And... it's back: The ASSAULT weapons ban

[Incorruptible]

I'm sure if the shooters name had been Muhamed Islam the ban Sharia Law outcry from the right would have been deafaning.

BTW - I proposed passing a mental health test before obtaining a gun license and was scoffed at. That's the way its done in the promised land.

So are you suggesting that if a Muslim did this then we shouldn't be as outraged?

 

[HumblePie]

We have a problem with radical Islam and them trying to put in sharia, besides I dont think a Muslim would commit this shooting.

People with mental illnesses should not be able to get guns, thats common sense.

The problem is determining the degree, type, and propensity for violence based on mental illness.

I personally would say anyone that hordes my little pony figurines is mentally ill. Actually Hoarding and OCD are both defined as mental illness. However, do I think someone with a mental illness that makes them swipe salt & pepper shakers (cleptomania) isn't exactly a person considered a danger to others for a mass shooting spree.

 

[BladeVenom]

Holy shit!

I was laughing last night to NPR when they had some other democratic senator on talking about up coming control laws. He said, "I have never heard a good reason as to why civilians need armor piercing ammo. Deer don't wear armor"

What a fucking strawman comment to make from a loon.

I know. Anti-gun politicians are just so unbelievably stupid and ignorant, it's painful to even listen them.

"If a hunter shot a deer with an assault weapon, there'd be nothing left." Most of them don't realize that deer rifles usually fire a lot more powerful round than an "assault weapon." Even the old fashioned lever action (.30-30) fires a much more powerful round than the typical AR (5.56mm).

Worse, the media is so dishonest in pushing their propaganda that they usually won't even correct an anti-gun politician.

 

[Medu]

They don't. Crime rates are higher in the UK, Australia, and plenty of other first world countries. Educate yourself.

That has much more to do with US prison system. The US has about 7 times as many people in prison than the average European country(relative to population)- mainly due to the revolving door system in Europe.

If the government arms itself with better weapons, civilians need those as well in case they ever need to defend themselves from the government. It's a check and balance thing.

Maybe instead of wasting money on assault rifles you should start pooling your money for SAM missiles, missile defense systems, anti tank guns, a few tanks, aircraft carriers, war planes, drones and possible even a few nukes. At the very least invest in some suicide vests as taking on any modern army with none of the above is more than a bit daft.

 

[Incorruptible]

The problem is determining the degree, type, and propensity for violence based on mental illness.

I personally would say anyone that hordes my little pony figurines is mentally ill. Actually Hoarding and OCD are both defined as mental illness. However, do I think someone with a mental illness that makes them swipe salt & pepper shakers (cleptomania) isn't exactly a person considered a danger to others for a mass shooting spree.

I dont think a person with a mental illness should have guns but not all of them pose a risk to others, some are completely harmless while others could hurt others.

 

[HumblePie]

Here's the problem with just using a blanket statement that people with mental illness should not be allowed to carry.

Does a person with an eating disorder only, which is a mental illness, automatically remove their right to defend themselves with a gun?

Does a person with this mental disorder that makes them into a hoarder lose their right to defend themselves?

Do I think people with borderline disorder, schizophrenia, or even autism really should not be owning guns? Yep. Because those are mental disorders with people that have a detached view of reality.

 

[moonbogg]

I have an idea that I truly think would help to reduce mass shootings. Tell me what you think. This solution combines the ideas from both camps since neither side alone can solve the issue.

1. Ban assault weapons and large clips for the general population, retro active. Anything else will have no effect.

2. Allow citizens to arm themselves with and have on hand, assault weapons with large clips, under special circumstances. If you can show that you actually need a weapon like this, the second amendment makes clear that you should have it. I find this reasonable.

3. Relax or outright remove concealed carry laws. People choose soft targets for a reason, and its because there is noone to shoot back. Allow the individual to make the decision as to wether or not they need protection. Schools with 10 or 15 armed people WILL be likely to reduce the damage from, or stop an attack outright, greatly reducing the casualties and certainly may deter people from carrying out shootings there.

4. Allow citizens to own and carry pistols with greater than 10 round magazines if they can show that they need, or are likely to need the additional firepower that a lesser pistol will not provide.

There, thats it.

 

[HumblePie]

What people fail to realize is mass shootings ARE reduced. This year is still set to be one of the lowest since 1929 (which was the worst year) for mass shootings in this country.

The difference? More media coverage of these shootings.

 

[cwjerome]

1. Ban assault weapons and large clips for the general population, retro active. Anything else will have no effect.

How do you get all these "assault" weapons and magazines to disappear? Because there's a shitload out there.

Do you think it's reasonable to force 310 million people to surrender a right or otherwise lose a privilege in the minute chance a nutter will get their hands on one and shoot up a place? I was never a fan of mass punishment.

 

[OverVolt]

Wasn't the "assault weapon" left in the trunk anyway? That hasn't been talked about in awhile.

Could the pandering be anymore obvious?

 

[moonbogg]

How do you get all these "assault" weapons and magazines to disappear? Because there's a shitload out there.

Do you think it's reasonable to force 310 million people to surrender a right or otherwise lose a privilege in the minute chance a nutter will get their hands on one and shoot up a place? I was never a fan of mass punishment.

I never said it was practical, but i do think that it would further reduce mass shootings. People would be more willing to find a compromise along these lines if anti gun folks gave back in the other direction, like agreeing to concealed carry, ALLOWING assault rifles in special situations etc.
This makes sense, because "arms" is a broad term and the only thing around at the time were muskets. Do you feel you have the right to bear RPGs? Why or why not?
Its not like all the guns would be taken away right away. It would have to be a process that gets worked out. Tax incentives could be used, "buy back" programs could be used in some cases etc. I think the assault rifles need to go for the general population.

 

[OverVolt]

I never said it was practical, but i do think that it would further reduce mass shootings. People would be more willing to find a compromise along these lines if anti gun folks gave back in the other direction, like agreeing to concealed carry, ALLOWING assault rifles in special situations etc.
This makes sense, because "arms" is a broad term and the only thing around at the time were muskets. Do you feel you have the right to bear RPGs? Why or why not?
Its not like all the guns would be taken away right away. It would have to be a process that gets worked out. Tax incentives could be used, "buy back" programs could be used in some cases etc. I think the assault rifles need to go for the general population.

What is an assault rifle, is it a semi-auto rifle like every other semi-auto rifle that looks like a military rifle?

I like how the slippery slope isn't even trying to be hidden lol.

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14/index.html

Oh look they're all very similar. Which one is the scary assault rifle? The second one?

Hint: They are all Mini-14's

 

[HumblePie]

I think what gun control nuts mean by "assault weapons" is really what they mean as "scary weapons" that they see military units only carrying.

People don't want to ban "assault" weapons, but "scary" weapons in this entire debate. It's stupid.

 

[moonbogg]

What is an assault rifle, is it a semi-auto rifle like every other semi-auto rifle that looks like a military rifle?

I like how the slippery slope isn't even trying to be hidden lol.

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14/index.html

Oh look they're all very similar. Which one is the scary assault rifle? The second one?

You are disingenuous and twisting what I meant, and you are doing it on purpose. Cynical, immature people like you cannot solve the problem.

EDIT: I understand your point about what makes an assault rifle an assault rifle. Thats why only so much can be accomplished by banning the weapons. If you read my first post you would see that teh second half of the solution is to arm people so that they aren't helpless. Eliminate the most dangerous weapons, and arm people to defend against the rest.

 

[OverVolt]

You are disingenuous and twisting what I meant, and you are doing it on purpose. Cynical, immature people like you cannot solve the problem.

You literally want the 2a repealed is the ultimate goal so I'm actually pretty keen to whats up on your end

 

[BladeVenom]

First ban governments from owning assault rifles. Governments do the most killing.

If governments can get assault rifles, then so can criminals. Mexican drug cartels, have stolen and purchased machine guns from their own military.

Norinco a gun manufacturer owned by the Chinese government got caught trying to sell machine guns to street gangs. They will sell anything to anyone.

 

[moonbogg]

I'm having this conversation elsewhere. The last two responses are just troll posts.

 

[BladeVenom]

I'm having this conversation elsewhere. The last two responses are just troll posts.

At least you admit your last two responses were trolling.

 

[blackangst1]

I never said it was practical, but i do think that it would further reduce mass shootings. People would be more willing to find a compromise along these lines if anti gun folks gave back in the other direction, like agreeing to concealed carry, ALLOWING assault rifles in special situations etc.
This makes sense, because "arms" is a broad term and the only thing around at the time were muskets. Do you feel you have the right to bear RPGs? Why or why not?
Its not like all the guns would be taken away right away. It would have to be a process that gets worked out. Tax incentives could be used, "buy back" programs could be used in some cases etc. I think the assault rifles need to go for the general population.

You do know that deaths due to firearms were higher during the last full year of the previous AWB than now, right?

edit: for the sake of being balanced...there were more gun deaths from high capacity mag weapons after the expiration of the AWB than during, but that stat is useless considering the net result.

 

[blankslate]

Wasn't the "assault weapon" left in the trunk anyway?
That hasn't been talked about in awhile. Could the pandering be anymore obvious?

There are different reports on that. Some news sites say that the AR-15 was used by the killer.

It's possible to commit that mass murder with a couple of semi-auto handguns but it would (imo) have been much easier with the rifle.

Using the time filter to find stories in the past 24 hours, I found a report that is about 21 hours old at the time of this post.

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/nation...5-glock-10-mm-and-a-sig-sauer-9-mm-police-say

An officer said that the primary weapon used was the rifle

Adam Lanza brought three weapons inside Sandy Hook Elementary school on December 14 and left a fourth in his car, police said. Those weapons were a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle and two handguns -- a Glock 10 mm and a Sig Sauer 9 mm. In the car he left a shotgun, about which police have offered no details.

I guess it depends on which report you wish to believe, I'm going with the newest story I could find on the massacre for now.

The primary weapon used in the attack was a "Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon," said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance. The rifle is a Bushmaster version of a widely made AR-15, the civilian version of the M-16 rifle used by the U.S. military. The original M16 patent ran out years ago, and now the AR-15 is manufactured by several gunmakers. Unlike the military version, the AR-15 is a semiautomatic, firing one bullet per squeeze of the trigger. But like the M16, ammunition is loaded through a magazine. In the school shooting, police say Lanza's rifle used numerous 30-round magazines.

 

[Genx87]

I think he used the AR-15. But this would be the first used in a school shooting that involved more than 2 fatalities that I am aware of.

Columbine used 2 shotguns, 1 hand gun, 1 carbine
Redlake was 2 handguns + shotgun
VT was 2 hand guns
Northern Illinois was 4 handguns.

 

[HumblePie]

I think he used the AR-15. But this would be the first used in a school shooting that involved more than 2 fatalities that I am aware of.

Columbine used 2 shotguns, 1 hand gun, 1 carbine
Redlake was 2 handguns + shotgun
VT was 2 hand guns
Northern Illinois was 4 handguns.

Hand guns are typically the gun of choice. Easier to conceal, plenty lethal, can have extended magazines. good accuracy usually, and still semi automatic. Some hand guns, like uzis, are capable of full automatic shooting.

The "scare factor" of ar15's and the like is what has all the idiots right now going crazy for gun control. Not facts.

 

[xj0hnx]

Norinco a gun manufacturer owned by the Chinese government got caught trying to sell machine guns to street gangs. They will sell anything to anyone.

Here in America? Please link to story. All I remember were some receivers that had the third axis hole for the auto sear that surfaced after the 86 import ban.

 

[Genx87]

Hand guns are typically the gun of choice. Easier to conceal, plenty lethal, can have extended magazines. good accuracy usually, and still semi automatic. Some hand guns, like uzis, are capable of full automatic shooting.

The "scare factor" of ar15's and the like is what has all the idiots right now going crazy for gun control. Not facts.

Well of course. Politicians are now going to enact legislation that would literally not have applied to most of the serious school shootings in this country since Columbine. And it wouldnt apply to this last one either. Lanza would had used his handguns and shotgun he left in the car to mow down 6-7 year olds.

Instead of actually addressing multiple issues and taking the tough road to iron out a realistic policy with regards to mental health awarness, school safety, and gun control. The democrats are going for broke to exploit a tragedy to re-enact a ban on a type of gun they have hated for decades. And one that will have no affect on future school shootings.

 

[blankslate]

nstead of actually addressing multiple issues and taking the tough road to iron out a realistic policy with regards to mental health awarness, school safety, and gun control.

That's the problem, regarding a realistic mental health awareness.

It would require more diligent notification by mental health professionals to authorities of people who would be dangerous around firearms.

It would also require closing loopholes in some states that allow people to purchase firearms at certain places without a background check. After all what good is requiring the notification about people with mental issues who would be potentially dangerous with firearms if those loopholes are not closed?

Lastly in addition to the above. More funding for mental health care would probably be needed as well.

Prior to the shooting in AZ. Funding for such treatment received cuts in that state.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/us/21mental.html?_r=0

^this article includes some detail about that.

sure it's easy to target Democratic politicians because they do include people who have pushed for stricter gun control laws.

Since mental health issues are a point that needs to be addressed (you did bring it up after all and a common thread in most of these recent massacres is the mental condition of the murderer), a discussion must take place about how to implement better treatment for people who need it and better ways of keeping firearms out of the hands of people who need that treatment.

In that regard. Democratic party members are far from the only politicians who are an obstacle to accomplishing that goal.