HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » The Issue That Goes Ignor...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 04:46 AM

The Issue That Goes Ignored

It took an ordinary citizen, Nina Gonzalez, to stand up at the presidential debate on Tuesday to raise what has been a phantom issue on the campaign trail: the lack of effective gun controls and any meaningful political discussion about this crisis. Every year, more than 30,000 people are shot and killed in this country.

Ms. Gonzalez politely asked President Obama whatever happened to his pledge four years ago to fight for renewal of the ban on assault weapons. That ban, which prohibits the manufacture of semiautomatic firearms for civilian use, was put in place in 1994 and expired in 2004. It was a pledge that Mr. Obama and his administration never made a priority despite the many horrific mass shootings during his term.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/opinion/the-issue-that-goes-ignored.html?_r=0

55 replies, 4948 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 55 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Issue That Goes Ignored (Original post)
SecularMotion Oct 2012 OP
Reasonable_Argument Oct 2012 #1
SecularMotion Oct 2012 #2
Reasonable_Argument Oct 2012 #3
SecularMotion Oct 2012 #5
Reasonable_Argument Oct 2012 #7
Tuesday Afternoon Oct 2012 #42
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #47
RegieRocker Oct 2012 #14
SecularMotion Oct 2012 #19
Glaug-Eldare Oct 2012 #20
Francis Marion Oct 2012 #28
PavePusher Oct 2012 #30
spin Oct 2012 #41
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #49
Kolesar Oct 2012 #13
Reasonable_Argument Oct 2012 #15
Kolesar Oct 2012 #17
Reasonable_Argument Oct 2012 #18
spin Oct 2012 #39
PavePusher Oct 2012 #31
Callisto32 Oct 2012 #35
Glaug-Eldare Oct 2012 #4
SecularMotion Oct 2012 #8
Glaug-Eldare Oct 2012 #10
former-republican Oct 2012 #26
SecularMotion Oct 2012 #32
rrneck Oct 2012 #38
friendly_iconoclast Oct 2012 #45
Db Owen97 Oct 2012 #46
SecularMotion Oct 2012 #48
Db Owen97 Oct 2012 #50
SecularMotion Oct 2012 #51
oneshooter Oct 2012 #52
Db Owen97 Oct 2012 #53
Reasonable_Argument Oct 2012 #11
Clames Oct 2012 #23
former-republican Oct 2012 #27
SecularMotion Oct 2012 #33
gejohnston Oct 2012 #34
Clames Oct 2012 #43
Db Owen97 Oct 2012 #55
rl6214 Oct 2012 #54
Dr_Scholl Oct 2012 #6
SecularMotion Oct 2012 #9
Glaug-Eldare Oct 2012 #12
RegieRocker Oct 2012 #16
ManiacJoe Oct 2012 #36
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #40
ileus Oct 2012 #21
Reasonable_Argument Oct 2012 #22
Remmah2 Oct 2012 #25
Remmah2 Oct 2012 #24
slackmaster Oct 2012 #29
Trunk Monkey Oct 2012 #37
trouble.smith Oct 2012 #44

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 04:53 AM

1. Please show

 

The skyrocketing number of cases where "assault weapons" have been used in crime since the ban expired. Also, please show the a drastic reduction in the use of "assault weapons" from before and during the decade the ban was in place. You can't, rifles in general are already used in a very small percentage of crime and the "assault weapons" ban had no effect. So please quit wrapping yourself in the fake self righteousness and just admit you want to disarm the public because of your irrational fear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #1)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:08 AM

2. Please vote for Democrats

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #2)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:12 AM

3. I do

 

Many of them around here have an "A" rating from the NRA and I get little red postcards asking me to vote for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #3)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:19 AM

5. So you only vote for candidates that are endorsed by the NRA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #5)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:25 AM

7. No

 

But I always take gun rights into account when voting. I check the NRA, Buckeye Firearms Association, Ohioans for Concealed Carry, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #7)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 06:37 PM

42. so then You are a One Issue Voter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #42)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 01:15 PM

47. Do you take abortion in to account?

 

Does that make you a one issue voter? (ie, would you vote for a republican who happened to be pro-choice over a democrat who was not? Even though you were 99% in agreement with the latter and only 1% in agreement with the former?)

Taking in to account =/= only issue that matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #5)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:48 AM

14. Stop the qun accusation low balling

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #14)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 06:10 AM

19. Do you vote the Democratic party line or the NRA line?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #19)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 06:13 AM

20. Who says anybody has to vote a straight line?

"I am not in an American courtroom, sir, and therefore I do not wish to answer a question that is put to me in the fashion in which a prosecutor puts questions. In due course, sir, you will have your answer."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #19)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 10:48 AM

28. You wouldn't want to vote the 'Democratic party line'

...or any other party line, because it's more important to be right than to be loyal.

Step back a bit in time; would you vote for a staunch segregationist simply because they're a Democrat?

No. Any time a lawmaker is compromised on the most basic of our political underpinnings- the Bill of Rights- that candidate does not deserve your vote.

Even the Soviet Union had a 'no' checkbox on their ballot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #19)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 11:40 AM

30. Et tu, Brutus?

 

Purity tests are all the rage now, it seems.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #19)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:57 PM

41. Many elected Democrats suppport gun rights. ...

If that statement was false we would have far stronger gun laws in our nation.

For example:

Harry Reid: No Time For Gun Control Debate
Posted: July 26, 2012



Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid believes that the Senate schedule is too packed to spend time on a debate about gun control, despite President Barack Obama’s recent push toward stricter gun rules following the Aurora, Colorado shootings.

The Washington Post reports that reporters questioned the Nevada Democrat about the issue of gun control, which is huge in the media right now after the tragic movie theater shooting that left 12 dead and 58 wounded last week.

While President Obama suggested that he would favor additional restrictions on guns, while his challenger, Republican presidential presumptive nominee Mitt Romney has said that changing gun laws will not prevent future tragedies like the Aurora shootings.

Reid made sure to say that he supported Obama’s remarks, but said that the Senate will not debate about guns this year. When asked if it could be on the schedule for next year, Harry Reid stated, “Nice try.”
http://www.inquisitr.com/285962/harry-reid-no-time-for-gun-control/


How can you assert that our party is a strong supporter of draconian gun laws when the Democratic Senate Majority Leader refuses to even consider such measures?

In my opinion Harry Reid is simply being realistic as he realizes that trying to push strong gun control laws through the Senate is a waste of time. There are far more important issues in our nation to address.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #19)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 01:16 PM

49. Sounds similar to: do you vote republican or do you want the terrorists to win?

 

Push-polling sucks.

/do you support the 2nd amendment or do you want the weak to be beaten, murdered, and raped by the strong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #3)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:44 AM

13. "Many of them", as in 2 or 3 every twenty years...eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #13)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:48 AM

15. Hardly

 

The Democrats in this part of the state understand that if you come out in support for gun control you might as well save the effort because you're not going to be elected. Therefore they respect our constitutional rights, it's a pattern I'd like to see spread to Democrats throughout the party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #15)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:55 AM

17. Ohio Gov Strickland sold out to the NRA and they screwed him over because NRA wanted a Republican

So you gave us John Kasich in a narrow victory. Well done, NRA/GOP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #17)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:59 AM

18. That's a remarkable fiction you've constructed

 

Whatever gets you through the day I suppose. I do agree the NRA screwed him over, but saying he "sold out" is absurd at best. If he was anti gun he wouldn't have been elected in the first place. Kasich was swept into office due to the backlash from passing the affordable care act and he's been a train wreck as governor. I'd like to get Strickland back into office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #17)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:44 PM

39. You are simply using the NRA as a bogeyman. ...

The simple fact is that an estimated 70 to 80 million individuals personally own firearms in our nation and often members of their families enjoy participating in the shooting sports. An estimated 42% of American households have one or more firearms. 67% of gun owners own their weapons for self defense while 66% enjoy target shooting and 41% use their weapons for hunting. (source: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp)

Oddly enough the NRA has ONLY 4.3 million members despite the fact that the cost of an NRA yearly membership is only $35. Strong gun control advocates and the media need someone to blame for their failure to implement draconian gun control and the NRA fits the bill. Another sad fact for the gun control side is that possibly the most effective pro gun control group, the Brady Campaign has under 28,000 members!!! (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Campaign)

The reason strong gun control measures often fail is that such laws are perceived by gun owners as a threat to their ability to defend themselves and their family or engage in the shooting sports which they value. Because they often have a considerable amount of money invested in their firearm collections they WILL show up at the polls to vote against any politician that they perceive as a threat. In close elections the vote of gun owners can make the difference in winning and losing.

Strong gun control advocates will also show up at the polls to vote for those who wish stronger gun control laws. This works well for politicians who represent areas of the nation where firearms are tightly regulated and fairly uncommon. In such areas firearms are often used by the criminal element to cause unnecessary tragedies and the voters often know few, if any, people who use firearms in a responsible manner. Obviously it is easy to assume that gun owners are "rednecks" or unintelligent poorly educated fools who are excessively paranoid or buy firearms to make up for certain deficiencies in certain physical attributes. This form of bias does not exist in areas where firearm ownership is common.

In gun friendly areas of our nation many well educated people own and use firearms in a responsible manner. If you live in such an area you may well have close friends who own firearms and enjoy the shooting sports or co-workers who you respect who do the same. You may well chose not to own a firearm but you do not feel that firearm ownership is a bad thing for all people. If you live in Florida as an example, as I do, where firearm ownership is common and many people have concealed carry permits, your views on firearms may differ considerably with those who live in gun unfriendly areas.

I have had numerous discussions with co-workers who didn't own firearms and most see absolutely no problem with my owning own or even having what some people would consider being an arsenal. Some of the people I talked to were interested in trying the sport and I was always willing to meet them at the range and introduce them to the sport of target shooting using my own personal weapons. A high percentage decided that target shooting was indeed fun and challenging and decided to purchase a firearm in order to participate. A few even eventually decided to get a concealed weapons permit.

One example was a black co-worker. He was initially fearful of going to a range with me as he expected to find prejudice from all the white shooters. He was amazed when he was welcomed and also quickly realized that shooting a handgun is far more challenging than portrayed in the movies and on TV. He developed an interest in target shooting and did eventually obtain a concealed weapons permit. His concealed weapons instructor was so impressed with his skill that he tried to get him to engage in competition. He also later became my supervisor. Had he lived in Chicago, New York City or San Francisco he would have probably voted for politicians who favored extremely strong gun control. Let me assure you that he does NOT vote for any politician who pushes strong gun control such as another assault weapons ban as he owns at least one firearm that would qualify.

You also blame the GOP when you state:


So you gave us John Kasich in a narrow victory. Well done, NRA/GOP


My personal opinion after researching gun control is that the GOP uses gun control as a wedge issue to obtain votes but will sell out gun owners in a heartbeat if the party senses a political advantage. Romney for example has a history of supporting strong gun control but currently, because he is attempting to portray himself as pro-gun and a true conservative, has abandoned his previous position. On the other hand Obama has been actually gun friendly during his first term. Unfortunately the NRA has pushed propaganda that portrays Obama as a gun grabber who plans to implement gun confiscation in his second term. I feel that this is obviously false and the NRA will regret its decision to support Romney if he gets elected.

I have been an NRA member for over 40 years but I have decided to drop my membership in their organization. Based on his record as President I feel that the NRA should better support him. He did at one time after his first year get an "F" rating from the Brady Campaign. I am not saying that the NRA should "endorse" Obama but they should at least be fair in their appraisal. To be fair the NRA does give many high ratings to some Democrats and sometimes endorses some. The NRA is supposed to be a single issue organization. I feel that their rating of Obama is a total sell out and I have lost respect for their rating system. It is not at all surprising that Obama favored strong gun control as a politician from Illinois. He would have never been elected as a dog catcher if he supported gun rights in that state. I seriously believe that as he traveled across our nation during his presidential campaign the experience changed his views on gun control.

Of course even if Obama does plan to implement draconian gun laws in his second term he faces a Congress who is unlikely to pass such measures. The conservative Supreme Court is also unlikely to support any such laws. Realistically any strong gun control laws such as another assault weapons ban are unlikely to pass.

There are far more important issues in our nation than strong gun control. I personally feel that the very liberal portion of the Democratic Party should totally stop pushing for unrealistic gun control and instead focus on much more achievable improvements to current gun laws and support stronger law enforcement to help eliminate the "straw purchase" of such weapons and smuggling of these lethal weapons into the inner cities in our nation. This approach is reasonable and would be strongly supported by a high percentage of gun owners. Democrats would then win far more close elections and our nation as a result would be far better in the future.












Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #2)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 11:43 AM

31. Dodge identified. Please answer the question. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #2)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 01:10 PM

35. The sequitur...

you just non'd it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:13 AM

4. "That ban, which prohibits the manufacture of semiautomatic firearms for civilian use,"

Uh, what? At no point in American history has it been illegal to manufacture and sell semiautomatic firearms to civilians.

Just as an aside, I wish there was a single word that described civilians who are also not law enforcement agents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #4)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:26 AM

8. From the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

During the period when the AWB was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture any firearm that met the law's flowchart of an assault weapon or large capacity ammunition feeding device, except for export or for sale to a government or law enforcement agency. The law also banned possession of illegally imported or manufactured firearms, but did not ban possession or sale of pre-existing 'assault weapons' or previously factory standard magazines that were legally redefined as large capacity ammunition feeding devices. This provision for pre-ban firearms created a higher price point in the market for such items, which still exist due to several states adopting their own assault weapons ban.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #8)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:33 AM

10. That's not what the article says.

What the article says is utterly false and misleading. It's the product of either cynical deceit or colossal ignorance, and it's not worth reading, let alone reposting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #10)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 09:58 AM

26. You would think if the OP was going to argue a position he would educate himself on the position first

 

Why is it the the gun grabbers never use or understand facts when arguing a position?

To the OP
please if you are going to argue a position on the AWB

Please educate your self on it's deterrence to gun crime during those years.

Also exactly what was banned during those years .
And after it expired the effect it had on gun crime .

If you do these things you will have a better argument in this group forum.
Now I understand if you do these things it will make your argument of another AWB harder to defend and support.

But it's about being honest in a debate on this issue calling for another AWB

Stop cutting and pasting articles that are wrong or misleading to defend your position in this group forum.

It does nothing for you but show ignorance on your knowledge of the 94 AWB and it's effect.

Do some home work then come back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #26)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 12:06 PM

32. Sorry, I'm not going to play the guns vs crime correlation with you.

There's no reason for anyone outside of military and law enforcement to own and use weapons which can cause mass carnage in seconds. The possibility of military grade weapons falling into the wrong hands through wider distribution is a threat to public safety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #32)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 04:23 PM

38. "Military grade" weapons are very rare and expensive

for civilians to own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #32)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 05:00 PM

45. With that attitude, you will get the responses you deserve-derisive ones.

Let us know when you've granted admin and remote login priviliges on your computer to DHS- because the possibility that you or someone else might be running a botnet
on it is a threat to public safety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #32)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 01:04 PM

46. TO: Secular Motion.....

 

You do know that the majority of firearms in use in the modern era have been used in the military.

So in effect what I gather is that you want all firearms banned for your own reason.

Proof is listed below...

Bolt Action Rifle- Used for hunting and long range target shooting,started out as a military arm (The majority of hunting rifles are based of the K-98K action due to strength and rigidity)

Lever Action Rifle- The stalwart deer rifle for many,the sharp looking levergun was first used in combat in the U.S. Civil War (Henry Model 1860 and Spencer carbine)

Semi-automatic firearms though were first used as sporting weapons,and then later brought into military service.

To say you want to ban all "Military grade Firearms" means nothing except you would want to ban all firearms,because all firearm types have been used by militaries of a given age,be it muzzle loaders or modern self contained cartridge arms,they have been used by a military at one point or another.

The claim otherwise is nothing more than complete dishonesty.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Db Owen97 (Reply #46)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 01:16 PM

48. Do you vote for Democrats?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #48)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 07:16 AM

50. If I can honestly agree with their stance on issues ....

 

I will vote for a member of any party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Db Owen97 (Reply #50)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 07:57 AM

51. Please tell us why you are voting for President Obama

I support the Democratic platform on guns

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements--like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole--so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.


I think with a good turnout of Democrats we can take back the House and enact improvements to our gun laws. The next President will likely be choosing several Supreme Court Justices. We need President Obama in office to keep the Supreme Court from moving further to the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #51)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 08:09 AM

52. What type of "improvements" would you support?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #51)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 08:11 AM

53. I disagree with a number of issues....

 

On both sides.

If it wasn't for the '08 decision on the Heller case Liberal Democrats as well as our political opponents would have ran the risk of a complete firearms ban being enacted.

Because such bans aren't made with one political party or the other in mind,such acts fall on the shoulders of all U.S. Citizens,no matter which side of the aisle they choose to stay on.

As far as reinstatement of the AWB I would like an answer to these questions...not cut and paste talking points,but your own answer to the following questions.

What violent acts happened during the first AWB ?

and the follow up question....

What was the A.W.B. put in place to prevent?






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #8)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:34 AM

11. That flow chart was a joke

 

All it lead to was "thumb hole" stocks and a "point system" regarding pistol grips, domestic parts, flash supressors, ect. I have a Romanian S.A.R-1(AK clone) that I bought during the ban. The only visual difference from one that I would buy now is that mine has no flash supressor or bayonet lug. It did come with a 10 round magazine but I just picked up several East German 30 round surplus magazines at inflated prices to fix that. The entire ban was a joke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #8)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 09:13 AM

23. Once again SM proves the level of technical and legal ignorance of anti-gunners.

 

And they have achieved greatly in that respect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #23)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 10:11 AM

27. That's the most disturbing part about the OP

 

If someone is going to argue a position at least understand the position you are arguing .


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #27)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 12:09 PM

33. The most disturbing part of the gun forum

is that pro-gun members have no arguments, but stale NRA talking points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #33)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 12:13 PM

34. how are they stale and what talking points?

what is even more disturbing is that anti-gun members can't even put a half way cogent argument together. Calling something a "talking point" is not a counter point, it is a way of saying "I don't have anything".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #33)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 07:23 PM

43. Disturbing?

 

Maybe you should be disturbed that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to this subject. Stale Brady Campaign/VPC/MAIG talking points coming from you doesn't exactly help your cause. Notice you have never answered the question as to the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the 1994 AWB. Nor do you seem capable of explaining why banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds is effective if the vast majority of shooting victims are hit by only one - three rounds. The most popular handgun used in criminal shooting acts is the 6-shot .38 Spc revolver followed by cheap, unreliable semi-auto pistols that are generally equipped with 10rd magazines anyway. "Stale NRA talking points" is usually the answer of somebody who has nothing to support their arguments except boring rhetoric.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #33)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 10:30 AM

55. I answered your questions....

 

Now if you would,in all fairness answer mine

What happened during the first A.W.B.?

and

What was the A.W.B. put in place to prevent?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #8)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 08:14 AM

54. B*llshit, that's not what the article said

 

I bought a 50 state, AWB legal AR15 right in the middle of the AWB. Semi-automatic black scary rifle. Again, the truth eludes you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:22 AM

6. I'm sick of people beating this long dead horse.

 

Of 9,000 or so homicides in 2010, only 358 were carried out with rifles of ALL types.

More people are killed by carbon monoxide poisoning every year than "assault" weapons. The AWB is just a solution looking for a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr_Scholl (Reply #6)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:31 AM

9. Most Americans have a lower tolerance for carnage than you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #9)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:43 AM

12. Do we know what the actual poll question was?

Ah, you didn't mention the "assault weapon" portion of the results. (That is, your source lied. Not surprising.) I'm skeptical that the respondents were aware of, or informed of, what "assault weapon" means (read: jabberwocky) when they gave their answers. You could get a majority of Americans to support banning water (dihydrogen monoxide, which has been found in all cancer cells) if you phrase the question right. As far as I can tell, all you're boasting about is that millions of Americans didn't understand the question.

Not to mention that the poll was conducted shortly after a high-profile assassination attempt, and during the well-publicized recovery of Rep. Giffords.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #9)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:50 AM

16. Roflmao just like the majority

 

Of people voted for Bush

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #9)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:39 PM

36. Or so the pollers claim.

> Majority of Americans Support Semi-Automatic Weapons Ban

The question and results are not provided in any of the nested links.

The majority of Americans wrongly think "assault weapons" are machine guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #9)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:49 PM

40. nothing's free

the folks in the pro-control camp want to use some human rights to pay for that carnage reduction

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 06:27 AM

21. Of those supposedly 30k

How many were suicides?

How many were the subjects engaged in gang and drug activity?

Do they count Self defense shootings?

Do they count accidental shootings?

Do they counts LEO shootings?



What are the real numbers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #21)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 06:31 AM

22. They don't really care

 

It suits their agenda to use the number so they run with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #21)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 09:41 AM

25. Those questions have been asked time and time again.

 

I don't think the gun prohibitionist want the answer. They can't handle the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 09:38 AM

24. How many of the 30,000 killed were victims of repeat offenders or gang violence?

 

People in violation of existing laws?

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17

"Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%). "

Several other threads over the past month have indicated that the penalties for straw buying and gun trafficking are light. In addition over the past year we've had disclosed cases where the ATF sanction the sale of firearms to criminals, penalties were nill to none. Do our politicians have balls enough to be tough on criminals?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 11:37 AM

29. It's amazing the level of ignorance that the New York Times permits in opinion pieces

 

I stopped reading at:

"That ban, which prohibits the manufacture of semiautomatic firearms for civilian use,"

The opinion of anyone who has that level of ignorance about the subject has to be worthless at best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 02:57 PM

37. Am I the only one that caught this?

 

From the OP's link

Ms. Gonzalez politely asked President Obama whatever happened to his pledge four years ago to fight for renewal of the ban on assault weapons. That ban, which prohibits the manufacture of semiautomatic firearms for civilian use, was put in place in 1994 and expired in 2004. It was a pledge that Mr. Obama and his administration never made a priority despite the many horrific mass shootings during his term.


Added italics for emphasis

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 02:31 AM

44. guns don't kill people, criminals kill people. That's the issue being ignored. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread