http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/04/robert-farago/washington-cease-fire-bus-we-must/
(this is a pro-gun site from what it looks like)
This is kind of why encouraging widespread gun ownership in response to these mass shootings is stupid. Accidents might happen, the guy with a gun might get in an argument and in the heat of the moment pull the trigger.
That's a press release by Washington Ceasefire, an anti-gun organization.
The "22 times more likely" study is absurd, and Washington Ceasefire's gross distortion of it even more so. The study's statistic is about injuries, not just deaths. Half of the injuries are suicides (and attempts). Over 85% of the assaults and homicides are committed with guns that aren't owned by the homeowner. Gang members and other violent criminals are counted as firearm owners. Only defensive shootings are counted; the 99% case of stopping a crime without shooting the criminal is not counted.
The author has published multiple studies on the safety of firearms in the home, all with wildly differing conclusions. One claims a 43:1 risk, another 22:1, and yet another 2.7:1. Amusingly, the last study also found that keeping shotguns and rifles in the home increases safety. In any case, only fools and liars would quote these studies as proof of anything.
Chicago is a liberal police state. Criminals have all the rights there. In Illionois you cant get a license to carry a gun without submitting your fingerprints for a background investigation, which takes like 6 weeks.
Something you may or may not know.
Cars are not protected by the constitution. Congress could ban the internal combustion engine tomorrow and have every legal right to do so.
Guns on the other hand are protected by the 2nd amendment.
That's a press release by Washington Ceasefire, an anti-gun organization.
The "22 times more likely" study is absurd, and Washington Ceasefire's gross distortion of it even more so. The study's statistic is about injuries, not just deaths. Half of the injuries are suicides (and attempts). Over 85% of the assaults and homicides are committed with guns that aren't owned by the homeowner. Gang members and other violent criminals are counted as firearm owners. Only defensive shootings are counted; the 99% case of stopping a crime without shooting the criminal is not counted.
The author has published multiple studies on the safety of firearms in the home, all with wildly differing conclusions. One claims a 43:1 risk, another 22:1, and yet another 2.7:1. Amusingly, the last study also found that keeping shotguns and rifles in the home increases safety. In any case, only fools and liars would quote these studies as proof of anything.
It's on a pro-gun site, for one thing.
For another, the figure varies but it's still over 10x.
I suggest you read Heller and Mcdonald Karmy.
What is protected under the 2nd is determined by what is accepted practice in the USA. Rifles have had a long history of private ownership in the USA, and the AR15 you mentioned is one of the most popular and widely owned semi automatic rifles.
Do a search on Mcdonald v Chicago for 'due process' this will give you a crash course as to why you fail.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
In the District of Columbia
The D.C. government has indicated it will continue to utilize zoning ordinances to prevent firearms dealers from operating and selling to citizens residing in the District, meaning it will continue to be difficult for residents to legally purchase guns in the District.[67] Additionally, the District enacted new firearms restrictions in an effort to cure the constitutional defects that the Supreme Court had identified in Heller, specifically three new provisions: (1) the firearms registration procedures; (2) the prohibition on assault weapons; and (3) the prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices. In response, Dick Heller challenged these new restrictions filing a civil suit named Heller v. District of Columbia (Civil Action No. 08-1289 (RMU), No. 23., 25) where he requested a summary judgment to vacate the new prohibitions. On March 26, 2010, the D.C. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina denied Dick Heller's request and granted the cross motion, finding that the court "concludes that the regulatory provisions that the plaintiffs challenge permissibly regulate the exercise of the core Second Amendment right to use arms for the purpose of self-defense in the home. "[68]
Dick Heller's application to register his semi-automatic pistol was rejected because the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to the District's interpretation, all bottom-loading guns, including magazine-fed non-assault-style rifles, are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.[69] Revolvers will likely not fall under such a ban.[70]
On December 16, 2008 the D.C. Council unanimously passed the Firearms Registration Emergency Amendment Act of 2008[71] which addresses the issues raised in the Heller Supreme Court decision, and also puts in place a number of registration requirements to update and strengthen the District's gun laws.[72]
Scalia's opinion for the majority provided 2nd Amendment protection for commonly used and popular handguns but not for atypical arms or arms that are used for unlawful purposes such as short-barreled shotguns. Scalia stated: "Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid." "We think that Millers ordinary military equipment language must be read in tandem with what comes after: [O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. 307 U. S., at 179." "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." "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 Amendments 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]
[edit]
So AR-15s, being both popular (in fact they're the fastest growing segment of the gun market) and very effective in the role of militia duty, should be protected under the law. Thanks for that.
No wonder the gun grabbers are freaking out. They have to stem the sales soon before even more Americans own such weapons, because then the popularity alone would pass the Heller Decision!
Read the last paragraph.
An AR-15 is pretty much the same as an M16.
Also, DC outlawed the AR15 and other assault weapons and post-Heller it was held as constitutional.
M-16 has faull-auto capability where the AR-15 does not, big difference. But I suppose that point might have escaped Scalia.
Regardless, it was held Constitutional for now. But what happens when AR-15s and the like become more common? Sounds like whether a firearm is protected under the 2nd amendment is loosely decided by:
1. Popularity
2. Potential for militia use
Handguns are exceedingly popular as the choice for self defense, but I can hardly picture a militia of handgunners. I guess SCOTUS thinks lever-action cowboy rifles are sufficient for militia purposes, and technically I guess they are.
In any case, DC gun laws are not only laughably stupid but laughably effective. You can blame Virginia all you want, but fact is our murder rate per capita is less than 1/4 that of DC's, despite our gun freedoms. Seems it's more a DC problem than a gun problem.
Really?
http://mpdc.dc.gov/service/firearm-registration-district-columbia
Firearms Eligible for Registration
To protect residents from unsafe handguns that are more prone to accidental discharge, lack safety devices, and may be prone to firing when dropped, the Council of the District of Columbia identified the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale (also known as the California Roster of Handguns Determined Not to be Unsafe) as a source list for safer handguns. Handguns on the roster have passed firing, safety, and drop tests and are certified for sale in California by the California Department of Justice. The Chief of Police is authorized to periodically revise, by rule, the roster of handguns permissible for sale.
The regulations will establish a District Roster of Handguns Not Determined to be Unsafe that will include the California list and handguns that are on the safe gun rosters of Maryland and Massachusetts. These regulations will allow for handguns with superficial differences from handguns on the roster such as color or grip material to be registered. The regulations will also allow for handguns that are removed from the California list for administrative reasons to remain on the District list.
http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/ Enter colt, all those with 1991 A1 in their names are 1911's. . . Many handguns with bottom loading clips as well.
So by what basis do you determine ar15 bans to be legal?
Why the AR-15? If you're going to go do that, why not ban the more deadly weapons (semi-auto pistols)?4 (or more) massacres and killings of random strangers in the past six months using an AR15.
Why the AR-15? If you're going to go do that, why not ban the more deadly weapons (semi-auto pistols)?
4 (or more) massacres and killings of random strangers in the past six months using an AR15.
That scary rifles, looking like what militaries and revolutionaries use, are bad evil weapons. But diminutive guns, like standard and compact pistols, which with all this modern technology, look like waterguns, ferchristsake, aren't worth worrying about, because it's hard to explain to people that they should be scary. A big stubby black tacticool AR-15 type rifle, though? Scary right off the bat.So what part of your lie are you trying to convince people of?