Boy, our Save the Guns People are out in force. KC

[leftyladyfrommo]

It never fails to amaze me how fast the gun people mobilize. I think there were 4 save our gun letters to the editor in the paper this morning. There were more yesterday.

I don't understand what the love affair with guns is. Is it a guy thing? Why would anyone want to own an AK 47 or a gun that shoots 30 rounds a second? I just don't ket it.

So now we have to hear over and over again how guns don't kill people - people kill people. No one ever mentions that children with guns kill other children. By mistake most of the time. That gang members with guns kill a lot of people.

I can't see what it would hurt if there were stricter gun back ground checks. But I guess I just don't get the whole gun ownership mentality thing.

[Fresh_Start]

1. Smokers did the same thing about public smoking

they didn't care about second hand smoke killing other people.
They just cared about their own pleasure.

[BlooInBloo]

6. LOL! I'm WITH ya! Cigarettes are JUST LIKE guns! lololol!

[depakid]

101. If you thought abtractly, you might see the connection

Ardent smokers, like ardent gun owners (and carriers) tend to pipe up and whinge whenever their cherished "right" is threatened or inconvenienced- clear and convincing evidence that their behavior is harming others (or even endangering themselves) doesn't seem to register on their radar.

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. That's not at all true

I am a smoker and I want it banned. So do many other smokers I know.

This also is not a fair comparison since nicotine is the most addictive substance on the planet. What about guns is addicitive?

[Fresh_Start]

36. its a fair comparison, some gun owners want more restrictions

others do not.
Some smokers didn't mind more restrictions, others did.
In my experience more smokers where against restrictions than were for restrictions.

You'll have to ask gun enthusiasts why they NEED their guns. I don't understand it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

46. Then you should have said "some" in your original post

[Fresh_Start]

58. smokers as a group objected to restrictions

though a small number of smokers had no issues with restrictions.

[proud2BlibKansan]

77. What group?

Are you quoting a study?

[zanne]

110. Some gun owners want further restrictions?

Not the ones on DU! They want to take guns to church!

[proud2BlibKansan]

142. LOL - I got kicked off a message board a couple years ago

when a guy there said he was so excited that CCW had become legal because he would no longer have to lock his gun in his trunk when he went to that state to visit his parents. So I asked him what kind of a dysfunctional family he came from, that he wanted to take a gun when he visited his parents. The conversation just went downhill from there and I ended up getting booted off. But it sure was fun! LOL

[krispos42]

186. And who would that hurt, exactly?

How is it different from carrying to McDonalds or the grocery store?

Or are you just going to say "Guns shouldn't be in church"?

People that take the time, effort, and money to aquire a concealed-carry gun, required training, and a CCW permit don't do it because they're planning on shooting the guy who cut them off on the highway or robbing a gas station.

I carried concealed for 3 days. Camping in South Dakota. Rattlesnake country. First shot in my .22 pistol was a shotshell, able to kill a snake at very close range with a spray of birdshot.

The little pistol concealed in the small of my back was something that I could not forget the entire time I carried it. It weighed on me the entire time.

That was essentially the sum total of my concealed carry. A few times, going to Sioux Falls, I would put the gun in the armrest of the car, but I didn't carry it on my person. Didn't feel the need.

If this makes me a nutcase in your eyes, looking for trouble, hungering for an excuse to whip out my shiny metal penis and shed some blood with gratuitous gunfire, then I don't know what to do about it except say that you are wrong.

It's the people that DON'T have a concealed-carry permit, that pack iron illegally, that worry the shit out of me. Because nearly all of those are career criminals looking for trouble. A rival gang member to kill an easy mark to terrorize.

The real issue here is that you desperately want a peaceful and loving society. Which is a fine and laudable goal, something that we have in common. However, it seems that to many people a major part of achieving that goal is removing as much as possible anything that hints of violence from society and demonizing violence in all forms. At virtually any cost. And with considerable zeal.

This intensity is not something I agree with.

[SteveM]

203. Actually, Zanne, some still bless hunters & their guns. On site.

[tjwash]

2. Wait until you see how fast they mobilize on this thread...

nt

[elocs]

16. Oh yeah! They'll be all over this one. n/t

[Marie26]

51. 2.5 minutes.

A new record?

[zanne]

115. LOL!

There have been times when I've been one of the two or three pro gun-control people trying to respond to about thirty pro-gun people in one thread. They remind me of Dobson's "Save the Family" foundation! They're very organized, they all say the same things and they're LOUD!

[Marie26]

130. And they can dominate the debate

It's an accurate reflection of our society. I don't usually comment on gun threads, even though I care about the issue, cause I'll just get shouted down by the pro-gun nuts. And this is a liberal board! It makes me feel like any real reform is probably hopeless.

[SteveM]

204. Try something other than "pro-gun nuts." You should see what "antis" say.

There are always the flamers, but when a respectful approach is used in argument, usually the response here is respectful. The arguments (scholarly, legal and statistical) are usually quite sound; in fact, this site would be a good one for anybody wanting to get a firm grounding in Second Amendment issues. Those few scholars who dealt with this issue some thirty years ago acknowledged there was very little research into guns and American society. Now, there is a lot of it. So much, that the locus of debate on constitutional law no longer sees the right as "communitarian;" that is, protected only under the auspice of a military or police force (the "militia clause"). Most major scholars in this area, like Laurence Tribe, now concede that the right is individual. The argument today is over whether the 14th Amendment can be brought to bear, perhaps weakening the "states rights" outlook of some, but guaranteeing 2A the same protections as other rights in a manner we became quite familiar with during the last half of the 20th century. There are good links to this research.

Here's a proposal: I won't shout you down and you won't deal with phallic symbols.

[EstimatedProphet]

3. You can't own an AK-47 legally

Nor, without some major loops and money, a gun that shoots 30 rounds a second. Period.

[Richard Steele]

14. Certainly you can.

I cannot address your second statement as I do not
know what "major loops" are.

[EstimatedProphet]

25. Let me rephrase this:

You cannot simply walk into a gun store, pull out a credit card, and walk away with an AK-47. They require special licensing.

[Richard Steele]

27. Yes, it's a bit more complicated than buying a more common rifle, but not illegal.

[Greyhound]

33. I'm sure someone will correct me if this is wrong, but I've been told that ATF hasn't issued

a class 3 permit for almost ten years now.

[Richard Steele]

35. Certainly not true.

Lots of class III dealers still in business and advertising, y'know.

[Greyhound]

38. I know there are many existing, I asked about new issues. n/t

[Richard Steele]

45. Ah, I see I misunderstood your question.

You were referring to DEALERSHIP licenses- I don't know
enough to answer your question on that. (Thanks for clarifying!)

I'm sure someone around here can soon set us both straight, and
probably will.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

49. The ATF and 'Class 3'

Has not issued a tax stamp (aka 'form 4', transfer of a Title 2 firearm), or a form 1 (application to manufacture) for a machine gun to a non SOT since 1986.

A true 'AK-47' could not have been imported since 1968, for general public consumption.

BTW- 'class 3' is a misnomer. There is no such thing as a 'class 3 firearm'. There are only Title 1 (Rifles, shotguns, handguns) and Title 2 (machine guns, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, destructive devices, and 'any other weapons') firearms. Class III is a type of dealer's license aka a 'SOT-3' (Special occupation taxpayer - class 3, dealer in title 2 firearms). Class I SOTs import Title 2s, class II SOTs Manufacture Title 2s.

[Greyhound]

127. Thank you. So if I get it correctly, it's been 21 years since anyone "new" has been authorized to

legally own a MG?

[Man_in_the_Moon]

154. Not quite

sorry wasnt 100% clear now that reread my post:

No machine gun tax stamp (form 4) has been issued for any machine gun manufactured after 1986. The FOPA (Firearms Owners Protection Act) of 1986 banned the transfer of new-manufactured machine guns into the hands of the general public. LEOs can still get them, and SOTs can make them, or transfer new made ones (as a 'post-sample', if they get a letter from a Law Enforcement agency saying they are looking to buy one). Some SOT-3 (AKA "class 3" dealers) guys got busted a few years back for bribing LEOs to issue letters of intent so they could get new made machine guns cheap.

There have been form 4s issued for machine guns manufactured before 1986. That is the reason why a M-16 which in 1986 was 7-800 dollars give or take, about the same as an ar15, now goes for 16-20k. Full-auto went from a curiousity, to an investment overnight. Much like 'assault weapons' did during the ban. The AWB did more for the sales of 'assault weapons' than any advertisement.

So new people have been able to get form 4s, but the cost of admission has done nothing but climb through the roof, because the firearms have to have been manufactured prior to 1986, or in the case of most foreign made machine guns imported prior to 1968.

[Pavulon]

114. For 20,000 you can

since they banned manufacture there are only the machine guns (or parts to modify them) that were on the market in 1986.

SO they are very expensive.

Only 1 nfa firearm has ever been used in a crime. By a police officer.

So you are more likely to win the lottery than be shot with an ak-47.

[slackmaster]

4. Related editorial from my local newspaper

Out of step

The extremes heard again on guns, abortion

April 23, 2007

A couple of major news stories illustrate just how much sway the extremes hold over our politics. No matter what the issue or the debate, it seems it's all or nothing with the activists on the right or left. No matter what side they take, they demand nothing less than complete allegiance to their view and have no tolerance for those of us in the center, which is interesting given that it's in the sensible center that most Americans fall on many issues.

First came the tragedy at Virginia Tech, where 23-year-old Cho Seung-Hui shot and killed 32 people before taking his own life. Predictably, both sides of the gun-control debate seized on the events as evidence that they are right. Those who favor stricter gun-control laws insisted that the gunman came by his weapons too easily; those who favor looser laws suggested that, maybe if a student or faculty member had been armed with a concealed weapon, lives could have been spared. Suddenly, anyone who wanted guns tougher to get, particularly for those with a mental illness, was accused of not supporting the right to bear arms.

Try telling that to the majority of Americans. Although they support the right to bear arms, they also support making gun laws more strict, according to the Gallup organization, which has regularly asked that question in its polling for the last 16 years. In October 2006, 56 percent of Americans thought that laws regarding the sale of firearms should be made more strict, 9 percent thought they should be less strict, and 33 percent thought they should be kept as they are now.

There is more middle ground on the issue of abortion, which came back into the news when the Supreme Court upheld a ban on partial-birth abortion. The hard-line pro-choice crowd charged that the justices were all but revoking a woman's right to choose, while the pro-life bunch applauded the decision as evidence that the climate might be right to overturn Roe v. Wade. Suddenly, those who supported the court's decision because they supported the ban on partial-birth abortions were accused of wanting to strike down the reproductive rights of women....

For rest of copyrighted material please see http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070423/news_mz1ed23top.html

[underpants]

5. "out in force"

I agree with you on how quickly we hear their voices (I am all over the place on this issue) but letters to the editor is not really "out in force". To me that means protests and actually standing up literally standing outside somewhere not just emailing what is basically and astroturf letter around.

[aikoaiko]

7. Those letters are trying to prevent gun bans or draconian new gun laws.

Every gun owner I know wants to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals or mentally unstable people, but we (I) am not willing to give away the option of owning certain guns because of criminals.

[leftyladyfrommo]

10. Can you explain why you need to own those certain kinds of guns.

Why do you even want them?

I can understand people wanting to have hunting rifles. I can understand wanting to have certain kinds of hand guns if you can actually go out and compete with them.

But why on earth do you need to own all the automatic rifles and all the super fire power. Is it kind of like having to own a super fast car or something?

[Man_in_the_Moon]

13. What is a 'hunting rifle'?

Please define the term.

[leftyladyfrommo]

17. I'm thinking of a rifle that can actually be used for hunting - as

opposed to guns that are mainly designed to kill humans.

I know lots of hunters and they all seem to be very responsible people - who are very carely to keep their guns locked in safe places. And they also are very active in Missouri environmental things.

Some of the guys I know teach gun safety classes before every hunting season.

This all makes sense to me.

But Saturday nite specials? or automatics? Why would you even want one in the house.

[Wild Bill]

22. Saturday night specials and Automatics

You might want an inexpensive gun "Saturday night special" because thats all you can afford. Self defence should to be limited to the well to do.

Legal to own automatic weapons (NFA) tend to be very expensive to own with alot of paperwork to fill out to obtain them. The cheapest one I can think of goes for over four thousand dollars. you might want to own one if you really have lots of money to burn.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

23. Just about ANY rifle can be used for hunting.

Nearly EVERY 'hunting rifle' comes from firearms originally designed 'to kill humans'. Basically every bolt action 30-06 deer rifle is a direct descendant of the Mauser'98. Which was used by the Germans in 2 World Wars, and by the Americans in one (under the name 'Springfield 1903'). So if you get rid of those designed 'to kill humans' you are getting rid of nearly every firearm out there.

"Saturday nite specials"....(what I hear when people say that is: Only people able to afford nice expensive guns should have them. I know that is not what you mean though)

Automatics, Heavily regulated since 1934, by the last piece of Jim Crow left on the books, the National Firearms Act. $200 dollar tax, plus have to get approval from local and federal authorities. Plus none manufactured since 1986 can be sold to non-LEO, non-Military, non-SOT (special occupation taxpayer - aka gun dealers/manufacturers).

[EstimatedProphet]

26. Automatics and semiautomatics are not the same thing

Automatics are restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934. So there's already laws agains just anyone owning them.

[kwolf68]

24. The 2nd amendment

Has NOTHING to do with hunting. NOTHING. So whether or not someone can 'hunt' with a gun isn't relevant. The trick lies in the interpretation of the constitution.

if you believe that the guns should be in the people's hands so as to protect ourselves from an overly omnipotent and oppressive government (even our own), then any gun the government would have so too should the individual citizens. Then you get into the fine-line of having SAMs, Uzis, and other fully automatic guns, etc.

I'm not saying I agree/disagree with it, but I hate it when the 2nd amendment is always couched as some sort of 'hunting amendment', when it clearly is not.

In closing, I don't think the 'armed militia' would have a chance in hell against our own military if by some chance some despot got control over our armed forces and waged war against us. That is why I think the original interpretation of the amendment is virtually meaningless now, useless. Because we now have weapons that can obliterate hundreds of people in seconds, the 'armed militia' is just some delusional fantasy for people now.

So I guess at the end of the day, it really is the 'hunting amendment'...gotta guard against those pesky, unarmed, unsuspecting varments.

[aikoaiko]

54. The rifles that are on would-be ban lists are not automatic fire.

The rifles on the Assault Weapons ban lists are all semi-auto like hunting rifle semi-autos. The main differences are (depending on make and model) a more ergonomic grip, flash suppressors, adjustable stock, and detachable magazines.

They are similar in form to military rifles, but differ in function. Semi-autos require you to pull the trigger each time to fire a round, while automatic allows more than one round to fire with each trigger pull.

The bottom line for me is that they are useful for self-defense -- the same reason the police have them.

Its more like having a 4-wheel drive as opposed to a super fast car. Most of the time I will never need 4 wheel drive and most of the time I can avoid being on the roads when I'll need 4-wheel drive. But when I need it, I need it.

[krispos42]

187. Depends on what you want to do with them

What makes a good hunting gun usually makes a poor self-defense gun, and vice-versa. Most guns in the US are not owned for hunting. They are owned for fun, sport, and self-defense.

And unlike a super-fast car, a semi-automatic rifle costs about as much to own as a bolt-action rifle. An AR-15 (civvie-legal, semi-automatic-only copy of the Army's M16) will run you about $800 for a basic one new. A good-quality bolt-action rifle like a Remington, Winchester, or Ruger will run you only a little less. We're not talking the difference between a $15,000 Yaris and a $70,000 Corvette here. From a manufacturing and material perspective, it is about as much work and cost to make a full-auto AR-15 as a semi-auto AR-15. Or an AR-15 as a Ruger Model 77 bolt-action rifle.

Big-game hunters usually have a bolt-action rifle for big game like deer and elk. Bolt-action rifles are much stronger than than semi-automatic rifles and are easier to manufacture in the wide variety of cartridges available because the maker needs to only change the barrel they screw onto the receiver. In other words, they can make a ton of identical receivers, trigger groups, bolts, and stocks, then simply install the required barrels to meet an order. If a distributor needs 150 rifles in .300 Winchester Magnum and 350 in .25-'06 Remington, the manufacturing company can 500 actions off of the shelf, fit 150 with .338 barrels and 350 with .25-'06 barrels, and ship them out.

Semi-automatic rifles are usually only availble in a few calibers because the reloading mechanisms have to be built and fine-tuned differently for different cartridges of vastly different power, and it gets cumbersome and expensive to do. Generally speaking, any given brand of semi-automatic rifle is only available in about 4 different calibers, usually less. AR-15 rifles are almost exclusivly chambered in .223 Remington, essentially the same cartridge NATO and the US military uses. AK-pattern rifles usually are in 7.62mm Russian. The Ruger Mini-14 is available in both.

Modern military calibers are actually on the weak side when compared to typical hunting cartridges. The .223 is considered an excellent cartridge for hunting coyote-sized game and smaller, and the 7.62mm Russian is considered good for deer at fairly close ranges (less than 150 yards), in addition to their usefulness as a self-defense cartridge.

[SteveM]

206. Actually, few automatic rifles are used by gun owners....

You might be thinking of semi-automatic rifles, which are used in about .01 per cent of homicides-by-guns. The "fire power" used in the semi-automatic AK and AR clones (which everyone thinks are full-auto but aren't) may be greater in terms of clip size, but the cartridge power of most of these weapons is far weaker than popularly-termed "deer rifles." I recommend folks use more powerful rifles designed for deer when hunting such, but a well set up clone with good cartridge design is acceptable and in many states legal. I don't know the motivations of why people buy guns; I have mine. But please keep in mind that the crime rate among citizen gun-owners is quite low and compares favorably with the population overall. By the way, I hope you stay with this site. There is quite a lot of good research and argument, useful not only in the "gun debate" but in other matters, like legal intent, logic, constitutional law and legal tradition. Not bad on the sociological statistics side, either.

[Joe Fields]

12. I think hand guns should be banned.

[aikoaiko]

55. How come?

I would fight a ban on handguns because they are useful for self-defense -- especially concealed carry.

[Joe Fields]

65. I disagree. I think that many people love to cling to our past,

and the "Wild West" mentality that goes along with it. If we are to progress, we need to get rid of handguns.

Early education, respect for people and their property, tightening up the court system, vigorous prosecution of crimes committed with guns, to name a few ideas could relegate the percieved need for handguns obsolete.

Somehow, at sometime we have to address the real problem of weapons proliferation and availability here at home.

I have never felt the need to own a handgun, and I have lived in some pretty hairy places in a few big cities. Want protection? Get a dog.

[aikoaiko]

69. As I said, I would fight you. You may need a constitutional amendment to ban guns at Federak level

A recent Appeals court (DC) has rendered an opinion the opposite of yours. It may go to SCOTUS where its fate is uncertain.

Here's the 1st paragraph from the summary of Parker v DC (a 2007 decision).

[Joe Fields]

76. Believe me, I'm not holding out for any miracles. I am certain that

politicians won't touch gun control issues with a ten foot pole. It's political suicide. As I've said in previous posts, if social security is the 3rd rail of politics, then gun control is the 4th rail.

I was just proposing what I would like to see happen.

[krispos42]

188. If the Dems are going to lose future elections for passing a sweeping law..

I'd rather it be a law that actually would help make society a better place. Like legalizing drugs, or universal single-payer health care.

A moral-panic-induced knee-jerk gun ban will not reduce crime or homicides, while costing us politically for an unknown number of election cycles.

And we've all seen what happens when the Repubs are in charge. :scared:

[SteveM]

207. Actually, the 'Wild West' is, unfortunately, still with us.

Your ideas on education, respect, tightening up the court system or commendable. Along with better job opportunities, less discrimination and better home life. But we have a persistent violent crime rate, a mighty tradition of prohibition and an even mightier tradition of defeating prohibition. Not a good mix. You would agree that even an attempt at disarming people could lead to severe insurrection?

Let's look for progressive solutions (some of which you are on to), instead of more failed prohibition.

[EST]

8. I suspect it comes from abject fear.

Fear at all levels, from feelings of inadequacy to fears of a rogue government. Some of those fears, in a healthy person, are well grounded and pragmatic, but they must be accurately evaluated and controlled.

If not controlled, fear tends to bring on the exact conditions that the victim of that uncontrollable fear envisions. This truism, unfortunately, requires that a person be capable of seeing reality for what it is, not just as another source of more and more self-reinforcing fear.

[Vilis Veritas]

9. Stricter background checks...

Would be a good thing. I do not think any real gun advocate would deny that fact, as a matter of fact several list I am on support better checking and the better enforcement of the thousands of laws that are already on the books.

That said, there are always fringe elements of any large segment group that will go off the end and get rattled and start claiming that their rights are being violated, yada, yada, yada...ad nauseam

This has to be taken in the light that there are way more SANE gun owners that do not spout off every time something happens and truly understand the issue.

The media tend to glorify the loud and the ignorant in this society. I guess it just makes good news...

[leftyladyfrommo]

11. I know lots of sane gun owners. Its the borderline insane I worry

about.

Am I wrong about this? But aren't most of the people killed by guns in this country young? Seems like we have two or three homicides a night here in Kansas City. Mostly young, black or hispanic males. Or victims of drive by shootings. Or young children who kill each other by mistake - just playing with the guns they have managed to get ahold of.

[EstimatedProphet]

28. Borderline insane is an issue, but is already being addressed

Maybe we need to tighten the laws on gun availability in cases of mental issues, however there at least is something there already.

[proud2BlibKansan]

39. 2 or 3 a night here in KC?

No way. The yearly total doesn't come close to 700 or 800, which is what it would be if we had 2 or 3 homicides a day.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[-..__...]

18. "Ignorance is strength"

It's not unusual for people to fear or criticize what they don't understand; therefore banning or restricting the activity/object is perfectly acceptable in a 'civilized'/Democratic society.

:sarcasm:

[karlrschneider]

19. 30 rounds a second? More misinformation.

:grr:

[leftyladyfrommo]

20. Well, I don't know anything about guns - I just used that as an

example.

You are dodging the issue.

[EstimatedProphet]

29. If you don't know anything about guns, why are you discussing them?

That's not a defense for a wrong argument.

[proud2BlibKansan]

41. Maybe she wants to learn more about them?

:eyes:

[EstimatedProphet]

64. Maybe she should.

[proud2BlibKansan]

78. Wouldn't it be nice if DUers would be willing to help

with this?

Too much to ask I guess.

[EstimatedProphet]

80. I have been trying for a long time to help with this!

Every time any gun owner on this board tries to discuss this subject, we're called names and told to go to Free Republic. Every time we make any point about what defines an automatic vs. a semi-automatic, what is involved in a background check, what is involved in CCV laws, the point is ignored and we're yelled at, then often within minutes someone else has put up an almost identical post with the exact same mistakes the first one has. You want to get more real information? Use the Google. Do a search on DU for that matter, and you'll see several threads here daily discussing this information. Don't tell me I'm not willing to help inform. I'm tired of being ignored to be replaced with incorrect talking points.

[proud2BlibKansan]

86. Some of you guys are WAY too defensive.

Just sayin . . .

Not pointing my finger at you. I generally stay out of the gun discussions. So I don't know one poster from another in this one. But I do know that if I want to educate myself on a topic I know little about, I come to DU first. And I found it kind of sad that this DUer was almost immediately attacked and hadn't really said anything outrageous, at least not that I saw.

[EstimatedProphet]

87. I wasn't attacking her, I was attacking her argument

It is not a valid argument to make a claim, find out that the claim is wrong, then hide behind a lack of knowledge while still saying the point that the claim is supposed to support is true.

[porque no]

43. Uh, because they could kill her? Drrrrrrrrrr.

Don't pretend that someone who doesn't have a working knowledge of the minutiae of all things gun doesn't have a right to enter the discussion. They do.

She has a right because her body is susceptible to damage from a bullet, stray or otherwise.

They are your toys, you should be responsible for the safety of the general public, if you cannot keep us safe from the consequences of your hobby, we'll have to take over.

[EstimatedProphet]

63. Then why not ACTUALLY discuss?

Don't come here and make claims that are not true, then hide behind a statement of not knowing the subject, and still say that the claim is true!

BTW I am responsible for the safety of my hobby, thank you. Every one of my guns is registered. Evry one of them is stored, unloaded, securely. Just because someone doesn't follow those rules doesn't make me guilty.

[porque no]

72. Guns affect everyone.

Everyone has the right to comment. Great, your guns are secured. What kind of guns are you creating a demand for? All long guns and revolvers I'm sure. Nothing high capacity.

[EstimatedProphet]

79. I am not telling anyone they can't discuss anything!

READ MY POST AGAIN! I am pointing out the fact that it is invalid to argue a false point, then hide behind not knowing anything about the subject, and still claim that the argument is valid!

[porque no]

90. Mincing words.

She wasn't making a case, she was just saying it. So what if she doesn't know that 30 rounds a second is not nearly accurate. Cho's guns didn't shoot 30 per second and he still managed to kill 32.

Don't say people who are not aficionados cannot speak their mind. I got her point, so did you.

[Zynx]

30. Then be quiet. People ignorant of guns should not talk gun regulation

[karlrschneider]

32. Ever notice how obsessed the anti-gunners are with penises?

...

[porque no]

50. What you are engaging in is called "projection".

It is obvious in this case who has the penis issues, it's the gunbots, not the average Joe or Jenny who wants to live their life without it being ended because you think every gun is a good gun and everybody should have one.

[karlrschneider]

84. What -you- are engaging in is a strawman argument.

Nobody has said every gun is good or that everybody should have one. Don't want one, don't get one. Don't want an abortion, don't get one. Don't want to speak out against Bushco, don't do it. See how it works?

[porque no]

91. Yeah, the gunners aren't suggestiong that more guns

are better than less. Sure they are. It's a matter of degrees. It was also sarcasm, but as I've noticed, sarcasm is lost on the gun hobbyists, at least thus far.

[SteveM]

192. Err, sorry, you're dead wrong on this. Re-read Freud.

Read this forum enough and the "dick jokes" usually start up about half-way down the scroll -- and they come from -- VOILA! -- the anti-gunners. Check 'em out. Freud warned that those constantly equating phallus symbols with someone else's activities or icons are in fact the folks more likely to have problems with sexual identity, prowess, etc. Now, that is a projection.

"The penis is a phallus symbol" -- Jung.

[porque no]

47. "Be quiet"? Interesting.

She has the right so say what she wants, you have the right to disagree.

Can a bullet shot by some insane asshole kill her because the insane asshole was able to get a gun because you insist upon every possible gun type to be readily available? Yeah, I think it can.

So she has the right to speak up? Got it tough guy?

[Missy Vixen]

122. One doesn't need to be an expert on firearms to notice the carnage

>Then be quiet. People ignorant of guns should not talk gun regulation<

I'm getting really, really tired of DU'ers who do not support the continuing gun violence in our country being told to "sit down and shut up" by the gun lobby.

We have just as much right to our opinions as you do. If you don't think so, perhaps you need to reread some of the other Amendments, specifically the First.

Julie

[beevul]

152. Then perhaps...

"I'm getting really, really tired of DU'ers who do not support the continuing gun violence in our country being told to "sit down and shut up" by the gun lobby."

Then perhaps you can get them to stop repeating things that are niether true nor applicable to the debate, such as tirades about automatic weapons or anyone suggests "arming everyone".

If someone came into the abortion debate AND expressed opinion about regulation, without knowing what a fetus or a trimester were, I'd happily tell them sit down and shut up, and I'd likely be standing in the same line as you to do it. That the topic happens to be guns doesn't change that principal one iota. That you don't can't or wont see the parallel is unfortunate.

"We have just as much right to our opinions as you do. If you don't think so, perhaps you need to reread some of the other Amendments, specifically the First."

And people have a right to correctly describe those opinions as ignorant or uninformed if they are, and marginalize them if they are, as they have done in this thread. This is new to discussions how exactly?

[SteveM]

193. I agree, no one should "sit down and shut up." That said ...

It would be refreshing if those folks so frightened and angered by guns and their owners would gain a basic understanding of firearms. There are numerous texts and popularly-written books in used book stores where one can find out the differences between guns (full-auto means continuous fire with ONE trigger pull & hold), which guns are used most in crime (the hoary .38/.357 class) and which are among the least used (semi-auto rifles at .0l per cent), cartridge power (my regular old deer rifle uses cartridges far more powerful than some AK or AR clone), 3rd Wave feminism and gun ownership, etc.

So much time is wasted in re-inventing the wheel in these discussions that some folks get a little short. But, we must remember that mainstream media has for many years now engaged in a willful ignorance on the subject of guns because, I speculate: (1) they wish to cloud distinctions between guns (the whole AWB discussion), and (2) they don't wish to sully themselves with having any connection with or understanding of millions of fellow Americans whom they have so morally condemned for so long. After all, who invented the terms "gun culture," proceeded to define it, then condemn it, all in one corporate action? Main media.

[karlrschneider]

31. No, you are using an example that doesn't exist to make a pointless point.

How do you feel about cars that go 450 mph?
:eyes:

[porque no]

37. Be advised, if you speak incorrectly about their toys

they will vigorously admonish you. They are just a tiny bit sensitive of others who don't appreciate their toys at the same level as they do, with childlike glee.

What, you don't know the jargon? NO SOUP FOR YOU!

Now be a good girl and take off your shoes and get knocked up.

[spoony]

68. Lol, well when someone admits they don't

know shit about something they want to make new laws about, that does tend to be a problem with those who do know.

Nice projected misogyny, too.

[porque no]

71. Figures you'd need a "sarcasm" tag, sorry for not

spoon feeding that to ya. The condescension that comes from the gunbot crowd with regard to knowing all about your little boys toys is absurd. The firepower that has been dumped onto our streets since I was a young gun enthusiast is unbelievable. Those guns used at VA Tech didn't exist then and now there are literally hundreds to choose from, it's pathetic really.

And you ARE to blame. Because you and like thinkers HAVE to have every single imaginable gun at your easy disposal has led to thousands of criminals and crazies getting their hands on unnecessarily powerful weapons.

Wash your hands.

[spoony]

75. Irony thy name is porque no

You speak of "gunbot" condescension, whilst spewing your patronising invectives? Lol, gimme a break.

Also, the ONE gun I own was not "easy" to get. First you buy the gun. Then you make an appointment with the police to take a test, get fingerprinted, get run through the database (NICS?), fill out forms and pay a fee. Only then can you pick up the gun, and then you have to take it right back to the police for more registration. Easy my fucking arse!

[porque no]

89. So your registration process was the same as Cho's?

Doesn't sound like it. I wonder why your state chooses to make it relatively difficult and Virginia doesn't. I wonder if the NRA has any influence on that kind of regulation. who is the NRA anyway?

Are you aware of the disputes between the state of Virginia and NYC regarding handguns?

[spoony]

92. Virginia should follow the law

including the spirit of the law, and report it when someone is put into the mental health system against their will because they are considered potentially dangerous to themselves and others. What can a gun seller, or a gun rights supporter, do about governing bodies not following their own rules? Who needs to wash their hands again?

[porque no]

99. So now it's my responsibility to monitor your hobby?

The gun industry should be bending over backwards to make things like VA Tech impossible. But no, all you guys want to do is screech about a slippery slope.

In my world, VA Tech doesn't happen, in yours, it just did.

[spoony]

107. And the prize for most assumptions and strawmen in three sentences...

Congrats on that.

Anyway, the gun industry obeys the law. Virginia didn't.

I'm not sure who "you guys" are. I don't work for the gun industry, nor is shooting my hobby.

And no, in my world people have access to mental health care and courts and governments follow the laws they make, so VT doesn't happen in my world. (In no possible world is what happened an impossibility.) In your world, where you chase inanimate objects instead of killers, bombings, stabbings and all sorts of things happen. But it's okay because they can't shoot each other, eh.

[piedmont]

81. Maybe the Glock didn't exist then, but semiautomatic handguns have been around since the 1890s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiautomatic_pistol#History

[porque no]

88. Holding that many rounds?

Doubt it. It's out of hand, so to speak. Get control over your hobby or else we will do it for you.

[piedmont]

93. You honestly think that high-capacity handguns are a recent innovation?

You bring nothing to the debate but ignorance and fear. I suggest you at least attempt to educate yourself on this subject.


"Get control over your hobby or else we will do it for you."
Ha! You and what constituency?

[porque no]

95. Puuuleeeze. If you for one second

think that today's plethora of ridiculous guns and ammo are nothing that hasn't been around since Teddy R, then you need to take a look at the NRA's American Hunter magazine. It's pathetic to look at that and compare it to the Field and Stream of my youth.

Just saying that there were historic examples of a type of gun mechanism doesn't mean jack shit. It's out of control and you know it.

Believe me, we will reign in your toys, it'll take a couple more VA Techs but that won't take long. The constituency will be all 75% of us.

Wash up Pal.

[piedmont]

102. There have been advances in dependability, but high-capacity is not new

Your ignorance is laughable, and erodes your argument.


If you for one second think that today's plethora of ridiculous guns and ammo are nothing that hasn't been around since Teddy R, then you need to take a look at the NRA's American Hunter magazine. It's pathetic to look at that and compare it to the Field and Stream of my youth.

1) Why would I compare F&S from your youth with American Hunter of today? They are different publications, with different purposes.
2) What, exactly, is in there that you have a problem with? I took a look at their website, and they mostly cover bolt-action rifles, pump and break-open shotguns, muzzle-loaders, some semi-autos, etc. Not exactly "American Terrorist."
http://www.nrapublications.org/TAH/HardwareDig07.asp

Just saying that there were historic examples of a type of gun mechanism doesn't mean jack shit. It's out of control and you know it.
Just saying "it's out of control" doesn't mean jack shit either. You're the one who wants to enact an authoritarian reduction of citizens' rights. The burden to prove it's necessary is on YOU.

Believe me, we will reign in your toys, it'll take a couple more VA Techs but that won't take long. The constituency will be all 75% of us.
So you'll keep praying for another massacre, eh?

Wash up Pal.
Another gun-o-phobe resorts to insults when logic fails him. Nice.

[porque no]

120. Man, you guys are completely delusional.

It's all about you and your guns. You are completely disconnected from the problem because you, personally, haven't gone postal, yet, so all gun restrictions are nothing more than "gun grabbing". Your self righteous hyperbole is nauseating and massively condescending, considering that you don't know what my gun status is. You guys are the only ones that can decide what is best for our nation because you are the guys that go out on the weekends and shoot bottles and cans, not those sissy city slicker gun grabbers. Jeez, it's soooo beat.

Just stop with the denial. The difference between the "Saturday Night Special" debate in the 70's and the reality today couldn't be further apart. The firepower on the street today compared to then is like night and day. I never said they didn't exist, just that they don't compare. So quit saying it's always been like now, cause it ain't never been like this. If Cho didn't buy the models that he used, how many other makes and models would have been just as destructive? Dozens and dozens. It hasn't always been like this. The handgun market today has higher capacities, more calibers, more styles, more sizes than ever before. It is beyond self-defense, it's a disorder.

I really couldn't care less if you don't want to compare a hunting magazine from '72 to a hunting magazine from today, the glaring difference would probably be lost on you anyway. It's American Spree Shooter. Or American Paranoid, whichever blows your skirt up.

Oh, and I've got to prove effective gun control is necessary? What color is the sky?

I'm not praying for another VA Tech, nice try. It's gonna happen and not because of me.

[piedmont]

143. Your "argument" just dissolved into a pile of ad hominems. Try again. nt

I really couldn't care less if you don't want to compare a hunting magazine from '72 to a hunting magazine from today, the glaring difference would probably be lost on you anyway. It's American Spree Shooter. Or American Paranoid, whichever blows your skirt up.
And I STILL don't know what the hell you're trying to say by comparing F&S from the 70s with a TOTALLY DIFFERENT MAGAZINE from today. Do you not understand that F&S is still published? And what's your point anyway?

[SteveM]

194. Lot of hatred here, buddy. What do you propose? How would it work?

[Pavulon]

119. Good luck with that, you know what a sig 550 is

that is the select fire (automatic rifle) that just about every swiss man has in his house..

I wonder what cultural difference causes that.

[porque no]

125. That's the very definition of militia right?

That's pretty much what the 2nd Amendment was adressing. Not this:

http://www.glock.com/english/index_pistols.htm

[Pavulon]

131. Address the topic

the supreme court ruled the right is clear.

The topic, no correlation between the presence of the weapon and crime. NONE

[SteveM]

195. You will not reign in anyone. Your moral sneering is too obvious.

[karlrschneider]

94. Come on and try to get mine. I dare you.

:grr:

[porque no]

96. Oooooooo scary.

You should concentrate on policing your hobby and quit with the psuedo machismo.

Clean up the industry and things will be fine. Regulate yourselves. Offer something besides more guns good.

[karlrschneider]

104. Conio. la palabra es "pseudo".

:eyes:

[SteveM]

196. Sounds like a little macho has crept into your crypt and crapped.

[dairydog91]

133. Mags change quickly...

And yes, high cap mags are hardly a recent innovation, though they've gotten a bit more streamlined as gun designs are improved.

[pipoman]

153. Really this is the second time..

Really this is the second time you have made this statement

<else we will do it for you.>

Who is we and by what means are you planning on stripping me of my second amendment rights without a Constitutional Amendment or a very strong SCOTUS ruling?

Furthermore you continue to refer to RTKBA as a hobby, or comparing it to a prohibition of a product not Constitutionally protected.

There is a reason it would be advisable to have a basic knowledge of guns to argue the gun issue. If you support more gun control, and you want it to stick, you should be sure that the control when enacted has some effect, any effect on the problem. The reason that the AWB provisions were failures is because they were drafted by people who know nothing about the subject on which they are trying to regulate.

[benEzra]

208. Yes, since 1908 or so. Certainly on the civilian market by the 1920's.

Holding that many rounds?

Yes, since 1908 or so. Certainly on the civilian market since the 1920's.

[Trehuggr]

209. high capacity magazines have been around for a long time

the first "high cap" magazines were introduced during WW1 in 1916 for the P08 Luger and held 32 rounds in a clockwork drum. the first pistol designed for High cap magazines was patented in 1922 by John Browning. it was the Browning High Power and it held 13 rounds of 9mm

high capacity magazines are nothing new

[TX-RAT]

61. I don't know anything about guns

That part was obvious.

[piedmont]

21. I don't get this love affair with privacy, either.

I don't understand what the love affair with privacy is. Is it a guy thing? Why would anyone want to have the ability to do as they please out of the watchful eye of the government? I just don't get it.

So now we have to hear over and over again how privacy doesn't kill people - people kill people. No one ever mentions that unattended children kill children. By mistake most of the time. That terrorists who build bombs in the privacy of their own homes kill a lot of people.

I can't see what it would hurt if there were stricter privacy back ground checks. But I guess I just don't get the whole privacy mentality thing.

[Forkboy]

40. Guns don't kill people.people kill people.[And monkeys do to,if they have guns]

And Charlton Heston...he, um, yes. Yes, he's had a few run-ins with monkeys, hasn't he? Charton Heston, he did, he did Planet of the Apes, didn't he? And, umm, and he not only played the Charlton Heston role, but he was also all the monkeys, as well. That's what people don't know.
But anyway, he's head of your National Riffle Association, uhh. Because you have a gun problem, and it's because America's worked too well. You've worked too well. It was a good idea, freedom, ya know, the pursuit of freedom...happiness...pursuit of enjoyment? Happiness? The , I don't know, something. The pursuit of something.
But you pursue happiness.
"C'mon, ya fuckin' happiness!"
*Bang!*
"I found me some happiness, I'm gonna shoot it now!"
*Bang*
"You fuckin' happiness!"
*Bang*
"You come at me with those big fuckin' eyes, and..."
*Bang!*
"Oh, shit. I shot my mother. I thought it was a deer. Oh, dear, anyway...well, we'll put some antlers on her, and do a sort of Woody Allen-type bit of stand-up."
Umm...yeah. So, umm, uhh, yeah, so, the gun control thing. 'Cause we've got no guns, Australia's got no guns, you've got 'em all. And you're the Roman Empire now, ya know, there's no other superpower, so you're just out there and we can't catch up. Europe could get there, but it'll take us a bit of time. 'Cause we had it, the British Empire, and we lost it by going "Oh, do you think so?" and, umm...a lot.
And "Oh, really? Have they?" There was a lot of that towards the end of the empire. "Are you sure?"
Umm, uhh, where the fuck...?
Oh, yeah. Charlton Heston. So, Charlton Heston, National Riffle...Rifle Association. Umm, and you have that saying, the, what is it? That "guns don't kill people, people kill people" but monkeys do, too! If they've got a gun. Without a gun, they're pretty friendly. But with a gun, they're pretty dangerous. And they wouldn't be lethal, they'd just be "Boomf! Ooo! Boomf! Ooo! Boomf! Ooo! Boomf! Ooo! Boomf! Ooo!"

And you remember in the seventies, there was all that, that work we done with monkeys, the signing thing.

"Hey, you're a monkey!"
"Yeah, yeah I'm a monkey ."
"So, what's it like, being a monkey ?"
"Not bad, not bad. What's it like being a human ?"
"Pretty good."
"Can I have a banana?"
"No, I have no bananas. On this day."
"You have no bananas? Well, if you have no bananas, I'm not fucking talkin' to you."
"What's that mean?"
"I don't know. I just ad-libbed it. Give me a fuckin' banana. Gimme a fucking banana."
"Alright."
"Alright , what do ya want to know?"
"Well, how does the monkey community interact?"
"Ya know, in the usual way. Gimme another banana."
"No. No more bananas."

"I've got a gun."
"You didn't even sign that time."
"I know. We've been able to talk. We've been talking for years. But when you guys turn up, we just go "Oo, oo, oo!" And when you piss off, we go "Well, he was a bit weird, wasn't he?"
We have a posh British accent.
"What do you think, Samantha?"
"I don't know, I don't really like the sight of him..."
"Monkey see, monkey do, yes. I think he's more monkey-doo."

So, what I thought, ya know, is you give a gun to a monkey, and then let him into Charlton Heston's house, and then you lock the doors and then film it through the window.
And we'll find out , thank you twelve people.
But we'll find out whether, ya know, it is the gun or they might have to change the line to:
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do, too, brackets, if they've got a gun, close brackets."

Eddie Izzard - Circle

[piedmont]

48. Chimps kill people by ripping them to shreds. nt

[Forkboy]

53. LOL...you guys kill me.

Wait,maybe I should rephrase that....

[Buzz Clik]

67. No, you've got it right.

[SteveM]

197. Oops! Stepped into that pile, didn't you?

[Little Wing]

42. Deathly afraid of change

My favorite argument is "But it's always been like this!" :eyes:

[Marie26]

44. Aren't they always?

But yeah, the NRA is mobilizing because they're afraid that this national tragedy might actually lead to some changes like *gasp* real background checks.

[Tesha]

52. They know that half their members are nuts.

I wonder if anyone has ever compiled statistics comparing to
the norm the percentage of NRA members who have:

o Diagnosed mental problems

o Domestic Violence convictions or Temporary
Restraining Orders taken out against them.

Tesha

[Marie26]

56. Doubtful

Cause the membership list is private, but I'd also be curious to see. I do know that the NRA opposed a bill that would have notified domestic violence victims if their abuser purchased a gun. And here's another story that convinces me that the gun lobby, & maybe this whole country, is crazy -

"Pro-gun lobby strengthened following US campus shooting."

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The powerful US gun lobby, far from being weakened by last week's tragic college campus shooting, actually has emerged stronger, gun advocates said, stepping up calls Sunday for a better-armed US citizenry to prevent future attacks.

Gun rights advocates said that following last week's massacre, in which 23-year-old Cho Seung-Hui fatally shot 32 victims at Virginia Tech University, gun control forces will be hard pressed to make the case for tighter restrictions.

"This is a huge nail in the coffin of gun control," said Philip Van Cleave, president of the gun rights group Virginia Citizens Defense League.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2817870&mesg_id=2817870

:crazy:

[porque no]

59. You didn't get the memo? For a safe society,

everybody needs to be packing heat. It's quite simplistic really, if everyone had a handgun at their side, nobody would ever get killed with one because we would all be scared of using them.

It's very similar to the "cut taxes to increase revenue" canard. If you took that one to its logical conclusion, you should cut all taxes to nothing and the budget would be balanced. Piece of cake.

Get with the program.

[Marie26]

60. Ah, the old "mutually assured destruction" argument. nt

[TX-RAT]

57. stricter gun back ground checks

What would you suggest?

[marions ghost]

62. There is so much fear in America

Fear of neighbors

Fear of terrorists

Fear of the mentally unstable

Fear of public places

Fear of the government

Fear of the unknown

-------------

There may indeed be a rational reason to fear some of these things at times. So in order to feel "safe" people feel they "need" guns. Men especially feel this is necessary to protect their family and property. This is a huge delusion.

The biggest value of guns to their owners is their symbolism. They give a feeling of control that is often lacking in our 'pigs at the end of the trough' consumer existence. Most humans have a deep need to feel that things are orderly and that by doing the right things they can thwart the fearful demons lying in the shadows.

Guns say to others "I have the nerve and the ability and the right to shoot to kill."

In my opinion women don't want to be protected by somebody with a gun--they want to live in a world that is not so brutally threatening on a daily basis. Recently someone I knew got killed at a shopping mall. He took her handbag and shot her to death. Should we need an armed guard to go shopping? Some people think that's fine.

That guns create a sense of safety is a massive delusion. But it seems to be a widespread delusion.

[Marie26]

70. Great post

I think you nailed it. The love of guns seems to be rooted in fear & a need for control.

[scrinmaster]

73. So does the fear of guns.

[Marie26]

74. Love the profile pic. nt

[aikoaiko]

105. Some of us just want a fighting chance against aggressors.

You comment in fairly broad strokes about men and women, but the desire to live cuts across both sexes. More and more women are buying guns and carrying them.

[marions ghost]

135. Then work for gun control too, if you care about others

...because most people cannot successfully use guns against attackers.

People who feel confident using guns against attackers have a very self-centered viewpoint. Just because you feel proficient in it, you think that everyone should be armed (like everyone can ride a bike or learn how to knit I guess--!?!).

The majority of the population cannot safely or successfully use a gun. So this solution might work for
you and people like you, but it is not a reasonable solution for others. Someone I knew got killed outside a mall while shopping recently. But I would not carry a gun in order to feel safe while shopping. I just stay as far away from malls as possible. As it is, my "right" to go to public places without fear of violence has already been compromised in America. One day, it'll be like living in Iraq if it goes any further in this direction.

Glad you can feel "safe." How about some consideration for the rest of us for a change.

[divineorder]

146. The Premise that Most People Cannot handle guns

Hasn't really been tested, has it? We used to draft people from the general public to go to war, many of whom had never shot a gun, and turned them into soldiers. Many people used to live in places where you needed a posse to enforce the law, and learned how to do well enough to help out the sheriff. It wouldn't be that hard to train enough shooters to do basic self-defense. Most muggers probably aren't champion marksmen anyway. I bet though, if we had gun ed like driver's ed, there would be a level of reasonable proficiency like driving is now. Not everyone would drive, or drive often, but enough would that the results would be serviceable. Guns aren't some esoteric thing that only a few select people could handle, like say, figher jets.

Avoiding places really isn't a strategy. For one thing, what if there was something you needed that could only be gotten from a mall?

That's one point about the Second Amendment people have forgotten. It was written in a time before professional police forces, which meant citizens themselves had to enforce the law and help each other out in case of emergency. So people had to carry weapons to help out in this matter, and they were individually owned-they needed to do something to protect themselves even while summoning a neighbor or friend to help.

[marions ghost]

161. oh OK

let's get more guns out there in the hands of amateurs. Oh sure. I just don't get why people who ARE proficient with guns would WANT to see this happen. Don't you even have any respect for the weapons that YOU feel competent to handle? Guns are for hobbyists and people who have the time and ability to use them. Guess what --a lot of people don't share your hobby for a wide variety of reasons. Ability to use guns is more comparable to people who want to ride motorcycles, rather than people who drive cars. The difference is like comparing guns as a weapon to hammers-- & I would argue that most people can't even hit a nail with a hammer very well.

Avoiding places IS a strategy, and many people I know have been doing that for quite awhile. I live near a large college campus campus. People I know make an effort to keep a low profile around there at all times. There are gun incidents, usually involving students, that make the news and I'm sure others that we don't hear about. I'm not even counting suicides, one of which happened on my street with a kid using his father's gun. As for shopping I know plenty of people who are afraid to go to malls. They try to shop online or just not shop.

Public places have become much more dangerous with the proliferation of guns. But if all society can do is tell me to carry a gun--ie. if we have to go backwards to the time before professional police forces--then I know it's all over for civilization here. I know for a fact that I would not be able to use a gun in any defensive situation. If I don't belong in America, then there sure are a lot of people like me. Believe me, If I had anywhere else to go, I would. And you guys could have it all to yourselves. Living here is like being held hostage to a cult of guns, always being in fear of random violence. It is a stressful way to live, very damaging to our society. Go to other countries where this does not exist--you can feel the difference when you get off the plane.

But gun advocates don't care about this point of view. All they do is promote guns as THE solution for everyone. This is all theoretical, very short-sighted. But anyway why don't YOU test your theory? I've studied self-defense and I see how few people are even competent enough to learn that effectively, much less gun handling. So get a bunch of people together out of your average dog training class and tell me how well they do with guns. Then get back to me.

[SteveM]

198. What do you propose to make you "feel safe?"

Guns were banned at Virginia Tech. Guns are banned in many malls. Guns are banned on public transportation, in many stores, public buildings, etc. And you do know, don't you, that the only people carrying guns in those places are a small number of security/police and criminals. You have correctly couched your argument as "feeling safe" as distinguished from being safe. I feel safe in most places not because of laws/ordinances banning guns (ineffective), but because the odds of attack in my daily routines are quite low. Your "feelings" have been considered, hence these various "bans." What more do you want? Please be specific. But in answering, remember the limitations of prohibition.

[Buzz Clik]

66. "Why would anyone want to own an AK 47..." You don't get it because you hate America.

The Second Amendment (praise God) is the final word on the subject and will solve all problems with guns because, quite frankly, there is no problem with guns. The answer to gun violence is more guns, lots more guns, with powerful bullets, hidden in your coat, belt, sock, purse, backpack, or (if you're feeling randy) shoved straight up your bum (that's when you realize that a 9 mm is a big rod).

Guns are important for self protection, and no clip is big enough, no caliber too large, and any limit on automatic firing is sinful. Think about it: if you see an army of Blue Helmets driving on the wrong side of the Interstate reading all those secret codes on the back of the highway signs, you'll need a lot of firepower to keep them at bay.

So get out there! Buy more guns, more ammo. Lock and load! And aim for the head -- they might be wearing a kevlar vest.

[cgrindley]

82. Why do anti-gun people do nothing but bring up fully auto AK 47's?

it's sooooooo old and soooooo meaningless.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

83. Because it is a scary soundbite...-nt

[slackmaster]

85. Decades of intentionally misleading propaganda by anti-gun extremists

Combined with their own, often willful ignorance.

[depakid]

97. Maybe because they're on the street being used to commit crimes?

Or because the semi-auto's are legal again since the assault weapons ban expired?

Or because it's not too difficult to convert a semi-automatic to a full automatic (not that you'd really need to)?

Man Arrested After Allegedly Robbing Store Using AK-47
April 23, 2007

Deputies arrested a suspect after a well-armed man robbed an Orange County gas station at gunpoint early Monday morning.

Eyewitnesses told investigators the man entered the business carrying a black bag that he unzipped and removed an AK-47 from.

http://www.wftv.com/news/12890720/detail.html

Seems to me that more than a few people on this thread need to wake up and smell the coffee.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

100. nope

The are used in less than 1-2% of crimes.

Semi-auto AK-47 'clones' were around during the ban. the AK-47 clone was actually fairly easy to get around the ban.

No 'semi-auto' legally sold in the US is 'easy' to convert. To convert the 'easiest' of them would take someone with extensive knowledge and equipment quite a while.

[depakid]

106. First of all, the AK-47 is NOT the only assault weapon out there

though it has become symbolic (i.e., a metaphor) for ALL assault weapons. Hence the usage in the media.

Second, I question your statistic- source if you can, and apply it to all assault weapons.

Next, if semi-automatic assault weapons are so hard to convert, then why are there easy step by step instructions and kits available all over the internet? Curious.

Finally, the auto/semi automatic distinction is insignificant- it's a red herring. In terms of the ability to cause mass fatalities in a civil society, the two are basically the same.

As my friends abroad point out every time mass shootings occur, unless you're in the military or on a swat team, no one has a rational "need" for an assault weapon. It's essentially a fetish- and I don't see it as all that different than a child wanting an expensive toy... or a pony.

[karlrschneider]

109. A fetish?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I won't identify the prize -that- wins this month. Uh, year...

[Man_in_the_Moon]

111. OK

The stat comes from the DOJ. It was for all weapons covered by the 'assault weapon ban'. If you think that it is enough that assault weapons are ubiquitous with criminal use of firearms you are sadly mistaken. The media uses the 'ak-47' because in most cases they are clueless about firearms and any gun is an ak-47, and it is great to get ratings because it is a scary phrase for the ignorant, clueless masses. The media is never above fear mongering to increase their ratings.

Find some 'easy step by step instructions' that are accurate on the internet. I guarantee that it will take someone with a high level of skill to do.

the ATF is very strict on what it allows to be sold. The old 'rule of thumb' was said to be 8 hours with the equivalent of a machine shop. If you could do it in less time or equipment it was deemed to be a full-auto. Hence the old open-bolt semi-auto mac-10/11 clones were pulled from the market back in the 80's.

In terms of 'mass fatalities' Id say a 12 gauge shotgun would be worse than either...

Very few people have 'need' of a computer at home either....

[depakid]

128. Source it with a link, please

I tend to like to analyze my statistics....

and you're right- a 12 gauge pump action shotgun can do a lot of damage. That's why Australia bought them back and put severe restrictions on them after the 1996 mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania.

Even so, they have limited capacity, and take some time to reload. In most of the mass shootings we've seen there's really no comparison to an assault weapon- though one can imagine a situation where a short shotgun- legal 18" would be "the weapon of choice."

[Man_in_the_Moon]

132. here you go

During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.

http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/abstract/fuo.htm

[depakid]

137. Shallow stats, as I suspected

Even from the snippet, one can see (among other things) that the data only reflects instances where people have been caught, convicted and sent to prison- NOT the number of crimes committed with assault weapons.

Drive by's in America's cities go unsolved all the time, and the assault weapons are often the "weapons of choice."

[Man_in_the_Moon]

138. Fine your turn

provide stats and cites for:

Drive by's in America's cities go unsolved all the time, and the assault weapons are often the "weapons of choice."

[depakid]

144. I don't think state and local Govt's keep those sort of stats are kept

At least, on a cursory look, I couldn't find any. There is some material from the ATF (which also suffers from similar sorts under reporting). So the problem is considerably worse than you'll find on page 6 of this report:

http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf

Since you don't think that assault weapons are a HUGE problem in places like LA, you may want to have a look at this piece in the LA Times in 1997- it's actually fairly well balanced, and was written after the "ban" went into place.

http://www.guncite.com/LATimesASW/weapon1a.htm

But see also:

FIRST STUDY INDICATES A DECLINE IN CRIMINAL USE OF ASSAULT WEAPONS (1997)

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1997/March97/130nij.htm

Having lived there, I can tell you first hand that shootings with these weapons are commonplace. They don't even make the paper anymore. Just how many, who can say? But the precise number is as irrelevant to the basic issue(s) as the distinction between semi-auto and automatic weapons.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

147. Well if they are so common...

...that they no longer make the paper then that undercuts the viability of laws to control Assault Weapons, whether they be full-auto, or semi.

Because California has pretty stringent laws regarding semi-auto Assault weapons (Robert-Roos, 1989) and the Federal government has strict laws regarding full autos. If those laws cant contain the quantity and use of these firearms then nothing will. If a criminal is willing to break one law, they are usually willing to break several in the furtherance of their criminal activities.

All a gun ban does is disarm the honest people.

[Pavulon]

149. Those laws were very effective in the LA bank shooting

I mean those guys had illegal machine guns. They broke laws, dont shoot people, dont rob banks, dont shoot the police. I am sure more stupid laws will fix this problem, right?

[depakid]

150. You didn't read the ATF link

that cited a study showing crimes committed with assault weapons dropped after the 1994 ban.

You also discount the experiences of other countries- particularly Australia, choosing instead to drag out that tired old saw about "criminals being the only ones with guns."

Turns out, that's not the way it worked. Here's basically what the Ozzies did:

After the Tasmania massacre, obfuscation was cut through and a practical national gun agreement put in place. This included a ban on semiautomatic and pump action rifles, a compensatory buy back scheme, a register of all firearms, shooter licensing based on a "genuine reason for owning a firearm," safe storage requirements, and uniform national laws.

Here are the peer reviewed results, published in the British Medical Journal in December, 2006:

Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings

Background: After a 1996 firearm massacre in Tasmania in which 35 people died, Australian governments united to remove semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns and rifles from civilian possession, as a key component of gun law reforms.

Objective: To determine whether Australia’s 1996 major gun law reforms were associated with changes in rates of mass firearm homicides, total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides, and whether there were any apparent method substitution effects for total homicides and suicides.

Design: Observational study using official statistics. Negative binomial regression analysis of changes in firearm death rates and comparison of trends in pre–post gun law reform firearm-related mass killings.

Setting: Australia, 1979–2003.

Main outcome measures: Changes in trends of total firearm death rates, mass fatal shooting incidents, rates of firearm homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm deaths, and of total homicides and suicides per 100 000 population.

Results: In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm-related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths , firearm suicides and firearm homicides, but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased.

No evidence of substitution effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws.

Conclusions: Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides.

You can read the whole study here: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/12/6/365
----------------

Now, I'm not saying that this will- or maybe even can ever happen in America. Among other things, it's become politically anathema.

But I AM saying (and agreeing with my close friends in Australia and Britain) that American attitudes towards firearms are irrational, and significantly contribute to unconscionable levels of violence and incarceration in this country.

Which is something people might want to think about.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

155. Yes I read the link

But the information was in its infancy at best.

And I know all about Australia.

I personally think that the US bears more of a resemblance to Brazil than Australia though, on a social and economic level. You should check out its gun laws and its crime/gun stats.

Mass shootings are an anomaly. They can happen just about anywhere, just look at the one in Germany a few years ago.

And, pertaining to the 'criminals beign the only ones with guns', I was just making a comment on your seeming insistence that new laws would work, when in CA you already have some pretty strident laws, yet you made the claim that drive bys using 'assault weapons' were so prevalent that they were no longer news worthy. If the laws in CA havent cut back on the drive bys then what will? Nothing will, is my guess. I wonder how many of those drive bys are done with machine guns 'imported' from Mexico, Panama, China, etc. A few years back I remember reading about a container full of Chinese AKs (the full auto ones) being found at Long Beach. I seem to remember that at the time there was speculation that at least two or three more containers had slipped by customs.

I contend that it is not the firearms, nor our attitudes towards them, that contribute to the 'unconscionable levels of violence and incarceration'. It is the Socio-economic fabric of the US. The disparity between rich and poor, have and have nots. Underlying currents of racism and denial. Social injustice and a feeling of hopelessness of the downtrodden. The 'Two Americas' if you will, and the inevitable despair and conflict which arises from such a situation. When one feels that their life is worthless then they have nothing left to lose.

Blaming the gun for this situation is shortsighted and will do nothing to help the underlying situation.

[benEzra]

166. But the 1994 law DIDN'T BAN ANY RIFLES...

You didn't read the ATF link that cited a study showing crimes committed with assault weapons dropped after the 1994 ban.

But the 1994 law DIDN'T BAN ANY RIFLES. It just specified that a rifle could have a protruding handgrip OR muzzle threads, but not both on the same rifle.

Here's the difference between guns available before 9/1994, and guns available after (pictured is a 2002 model SAR-1):



That's it. Rifle magazine capacities were not affected. BTW, I own the rifle in that picture; I bought it brand new, from a local gun store, in 2003. (No, it's not a real AK-47.)

Considering that far more AR-15's and civilian AK lookalikes were sold between 1994 and 2004 than in the previous four decades COMBINED, any decrease in the already-minuscule rifle crime rate didn't have a damn thing to do with rifle availability.

But the truth is, rifles are almost never used in crimes, period. All types of rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of homicides:

Murder, by State and Type of Weapon (FBI Uniform Crime Reports)

Maryland, 551 homicides in 2005, all rifles combined accounted for only 4.

North Carolina (my state), 566 homicides, only 20 by rifle.

Washington, 205 homicides, 8 by rifle.

Ohio, 549 homicides, 13 by rifle.

Pennsylvania, 734 homicides, 15 by rifle.

New York, 868 homicides, 10 by rifle.

Illinois, 448 homicides, 4 by rifle.

See a pattern here?

Civilian rifles are not a crime problem in this country and never have been, and anyone trying to sell the line that small-caliber carbines are "the weapon of choice of criminals" is spinning you like a top.

[depakid]

173. You seem to be so deep into meaningless technicalities

That you're completely out of touch with reality on the streets.

Spend some time in a city like LA and you'll see for yourself the mayhem that's being caused by automatic and semi-automatic assault weapons.

We're not talking hunting or sporting rifles here.

[benEzra]

174. Sorry, you've been spun. All rifles COMBINED account for <3% of homicides.

You seem to be so deep into meaningless technicalities That you're completely out of touch with reality on the streets.

Spend some time in a city like LA and you'll see for yourself the mayhem that's being caused by automatic and semi-automatic assault weapons.

Sorry, you've been spun. According to the FBI, all rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of homicides. That's less than half as many as are carried out using fists and feet, and a small fraction of the number committed with knives. In California, the figure is 3.3% of homicides involving ANY type of rifle.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html">Murder, by State and Type of Weapon (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2005, Table 20)

Some groups have tried to play up rifle crime as if it were common, but the fact is, it's not. Rifles are simply not concealable enough to routinely carry on the person, and as a result are rarely involved in crimes.

BTW, automatic assault weapons have been very tightly controlled for 73 years (possession without Federal authorization is a 10-year felony), and all semiautomatic with a trace of modern styling have been banned in California for a decade. You've been spun quite a bit, I think.

We're not talking hunting or sporting rifles here.

Yes, you are. The rifles Sarah Brady calls "assault weapons" are some of the most popular civilian sporting rifles in America. To take two examples, the AR-15 DOMINATES a lot of target competition in this country, and the SKS is the most popular centerfire rifle in America, with IIRC at least seven million in civilian hands.

You know that only 1 in 5 gun owners hunts, right? 80% of us are NOT hunters, which means that any bans on small-caliber nonhunting-style rifles are a non-starter in most of the country. That was the miscalculation the DLC made in 1994.

[depakid]

176. I haven't been spun- I've seen it with my own eyes

I lived in LA for many years- and I've also spent a considerable amount of time in Britain and Australia.

I have no illusions about any of these issues- though I do have perspective that MANY Americans- especially fireams "enthusiasts" seem to lack.

A rather vocal and powerful minority in this country has chosen to condemn themselves and everyone else to repeated massacres and senseless everyday gun violence on a level that's many magnitudes greater than what you'll ever see abroad.

Rather than place responsibility for that where it lies- the tendency is to obfuscate the issues or blame the culture or the mentally ill or some other deal.

Bottom line is that guns DO kill people en masse- and that's true whether people want to accept it or not. I don't expect anything to change- in fact, as cheap energy grows scarcer and the economic chickens come home to roost, I expect gun violence to get much worse. As the old saying goes, compared to the past 12 years- you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Even then- maybe especially then, rational responses- as we've seen in Britain and Australia, will go unheeded.

[jmg257]

178. So if you expect violence to get worse, why would you voluntarily disarm yourself?

The next big spike in crime will be when all guns are banned - as happened with alcohol and drugs. The criminals will have them, the govt will have them, and everyone else will be helpless victims and subjects. NO thanks!

So anyway, again - what automatic arms and semi-auto "assault-weapons" have you seen in action in all your time in LA? How come no one else hears about all this mayhem?

[depakid]

180. That's a fallacious argument

As the experiences in Australia and Britain have already shown... but I don't expect American exceptionalists to pay much attention to those facts.

America is a "special case," sui generis you see -Laws, rules and results that other countries experience "don't apply" to the US. For example, we're quite willing to let our people suffer, lose their houses and go bankrupt- or die rather than act rationally and provide a universal, single payer basic benefits package for everyone- and we pay tons more than every other nation for the privilege!

This is not a "strawman" -it's a common theme that runs through the very fabric of American society- at least it has for the past 25 years.

Our libertarian gun laws (or lack thereof) are just one of many variations on the theme. They help to perpetuate the cycle of violence, and ensure that mass killings, suicides, accidental deaths, and other senseless gun violence either remains at its current levels or grow in frequency over time. Deep down, pretty much everyone knows that (whether they admit it or not) -it's one of the "truthy things" we all know, but don't like to hear.

As to assault weapons and various high capacity semi-automatic guns (which no one in the general population really needs) I suspect that's another instance where people aren't paying attention. Drive by shootings are commonplace- and not just in LA

But don't take my word for it- search for yourself and see:

search = "drive" "by" "shooting"

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=drive+by+shooting&btnG=Search+News

search = "AK-47"

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=AK-47&btnG=Search

See also:


Victims, Jan. 1-19 (45 total)

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/homicidereport/2007/01/weeks_prior.html

You mentioned you wanted a personal story, well in fact I have one (actually more than one).

Back in the late 80's, I lived in Van Nuys, across the street from Valley College, where my girlfriend was going to school. One Saturday afternoon, all hell broke loose. Multiple gunshots- including the unmistakable blare of automatic weapons fire. This lasted several minutes- and was followed by helicopters and sirens blaring (this is not too far from the Van Nuys precinct).

Apparently several several people were killed and others wounded. We later found out that that it was a confrontation between rival gangs that pretty much had no business being in that parking lot- according to some of the neighbors, a couple of sets of Pacoima Piru's and Grape Street Crips.

Later on, we went over and had a look at the bullet pockmarks on some of the stucco buildings...

[jmg257]

182. Thanks for the extra info - it is appreciated! OK - so how

do we make sure the bad guys give up their weapons, without leaving the innocent unprotected agsaint the violence you described? With so many gun owners using defense as a REAL justification, and rightly so in MANY MANY cases, who will protect them once the are disarmed? WHo will take that responsibility serious, and guarantee the safety of their kids? How will the criminals be forced to abide by the laws?

[depakid]

184. That's the million dollar question

and quite frankly, I don't whether there are many sets of answers.

For the moment at least, even incremental steps are politically anathema. And incremental is what it'll take. More effective background checks on legally acquired firearms seems to me the best place to start, though even those proposals run into opposition (I suppose some people reckon it's a slippery slope sort of deal).

My point in these threads really wasn't to advocate gun control in America, but hopefully to get people to look around and think: "ya know, maybe it doesn't have to be this way." Maybe sometime down the line, America can integrate and implement, step by step, some of the more effective measures that societies overseas have taken.

Even if that means more robberies by Samurai sword....;-)

[benEzra]

183. How many rifle homicides have you witnessed?

I haven't been spun- I've seen it with my own eyes

I lived in LA for many years- and I've also spent a considerable amount of time in Britain and Australia.

I have no illusions about any of these issues- though I do have perspective that MANY Americans- especially fireams "enthusiasts" seem to lack.

Again, RIFLES are not a crime problem and never have been, which was the topic of my post.

www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html

Rifle bans aren't aimed at inner-city criminal violence; they are aimed squarely at the law-abiding.

A rather vocal and powerful minority in this country has chosen to condemn themselves and everyone else to repeated massacres and senseless everyday gun violence on a level that's many magnitudes greater than what you'll ever see abroad.

No country I'm aware of has an order of magnitude less homicide than the United States. The U.S. murder rate is about 1.5 times that of Germany and 3.5 times that of the UK, last time I checked. Yes, the U.S. does have a higher than average murder rate, IMHO largely related to our singularly idiotic "war" on non-approved herbs and the inner-city blight it has created (prohibition has NEVER worked in this country), but it the murder rate is not as much higher as some would portray it. Our suburban/rural homicide rates are more in line with European norms.

The thing is, banning people's guns and instituting UK-style controls, even if it didn't spark a civil war, wouldn't do a damn thing about the underlying social dysfunctions that give rise to the high U.S. inner-city homicide rate. And those dysfunctions will not get addressed if you throw away Congress over new gun bans.

[jmg257]

175. WHAT Automatic rifles ARE you talking about? I know of only

a few recent incidents where automatics have been used - and those were stolen from Iraq and shipped here - they were used in related bank robberies. (and a couple, 2, old cases involve TEC-9s)

And for the past 12 years or so - roughly only 3% of murders were committed with ALL rifle types combined (FBI UCR Reports); so exactly what "assault weapons" are you referring to?

Spend some time learning FACTS, and NOT pretending to have your fingers on the pulse of US cities. Mayhem is being caused by criminals - NOT weapons, and certainly NOT "assault rifles" - full-auto OR semi-auto.

[SteveM]

200. Gosh, you asked the question! Now you don't like the data. Geeez (nt)

[piedmont]

141. It's not even AN "assault weapon"

It's an assault RIFLE.

[benEzra]

170. All rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of homicides

Second, I question your statistic- source if you can, and apply it to all assault weapons.

All rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of homicides, per the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. Many states will report zero rifle homicides in any given year, and most states are in the single digits.

Murder, by State and Type of Weapon (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2005)

Maryland, 551 homicides in 2005, all rifles combined accounted for only 4.

North Carolina (my state), 566 homicides, only 20 by rifle.

Washington, 205 homicides, 8 by rifle.

Ohio, 549 homicides, 13 by rifle.

Pennsylvania, 734 homicides, 15 by rifle.

New York, 868 homicides, 10 by rifle.

Illinois, 448 homicides, 4 by rifle.

See a pattern here? And those state stats include all rifle homicides COMBINED.

Non-rifle "assault weapons" are pretty much a red herring. Civvie Uzi lookalikes are rare collector's items, Intratec went out of business from lack of sales long ago, and shotguns are hardly more represented in crime stats than rifles. No, the "assault weapon" issue is almost entirely about rifles, and civilian rifles are not a crime problem in this country and never have been. Anyone who claims otherwise is spinning you like a top.

[SteveM]

199. Check BenEzra on this. Homicides by so-called AWs: .01

In fact, homicides by ALL rifles (including you grandpa's old .22) constitute around .03 percent. The so-called "assault weapon" racks up a big 1 per cent. Your expression of statistical application to "...all assault weapons" corrupts any meaningful answer. Other than projections for hand control, bayonet lugs, barrel shrouds, the use of plastic, clip size, etc., most AR and AK clones have little to distinguish themselves with regards performance to a Remington 742 (a semi-automatic rifle used for generations by hunters with no real objection heard in these forums) except that a 742 is far more powerful than the clones. The military and most gun writers refer to "assault rifles" as rifles having FULL-AUTO capability and, in most cases, shooting a medium power cartridge. Otherwise, the appellation "assault weapon" is a term of art used by folks pushing political agendas. By the way, I own an "ought-3" .22 semi-automatic rifle, made in 1905. It can be taken down to a two-foot length in five seconds. Is this an "assault weapon?" Is the Remington 742 auto-loader in .30-06 an "assault weapon?"

[pipoman]

205. Good point on the Remington 742

I have a 740 which is the same gun. It was purchased by my grandfather new, my dad used it for 20 years after his dad's death. I shot my first deer with it and several subsequent deer, and 2 years ago my 14 year old son shot his first deer with it. Same basic mechanism found in most any semi automatic. Made in the 1950's.

[hogwyld]

118. Actually, it's quite easy

Just do a google search. About 30 minutes and some basic hand tools are all you need to convert some semi's to full auto.

[karlrschneider]

126. The key is "some." Filing the sear is no guarantee it will actually function

in true automatic fashion. (for some...or many) - it doesn't address the physics of inertia, magazine feedrate, ejection problems, jamming and of course cooling issues that are all engineering concerns for rapid fire.

[benEzra]

171. And THOSE semi's are already Title 2 under the NFA,

Just do a google search. About 30 minutes and some basic hand tools are all you need to convert some semi's to full auto.

And THOSE semi's are already Title 2 under the NFA as amended by the McClure-Volkmer Act (1986), and possession of one is a 10-year felony without a BATFE Form 4.

Of course, THOSE aren't the semi's anyone in this thread is talking about.

[karlrschneider]

108. This report is BS. There's no evidence it was an AK47

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-bk-robbery042307,0,7529899.story?coll=orl-home-headlines

And it wouldn't make any sense anyway...a criminal wouldn't use one to get a few bucks from a convenience store.
Just more anti-gun propaganda from idiots who wouldn't know an AK from a BB gun. Same types who think there are only 2 kinds of airplanes...Piper Cubs and 747s.
:puke:

[depakid]

116. How many reports would you like to see?

This was just a 15 second Google news search- and I only used the search term "AK-47"

Here's a few more from that search (all in April, 2007):

Dominoes Game Interrupted By Masked Men With AK-47
April 12, 2007

ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. -- A game of dominoes turned into a life-threatening experience when masked men, carrying an AK-47, broke up the game.

Five men in their 40s, 50s and 60s said they play dominoes at a home on Country Run Parkway near Hiawassee all the time, but the games never ended with someone looking down the barrel of an assault rifle....

Video at link

http://www.wftv.com/news/11738563/detail.html

Traffic stop uncovers pot, AK-47
Gladwin County Record

BEAVERTON -- Police found an AK-47 and 2 ounces of marijuana in the trunk of a car after a traffic stop April 8.

http://www.gladwinmi.com/record/?sect_rank=2§ion_id=1&story_id=47422

Judge denies bond in AK-47 bank holdup case
April 09, 2007

Arrested within hours of an armed robbery of the Commonwealth National Bank on Wilson Avenue in Prichard, Rayford Rivers, 40, and Lee Bettis, 25, stood before Mobile County District Judge George Hardesty on Monday for a bail hearing.

Hardesty denied bail for both men and scheduled their arraignments for Thursday.

During Thursday's heist, prosecutors said, two men walked into the downtown Prichard bank at opening time and one of them shot a bank guard in the leg with an AK-47-style assault rifle. The guard has since been released from the hospital.

During the robbery, according to Prichard police, at least one of the men shot out some windows in the bank. Rivers and Bettis were arrested the next day in separate incidents in Prichard and Chickasaw.

http://blog.al.com/live/2007/04/judge_denies_bond_in_ak47_bank.html

See for yourselves how many more there are!

http://news.google.com/news?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wn&q=ak-47&sa=N&start=10

Now, if I broadened the search, I could find many dozens of others just like these.. in less than 5 minutes.

and btw: As a matter of policy, I don't respond to insults.... so don't take it personally that when I don't cast aspersions back.

[karlrschneider]

121. I didn't insult you and none of those links have a goddamn thing to do with

the purported weapon mentioned in the OP. Do try to stay on subject.

[depakid]

136. You miss my points

AK-47's (along with other types of assault weapons) are currently legal and are frequently used in crimes. That's one reason why they're brought up in these "debates."

I think that one's proven clearly by the searches, don't you?

Another point was that members of the general public in a civil society have no rational need for assault weapons, and the cost of their proliferation and the culture that they breed is undeniably enormous.

Not only in terms of lives lost to repeated massacres and senseless everyday gun violence, but also with respect to harsh and retributive criminal laws that they "require" and which have led to the largest and most expensive penal system in the world- both in terms of raw numbers of people imprisoned- and incarceration rates per capita).

Many seem to find this an acceptable price to impose on their society. Other nations beg to differ, and it's impossible to argue with their results without resorting to some form of American exceptionalism.

[Pavulon]

148. You are incorrect, assault weapon is an orwellian term

The ak-47 is a NFA regulated weapon. It costs 10 - 20 thousand dollars to purchase one legally. A legally owned ak-47 has never been used in a crime in the US, ever.

The REPLICAS you refer to are not ak-47's any more than a street bike is a true race bike. They are not used in crimes because they are difficult to conceal, expensive, and require more skill to use than a pistol.

There is a broken culture at play here. In Switzerland most men have access to fully automatic weapons. People who commit crimes are responsible for their actions.

[depakid]

151. How do you figure "Orwellian?

:shrug:

Seems pretty dead on descriptive to me.

As to your assertion about AK-47's, that's too absurd to even argue with. Split semantic hairs if you like, but don't avoid the obvious issue- which anyone can see for themselves in post #135.

As to Switzerland, they actually have something similar to a 2d Amendment style "citizen militia," although they don't call it that (America of course, does not- which is one of the reasons why the 2d Amendment, in and of itself, doesn't guarantee the right to bear arms).

Also, Switzerland is a very small, homogeneous and stable country. It's specious to compare them to the US- or to Australia or even Britain.

Sorry but experience and statistics show that there's MUCH more going on than just "a broken culture," though it's to be expected that groups of people in denial on the issue would attempt to find somewhere else to place the blame- rather than take responsibility for the consequences of their attitudes and actions.

[beevul]

158. You're misinformed.

"AK-47's (along with other types of assault weapons) are currently legal and are frequently used in crimes."

Ak-47 assault rifles are fully automatic or select fire assault weapons with an open bolt design.

What those articles CALL an ak-47 is noithing of the sort. Just because someone calls a weapon an AK-47 does not make it one.

After reading your post, it appears you are either woefully ignorant of the difference, or you're agenda driven - since you have been repeatedly given the correct factual information about the weapon in question and continue to proceed as if you weren't.

"Another point was that members of the general public in a civil society have no rational need for assault weapons, and the cost of their proliferation and the culture that they breed is undeniably enormous."

Credit for trying. Now onto the meat of this.You almost got it right, the culture is enormous, but be careful attacking a group you both underestimate and don't understand. And be careful that you don't attack them about a class of weapons used in less homicides every year than shotguns are. Nevermind, you just did: (followed by an example of what happens when this same group felt attacked by a fellow GUN OWNER about those firearms)

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_10.html

Shot gun homicides: 517

All rifle homicides:442 (you realize that includes assault weapons?)



There are some 80 million+ gun owners that own some 220 millionish firearms in this country. 4 out of 5 of those don't hunt. Thats 64 million+ target shooters/collectors/self defense owners/non-hunter-gun-owners. That group is responsible for ownership of the bulk of what you call assault weapons. Hunters own some as well. Heres something that will illustrate the point for you:

http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2007/02/boomsticks-who-hell-is-jim-zumbo.html


"I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms."

"I call them "assault" rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are "tackdrivers.""

Heres what happened because of that statement:

http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2007/02/army-of-davids-illustrated.html


"Friday Night: Jim Zumbo, a paid writer of the old-school print and TV media, posts his now-legendary screwup on his new-fangled blog, without benefit of editorial restraint."

"Saturday Night: The news breaks on ARFCOM, one of the busiest internet gun boards, with almost 200,000 members."

"Sunday AM: Word hits the blogosphere. The head honcho of Zumbo's largest sponsor, Remington CEO Greg Millner, is alerted to the spreading conflagration while on the road in Europe, and posts on Zumbo's site that Remington is "reconsidering" its relationship with Jim."

"Sunday PM: Megablog Instapundit (ironically, home of the author of An Army of Davids) and FreeRepublic pick up the story. Millner posts that they are severing their ties with Zumbo and an official presser will be released tomorrow. No equivocation about "our legal department is looking into contracts" like Gerber finally announced on Monday. This is unsurprising: Gerber is a knife company, while Remington is a firearms company. I can guarantee that Millner only needed to say three words into his cell phone to get the ball rolling back in Ilion: Smith. And. Wesson."

"Monday AM: Remington's main web page is altered to announce the ash canning of Zumbo. Gun boards and blogs across the 'net respond by enthusiastically announcing their intent to buy Remington products."

And before you go thinking the NRA is responsible for this, keep an mind that thier offices were closed all weekend. This was grass roots all the way. And acomplished over the weekend.


Even the NRA themselves say it is grassroots rather than taking credit:

http://www.nraila.org/news/read/newsreleases.aspx?id=8952

The ensuing wave of grassroots response in support of the Second Amendment is a clear indication that America’s gun owners will act swiftly and decisively to counter falsehoods or misrepresentations perpetuated by any member of the media – whether it is one of the major networks or a fellow gun owner.


Whats inescapable, is that grassroots of this magnitude is done neither by numbers small, or over products unpopular.

[beevul]

159. Double post N/T

[

[Pavulon]

123. Technical Language, Firearms and Dope

these are not russian made ak-47 (74 or AKM) weapons. These are SEMI-AUTOMATIC replicas. Just like a street bike painted like a race bike is a REPLICA. (Remember when they wanted to ban those?)

They fire the same ammunition but are not capable of automatic fire.
Was his weed shitty mexican brick weed or was it indoor hydro? They are not the same.

There is a difference is weed, there is a difference in firearms.

[SteveM]

201. But all prohibition smells like a courthouse bathroom. (nt)

[benEzra]

165. All rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of homicides, per the FBI...

Maybe because they're on the street being used to commit crimes?

All rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of homicides, per the FBI:

Murder, by State and Type of Weapon (FBI Uniform Crime Reports)

Civilian rifles are not a crime problem in this country and never have been.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

103. Maybe they should start bringing up the scary barrel shrouds.

N/T

[Rex]

98. I own several guns and am all for stricter background checks.

And thank the Gods you don't live somewhere that requires you to understand the need for a gun. Thank your lucky stars.

[jmg257]

112. Gun owners have been targets of anti myths for so long, now have a venue - and facts to speak out.

1) shooting is fun. NO doubt about it. It is a sport 1 can do alone, or with others; one can enjoy having no one to compete against except himself - to get better, and competing against others is great too. Shooting with your kids is a blast, just as any other shared sport. There is a comradarie(?) when a group gets together to shoot - a shared interest.

2) Military-style semi-autos are typically the most reliable type of arm to own. They have been battle-proven in all types of conditions and they work. Ammo and parts are readily available. They typically have alot of history related to them. There is also an engineering appeal - the design and functionality. Are they perfected for shooting the enemy? Usually - but that does NOT mean every owner envisions him/herself mowing down everyone around them with a blood-curdling yell, much more likely only having the ability to enjoy their property lawfully, and yes, to be well-prepared if, God forbid, they ever do need to protect life and liberty.

3) There ARE indeed accidental deaths with guns - children etc., and while tragic - the numbers are quite small compared to other "more-accepted" ways - for example, kids aged 1-14 in 2004:

MV deaths - 2026
Drowning - 699
Fire/Burns - 484
Suffocation - 238
Pedestrian - 174
Other Land Transport - 141
Falling - 84
Poisoning - 73
Firearms - 62
It is very hard to give up something YOU think is so important, because others have been irresponsible (not the kids - the owners). As related to homicides and such - to let such comparatively small percentage of even tragic events dictate and control a right you deem important, to let YOURSELF be controlled, to be disarmed unwillingly.

4) There really is alot of truth in "Guns don't kill people"; a vast majority of gun owners KNOW they have not committed a crime, and neither have their guns - why should THEY be forced to give them up? There are way too many examples where lawful folks suffer a restriction of rights, while criminals ignore any laws (by definition) to accomplish their goals. Statistics support this - that objects are the wrong target when trying to control behavior. We also think "the gang members" will get their guns no matter how many laws are passed - just like they get their drugs, just like the violate all sorts of laws - yes including murder. We think "prohibition" and "war on drugs" to see how ineffective object bans are, and how they lead to MORE crime and MORE violence - not less. We want that the criminals should fear us, not visa-versa. We want the criminals to be punished - not us.

5) many people do not want to a victim, being a helpless victim is even worse. Fear is a part of it, sure - fear of being unable to defend yourself or your family against an assailant - against violence. My big fear? That the 1 time I need my gun, I won't have it - to be rendered helpless because I didn't want to bother, or worse due to some do-nothing feel-good law - I would never forgive if my kids suffered when I could have intervened. Like fire alarms, it is a conscious choice of being prepared - "just in case". 1.4 MILLION violent crimes in this country annually - hard not to want to avoid being another victim.

A fear of govt is in the background too for many - besides that we don't want to be reliant on the govt or the police agencies exclusively for OUR safety. Look at Katrina - how the people were abandoned for so long, and then forcibly disarmed when they needed protection most. How about riots? Who protects you then? As far as an abusive govt - I can't watch Schindler's List or Life is Beautiful without feeling SOO sad, and really angry, that so many died helplessly at the hands of a govt they trusted, at the hands of sick tyrants. There are too many examples in history not to learn from them, or to be naive about what could happen - AND HOW it happens. How would you feel watching your kids be trained away because you were helpless? How would you feel watching them be murdered or abused without a chance to protect them? NOT a good feeling.

I want the ability - always - to prevent that from EVER happening to me and mine, and other innocents, no matter who tries to harm them.

[intaglio]

113. Semi-automatic weapons can easily be converted to full auto

just file down the sear that prevents continual firing or, more practically, obtain a set of plans for the military version of the weapon you wish to convert and make minor alterations. In the main you will be able to make the appropriate parts in cheap sheet steel as long as you don't plan on using the weapon for several days in a row.

Realise this and the falsity argument about there being "difference" between semi- and full automatic weapons is revealed. The apologists for your gun lobby should stop using such tendentious arguments.

Next the Second Amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" shall not be infringed, it does not even specify firearms. At the time of the War of Independence "arms" would have included knives, swords, axes, spontoons, and pikes as well as muskets, rifles, pistols, cannons and rockets. Please note that I include only military weapons that might be used by a "well regulated militia". It might be argued that your government could ban privately owned firearms but insist that every household have a sword and everyone is allowed to carry that in public.

[Irreverend IX]

124. Please learn what you're talking about.

Semiauto weapons can only be converted to full-auto by filing down the sear if they fire from an open bolt. For this reason, weapons that fire from an open bolt like the TEC-9 are now prohibited by the ATF. Even so, if you file down the sear it will be impossible to stop the weapon from firing once you pull the trigger, so one trigger pull will empty your entire magazine. A weapon that does this is next to useless in combat, although it is scary.

The AR-15, AK-47 clones and just about all other good quality semiauto rifles fire from a closed bolt. If you want to convert one of those to full auto, it takes more than "stamped sheet metal." You need the blueprints, a fully-equipped machine shop, and the knowhow to build the necessary parts. If you're caught doing it, you get a 10-year vacation at government expense.

Full-auto weapons aren't the terrifying engines of death that Hollywood portrays, anyway. Unless you have a lot of training and really know what you're doing, full auto fire will just help you burn through your ammo faster and shoot less accurately. If the VT shooter had been firing a fully-automatic Glock, he would have wasted a lot more ammo than he did and run out much faster.

Lastly, guns, not swords, were the primary infantry weapon when the Second Amendment was written. If the 2A is meant to ensure access to standard military weapons, M16s, M60s and SAWs need to be legalized for general civilian use right away. Also be aware that the militia is defined by law as all males from ages 17-45, not the National Guard or any other governmental organization.

[Pavulon]

129. NO, you are way off

I was an armorer for a short while in the NG and work with machine tools now. Even with a cnc mill and manufacturer specs you would need to know what you are doing to make a working weapon.

You can not file the sear on a closed bolt weapon and expect a machine gun. You will just fuck it up and have a club.

There is no drop in auto sear for the AR variants. There are a host of parts required to make colt that is capable of taking the parts into a machine gun.

If you can find or steal the parts and install them you are now guilty of a crime which will earn you a 10 year federal stint and S100000 fine.

You have NO IDEA what you are talking about. None at all.

They could issue every male an m4 carbine as well like the swiss do, they will not. The supreme court is clear on this. Right to bear arms.

[intaglio]

156. So a lunatic is going to worry about a prison sentence?

To the ummmmmm "armourer" and other apologists for the arms industry

Do you actually know anything about engineering? Please do not insult me and do some basic research.

Do you know that many of the weapons produced by the gunsmiths of Afghanistan, Nepal and the Sudan; which include full auto copies of AK47's, Armalites, Glocks and probably Colts; use manual lathes, milling and good old fashioned sweat to produce weapons that are currently killing troops in that country?

Did you know that much of the AK47's mechanism was designed to be stamped out of sheet metal? It was often used as a case study of how to simplify engineering and production on engineering courses. (BTW note that I say MUCH not all)

Do you even realise that closed block mechanisms - be they blow-back, recoil or whatever - are interrupted by a device that stops the firing pin moving forward? That device, however complex, has to have 1 method of actuation. If you have 2 methods of actuation, then you have 3 possible failure modes of just the actuator mechanism. That actuator mechanism is known as a sear even if it doesn't look like one. Disable the actuator and you have a weapon that will discharge it's magazine in significantly less than a second. I admit that this is not practical but it IS full auto.

Lastly, you conflated 2 arguments into one final paragraph perhaps you were hoping I would ignore it.

First, you seem to imagine that I was arguing against the right to bear arms, what I was actually doing was pointing out a flaw in the enforcement - or have you not tried walking round in public with a sword scabbarded? Try it on the VT campus.

Secondly what would be wrong with the US government issuing a fully tracable weapon to its citizens? Have it fitted with an RFID device and a method of tracing the round to the weapon. Anyone who has a weapon without these ID's or who has a weapon IDed as belonging to another is automatically guilty of attempted murder.

[Trehuggr]

210. no only the receivers are made of sheet metal

the ATF would not allow sale of AK clones if they were as easily converted as you are saying

the internals to an AK are machined then hardened so they will last
and the AK clones are specifically designed to not accept the full auto parts without major modification. its almost easier to make a new receiver than modify the old one.
I am a 07 ffl holder and know how hard this is
also in order to do this legally you have to file paperwork through the ATF and have a letter on law enforcement or government letterhead for evaluation and purchase or its 10 years in club fed.(and loss of a hard to get license)

[benEzra]

167. You can't convert a Title 1 semi to full auto by filing the sear. Period.

Semi-automatic weapons can easily be converted to full auto just file down the sear that prevents continual firing or, more practically, obtain a set of plans for the military version of the weapon you wish to convert and make minor alterations. In the main you will be able to make the appropriate parts in cheap sheet steel as long as you don't plan on using the weapon for several days in a row.

You can't convert a Title 1 semi to full auto by filing the sear. Period. Because any gun capable of being so converted is already classified as a NFA Title 2 machinegun under the National Firearms Act as amended by the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986, even if not actually converted. That's why civilian self-loaders that fire from an open bolt are restricted Title 2 weapons, not Title 1.

If you file the sear on a semiauto that fires from a closed bolt (i.e., the guns we are talking about), the hammer will simply ride the bolt down when the bolt goes forward; it will NOT stay back until the bolt is closed. In other words, filing the sear on a closed-bolt semiauto will completely deactivate the gun, because you can't fire a gun with single-action internals from a hammer-down position, and I know of no trigger-cocked rifles.

Just how familiar are you with the National Firearms Act? If you were at all familiar with the Title 2 provisions, you should have known that.

Civilian semiautos are built on CIVILIAN receivers designed to be as difficult to convert as any other civilian rifle. Yes, an expert machinist with a well-equipped machine shop could create the parts and mods to do a conversion, but that person could also make a submachinegun from scratch. Joe Blow with a file or a dremel isn't going to be able to do it.

[jody]

168. You've earned the Heracles Fifth Labour Badge!

:thumbsup:

[benEzra]

169. :) :) :) (n/t)

[Madspirit]

117. Woman Here

So don't pull any "penis" crap on me. The most ludicrous part of this whole thread is that people seem to REALLY think making guns illegal will stop people from having guns. The TOP THREE most profitable crimes in this country...THIS country...are guns, drugs and selling people. Go look it up your own fucking selves. This country is swimming in guns. It really really is true that making them illegal would only affect a few sales. Someone wanting a gun like an Ak 47 or whatever will have no problem getting one, legal or not.

...no, THE most ludicrous part of this thread is the ones claiming the guns nuts are defensive or snarky or bad bad communicators....HAHAHAHAHA...when the anti-gun folks are calling into question these people's motives, psychological histories, personal problems, personalities, etc. The most condescending crap here is coming out of the mouths of the anti-gun people. Period. About the only "wrong" thinking I've seen from the gun folks is saying people who don't know anything about guns have no right to speak at all. That's not true because people can be victims of guns without knowing anything about them.

However, the dripping, scathing, condescending scorn is ONLY coming from the anti-gun people.

By the way, I'm a Texan and I DO NOT own a gun.

Just sayin'....the anti-gun people are going to make no headway as long as they act like drugstore psychologists and be demeaning, dismissive and basically, total jerks.
Lee

[jody]

134. The issue is very simple, what arms will a law-abiding citizen use to exercise their natural,

inherent, inalienable right to defend self and property.

Handguns are the most effective, efficient arm for self defense and it's the arm of choice by all of our 800,000 full-time, sworn law enforcement officers.

SCOTUS said in DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO, “A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.”

Self-defense is a personal problem and as long as criminals threaten me and mine, I will remain armed.

I support your decision not to use a firearm if that's your preference.

[depakid]

139. Here's a great de Tocqueville quote

It's about 170 years old, but it's more relevant today than ever.

Something to think about:

In no other country in the world is the love of property keener or more alert than in the United States, and nowhere else does the majority display less inclination toward doctrines which in any way threaten the way property is owned.

Of course, the concept is broader and more pernicious than parochial notions of "home and castle." It also runs to corporations (and individuals) who believe it's their right to do anything they want with their land- to corporations like Monsanto or the RIAA, who go to extreme lengths to "protect" their intellectual property and even spreads into the anti-tax sentiment one often see among libertarians (not to mention the far right).

[jody]

140. Thanks. One percent of our population own about 50% of our financial wealth and control every major

multinational corporation in this country. They fund both Democratic and Republican candidates and they've bought bipartisan support for bills that advance corporate control of our government.

Benito Mussolini said, "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power."

Pogo said "We have met the enemy and he is us".

We've forgotten the foundation of every successful society:

[depakid]

145. Agreed. What all this boils down to, philosophically

is the nature and extent of the social contract- we each have to give up some degree of personal "freedom" in return for a safe & stable, healthy & prosperous society

Great graphic, btw. I know just the place to pass that onto to. :)

[qdemn7]

157. jody!

How dare you bring religion into this! You're going to make the non-believers heads explode! (explode, get it?) :rofl:

[jody]

160. Thanks. Non-believers should consider humanism because the GR is implicit in secular humanism.

Humanism

[jody]

164. Humanist Manifesto III on “Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.”

Humanist Manifesto III

Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

IMHO that statement is about practicing the Golden Rule.

:hi:

[benEzra]

162. Possession of an actual AK-47 is a 10-year Federal felony...

Why would anyone want to own an AK 47 or a gun that shoots 30 rounds a second?

Possession of an actual AK-47 or any other automatic weapon is a 10-year Federal felony, unless you are police/military or have Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4). NOBODY is talking about legalizing AK-47's or other automatic weapons.

U.S. civilians are limited to non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed firearms under .51 caliber (except shotguns and some hunting rifles) that meet the other Title 1 (civilian) requirements of the National Firearms Act. Armor-piercing bullets are also banned for handguns and the most common rifle calibers.

It never fails to amaze me how fast the gun people mobilize. I think there were 4 save our gun letters to the editor in the paper this morning. There were more yesterday.

FWIW, I didn't say anything about the gun issue in the wake of this tragedy until the ban-more types started waving the bloody shirt and calling for rifle bans (Cho used pistols, duh), ammunition bans, bans on lawful concealed carry (Cho didn't have a carry license, but I do), etc. etc. etc.

The gun-control lobby has been sharpening its knives for years, hoping for a high-profile incident like this one. They had press releases out within hours. Those of us who are their targets have the choice of letting that lobby dominate the discourse, or speaking out ourselves.

[Recursion]

163. Boy, our Save the Reproductive Choice People are out in force.

It never fails to amaze me how fast the choice people mobilize after the Supreme Court decision last week. I think there were 4 save reproductive choice letters to the editor in the paper this morning. There were more yesterday.

I don't understand what the love affair with reproductive choice is. Is it a woman thing? Why would anyone want a partial-birth abortion or dilation and extraction procedure? I just don't get it.

So now we have to hear over and over how sometimes a DNX is necessary for a woman's health.

I can't see what it would hurt if we limit abortions to the first trimester. But I guess I just don't get the whole reproductive mentality thing.

:sarcasm:

I'm sorry if that's over the top I just don't understand how people who will rightly fight so hard to defend habeas corpus or a woman's control over her own body don't mind removing people's equally-protected right to arm themselves.

[friendly_iconoclast]

172. We are dealing with a moral panic here

Some of the posters here are victims of it and some (maybe) want to promote it.
Only thing is, moral panics make for bad law and the criminalization of 'deviant' or
'immoral' behaviors:

Volstead Act, which begat Prohibition.

Harry Anslinger and the beginnings of the War on (Some) Drugs.

The placement of innocent American citizens of Japanese descent in concentration
camps during WWII.

The Patriot Act & Military Commissions Act.

Anyone remember how computer encryption 'should be controlled because child pornographers and terrorists would use it' , or arguments to that effect?

We are seeing the like here

[depakid]

181. What you're seeing here is rationality

which is unfortunately sorely lacking in America... and among Americans who think that their country is the be all and end all- the center of the universe. People elsewhere do things differently- and get have made progress and gotten "good results."

Not to say it'll ever happen in America- it likely won't, for reasons that should be clear from progressives response in this thread....

[friendly_iconoclast]

185. What's your definition of a 'progressive view of guns' ?

Seriously, no name calling now. More than a few posters here have argued that
the Democratic Party cannot hope to remain in control of Congress or regain the
White House without the votes of at least some gun owners who do not hew to the
VPC/Brady line.

You may disagree, and many here at DU have (some quite eloquently).

So how would you propose to change the minds of the swing voters who own guns,
yet are sickened by the actions of current administration? Or are they 'beyond redeeming', and their votes safely dispensed with?

BTW, I am definitely a progressive, a small 'l' libertarian working for the rights
of persons with disabilities to live on their own, and not in institutions run
by the the state or corporations sucking scarce Medicaid funds. I have voted for
a Republican only once in my life (the Democrat, sadly was a crook and the Pubbie
was an alright guy and definitely not a right-winger). I do not own any firearms
due to finances and lack of a suitable range or place to shoot.

I have learned to judge people by their character, and not by their
skin color or who they sleep with.

On one hand we see that the Bush Administration is driving the
country over a cliff, that global warming will result in massive ecological and
economic upset, or Hurricane Katrina was a symbol of Government mismanagement that
took many lives. Or that a bunch of people in Iraq have fought the Pentagon to a stalemate.

Can we honestly expect the same crowd to protect us when the SHTF?

Sorry, I will continue to support the right of self-defense for ALL law-abiding
Americans. And I will continue to vote for Democrats. Call it cognitive dissonance.
Call it what you will. This progressive will continue to support all Contitutional rights, no matter what I am called by some here at DU

[SteveM]

202. The prohibition cites are telling -- some want to extend prohibition to 2A.

[Xela]

177. A guy thing?

No ma'am.

My wife is keeping one Colt semi-automatic pistol in .45 ACP caliber and a semi-automatic Russian SKS for herself.

She literally took those posessions away from me after her first trip to the gun range.

She still likes her Beretta 85F in .380 ACP, and will be keeping it for its sentimental value (it was a wedding gift), but she'll rather take the Colt.

And would you believe that she is now talking about trading-in her SKS for an AR-15 type?

We don't need more controls of any kind, we simply need to make the ones we currently have more effective. It's that simple.

Xela

P.S. And we're not hunters (yet), we simply shoot for self-defense and hobby.

[pipoman]

179. Yep,

my wife claimed my Kimber Pro Eclipse .45 when we went to the range the day I bought it. She shot it then said, "this is my gun now, you'll have to get yourself a different one". I left the range area, went to the gun counter, and bought a Kimber Ultra CDP and was shooting it within 1/2 hour. She had never owned a gun before that, she did know how to use a shotgun and still keeps my son's Winchester 1300 loaded next to her desk. She won't be giving up either any time soon.

[Name removed]

189. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Retired AF Dem]

190. 30 rounds a second?

I don't know of any hand held weapon that shoots that fast. The one down below does and than some but is hard to conceal under a trench coat.

http://imageshack.us>

[SteveM]

191. MSM (heavily anti-gun) is always faster & precedes letters-to-eds.

You don't get many "gun people" letters until main stream media runs its usual raft of anti-gun columnists, anti-gun editorials, and anti-gun studies. But your point is taken. "Guy thing?" There are now tens of millions of women who own firearms. In a sub-group, the number of women hunters has risen from around 3% 20 years ago to better than 10% now, the fastest-rising demographic within that community. The responses will probably deal with the differences between AK 47s and their AK clones; guess which one is semi-automatic? Some folks, I think not much more than 300,000, own fully-automatic weapons for collection purposes and because they enjoy shooting these weapons. They are heavily regulated and require full-auto owners to SUBJECT their residence to inspection.

Yes, people kill people.

Yes, children kill people. How does the death rate of children killed by guns stack up to death rates from other household sources (poisoning, drowning, falling, etc.)?

Gang members kill others. What is your point? What would you do?

Stricter background checks may have some value (esp. with regard to mental infirmity); but remember that in the South, literacy checks were given before one could vote. Guess how many blacks failed?

The best way to deal with a "mentality" is to find out more about folks who have guns; why they own them, the capabilities of a firearm, how they train (or not) their kids to safely use guns; why there are over many tens of millions of real Americans, and not some ethereal mentality. You will quickly learn that guns are not a "guy thing." I hope this helps.