bought a revolver because of concerns of increased crime, hippie invasion etc. which had nothing to do with the "gun culture" recreational shooters. Those surbanites are now headed to the rest homes and now are being discovered by their kids for the first time.
Assuming that poll is accurate. Other polls disagree.

[Clames]

70. No, it really hasn't.

Too many factors not addressed by the polls to bear that conclusion out with certainty. More like the anti-gun contingent would like it to be true but they ignore facts with the best of them. I have been too many FFL shops and seen the crowds, plenty of new buyers in fact they may be the majority with the current run. I'm sure a lot fewer gun owners today are going to answer in the affirmative on whether or not they own a gun than in previous decades. Shouldn't be a surprise given the vile crap some are saying about anyone who owns a gun on DU

[nonoyes]

6. Question: How many law-abiding hunters or target shooters need one of these?

Answer: ?

Only the seriously paranoid ones.

[nonoyes]

11. Good response from a very paranoid DU member

Rights to own and control assault weaponry, where does that appear in the Constitution?

Unlimited rights is not in the Constitution either, but somehow people like this person sees the Constitution as a blank check written over to this same person, not a single limitation upon his/her freedoms, except all the limitations upon personal freedoms Congress enacts, as long as they don't involve weapons of mass destruction.

A responsible democratic republic (not that America is always responsible), limits people's opportunities to engage in whatever wreckless behaviors they find to be generally non-productive, or destructive to the democratic republic, or to the general order of peace and freedom for the masses. We limit marriage to one person with one other person, we limit the rights of people to produce and sell many products without governmental oversight, from meat to medicine. We, as a nation, only allow certain activities to be without restrictions, and weapons ownership is one of those that we entrust Congress to decide. Sorry, but that's why few if any people in the USA own and contol Bazooka's and surface-to-air missiles.

[av8r1998]

13. here we go again

Define "assault weapon" then we can talk.
As for "Weapons of mass destruction".... well... we know what happened last time someone tried to eradicate wmd's...

You voted for Bush didn't you.....

[nonoyes]

16. I would never have voted for any Bush anywhere.

I don't follow your flawed logic.

Try, at least, to be rational.

The Constitution and Congress does not give blank checks of unlimited freedom to each and every American when it comes to weaponry.

Try to grasp the meaning of this phrase in our Second Amendment: "well-regulated".

[av8r1998]

20. i asked you...

To define an "assault weapon" as that is the basis for your argument.
I never said (nor did scouts) that the constitution guaranteed you the right to own any weapon you want.

It also doesn't give you the right to high speed internet, to worship in a super sized replica of the taj mahal, or to have Ron kuby as an attorney.

Nobody is attempting to ban Ron kuby, but you have to be able to afford him. I don't know of any local taj mahal replicas, but I'm sure if it was it would be given tax free status. As for internet.... well not only do you need to afford it its taxed.

All of these things have definitions, and based on the definition it is treated accordingly.

You seem to think the phrase "assault weapon" speaks foritself. It doesn't. Wanna ban SAM'S? OK.
MACHINE GUNS? We can talk.
Even handguns... we won't agree, but at least we are talking about the same object.
But when you talk about "assault weapons" you are talking about something without definition.

[nonoyes]

21. I don't define assault weapons, the proposed legislation does

Try to keep up.

If you have a problem with the wording of the bill, speak up. Don't go off on accusing me of voting for Bush, that's silly.

[av8r1998]

24. very nice redirection

I never brought up wmd's...you did.

I have a problem with you advocating to ban something you will let others define for you.
You don't know what you want to ban!
Get some facts then talk to me.
Until then, cheers

[nonoyes]

26. You're the one objecting.

I'm the one reminding you of the full wording of the Second Amendment, which you refuse to acknowledge.

Who decides what is "regulated" other than Congress, certainly NOT you nor me.

I have not a single problem with you advocating what you want to define as legal or illegal. Somehow, you have more of a problem with America's Second Amendment than I do.

Somehow, when it comes to weaponry, you want to be the final decider, much like.. oh... that Bush guy.

[gejohnston]

28. read Federalist number 29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Meaning_of_.22well_regulated_militia.22
cross reference with the endnotes.

[nonoyes]

36. You DO know that I read and reviewed ALL of the Federalist Papers? right?

Oh no? You were not on my doctoral committee?

If you want the "cherry pick" Federalist Papters, I have a dozen you would never agree with.

[gejohnston]

43. I picked the one that defined "well regulated"

No I didn't no that. I'm disappointed that someone with your education can't come up with a more cogent argument.

[nonoyes]

47. No, you picked one of many that did that. Read them all

So sorry you don't read that much.

[gejohnston]

48. you assume too much

[av8r1998]

33. obviously

You were absent the day they taught grammer, but I can tell you that my own STATE constitution states " every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves or the state"
Furthermore, the 10th amendment provides that any powers not delegated to the federal govt, nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states and the people. We have several gun manufacturers right here in ct, so interstate commerce doesn't apply. Please show me where the federal govt is empowered to regulate firearms within a state.
Please do not try and redefine the perfatory clause of the 2nd amendment. Far greater minds than yours and mine have already decided its meaning.

Finally, even under your incorrect reading of the amendment, the us militia code defines militia as all able bodied males under 45.

That said, all of your word parsing notwithstanding you still have not defined an "assault weapon". Until you do there is no point to this circular conversation.
In short... what do you want to ban?????

[nonoyes]

39. RE: you still have not defined an "assault weapon"

Ask your Congress... I am NOT a duly elected official that makes those decisions.

THEY DECIDE! Not me, nor you.

[gejohnston]

25. problem with your logic is that

CT had a "assault weapon" ban like the 1994 law. Under CT law, and the federal 1994-2004, the murder weapon at Sandy Hook was not an "assault weapon" because it complied with their law?
Is this an "assault weapon", which is legal for private ownership in UK, and probably sold only in the UK, complete with its 30 round magazine?

[nonoyes]

27. There is NO problem with my logic.

You can have a musket, that's what the Second Amendment gives you, if you are in a "well regulated mlitia", anything beyond that......... you have no rights, nor do I.

Logic: my friend, is for you to determine. Somehow, to you, logic means "blank check" for any weapons you may want today or tomorrow, and you seem to want to have the right to keep your decision to buy whatever you want totally secret from me.

I don't read "well regulated" the way you do. In fact, you want to ignore that phrase, totally. Where's the "logic" in that?

[gejohnston]

30. Actually, there is a lot wrong with it.

You can have a musket, that's what the Second Amendment gives you, if you are in a "well regulated mlitia", anything beyond that......... you have no rights, nor do I.

the BoR is a set of negative rights, it limits the government, on what it can do, not grant anything to the individual. Individual sovereignty was the basis of the Enlightenment. Both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution are founded on the writings of John Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers. BTW, rifles existed then.

Logic: my friend, is for you to determine. Somehow, to you, logic means "blank check" for any weapons you may want today or tomorrow, and you seem to want to have the right to keep your decision to buy whatever you want totally secret from me.

you as an individual, it's none of your business. The federal and some state governments either know or can find out fairly quickly if they need to under current law.

I don't read "well regulated" the way you do. In fact, you want to ignore that phrase, totally. Where's the "logic" in that?

I don't ignore at all. The fact that you don't read it in its proper historical context, I can't do anything about.

I noticed that you didn't address what I said.

[nonoyes]

31. I don't address illogical or outrageous accusations

you as an individual, it's none of your business. The federal and some state governments either know or can find out fairly quickly if they need to under current law.

Public records laws make whatever you buy and whatever guns you own available to me or anyone. Sory you fail to understand that.

Now, if you want to make sense with some of your other "blank check" desires to own and control weapons, just state the specific unambiguous Constitutional rights contained within the Bill of Rights, I think the musket or weapons available to a "well-regulated militia" in 1788 is about all you get without specific "well regulated militia" beyond the date of the adoption of those Amendment.

[Jenoch]

50. You wrote something about which I am unaware.

What public records law makes the guns owned by private citizens a part of the public record? Even in states with strict gun laws don't maintain a public database with that information, or do they?

[nonoyes]

55. This is a common understanding of "public records"

"Public records": Google it.

Then talk to me about how Iowa's case violates the "public records" law.

[Jenoch]

61. Whatever credibility you have had

Last edited Thu Mar 14, 2013, 09:18 PM - Edit history (1)

on these gun threads is severly hampered by your assertion that gun ownership is a matter of public record in the U.S. Even in Iowa, the permits are required only for the purchase of handguns and there is no record of what specific handgun is purchased, or if a handgun is actually purchased. Two Iowa counties have decided to destroy the permit applications.
Gun registration is one of the biggest battles on the topic of gun control laws. That you believe it to already be the law of the land proves just how delusional you appear to be.

http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2013/majority-states-and-counting-dont-allow-gun-records-be-public/

[thucythucy]

34. Hopefully the new law will correct

that oversight.

To argue that a bill that was passed almost twenty years ago, or any bill for that matter, was flawed, and therefore we shouldn't consider any new laws to address the same problem, is hardly logical.

The first child labor laws probably contained flaws and oversights, ditto the first environmental laws. I know for a fact the first disability rights laws were seriously flawed (no enforcement provision, for example, in the first federal Architectural Barriers Act). I don't see how it's "logical" to therefore assume we should simply give up on the whole concept of passing laws, regulating, enforcement, as a way to deal with this problem.

So the 1994 law was flawed (though, since it was allowed to lapse after ten years one could argue the data aren't conclusive). So let's make sure the new law doesn't contain the same flaws.

And yes, I know you're arguing that ANY law banning these weapons is inherently flawed. I--and many others--don't agree.

We'll just have to be patient as the usual legislative process unfolds, learn from our mistakes, and trudge along as best we can, hoping too many more children aren't horrifically slaughtered in the meantime.

To me, that seems the most logical way to go.

[gejohnston]

38. I'm arguing that banning these guns are

theater and nothing more. I am frankly turned off by appeals to emotion. The problem with any of these laws are that they don't affect the people committing the crimes, only the ones who don't. Like the beat poet William S. Burrohs said.

After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.

guns can't be compared to those other things because one is an individual right, some view as a civil right (my state's Democratic Pary's platform for one) enumerated in the BoR vs general policies that take nothing away from individuals.

[thucythucy]

49. Do you mean William S. Burroughs?

The author of Naked Lunch?

Isn't he the guy who blew his wife's brains out playing William Tell during a drunken party in Mexico City? Who got off on a manslaughter charge because he was the heir to the Burrough's adding machine fortune? Whose son drank himself to death, largely because of the trauma of his mom's death?

Really, GeJohnston, you couldn't have picked a worse gun advocate if you'd tried!

In any case, I would argue, in response to Mr. Burroughs, that after the Newtown atrocity, I want to take these weapons out of the hands (or more accurately KEEP them out of the hands) of the NEXT Adam Lanza. Or, for that matter, the next Wiilliam S. Burroughs.

BTW, if you're interested in the Beats, you might want to read Allen Ginsberg's poem about Joan Burroughs, the woman whose brains Wiiliam S. blew out while being just another fun-loving gun owner and advocate. That's the poem that ends, "I saw her rain-stained tombstone...under the gnarled branch of a small/tree in the wild grass/of an unvisited garden in Mexico." I always thought his use of the word "unvisited" was particularly telling.

For you to be quoting William Burroughs, of all people, on "gun rights" is just... wow.

Assuming William S. Burroughs is who you mean. If there's some other Beat writer named "William S. Burrohs" who said this, then I'll apologize, delete this post, and start over.

Best wishes.

[gejohnston]

60. keyboard malfunctioning

I'm surprised to learn about his wife, I always read he was gay. Had to look it up. According to the Wiki, the William Tell incident is certainly a text book example why booze (or any other intoxicant) and guns don't mix. He would be a shoe in for "irresponsible gun owner of the day" at thetruthaboutguns.com Always put more trust in a sober person with a crossbow than a drunk with a gun.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/category/irresponsible-gun-owner-of-the-day/

I pick Burroughs because he was a beat poet, not the stereotypical gun owner. Not really a fan of beat poetry, although I have been told I'm a closet beatnik. I met Allen Ginsberg once, I thought he was kind of arrogant.
The quote still makes a valid point. The down side of the hoping to keep the gun out of the next Adam Lanza's hands, you would also be taking it out of the hands of this kid
http://www.khou.com/news/crime/Burglary-suspect-shot-by-15-year-old-son-of-deputy-97430719.html
which is why I'm skeptical that any lives will be saved.
If there is a way of disarming one without also disarming the other, I'm all ears.

[thucythucy]

64. William Burroughs wasn't the stereotypical

anything. And his attitude towards guns was reckless beyond belief. Even AFTER he killed his wife. He made Hunter Thompson look positively tame, and that really is saying something.

My problem with the Bushmaster (and I'll stay specific so as not to get into the whole "what exactly is an assault rifle" conundrum) is precisely that it is so easy to use. Any idiot can do it, from the sound of the promotionals I've seen posted on DU and elsewhere. It just shouldn't be that easy for someone to mow down a group of people. There should be some level of skill involved in the use of lethal force. This fifteen year old probably could have got the same results firing a shotgun into the intruders' general direction. Just my opinion.

I talked to Allen Ginsberg once, and he was quite charming to me, especially considering how young and clueless I was. Afterwards I read much more of his work, pretty much all of it, actually. I recommend "Kaddish" as his best ever. It's rather long, but if you read it out loud, all the way through, I think you'll be quite moved.

BTW, Ginsberg once "disarmed" a cop by chanting "om." This was during the infamous Democratic Convention in Chicago in '68. Norman Mailer describes it in "Miami and the Siege of Chicago" (amazing book--I love much of Mailor's work even though he was a rabid misogynist. He once told an interviewer that he thought it was better to rape someone than to masturbate. I mean, WTF!!!???). The cops were running amok, bashing people's skulls. Mailer saw a cop lift his billyclub to whack Ginsberg, who was sitting in the grass, lotus position, chanting "Om." The cop was so perplexed he froze, then turned away muttering "fucking hippy" and ran off to club someone else!

Really, I wish I had the answers to all this. My thought now is to watch the process as it unfolds, and see who comes up with what looks to be the best solution. But my best thought is that the status quo just isn't cutting it.

Best wishes.

[brindleboxer]

69. I would be perfectly happy to ban bushmasters

They're a mid-range manufacturer, at best, and their advertisements make me cringe. Partial to BCM rifles and uppers, myself.

[gejohnston]

75. I found him to be condescending ass

but then, maybe doing a poetry reading in a small Wyoming town had something to do with it. Bushmaster is simply a manufacture.
Since Sandy Hook seemed to be at point blank range, skill had nothing to do with it. What I find amazing is that friends of his mom described him as an ethical vegan. I have never played Call of Duty, so I don't know how he learned to load and charge the weapon. How does a 110 pound ethical vegan carry that much weight and weapons? No, I didn't get that from Alex Jones.
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/adam_lanza_was_a_vegan/
In the 15 YO's case, a revolver is actually easier to use. But then, the more extreme gun prohibitionists would prohibit that too (some like LBJ's AG, Ramsey Clark, is opposed to self defense under any circumstance.)

The Bath bomber didn't use that much dynamite and AFAIK, only civilians use it in mining or construction.
All non military are civilians, including the police.
Even when I wasn't, my RSPD brother was still a civilian.
the rest of us are citizens or private citizens.

Bath is used because not only was no firearm used, but it is still the worst school massacre in US history. It is still not the worst in the world.
http://news.yahoo.com/worlds-deadliest-school-massacres-220700643.html

Edit to add one more thing, an assault rifle does have a specific technical meaning, which does not include anything used in Sandy Hook since it was semi automatic, and not select fire, ie a machine gun. "Assault weapon" is a political term and means whatever the politician wants it to mean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_rifle

[Straw Man]

80. Ginsberg and Bushmasters

My problem with the Bushmaster (and I'll stay specific so as not to get into the whole "what exactly is an assault rifle" conundrum) is precisely that it is so easy to use. Any idiot can do it, from the sound of the promotionals I've seen posted on DU and elsewhere. It just shouldn't be that easy for someone to mow down a group of people. There should be some level of skill involved in the use of lethal force. This fifteen year old probably could have got the same results firing a shotgun into the intruders' general direction. Just my opinion.

For starters, it's not true that "any idiot can do it" in re the AR-15. It is somewhat more complex and less intuitive than an AK-pattern rifle, for example. You cannot just pick it up and start using it. There isn't a huge learning curve, but there is a learning curve.

I'm also troubled by your repeated assertion that "there should be some level of skill involved in the use of lethal force." Should this theory of preventive difficulty be applied equally to justified defensive use and murderous offensive use? If you could make a weapon that is easy to use in the former scenario but impossible to use in the latter, I would be with you 100%, but ... I think you can see the problem here.

I hope we can soon dispense with the meme about firing a shotgun in someone's general direction. Biden was terribly irresponsible with that comment. At indoor distances, a shotgun pattern is going to be measured in inches, not feet, so aiming will still be important if one wants to hit the target. Furthermore, warning shots are dangerous if one is in mortal danger and illegal if one is not.

I talked to Allen Ginsberg once, and he was quite charming to me, especially considering how young and clueless I was. Afterwards I read much more of his work, pretty much all of it, actually. I recommend "Kaddish" as his best ever. It's rather long, but if you read it out loud, all the way through, I think you'll be quite moved.

BTW, Ginsberg once "disarmed" a cop by chanting "om."

I have a lot of admiration for Ginsberg as a poet, and I'm sure he could be charming in person, but any admiration I might have had for him as a person or a role model evaporated when he publicly embraced NAMBLA in the last years of his life. He claimed it was a free speech issue. Maybe it was dementia. Whatever it was, I have a problem with apologists for pedophilia.

Ginsberg, Burroughs, Kerouac, and many others prove that great artists are not necessarily great, or even good, people.

[thucythucy]

86. The whole point of the Bushmaster

would seem to be its ease of use:

"From the morning that ArmaLite opened its doors in 1954 to the present, most of the innovation that has gone into the AR-15 has been aimed at making the gun as accurate and pleasurable to shoot as possible. The result is a gun that really is an order of magnitude easier to use effectively than many of the traditional wood-stocked rifles that black-rifle-hating hunters grew up with."

The above is quoted from someone else on this thread, seeming to argue the pro-Bushmaster position. So it seems a major part of the weapon's appeal is its ease of use. Lanza, as dysfunctional as he was, had evidently no difficulty using it to deadly effect on a massive scale. And yes, I continue to see a problem with that.

You have a problem with "apologists for pedophilia." Good for you. So do I.

"Ginsberg, Burroughs, Kerouac, and many others prove that great artists are not necessarily great, or even good, people."

See my comments above about Burroughs and Mailer.

Ginsberg argued that NAMBLA had a right to state its position, as perverse as it was. He said that people who advocated the legalization of marijuana shouldn't be arrested for doing so, that arguing for legalizing marijuana wasn't the same thing as actually using it. That was the analogy he used. He was a free speech absolutist. Personally, I think the analogy is flawed, for a host of reasons, but that's grist for a whole other OP.

But it's interesting. Ginsberg repels you for advocating that NAMBLA had a free speech right to assert its position. Burroughs actually shot and killed another human being, blowing her brains out during a game of William Tell, and yet here he is on this thread, being quoted for his pithy comments on gun control. I'm assuming that repels you as well.

As for the rest of it, I'm sure we'll be debating all this for years to come.

[Straw Man]

90. And again.

Last edited Fri Mar 15, 2013, 02:23 PM - Edit history (1)

So it seems a major part of the weapon's appeal is its ease of use. Lanza, as dysfunctional as he was, had evidently no difficulty using it to deadly effect on a massive scale. And yes, I continue to see a problem with that.

So you do advocate difficulty as a safety feature? I find that absurd. Hence my reductio, which I will stand by.

Ginsberg argued that NAMBLA had a right to state its position, as perverse as it was. He said that people who advocated the legalization of marijuana shouldn't be arrested for doing so, that arguing for legalizing marijuana wasn't the same thing as actually using it. That was the analogy he used. He was a free speech absolutist. Personally, I think the analogy is flawed, for a host of reasons, but that's grist for a whole other OP.

I understand Ginsberg's position as a free speech absolutist. I have trouble with his choosing NAMBLA, a group that advocates the sexual victimization of children, as his cause célèbre. I am no less repelled than if he had hitched his wagon to the American Nazi Party or the Ku Klux Klan.

But it's interesting. Ginsberg repels you for advocating that NAMBLA had a free speech right to assert its position. Burroughs actually shot and killed another human being, blowing her brains out during a game of William Tell, and yet here he is on this thread, being quoted for his pithy comments on gun control. I'm assuming that repels you as well.

No, it's not Ginsberg's free-speech advocacy that repels me. He supported NAMBLA'S goals, which include the abolition of age-of-consent laws. That repels me; his poetry and speech-rights beliefs do not. Burroughs' act repels me; his position on gun rights does not.

[thucythucy]

94. Actually, some sort of safety feature,

or combination thereof, WOULD be a good idea. I would think that gun manufacturers and enthusiasts would be the proper folk to come up with these, since us non-technical folks obviously don't have the expertise, as you keep telling us.

One idea I've heard would be to mandate a safety lock that permits only the actual gun owner to fire the weapon. Just like you need a PIN number to use your ATM card, there should be some equivalent test for a gun user, a punch code or PIN number. This would prevent stolen weapons from being used in crimes, it might also have prevented Lanza from using his mother's guns, assuming of course she wouldn't have shared the number with him. Surely, with all the money spent developing and refining and marketing guns, someone should be able to come up with such a system that is not only relatively foolproof--in terms of a criminal not being able to circumvent it-- but convenient for the actual owner.

This wouldn't prevent the actual owners from going on a killing spree, but my opinion is that even marginal improvements justify the effort, when we're talking about the difference between lives being saved and lost.

For a more science fiction take-with the development of Wifi and cableless home internet access, I wonder if we couldn't develop a system where weapons are able to fire within the range of a particular router, but would lose that ability elsewhere. So a homeowner would be able to use their weapon for defense, but presumably someone breaking into the home with a weapon wouldn't be able to fire because their weapon isn't cued to the correct router. You could incorporate this into a carry-licensing system: that is, a homeowner would need to pass through a less onerous process to get a weapon cued to their home-based router, than someone who wanted a carry permit which would allow a person to carry a gun that fires independent of any router code.

Like I said, with all the heavy money spent on gun design and marketing, not to mention lobbying, you would think gun manufacturers would be able to come up with a system that works. Of course, when safety is concerned, manufacturers of any product generally have to be pushed into it by public and government pressure. Auto manufacturers for instance historically opposed seat belts, to cite just one example. So the gun industry will probably have to be prodded as well.

As for the "learning curve" on the Bushmaster, other folks who oppose the assault weapon ban have praised it for its ease of use, especially for people who might not be terrifically familiar with weapons, younger people, smaller people, etc. But maybe that's just manufacturer marketing PR, meant to sell more weapons

And regarding Ginsberg, NAMBLA, Burroughs and the rest, we are basically agreed. It still seems passing strange to me that anyone would cite Burroughs' opinion on gun control, but it sounds like GeoJohnson wasn't aware of the history, and everyone is entitled to a few (nonlethal) screw ups now and again.

Best wishes.

[gejohnston]

96. I picture such technology coming from the European gun industry before the US

Partly because innovation in US gun design kind of died with John Browning. In the 1970s, Heckler and Koch (no relation) introduced the HK P-7. The safety is in the grip cocking mechanism. As Wiki explains it

The grip of this pistol features a built-in cocking lever activated by gripping the pistol handle. Before the pistol can be fired, this lever must be squeezed. Thus this lever acts as a safety. The pistol has an innovative trigger (with a squeeze cocking lever located at the front of the grip, beneath the trigger guard) and is striker fired.[9] Squeezing the cocking lever with a force of 70 N (15.7 lbf) cocks the firing pin. Once fully depressed, only 2 pounds of force are required to keep the weapon cocked.

I remember a review in a gun mag back then raving it was kid proof.

The German government passed a law a few years ago requiring manufacturers to produce smart guns (and provide retrofitting services for older guns) as soon as the technology is perfected by anyone anywhere in the world. How that would affect their out of country subsidiaries, not sure. df

[oneshooter]

97. Of course you would require this safety device on LE weapons. They need to be safe with weapons also

[benEzra]

89. An AR is exactly as difficult to shoot as any other small-caliber, light-recoiling civilian rifle.

[quote]My problem with the Bushmaster (and I'll stay specific so as not to get into the whole "what exactly is an assault rifle" conundrum) is precisely that it is so easy to use. Any idiot can do it, from the sound of the promotionals I've seen posted on DU and elsewhere. It just shouldn't be that easy for someone to mow down a group of people. There should be some level of skill involved in the use of lethal force. This fifteen year old probably could have got the same results firing a shotgun into the intruders' general direction. Just my opinion.[/quote]

A Bushmaster AR, or any other AR, is exactly as easy to use as any other small-caliber, light-recoiling civilian rifle. When you pull the trigger, it fires one and only one .22 caliber bullet exactly where the rifle is pointed---within 1/100th of a degree for a typical AR---which is one reason why the AR is such a popular target rifle.

More traditional looking guns that Ms. Feinstein isn't currently trying to outlaw (like the Ruger mini-14) take exactly the same effort to aim. And the mini fires the same ammunition at the same rate of fire from the same sized magazines, it just does so with slightly less accuracy (say 1/60th of a degree to 1/30th of a degree dispersion for a rack-grade mini, depending on the vintage).

Where the AR shines is its ability to be easily configured to fit different sized shooters, or customized for different niches (long-range shooting, varmint hunting, deer hunting, IPSC/USPSA competition, 3-gun competition, defense of home) simply by swapping optics or upper receivers, without requiring the services of a gunsmith.

[Clames]

98. I handed my gf my AR to try out last time we did some target practice.

Still had to show her a few times how to properly load it and take it off safe and she is working on a PhD and MD at the same time...

[spin]

18. Why should anyone own a laptop or tablet computer when they can have a desktop? ...

Or for that matter, why should anyone buy a computer when they can build one that fits their purposes perfectly?

Rifles that resemble true assault rifles used by the military in many nations make look evil but actually have significant advantages over more conventional rifles.

The AR-15 Is More Than a Gun. It’s a Gadget
BY JON STOKES02.25.136:30 AM

***snip***

In the past two decades, the AR-15 has evolved into an open, modular gun platform that’s infinitely hackable and accessorizable. With only a few simple tools and no gunsmithing expertise, an AR-15 can be heavily modified, or even assembled from scratch, from widely available parts to suit the fancy and fantasy of each individual user. In this respect, the AR-15 is the world’s first “maker” gun, and this is why its appeal extends well beyond the military enthusiasts that many anti-gun types presume make up its core demographic.

***snip***

Users can change calibers by swapping out barrels, bolts, and magazines; they can add and remove accessories like Trijicon optics, Surefire flashlights, or Crimson Trace laser sights; they can swap out the rail system on the gun’s fore-end to accommodate more or fewer accessories; they can change grip styles and stock sizes to tailor the gun to fit their own body; they can even theme the gun with special paints and decals (zombie apocalypse themes are popular, but I’ve also seen Hello Kitty). And they can do all of this by either ordering new parts and accessories from online or local shops, or by taking parts from different guns in their collection and mixing and matching them to produce something completely new.

“I always tease that it’s like Legos for grown men,” Duncan elaborates, “because there’s plenty of guys that get one, two, six ARs. And they’re constantly tinkering with them — changing barrel lengths, changing optics, putting different sights on them. It’s the same reason that a guy gets into remote-controlled cars or fly tying. Because it’s a fun hobby, and it’s a distraction from reality sometimes.”

***snip***

From the morning that ArmaLite opened its doors in 1954 to the present, most of the innovation that has gone into the AR-15 has been aimed at making the gun as accurate and pleasurable to shoot as possible. The result is a gun that really is an order of magnitude easier to use effectively than many of the traditional wood-stocked rifles that black-rifle-hating hunters grew up with. For someone who enjoys shooting a $2,500 AR-15 from a company like Lewis Machine and Tool, Black Rain Ordnance, Daniel Defense, or KAC, is like a driving enthusiast sitting behind the wheel of an Italian or German supercar. It’s a revelation, and the experience doesn’t wear off quickly.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/02/ar-15/all/

[nonoyes]

19. Flawed logic: Quite honestly, when did a laptop or a desktop ever kill anyone?

I honestly don't know what's wrong with your logical reasoning, but with such flawed logic, I certainly don't want you to have an AR-15..

A computer, whatever type you choose, I'm fine with that.

[ManiacJoe]

22. What is so special...

... about an AR-15 (or other semi-auto carbine) that it needs extra restrictions beyond what all other rifles have?

[sylvi]

99. It's called an analogy

and things don't have to be exactly alike to be analogous. In fact, being different is part of the definition:

"Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar."
[url]http://www.thefreedictionary.com/analogy[/url]

A computer is customizable, can be tailored to particular needs and specifications, is modular and relatively easy to work on, can be tinkered with as a hobby.

So can an AR-15.

Thus, the two are analogous.

There is no "flawed logic".

Get it?

[thucythucy]

42. You know, it really seems quite callous

to equate the Bushmaster "man card" that was used to mutilate twenty small children with a laptop computer.

But then, seemingly unfeeling, off-key, and frankly bizarre reductio ad absurdum arguments seem a staple of those arguing against gun regulation.

Not to mention, one might argue that the attributes that make such a weapon "as accurate and pleasurable to shoot as possible" are precisely the problem.

Do you think maybe, just maybe, it might be time to consider the possibility that a weapon that makes shooting a roomful of people "an order of magnitude easier" probably isn't something we want to make widely accessible to most everyone?

Just a thought.

[Straw Man]

62. I have an idea ...

Not to mention, one might argue that the attributes that make such a weapon "as accurate and pleasurable to shoot as possible" are precisely the problem.

Why don't we just mandate that all rifles must weigh 75 pounds and that the stocks must be embedded with glass shards? And we could solve that pesky accuracy problem by banning rifling: nothing but smoothbore from here on in.

You seem to be suffering from a condition called myopia hoplophobus: the inability to conceive of the use of firearms for anything other than mass murder.

[thucythucy]

65. No, I'm suffering from the after-effects

of twenty young children being massacred in an elementary school, along with six adults.

"....75 pounds, glass shards...." And here I was thinking you pro-gun folks were fairly incapable of anything except reductio ad absurdum arguments! Your "Straw Man" moniker really suits you.

I do think that the use of lethal force on crowds of people, even young children, should involve some level of skill beyond simply pointing and squeezing a finger. Unless you're a soldier, in combat, when the whole point is to kill others easily. But allowing the mass dissemination of that sort of technology into the civilian population is flat-out lunacy.

Adam Lanza couldn't manage his life. He couldn't work, couldn't form relationships, might not have been able (according to one account I read) to tie his shoes. But thanks to the efforts of the NRA, gun manufacturers, and advocates such as yourself, he WAS able to mow down twenty six people, no problem.

Well done. I sure do feel so much safer, thanks to you, the NRA, and the almighty, blessed Bushmaster Man Card!

[Straw Man]

68. Regardless of the source of your myopia ...

... you are still myopic.

And here I was thinking you pro-gun folks were fairly incapable of anything except reductio ad absurdum arguments! Your "Straw Man" moniker really suits you.

I think that you don't really know what those terms mean.

I do think that the use of lethal force on crowds of people, even young children, should involve some level of skill beyond simply pointing and squeezing a finger.

Well, that's where you and I differ: You think it should be difficult to slaughter a roomful of children, but I think it should be impossible. Here's a hint: the technology is a red herring. Lanza could have killed many more with a can of gasoline and a book of matches.

Adam Lanza couldn't manage his life. He couldn't work, couldn't form relationships, might not have been able (according to one account I read) to tie his shoes. But thanks to the efforts of the NRA, gun manufacturers, and advocates such as yourself, he WAS able to mow down twenty six people, no problem.

You can skip the sanctimony and the slanders. We do not and should not base the limits of freedom on what the insane might do with it. Lanza should have been institutionalized, and would have been were it not for his mother's affluence.

Have a nice day.

[thucythucy]

72. I may not own any guns, but I do have access to a dictionary.

Reductio ad absurdum: reduction to the absurd; disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion; often specious.

As in: "Why don't we just mandate that all rifles must weigh 75 pounds and that the stocks must be embedded with glass shards? And we could solve that pesky accuracy problem by banning rifling: nothing but smoothbore from here on in."

Straw man (your moniker, not mine): a weak or imaginary opposition set up only to be refuted.

As in: see the above.

So your solution to mass shootings is to pre-emptively incarcerate hitherto non-criminals who strike the community as odd and potentially dangerous. People with mental illness, say? People with Asperger's? Folks who have committed no crime, but need to be off the streets and locked up, pronto! Yes, I see it now. Better to do that than ban your precious Bushmaster Man Card. No violation of anyone's civil rights there. No sir!

Lanza wouldn't have had access to the weapons he used to commit those murders, had his mother not been a gun owner.

You have a nice evening as well.

[Straw Man]

74. Logic.

Last edited Sat Mar 16, 2013, 09:41 AM - Edit history (1)

Reductio ad absurdum: reduction to the absurd; disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion; often specious.

And often not. Your solution to gun violence is to ban guns based on ease of use. There are rifles that have equivalent capacity and firepower to the AR but are somewhat more difficult to use. I merely suggested to you an even more effective application of your theory. If ease of use is the criterion, my proposal is simply an extension of yours.

Straw man (your moniker, not mine): a weak or imaginary opposition set up only to be refuted.

But cited by you. By definition, a true reductio ad absurdum cannot be a straw man, by virtue of its very absurdity: I would have to convincingly misstate your position in order to appear to have debunked it. I did not misstate your original premise that rifles that are difficult to use are preferable from a public safety standpoint to those that are easy to use. I merely pointed out its absurdity.

So your solution to mass shootings is to pre-emptively incarcerate hitherto non-criminals who strike the community as odd and potentially dangerous. People with mental illness, say? People with Asperger's? Folks who have committed no crime, but need to be off the streets and locked up, pronto! Yes, I see it now. Better to do that than ban your precious Bushmaster Man Card. No violation of anyone's civil rights there. No sir!

No points for hyperbole. I am Straw Man, but I disown that straw man. No, only the demonstrably dangerous ones, which I contend that Lanza was, a fact that would have been evident if his mother had not been able to use her wealth to cocoon him away from the world. Your solution is to transform the public sphere into the institution and force us all to live by restrictions designed to mitigate potential dangers posed by the severely mentally ill. I think yours is the scenario that is more damaging to civil rights.

I don't own a Bushmaster, nor any other AR pattern rifle, so you can dispense with that particular canard. I do, however, recognize a slippery slope when I see one. It's not rocket science, not when a legislator in my home state stands up on the floor of the Assembly and says "And there's much more to come" after passing the strictest gun control laws in the country.

[sylvi]

100. "No, I'm suffering from the after-effects...

...of twenty young children being massacred in an elementary school, along with six adults."

Which means you're arguing from emotion. Arguing from reason would not be affected by such circumstances.

So many of you anti-gunners love to wrap your self in the cloak of dead children as if you "care more" and as such have a more valid argument. The sheer volume of the lamentations over the dead is supposed to drown out any opposing argument. Well, let me clue you in on something - pro-gunners are just as appalled over the loss of innocent life as you are. You don't hold the concession on empathy. It's just that we've examined the evidence and we don't believe that some of your proposed methods for reducing this violence are sound.

[spin]

67. So am I responsible for the murder of the 20 children because I do not support banning ...

rifles such as the AR-15?

(I should point out that I do not own an AR-15 or any firearms with a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds. However I see no problem with honest, responsible and sane people owning such weapons.)

The shooter could have used a handgun or a shotgun and murdered the same number of children. An AR-15 is an accurate rifle but a shotgun is accurate and very lethal at close range just as a pistol or a revolver is.

Did you realize that the shooter in the Colorado Theather massacre used several weapons not just an AR-15 style rifle?

Source: Colorado shooter's rifle jammed during rampage
From Susan Candiotti, CNN
updated 7:07 PM EDT, Sun July 22, 2012

(CNN) -- The semi-automatic rifle used in the Colorado theater killings jammed during the rampage, apparently because of a problem with the 100-shot magazine feeding it, a law enforcement source with direct knowledge of the investigation said Sunday.

***snip***

Investigators are talking to victims to try to determine in what order the guns were fired, the source said. The suspect may have begun with the shotgun, which can be "devastating when fired at close range," according to the source.

They believe the next weapon fired may have been the high-capacity assault rifle, with Holmes turning to the Glock semi-automatic pistol to "re-engage his targets," according to the source.
That squares with what some witnesses have told CNN -- that the gunman began to open fire with a shotgun, then turned to other weapons.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/22/us/colorado-shooting-investigation

Perhaps the reason some shooters have used rifles similar to the AR-15 in recent massacres is because they have received a lot of publicity as "weapons of mass destruction." Advertising works.

Perhaps we have had a number of tragic massacres because when one happens, the media gives it 24/7 coverage for a week or more. Many experts feel that this can lead to copycat murders. The media also gives the shooter considerable attention and effectively makes him into a dark hero that others with significant mental issues may chose to copy.

Even if we banned all civilian ownership of firearms we probably would still have massacres.

Bath School disaster

The Bath School disaster is the historical name of the violent attacks perpetrated by Andrew Kehoe on May 18, 1927 in Bath Township, Michigan that killed 38 elementary school children and 6 adults, and injured at least 58 other people.[Note 1] Kehoe first killed his wife, fire-bombed his farm and set off a major explosion in the Bath Consolidated School, before committing suicide by detonating a final explosion in his truck. It is the deadliest mass murder in a school in United States history.[1]

Andrew Kehoe, the 55-year-old school board treasurer, was angry after his defeat in the spring 1926 election for township clerk. He was thought to have planned his "murderous revenge" after that public defeat and he had a reputation for difficulty on the school board and in personal dealings. In addition, in June 1926 he was notified that his mortgage was going to be foreclosed.[2] For much of the next year, a neighbor noticed Kehoe had stopped working on his farm and thought he might be planning suicide. During that period, Kehoe purchased explosives and discreetly planted them on his property and under the school.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

There are many ways to kill or injure large numbers of people. I remember this incident from when I lived in Tampa, Florida.

Community finally rises from ashes of tragedy

ArchiveBy MARY JO MELONE

© St. Petersburg Times, published October 29, 2000

The supermarket in Palm River Plaza has been closed for more than 16 years, but people in Clair Mel still know it by name.

The Billy Ferry Winn-Dixie.

Billy Ferry was the neighborhood crazy man. The Winn-Dixie was the neighborhood market.

As evening fell on Saturday, July 3, 1984, some voice in his head told Ferry to hurl a bucket of gasoline across the checkout lines crowded with shoppers buying picnic stuff for the Fourth of July.

***snip***

Ferry struck a match. Five people died, 13 others were horribly burned. And this little subdivision east of Tampa was scarred for what seemed forever. The mall soon was all but abandoned.
http://www.sptimes.com/News/102900/TampaBay/Community_finally_ris.shtml

Cars have also been used.

The day terror came downtown
Priscilla Ford’s deadly drive

***snip***

It takes another minute for the Lincoln to make its way to 100 feet south of the southeast corner of Second and Virginia streets. At 2:59 p.m., the Lincoln jumps the curb and careens down the sidewalk. It hits the curb at about 20 miles an hour, a speed not likely to blow the tires. The car rapidly accelerates to as high as 40 miles an hour, driving 100 feet down the sidewalk, witnesses will later say. It crosses the Second Street crosswalk and continues another 322 feet down the sidewalk in front of the bank, in front of Harrah’s, Nevada Club and Harold’s Club. Then it’s back on Virginia Street, crossing to the southbound lane and stopping two blocks later behind traffic at the Fifth Street traffic light. The light is red.

Destruction follows the car’s path like an indictment. Five people are killed immediately, and 24 are injured. Fourteen people will be sent to Washoe Medical Center; the remaining 10 to St. Mary’s. Street signs, body parts, clothing and the wounded and dead lie on the sidewalk and in the gutter like victims of a natural disaster. But this is an entirely unnatural disaster.

It takes only a few seconds for Ford to drive that five-block total. For the victims, every second following the attack is an eternity, waiting for help to arrive, for family members to come, for the news of survivors and casualties. But the longest wait, some will later say, is for justice.

***snip***

“The more dead, the better,” a police officer quoted Ford as saying as she waited for tests to determine her blood’s alcohol or drug content at Washoe Medical Center. That was in the early days of the trial. “I deliberately planned to get as many as possible. A Lincoln Continental can do a lot of damage, can’t it?” Later the officer testified Ford said, “I am a New York teacher. I’m tired of life. I want attention, I’m sick of problems. In June 1980, a voice told me to drive through a crowd at a theater and kill as many as possible. But another voice said she’s too much of a lady to do it.”
http://www.newsreview.com/reno/day-terror-came-downtown/content?oid=20584

I don't support gun bans. I do support making some improvements to our current gun laws and better enforcement for existing ones. I also would like to see some significant improvements to our mental health care system. Most of the mass murderers have waved red flags before they ran amok which were unfortunately ignored.

[thucythucy]

71. No, you're not directly responsible.

Obviously. But I think the NRA, the manufacturers of these weapons, and those who glorify them or minimize the harm they do are enablers of that sort of violence. Definitely.

As for the rest of your cut and paste:

Yes, other weapons and technologies are used in mass murders. Your citing the Bath School Disaster being a case in point (a case I've seen cited a half a dozen times in the past two days on these threads--it must be a staple of pro-gun sites). So, since the Bath School disaster, just how easy is it now for a civilian to purchase mass quantities of dynamite? Have you tried to buy much dynamite at a Walmart lately, or at gun and tackle shop? My (educated) guess is that, unless you're licensed and bonded and in some trade that specifically requires the use of dynamite, your private stockpiling of high explosives would definitely draw the attention of law enforcement. As well it should. You have a problem with that?

And yeah, people will always find clever and nasty ways to kill other people, including masses of people. The NRA argument seems to be--and we've heard this repeated ad nauseum--since we can't prevent ALL mass deaths, we should presumably do nothing to prevent ANY of them. That's basically what the argument boils down to.

So, where precisely DO you draw the line? If large capacity magazines attached to semi-automatic rifles isn't a problem for you, then what is? I once argued with a Gun Owners Action Leaguer who seriously believed private citizens should have the right to own and drive tanks if they wanted to. And to own working artillery. Why not? Why not grenades? People use explosives to bring down airliners--hell, you can conceivably bring one down using a lasar pointer. We don't ban lasar pointers, do we? So what's the point of banning surface to air missiles? I'm a law abiding citizen. Who are you to say I shouldn't have one, if I want it?

"Most of the mass murderers have waved red flags before they ran amok..." One of those red flags very often being the stockpiling of guns and ammo. And LOTS of people wave "red flags." Several live right down the block from me. What are you going to do? Pre-emptively arrest all of them? Drug them against their will? Force them all into therapy? Jesus, people in this forum bitch about Bloomburg banning supersized sodas as part of the "nanny state"--and you want what? That every kid who acts funny, every adult who loses it in traffic, gets shunted into some state sanctioned "therapy." Remember: for every person who actually commits a massacre, probably a hundred thousand wave "red flags," and last I saw there's no way to precisely determine who will act out, and who won't. Not to worry though. Thanks to the NRA, most of them have fairly easy access to guns, including semi-autos. Let freedom ring!

I'm not saying an assault weapons ban will solve the whole problem. But it's one piece of the solution. And to say we shouldn't move forward on this piece until every other part of the problem is solved is ridiculous.

Mental illness or not, red flags or not, one thing you can say for sure. Someone who doesn't have access to a Bushmaster "Man Card" will not slaughter any children using a Bushmaster "man card."

For that reason alone, a ban is worth trying.

I'm done arguing this on-line. It gets us nowhere.

I'll wait to see how the Senate bill does--calling and e-mailing my Senators to tell them I approve the legislation. We'll see where, if anywhere, it goes from there.

[spin]

82. Since you mentioned that you are through arguing about this on-line, I will not ...

waste my time to debate your points.

I will merely say that I think calling and emailing your Senators is an excellent idea. If we all started doing this on many important issues, maybe they would do a far better job while in office.

I plan to contact my Senators also, but I will tell them to oppose the legislation.

[Straw Man]

23. Look at all the paranoids ...

Camp Perry National Matches, doncha know.

https://www.google.com/search?q=camp+perry+national+match

Major sporting event, under the auspices of the Civilian Marksmanship Program, the NRA, and the Ohio National Guard.

http://www.odcmp.com/NM.htm

There's a whole world out there that you know nothing about.

[Clames]

35. How many technically ignorant individuals want to ban those?

Answer: Only the seriously paranoid ones.




Those who fear the sight of guns have their own deep seated paranoia.

[thucythucy]

52. "Those who fear the sight of guns"

might just be people who have been victimized by gun crime.

Really, the level of callousness on some of these threads is just chilling.

[Clames]

77. I know victims of gun crimes who still CCW.

Callousness to understand reality? As if...

[thucythucy]

84. And I know victims who are traumatized

by the sight of a gun. I imagine many of the Newtown parents, not to mention the surviving kids, might feel the same way, especially about assault rifles. And yes, you do seem absolutely callous to THAT reality. Indeed, the thought never seems to have occurred to you.

My response was to a post that claimed the ONLY reason a person would have to fear the sight of a gun is some sort of irrational paranoia. No other POSSIBLE explanation.

Besides which, trauma history or not, if I was staring in the barrel of a Bushmaster "Man Card" right at this moment, in the hands of some stranger stalking the halls of my workplace, you can bet that I'd sure as hell be frightened at the sight. Especially if I was a child.

But go ahead, castigate everyone who finds the sight of lethal technology in the hands of all and sundry as "paranoid" and "irrational."

As I said, the callousness is just incredible.

[Clames]

85. And it's ok for you to castigate all gun owners as irrationally paranoidm

Got it. One day you might learn something about hypocrisy and figure out that that broad brush you wave so freely isn't a good idea. One day. That sure as hell was not my only claim but you obviously only read what you wanted to....

[thucythucy]

88. When have I ever castigated all gun owners

as "irrationally paranoid"?

Seems to me I've had quite civil conversations with GeoJohnson on this thread and elsewhere, and with ProgressiveProfessor on a number of occasions. I disagree with both of them on many things, but admire them both for their rational arguments and willingness to engage in honest discussion.

If I have ever castigated "ALL gun owners as irrational" I apologize.

But I don't think I ever have.

[benEzra]

87. Target shooters have no use for the #1 target rifle in the United States?

Yeah, right.

You do realize you're talking about a non-automatic, civilian (NFA Title 1), supremely accurate, centerfire .22, right?

I'm a competitive shooter. I shoot one, and also keep it on standby in the safe in lieu of the traditional .729 caliber shotgun. I'll keep it, thanks.

[hack89]

91. Anyone that wants to be competitive.

they are the standard for competitive target shooting for good reasons - they are ergonomic and accurate.

[Remmah2]

93. Are the police and government paranoid?

Why do the police and government agencies need them? In addition to full automatics and explosives? How about the billions of rounds of stockpiled hollow point cop killer ammunition? How about the 2700 urban assault vechicles, the .50 BMG police sniper rifles? Patriot act, domestic drones?

When's the last time a police station was stormed? When's the last time one state invaded another?

[derby378]

40. Ted Cruz vs. Dianne Feinstein: ROBOT MONSTER vs. PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE

Reminded me of when Zorak and Brak were calling each other "dork" and "jerkhead" on an old Cartoon Planet episode. God, I miss that show.

[Thinkingabout]

51. Now we can see where we stand, if it gets voted down and more than half of Americans polled wants

the ban, then we need to get those who does not listen to us out of office.

[Pullo]

54. If you think pushing an AWB is going to play in favor of the Democratic party in 2014 ...

... I disagree. Its much more likely to turn the Senate red IMO, unfortunately.

[Thinkingabout]

59. Once again if more than half wants the ban and those who does not vote for the ban they are not

doing what the people voting for them wants, then it would be time to vote agains those who does not vote for the ban. We elect by majority. It is not a republican or democrat thing with me, the killilngs has to stop by whatever means.

[Straw Man]

63. I have another idea.

It is not a republican or democrat thing with me, the killilngs has to stop by whatever means.

By whatever means? OK -- since FBI stats show that hands and feet are responsible for more killings than "assault weapons" are, let's legislate a program of preventive amputation.

[Thinkingabout]

76. That' a good idea everyone who owns high capacity high caliber weapons let's cut off their feet and

hands.

[Clames]

78. Oh look, another bright one showing their true colors.

It's not the gun owners that are blood thirsty...

[Thinkingabout]

79. I wondered why the suggestion in the first place but it might curtain mass killings.

[Pullo]

66. The only poll that matters is on election day

The "more than half" in some poll doesn't mean nearly as much as who actually turns out to vote. Mid-term elections almost always have lower turnout compared to general elections. That, coupled with pro-gun rights supporters typically being better organized and energized, more than evens the playing field. Most importantly, supporters of the right to own firearms are more likely to vote the issue than those who support gun control.

There are several red state Democratic Senators who will not vote for this bill, which is telling.

[hack89]

95. Unfortunately you can only vote for those that directly represent you.

have you considered that there are Dems where a majority of their constituents do not favor an AWB?

[TNLiberal4]

83. apologize for the ignorance

I apologize for the ignorance, but are there any pending bills that regulate magazine capacity separate from an assault rifle ban?

[premium]

92. No.

The mag. limit is included in Feinstein's AWB which is headed towards a spectacular defeat in the senate.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/14/gun-ban-passes-senate-judiciary-committee

The bill sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., would ban 150 specifically named military-style weapons, rifles and handguns. It also prohibits the sale of semi-automatic guns that have detachable magazines over 10 rounds, and military-assault weapons that have flash suppressors or pistol grips

There are, so far, 5 Dem senators and 1 Ind. senator who have voiced opposition to the AWB, Harry Reid will probably vote no also and Susan Collins, who voted yes to renewal in 2004, has said she won't support it this time around.

Now the assault weapons ban will have its day on the Senate floor where not only Republicans, but moderate Democrats from conservative-leaning states as well, are poised to vote against the measure.