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

[Texashiker]

The real kicker is that none of the mass shootings were carried out using an assault weapon of any kind.

The "real" kicker is all of the mass shooting were carried out by people who were mentally ill.

Columbine happened in 1999, right in the middle of the assault rifle ban.

I see the assault rifle ban coming back again, and this time it might be permanent. Is the ban going to have an effect on crime, nope, because criminals do not care about laws.

The assault rifle ban is a scapegoat for not caring for our mentally ill.

If society had a way to deal with the mentally ill, maybe we would not be having this conversation.

 

[BoberFett]

LMAO, Democrats. Nothing will kill them in the next election like bringing up gun control yet again.

 

[shortylickens]

The "real" kicker is all of the mass shooting were carried out by people who were mentally ill.

Columbine happened in 1999, right in the middle of the assault rifle ban.

I see the assault rifle ban coming back again, and this time it might be permanent. Is the ban going to have an effect on crime, nope, because criminals do not care about laws.

The assault rifle ban is a scapegoat for not caring for our mentally ill.

What we really need is a safety net for mentally ill people.

I believe Columbine was done with pistols owned legally by the parents.

So yeah, more laws aint gonna help.

Be better to find something else. ANYTHING else. Security along with metal detectors (which some schools have) might be worth trying.

 

[Brovane]

The "real" kicker is all of the mass shooting were carried out by people who were mentally ill.

Columbine happened in 1999, right in the middle of the assault rifle ban.

I see the assault rifle ban coming back again, and this time it might be permanent. Is the ban going to have an effect on crime, nope, because criminals do not care about laws.

I could see the Assault Weapon getting passed. The Law gets taken to court as a violation of the 2nd Amendment. It goes to SCOTUS and they rule it is a violation of the 2nd Amendment and at the same time strike down all the state level Assault Weapon bans as violations of the 2nd Amendment. The Gun Control advocates are left wondering WTF just happened.

 

[airdata]

Obama gonna take ur guns!

 

[silverpig]

I am ambivalent about whether more gun restrictions are ethically the right thing to do - I see pros and cons to both sides of that discussion - but I am 100% convinced that they will have no beneficial effect, and other things being equal I don't favor creating new laws that don't help the American public. I'd much rather see the focus placed on revamping our mental health laws to allow for more commitment of violent, scary mentally ill people like James Holmes and Jared Laughner.

So there was a crazy guy up here in Canada who went on a rampage on a Greyhound bus. He heard voices that told him to kill. While on the bus he stabbed this sleeping teenager in the throat until he died. Everyone got off the bus ASAP and watched as he cut the kid into pieces and ate parts of him.

It was tragic, and the guy is now getting the treatment he needs, but I only wonder how much worse it could have been if he had access to assault rifles.

Crazy people who want to kill will do so. Limiting them to a knife may mean only one person dies as opposed to 28.

The problem in the US is that the weapons are already out there. Making them illegal now won't change much now. If you ban them and then do a 10+ year campaign of confiscation and destruction of the weapons, you may see some effect down the line.

 

[ichy]

WOW!
Americans must have a REALLY short attention span.

We already had them outlawed and crime went up. The ban expired just 8 years ago. Did everyone already forget?

Um, I don't think that any sane person has ever claimed that the assault weapons ban caused crime to increase. It probably didn't do any real hard or any real good. Murders committed with "assault weapons" are a tiny drop in the bucket.

 

[ichy]

I could see the Assault Weapon getting passed. The Law gets taken to court as a violation of the 2nd Amendment. It goes to SCOTUS and they rule it is a violation of the 2nd Amendment and at the same time strike down all the state level Assault Weapon bans as violations of the 2nd Amendment. The Gun Control advocates are left wondering WTF just happened.

I think that's a stretch. From what I remember of DC v. Heller the Supreme Court said that a flat out prohibition on gun ownership was unconstitutional but they weren't willing to go far beyond that.

"We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns." Furthermore, military grade weapons not being the sort of weapons that are possessed at home that would be brought to militia duty are not the sort of lawful weapon conceived of being protected. "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M-16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty."[73] Therefore, weapons that are most useful in military service – M-16 rifles and weapons like it – are also not provided with 2nd Amendment protection.

 

[BoberFett]

To be a devil's advocate, reloading is an obstacle. There's enough of you guys who play FPS games to realize that in situations where you might have to hit a reload soon you will make sure you reload in a safe environment, and you conserve ammunition if you're running low on a current magazine until you can safely reload.

Anyway, the point is that it's a limitation. To a trained individual say a law enforcement officer or someone in the armed forces, yeah, if you had 270 rounds broken into 9 magazines of 30 rounds or 27 magazines of 10 each, continue to shoot away while reloading isn't going to be a huge obstacle. But if you look at amateur shooters who begin to panic when things don't go their way, fumbling for a magazine can be a make or break when seconds count.

In the end this isn't the solution to end violence, but it can help curtail certain acts of violence, perhaps limiting the damage done.

/facepalm

You're going to compare a situation where there's a real live adult in a kindergarten shooting children to a video game where other virtual people are shooting back at you? Do you really think this guy would have felt need to dive for cover behind the board games and puzzles while reloading if he was limited to smaller mags?

 

[OutHouse]

maybe we should bring back huge insane asylums like Pilgram Psychiatric Center in NY (now closed) and lock up mentally ill people.

 

[xj0hnx]

What's most ridiculous about any AWB is that it will do nothing to actual assault weapons. Actual assault weapons have been under Treasury control since 1934, and were completely unaffected by the 94 AWB.

 

[OutHouse]

To be a devil's advocate, reloading is an obstacle. There's enough of you guys who play FPS games to realize that in situations where you might have to hit a reload soon you will make sure you reload in a safe environment, and you conserve ammunition if you're running low on a current magazine until you can safely reload.

Anyway, the point is that it's a limitation. To a trained individual say a law enforcement officer or someone in the armed forces, yeah, if you had 270 rounds broken into 9 magazines of 30 rounds or 27 magazines of 10 each, continue to shoot away while reloading isn't going to be a huge obstacle. But if you look at amateur shooters who begin to panic when things don't go their way, fumbling for a magazine can be a make or break when seconds count.

In the end this isn't the solution to end violence, but it can help curtail certain acts of violence, perhaps limiting the damage done.

so much fail. do us a favor and just keep playing video games and stay in your moms basement.

 

[Texashiker]

maybe we should bring back huge insane asylums like Pilgram Psychiatric Center in NY (now closed) and lock up mentally ill people.

For the price of 1 modern aircraft carrier, or 1 nuclear submarine, I bet we could almost pay for the care mentally ill people need.

 

[Fern]

IMO the biggest issue with new gun laws is that there are already 300 million guns in circulation and I don't see how any proposed gun controls would make it significantly harder for criminals to obtain guns. The one thing that might make sense is eliminating rules which allow people to buy handguns without a background check. It wouldn't make it impossible for felons to get guns but it would make it harder and more expensive. Beyond that I just don't see anything which would actually work.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is a point-of-sale system for determining eligibility to purchase a firearm in the United States of America. Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders are generally required by law to use the NICS to determine if it is legal to sell a firearm to a prospective purchaser. The NICS determines if the buyer is prohibited from buying a firearm under the Gun Control Act of 1968. It is linked to the National Crime Information Center and the Interstate Identification Index among other databases maintained by the FBI.[1]

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is applicable to sales from federally licensed dealers. Sales of firearms by private sellers are allowed to proceed without a background check unless required by state law. These regulations remain in place at gun shows, where no special leniency is granted to licensed sellers, and no additional requirements are placed upon private sellers.

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

Fern

 

[Fern]

It's not meant to do a damn thing. They know that but they hope the majority of the voters don't. It's just meant to make it look like our Government cares.

Yep.

Something, anything must be done.

I still think the primary problem is that the govt background check doesn't include mental health info.

Fern

 

[blankslate]

If you want to argue against an assault weapons ban... (which really should be a ban on Military style weapons imo)

You better be prepared to offer up solutions that would help keep weapons out of the hands of people who don't need to be anywhere near them.

It seems that a common factor in most of these mass shootings is a mentally disturbed person.

How many people who vehemently oppose restrictions on firearms have no problems with cutting funding for mental health treatment?

People who match the above profile need to rethink their priorities. People who fall into the above profile who won't rethink their priorities have no sympathy from me.

 

[Ausm]

In the unlikely event it makes it through the Senate, it's going to hit a brick wall in the House.

I doubt it would even make it out of the Senate because McConnell filibusters EVERYTHING.

 

[Ausm]

From the coverage I have seen, the mother was shot by the rifle but the killer used hand guns in the school. Is there an update on that somewhere?

Michael

I read he used the rifle in the school and shot each child in the head 10 times to make sure they were dead.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

/facepalm

You're going to compare a situation where there's a real live adult in a kindergarten shooting children to a video game where other virtual people are shooting back at you? Do you really think this guy would have felt need to dive for cover behind the board games and puzzles while reloading if he was limited to smaller mags?

Are you just using emotions to respond to my statement? Look at it from a realistic standpoint. Yes I did mention video games, but oh no, that means you get to laugh.

This guy didn't need to dive for cover behind board games and puzzles while reloading, but you're referring to one specific case. Magazine size would affect how a shootout occurs. If you had all 200 rounds in one magazine versus split up in 20 different mags, it'd be easier for you to put multiple bullets in a person and make sure that they're dead rather than to shoot and move on. That's the point I'm trying to make. I can't tell you how exactly it would've changed the outcome, but to act like there's no effect at all is a bit naive don't you think?

so much fail. do us a favor and just keep playing video games and stay in your moms basement.

I like how you are unable to refute anything I've stated. Ok, so I mentioned video games because it's an easy scenario to understand the difference between a small and large magazine. I suppose you prefer examples of actual shootings where a shooter used a large magazine versus a small magazine, but then that'd be an apples vs oranges comparison with different shooters, different scenarios, etc. What I'm trying to get at is the mentality you have with different magazine sizes. In one case you're more aware of how many rounds you have left til you reload, etc. In the other case it's less of an issue until a certain point. The concept of scarcity is what drives basic economics and human behavior. You think it won't play an effect with guns either?

The bottom line is I'm not saying the solution is to limit magazine size. I'm just playing devils advocate for a moment and suggesting that magazine sizes should have an effect on how a shooter behaves and possibly the outcome. It could potentially alter the death count, etc, and how a massacre goes down.

 

[blankslate]

For the price of 1 modern aircraft carrier, or 1 nuclear submarine, I bet we could almost pay for the care mentally ill people need.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms in not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

While this is an old speech the cost of one Aircraft Carrier as you said could probably provide necessary mental health treatment to people who badly need it.

Oddly enough no Democratic politician today would ever speak words like the ones in the speech I quoted. It makes the irony that it was spoken by a Republican that much more telling.

 

[piasabird]

It will increase gun sales.

These anti-gun scares just increase the proliferation of guns.

 

[ichy]

For the price of 1 modern aircraft carrier, or 1 nuclear submarine, I bet we could almost pay for the care mentally ill people need.

The problem is that there's no real concrete diagnosis for mental illness in many cases as well as no treatment that really works. Psychiatry is laughably unscientific and stripping people of their rights and locking them up before they've committed a crime based on some shrink's diagnosis is a pretty horrifying thought. Look at most criminal trials where the defendant claims insanity. You'll have one mental health "expert" for the defense saying the guy isn't sane while you have one for the prosecution that says he is. Psychiatry is full of BS and guesswork.

 

[dmens]

You are assuming most gun owners would break the law if they were required to turn them in ?

If it was a felony ?

Personally I think a lot of gun owners would comply with the law.

Just an example, when Australia unilaterally banned most civilian firearms in the late 90's, the compliance rate *today*, over a decade later, is estimated at 5%.

 

[blankslate]

I wouldn't mind all of these weapons that could accommodate 15 to 30 round magazines and could fire 4-6 rounds in about a second fairly accurately in semi-auto if these weapons were from now on all made with a biometric feature that limited the use of that weapon to the owner.

 

[Brovane]

I think that's a stretch. From what I remember of DC v. Heller the Supreme Court said that a flat out prohibition on gun ownership was unconstitutional but they weren't willing to go far beyond that.

The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that "have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"), which may not by itself protect machine guns: "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home."

It will be interesting to what SCOTUS says on this. This reads that they the ban on "Machine Guns" is lawful. However how do you define a Assault Rifle? That has caused a lot of trouble.