327 people have been killed by dogs over the last 20 years

your post is ridiculous.

Sarcasm

And there's something about spoons in there too.

misinformation and media induced hysteria.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Pit-Bull-Placebo-Aggression/dp/0972191410
Come to think of it, there seems to be a parallel between pit bulls and "assault weapons", thanks.

eom

which recognizes the added danger connected with pit bulls or as I would suggest with semi-automatic weapons. How many accidental deaths have occurred in the last 20 years because of semi-automatic weapons. Actually, I think this type of law should apply to all guns, not just semi-autos, but I seriously doubt anyone would support it vis-a-vis revolvers. Without stepping on 2A, it would require more care, thought and attendant precautions to own a semi-automatic weapon.

or impediment to change.

which will take some doing, you do nothing?

eom

You can't be serious?

Sorry I couldn't resist.



How many times does this need to be repeated? The Bill of Rights protects preexisting rights. It doesn't grant anything. Even if you repeal, delete and expunge the entire thing, the underlying rights remain.

Good luck

that was my point. The whole thing was sensationalist media hype. Accidental shootings are lower in the US than there were 20 years ago. Your comparison is absurd on so many levels.

deliberately obtuse. I am not in any way comparing guns to dogs. That would be absurd. No dog, not even the perhaps unfairly reviled pit bull represents one millionth of one percent of the danger posed by guns in general. I am certainly not debating the issue of (dog) breed specific bans, which I agree border on the hysterical. I am referring however to the model of legislation which is a precedent in some ways.

PS - the only thing that the poor pit bulls (responsible for fatal attacks) and guns have in common is irresponsible owners. The kind of whack jobs that beat their dogs, make them crazy killers, put giant studded collars on them to show everyone how macho they are and how scary their dog is, and then can't control their behavior. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they were also gun nuts.

that sell drugs and belong to gangs. The problem isn't "macho gun nuts" the problem is the criminal gangs that are funded, armed, and fueled by the fucking drug culture.

In all, yes blaming me, some target shooter, or some other " gun nut" what ever that is, for the acts of criminal gangs fueled and funded by the drug culture does border on the hysterical and asinine. It is as asinine as wanting confiscate registered pistols from restricted PAL holders after a couple gangsters shoot it out with illegal pistols with illegal magazines.

One evil does not excuse another.

Apparently there is a secret society of gangsta pooches.

On second thoughts you might just start a new conspiracy theory with this ...

They've both become associated with the idea of "scary" (dog or gun) through bad reporting.

So, any large molosser dog gets called a "pit bull", and any rifle with a black finish and pistol grip gets called an "assault weapon" (in both cases, pit bulls and assault weapons are a tiny fraction of the population that get called that).

A nut-case with a big dog would not be able to get it to rapidly kill 26 people.

Hell, I can't get my dog to do a startline stay in a dog agility trial.

A functioning assault weapon will obey it's master.

A law covering semi-auto firearms such as you suggest would prove a burden to honest and responsible gun owners but have little or no effect on criminals.

Who would run the psychological tests? Considering that there are 80 million gun owners in our nation the overwhelming majority of which are honest and responsible and own at least one semi-auto firearm, how long would the waiting list be for a psychological test and how much might this effect effective counseling for those who didn't own firearms but suffer from mental disorders?

I feel that such an effort would largely be a total waste of time and might actually lead to more problems than it would prevent. For example a person who might benefit from treatment for severe depression might commit suicide by other means than a firearm because he/she was unable to find help as the appointment calendars of every individual who was qualified to help was filled with gun owners who had absolutely no mental issues. You also suggest testing on a yearly basis. Can you imagine how much time would be wasted testing 99.999% of semi-automatic gun owners every year in order to cull out the .001% who MIGHT pose a danger. Also a person with truly severe mental issues might pass the test while another person who would never create a problem would be rejected.

I do agree with your idea of requiring anyone who wished to own a semi-auto firearm to have proof of safety training prior to being allow to purchase a semi-auto weapon however I would extend it to the purchase of any firearm or ammo. The course and test could be conducted on line or in all high schools. Of course this idea would be strongly opposed by the NRA.

which, if possible, would be administered by the licensing body.

and while you did suggest a yearly license renewal you did not say that that would involve another psychological test. Therefore I apologize for making a poor assumption.

However I still feel that the cost and time involved in testing most of the 80 million gun owners would be largely a waste of time and money.

There might be a benefit for the gun control side as many harmless gun owners could be flagged as potentially dangerous and their weapons taken away. To those who favor draconian gun control this would be considered a great start.

I'm inclined to think that is the idea. Based on some of their posts, honest and responsible gun owner is an oxymoron.

because they own firearms.

In my opinion that is a bit of stretch.

I think that is the opinion of many gun control advocates, just based on some of the posts here and factbook. If I thought that, I would have to include myself.

I didn't look at your handle.

damn near spit soda out my nose on that one, dude.

that responsible citizens had to be inconvenienced for the greater good. If it prevents even one accidental gun death or one spree killing by a mentally deranged person, is the price too high? Is your right to shoot for fun more important than someone else's right not to get shot. The life you save might be your own.

one gun ban keeps someone from defending themselves from home invaders, resulting in the family's murders, how big of a price is that? It works both ways. Of course, that doesn't bring out politicians and the infotainment industry does it? Neither do the many children that are beaten to death by at home either. The people who are doing the shooting will not be affected either way. While there is the rare deranged person, how much will they be counterbalanced home invasion situations above? Ultimately, nobody actually knows. I do know this: The worst school massacre in US history would not have been prevented by any gun law. 38 children and six adults killed and about 60 wounded. After beating his wife to death, the killer planted three bombs in the Bath Elementary school in Bath, MI. He killed himself by rigging a bomb in his car.

Making AR-15s and other semi-automatic weapons harder to get is not going to suddenly make everyone a target for home invaders. Besides, home invaders (plural) would also have semi-automatic weapons, maybe automatic weapons - they could just as likely kill you before you got all of them. You would be just as dead. As to the Bath massacre, well you just have to be satisfied with preventing what you can. But just because you can't prevent everything, you don't throw up your hands and say why bother. That's like saying because the police can't catch all the criminals, we shouldn't bother with the expense of a police force.

baseball bats are the most common weapon in violent crime. The most common firearms is a pistol. Automatic weapons in crime, even among gangs, are more common in Europe than the US.

to defend yourself. A pistol would do the job just as well.

I still feel safe in the sticks, I don't compete in target competitions that use them, I actually prefer lever actions and single shots for hunting. That's my choice. I don't know about Florida, but the most common AR round isn't legal for hunting in Wyoming because it isn't powerful enough for mule deer or proghorn. Never mind elk. I would like to get a M-1 carbine sometime. don't worry, they have wooden stocks.
I carried the M-16 at various times for the Army and Air Force.

restrictive gun legislation.

I look at it from a philosophical stance. The problem with some gun owners, their bolt actions will be "evil sniper rifles" next. I honestly think it is a divide and conquer tactic in a culture war that has more to do with culture war and not public safety. While some do honestly believe in the public safety angle, one study show that 75 percent are culture warriors. I have to defend symbols of my culture.

By this "logic" governments should stop making laws about drug use or automobile use because it would prove a burden to honest and responsible drug users or car owners.

Difficult logistics are only difficult, not insurmountable.

Do carry on, Gov ... sorry, Do carry on, spin.

There is a term for this sort of fallacy - a straw man.

Can you imagine the time wasted by autopsy of 20 children and by the crime scene management of a slaughter of that size. Are you not shocked by the "time wasted" by parents going to funerals, by the wasted money spent on presents that would have gone to deceased infants. Perhaps you have a fellow feeling with Scrooge before his callousness was pointed out when viewed the children beneath the robe of the Ghost of Christmas Present.

Now contrast the current limit on gun ownership in the USA - money.

This is the only sane thing you have said.