Obama: Don't stock up on guns

[TallBill]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/p...ales-up-120808.article

December 8, 2008
BY ABDON M. PALLASCH Political Reporter

As gun sales shoot up around the country, President-elect Barack Obama said Sunday that gun-owning Americans do not need to rush out and stock up before he is sworn in next month.

"I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the second amendment," Obama said at a news conference. "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that throughout the campaign. I haven't indicated anything different during the transition. I think people can take me at my word."

But National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said it's not Obama's words ? but his legislative track record ? that has gun-buyers flocking to the stores.

"Prior to his campaign for president, his record as a state legislator and as a U.S. Senator shows he voted for the most stringent forms of gun control, the most Draconian legislation, gun bans, ammunition bans and even an increase in federal excise taxes up to 500 percent for every gun and firearm sold," Arulanandam said.

Obama answered "yes" in 1996 to a questionnaire from an Illinois group on whether he supported a handgun ban. But he later said a staffer filled out that answer and he did not support a ban.

Nationally, background checks for gun purchases jumped nearly 49 percent during the week Obama was elected, compared with the same time period last year, according to the FBI's National Instant Background Check System.

Anecdotally, gun dealers around the country have reported spikes in sales. The Illinois State Rifle Association Reports gun sales for November were 38 percent higher than last year.

"We don't dispute [the gun sales hike] because the numbers from the federal system certainly confirm that there is increased activity out there. We just think it's a bit stupid," said Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign against Gun Violence.

"Anyone who thinks they need to rush out and buy a firearm clearly has not been paying attention to how quickly we make progress on this issue. We don't think these are first-time buyers. We think they are people who already have more than enough guns at their homes to protect themselves and are buying more."

I see this going one of two ways...

1. Obama and dems are telling the truth which would be a great thing.
2. Obama is either fibbing and will let another AWB slide in, blech.


Doing research for a school project last week, military style rifles account for about 1.5% - 2% of all gun crimes. Let's stop targeting the guns and start targeting the criminals. The majority of gun crimes are committed with small 7 round 380's or 32's or 9mm's.

Legislation that bans certain guns doesn't lower crime. Legislation that bans magazines doesn't lower crime. Legislation for limiting ammo purchases or putting restrictions like waiting periods or purchase limits on firearm purchases certainly do nott lower crime.

Harsh penalties for illegally owned weapons, illegal weapon dealing, and possibly more regulations for commercial weapon storage. I'm all for government regulated gun ownership as long as the qualifications and tracking don't get to extreme. I think most reasonable gun owners will agree to this.

 

[IronWing]

Buy more guns ==> less money for beer. Not a bad outcome.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: ironwing
Buy more guns ==> less money for beer. Not a bad outcome.

empty beer cans ==> more targets for guns. Bad outcome.

 

[Muse]

Doing research for a school project last week, military style rifles account for about 1.5% - 2% of all gun crimes. Let's stop targeting the guns and start targeting the criminals. The majority of gun crimes are committed with small 7 round 380's or 32's or 9mm's.

If most gun crimes are committed with small guns that doesn't mean that the crimes committed with brutal assault weapons are unimportant and shouldn't be controlled. A lot of the most heinous gun crimes involve assault weapons. I think they should be unavailable to the public, i.e. illegal. Your argument to target the criminal and not the gun is typical of gun fetishists, you hear it again and again. It sounds completely wrong every time I hear it.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Muse

Doing research for a school project last week, military style rifles account for about 1.5% - 2% of all gun crimes. Let's stop targeting the guns and start targeting the criminals. The majority of gun crimes are committed with small 7 round 380's or 32's or 9mm's.

If most gun crimes are committed with small guns that doesn't mean that the crimes committed with brutal assault weapons are unimportant and shouldn't be controlled. A lot of the most heinous gun crimes involve assault weapons. I think they should be unavailable to the public, i.e. illegal. Your argument to target the criminal and not the gun is typical of gun fetishists, you hear it again and again. It sounds completely wrong every time I hear it.

Oh, so can you link to the all those "heinous" gun crimes committed using assault weapons to justify a rational position against them? Lets face it, criminals don't walk into 7-11 stores with an assault weapon to rob the place, they use handguns, readily concealable and available. The assault weapon BS is simply a tool to instill fear.

As to Obama saying not to stock up on guns -- his record speaks for itself, and actions speak louder than words. He's a used car salesman, believe what you've seen him do, not what he says.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Muse

Doing research for a school project last week, military style rifles account for about 1.5% - 2% of all gun crimes. Let's stop targeting the guns and start targeting the criminals. The majority of gun crimes are committed with small 7 round 380's or 32's or 9mm's.

If most gun crimes are committed with small guns that doesn't mean that the crimes committed with brutal assault weapons are unimportant and shouldn't be controlled. A lot of the most heinous gun crimes involve assault weapons. I think they should be unavailable to the public, i.e. illegal. Your argument to target the criminal and not the gun is typical of gun fetishists, you hear it again and again. It sounds completely wrong every time I hear it.

Really?

Virginia Tech happened with 2 handguns, the shooter reloaded 15 times.
The NIU shooting happened with a shotgun and handguns from someone that should have not legally owned a firearm.
Columbine shooters used a handgun, a double barreled shotgun, and a 10 shot carbine rifle not covered by the AWB and a shotgun.
JFK was killed with a bolt action hunting rifle.


I can keep going if you want. I can't even think of a "heinous crime" that was committed with a legally obtained or owned assault weapon. I'm sure there are some, but it's just a fact that the majority are not.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TallBill
...
I'm all for government regulated gun ownership as long as the qualifications and tracking don't get to extreme. I think most reasonable gun owners will agree to this.

I don't know about "reasonable gun owners", but one of the big criticisms of the NRA and similar groups is that they tend to pretty vocally oppose virtually ALL regulations, especially when it comes to number of guns purchased in a set period of time, waiting periods of any length, and law enforcement tools like ballistic fingerprinting. These things in no way restrict reasonable gun ownership, and seem like they might help with gun violence without making it so law abiding citizens are stripped of their right to own a weapon. I'm pretty pro-gun rights (and pro-self defense rights in general), but I think the attitude of most gun-rights supporters borders on the ridiculous.

In any case, I think this is a non-issue. Pro-gun folks are too pro-gun, and anti-gun folks don't care enough...politicians at the national level aren't going to do anything too radical because the support just isn't there. If you think the 2nd amendment entitles you to own a F-22, then you might have a problem...but overall I think this is gun-nuts getting their panties in a bunch over nothing. Obama's policies at a local level don't come in to play, as localities have ALWAYS been more open to regulation (or not) of guns because local attitudes tend to vary a lot from place to place. At the national level, I don't think it's a big enough issue for the gun control side for anybody to do anything.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Muse

Doing research for a school project last week, military style rifles account for about 1.5% - 2% of all gun crimes. Let's stop targeting the guns and start targeting the criminals. The majority of gun crimes are committed with small 7 round 380's or 32's or 9mm's.

If most gun crimes are committed with small guns that doesn't mean that the crimes committed with brutal assault weapons are unimportant and shouldn't be controlled. A lot of the most heinous gun crimes involve assault weapons. I think they should be unavailable to the public, i.e. illegal. Your argument to target the criminal and not the gun is typical of gun fetishists, you hear it again and again. It sounds completely wrong every time I hear it.

Really?

Virginia Tech happened with 2 handguns, the shooter reloaded 15 times.
The NIU shooting happened with a shotgun and handguns from someone that should have not legally owned a firearm.
Columbine shooters used a handgun, a double barreled shotgun, and a 10 shot carbine rifle not covered by the AWB and a shotgun.
JFK was killed with a bolt action hunting rifle.


I can keep going if you want. I can't even think of a "heinous crime" that was committed with a legally obtained or owned assault weapon. I'm sure there are some, but it's just a fact that the majority are not.

Automatic weapons have been illegal for decades. That's why heinous crimes aren't committed with them.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Muse

Doing research for a school project last week, military style rifles account for about 1.5% - 2% of all gun crimes. Let's stop targeting the guns and start targeting the criminals. The majority of gun crimes are committed with small 7 round 380's or 32's or 9mm's.

If most gun crimes are committed with small guns that doesn't mean that the crimes committed with brutal assault weapons are unimportant and shouldn't be controlled. A lot of the most heinous gun crimes involve assault weapons. I think they should be unavailable to the public, i.e. illegal. Your argument to target the criminal and not the gun is typical of gun fetishists, you hear it again and again. It sounds completely wrong every time I hear it.

Oh, so can you link to the all those "heinous" gun crimes committed using assault weapons to justify a rational position against them? Lets face it, criminals don't walk into 7-11 stores with an assault weapon to rob the place, they use handguns, readily concealable and available. The assault weapon BS is simply a tool to instill fear.

As to Obama saying not to stock up on guns -- his record speaks for itself, and actions speak louder than words. He's a used car salesman, believe what you've seen him do, not what he says.

Weapons bans are not tools of fear they are tools to make the people who passed them appear "tough on crime" they do little to actually curb gun crime.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Automatic weapons have been illegal for decades. That's why heinous crimes aren't committed with them.

Automatic weapons have never been illegal in the United States. For the most part they are less deadly then their semi-automatic cousins anyways. Why do you think that the US Army switched from an M16 that fired on automatic?

This isn't what we're talking about anyways, but you clearly don't know enough about weapons to weigh in on the issue. Sadly, a lot of lawmakers don't either.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Muse

Doing research for a school project last week, military style rifles account for about 1.5% - 2% of all gun crimes. Let's stop targeting the guns and start targeting the criminals. The majority of gun crimes are committed with small 7 round 380's or 32's or 9mm's.

If most gun crimes are committed with small guns that doesn't mean that the crimes committed with brutal assault weapons are unimportant and shouldn't be controlled. A lot of the most heinous gun crimes involve assault weapons. I think they should be unavailable to the public, i.e. illegal. Your argument to target the criminal and not the gun is typical of gun fetishists, you hear it again and again. It sounds completely wrong every time I hear it.

Really?

Virginia Tech happened with 2 handguns, the shooter reloaded 15 times.
The NIU shooting happened with a shotgun and handguns from someone that should have not legally owned a firearm.
Columbine shooters used a handgun, a double barreled shotgun, and a 10 shot carbine rifle not covered by the AWB and a shotgun.
JFK was killed with a bolt action hunting rifle.


I can keep going if you want. I can't even think of a "heinous crime" that was committed with a legally obtained or owned assault weapon. I'm sure there are some, but it's just a fact that the majority are not.

You're definitely right on that point. Banning specific weapons (within reason, obviously) doesn't do a whole lot of good. Beyond the anecdotal evidence, it becomes kind of silly to try to imagine the type of criminal you'd be comfortable with owning a handgun but not a semi-automatic rifle. If I don't think someone can be trusted with an AR-15, I wouldn't trust them with a pellet gun.

The real trick of gun control, and one I'm sad to say neither side really seems to understand, is that controlling WHO gets the guns is far more important than WHAT particular guns they can get.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
Weapons bans are not tools of fear they are tools to make the people who passed them appear "tough on crime" they do little to actually curb gun crime.

True. The same for mandatory sentencing rules for victimless crimes. It's pandering to those who refuse to think.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

You're definitely right on that point. Banning specific weapons (within reason, obviously) doesn't do a whole lot of good. Beyond the anecdotal evidence, it becomes kind of silly to try to imagine the type of criminal you'd be comfortable with owning a handgun but not a semi-automatic rifle. If I don't think someone can be trusted with an AR-15, I wouldn't trust them with a pellet gun.

The real trick of gun control, and one I'm sad to say neither side really seems to understand, is that controlling WHO gets the guns is far more important than WHAT particular guns they can get.

Yup, this is exactly what i was eluding to in the first post. I'm not sure what needs to be done, but it needs to be something along this path.

 

[Brovane]

Originally posted by: TallBill
http://www.suntimes.com/news/p...ales-up-120808.article

December 8, 2008
BY ABDON M. PALLASCH Political Reporter

As gun sales shoot up around the country, President-elect Barack Obama said Sunday that gun-owning Americans do not need to rush out and stock up before he is sworn in next month.

"I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the second amendment," Obama said at a news conference. "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that throughout the campaign. I haven't indicated anything different during the transition. I think people can take me at my word."

But National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said it's not Obama's words ? but his legislative track record ? that has gun-buyers flocking to the stores.

"Prior to his campaign for president, his record as a state legislator and as a U.S. Senator shows he voted for the most stringent forms of gun control, the most Draconian legislation, gun bans, ammunition bans and even an increase in federal excise taxes up to 500 percent for every gun and firearm sold," Arulanandam said.

Obama answered "yes" in 1996 to a questionnaire from an Illinois group on whether he supported a handgun ban. But he later said a staffer filled out that answer and he did not support a ban.

Nationally, background checks for gun purchases jumped nearly 49 percent during the week Obama was elected, compared with the same time period last year, according to the FBI's National Instant Background Check System.

Anecdotally, gun dealers around the country have reported spikes in sales. The Illinois State Rifle Association Reports gun sales for November were 38 percent higher than last year.

"We don't dispute [the gun sales hike] because the numbers from the federal system certainly confirm that there is increased activity out there. We just think it's a bit stupid," said Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign against Gun Violence.

"Anyone who thinks they need to rush out and buy a firearm clearly has not been paying attention to how quickly we make progress on this issue. We don't think these are first-time buyers. We think they are people who already have more than enough guns at their homes to protect themselves and are buying more."

I see this going one of two ways...

1. Obama and dems are telling the truth which would be a great thing.
2. Obama is either fibbing and will let another AWB slide in, blech.


Doing research for a school project last week, military style rifles account for about 1.5% - 2% of all gun crimes. Let's stop targeting the guns and start targeting the criminals. The majority of gun crimes are committed with small 7 round 380's or 32's or 9mm's.

Legislation that bans certain guns doesn't lower crime. Legislation that bans magazines doesn't lower crime. Legislation for limiting ammo purchases or putting restrictions like waiting periods or purchase limits on firearm purchases certainly do nott lower crime.

Harsh penalties for illegally owned weapons, illegal weapon dealing, and possibly more regulations for commercial weapon storage. I'm all for government regulated gun ownership as long as the qualifications and tracking don't get to extreme. I think most reasonable gun owners will agree to this.

I think option #1 is going to happen. Right not Obama will be spending his political capital and focus on the economy, health care and foreign affairs. Gun Control wasn't really a big part of the election especially after the SCOTUS ruling. If the economy gets better after the 2010 election I could see things getting a little dicey. I suspect if something is launched it will be from Pelosi and not from Obama. He will sit on the sidelines but if a Assault Weapon ban lands on his desk from Congress he will sign it. Remember the Assault Weapon ban in 1994 was one of the issues that helped get the Democrats knocked out of power in Congress and allowed a good wedge issue for Gingrich and crew. If the Democrats are smart they will just leave it alone and concentrate on other things. I think at heart Obama wants more Gun Control but he doesn't want to spend the political capital to make it happen.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Brovane

I think option #1 is going to happen. Right not Obama will be spending his political capital and focus on the economy, health care and foreign affairs. Gun Control wasn't really a big part of the election especially after the SCOTUS ruling. If the economy gets better after the 2010 election I could see things getting a little dicey. I suspect if something is launched it will be from Pelosi and not from Obama. He will sit on the sidelines but if a Assault Weapon ban lands on his desk from Congress he will sign it. Remember the Assault Weapon ban in 1994 was one of the issues that helped get the Democrats knocked out of power in Congress and allowed a good wedge issue for Gingrich and crew. If the Democrats are smart they will just leave it alone and concentrate on other things. I think at heart Obama wants more Gun Control but he doesn't want to spend the political capital to make it happen.

I tend to agree. Other then the blurb on his website he hasn't even mentioned it until today.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
The real trick of gun control, and one I'm sad to say neither side really seems to understand, is that controlling WHO gets the guns is far more important than WHAT particular guns they can get.

I fully agree with this!

We need to keep Them? from having guns or They? are going to kill all of Us? and take all of our Stuff?!!

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Muse

Doing research for a school project last week, military style rifles account for about 1.5% - 2% of all gun crimes. Let's stop targeting the guns and start targeting the criminals. The majority of gun crimes are committed with small 7 round 380's or 32's or 9mm's.

If most gun crimes are committed with small guns that doesn't mean that the crimes committed with brutal assault weapons are unimportant and shouldn't be controlled. A lot of the most heinous gun crimes involve assault weapons. I think they should be unavailable to the public, i.e. illegal. Your argument to target the criminal and not the gun is typical of gun fetishists, you hear it again and again. It sounds completely wrong every time I hear it.

Really?

Virginia Tech happened with 2 handguns, the shooter reloaded 15 times.
The NIU shooting happened with a shotgun and handguns from someone that should have not legally owned a firearm.
Columbine shooters used a handgun, a double barreled shotgun, and a 10 shot carbine rifle not covered by the AWB and a shotgun.
JFK was killed with a bolt action hunting rifle.


I can keep going if you want. I can't even think of a "heinous crime" that was committed with a legally obtained or owned assault weapon. I'm sure there are some, but it's just a fact that the majority are not.

Automatic weapons have been illegal for decades. That's why heinous crimes aren't committed with them.

Uhhhh... Automatic weapons are not and never have been illegal in the US.

Originally posted by: Rainsford
The real trick of gun control, and one I'm sad to say neither side really seems to understand, is that controlling WHO gets the guns is far more important than WHAT particular guns they can get.

Agreed x 10. That's the trick. The gun nuts want to have RPG's, the gun grabbers want to take everyone's guns away. The real issue is keeping the guns out of the hands of the bad guys without keeping them away from law abiding citizens. That's a very difficult balance.

 

[soccerballtux]

There aren't enough gun related deaths imo to warrant the encroachment of civil liberties required to correctly administer "common-sense gun control laws". How would you handle it? To prevent someone like the Virginia Tech dude from getting guns, you'd have to allow citizens to report other people as "Crazies" where they would be put on the "no guns for you" list.
Most crazy people are smart enough to figure out that if they just played normal, they'd be able to buy their guns. End result would be more government, no more safety.

I have yet to see a promising "Common sense gun control" law. The best one is the one we already have in place-- control the crazy's gun by owning your own gun. In the case of Virginia Tech, if other students had had guns, they could have stopped him and saved 20 lives. Or all 30.

Then the liberals will shout "but then there would be more gun violence similar to shootups in the old days out west, where somebody gets angry at some other guy and so they shoot eachother."
And they have a valid point. That probably would happen.

The problems we're experiencing with this are the result of parents failing society-- not parenting their children. You can try to legislate your way around it, but that's the only real solution that doesn't take away the rights and safety of innocent citizens. We know government is evil; so when we find evil in ourselves we need to handle it, not let the government fix it, because they can't.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
There aren't enough gun related deaths imo to warrant the encroachment of civil liberties required to correctly administer "common-sense gun control laws". How would you handle it? To prevent someone like the Virginia Tech dude from getting guns, you'd have to allow citizens to report other people as "Crazies" where they would be put on the "no guns for you" list.
Most crazy people are smart enough to figure out that if they just played normal, they'd be able to buy their guns. End result would be more government, no more safety.

I have yet to see a promising "Common sense gun control" law. The best one is the one we already have in place-- control the crazy's gun by owning your own gun. In the case of Virginia Tech, if other students had had guns, they could have stopped him and saved 20 lives. Or all 30.

Then the liberals will shout "but then there would be more gun violence similar to shootups in the old days out west, where somebody gets angry at some other guy and so they shoot eachother."
And they have a valid point. That probably would happen.

The problems we're experiencing with this are the result of parents failing society-- not parenting their children. You can try to legislate your way around it, but that's the only real solution that doesn't take away the rights and safety of innocent citizens. We know government is evil; so when we find evil in ourselves we need to handle it, not let the government fix it, because they can't.

This is true to a degree, you can't keep the guns out of the hands of all the nuts, but I think keeping the guns out of the hands of those who have already demonstrated that they are not capable of handling the responsibility (convicted felons) makes sense. Sure, it's not foolproof, but it's a reasonable step towards making society safer without infringing on liberties.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
There aren't enough gun related deaths imo to warrant the encroachment of civil liberties required to correctly administer "common-sense gun control laws". How would you handle it? To prevent someone like the Virginia Tech dude from getting guns, you'd have to allow citizens to report other people as "Crazies" where they would be put on the "no guns for you" list.
Most crazy people are smart enough to figure out that if they just played normal, they'd be able to buy their guns. End result would be more government, no more safety.

I have yet to see a promising "Common sense gun control" law. The best one is the one we already have in place-- control the crazy's gun by owning your own gun. In the case of Virginia Tech, if other students had had guns, they could have stopped him and saved 20 lives. Or all 30.

Then the liberals will shout "but then there would be more gun violence similar to shootups in the old days out west, where somebody gets angry at some other guy and so they shoot eachother."
And they have a valid point. That probably would happen.

The problems we're experiencing with this are the result of parents failing society-- not parenting their children. You can try to legislate your way around it, but that's the only real solution that doesn't take away the rights and safety of innocent citizens. We know government is evil; so when we find evil in ourselves we need to handle it, not let the government fix it, because they can't.

There are a hell of a lot more gun related deaths than deaths from things we put far more effort in to. There are FAR fewer deaths from airplane hijackings and terrorism in general than gun deaths, yet most gun-rights folks seem to support draconian laws to combat THOSE problems. If you haven't seen any common sense gun control proposals, you're not paying attention. Sure, we can't stop ALL gun violence, but a lot of it stems from how ridiculously easy it is for ANYONE to get a gun. Some crazy folks might slip through, but they aren't the majority. Things like limiting gun sales to any individual in a month, waiting periods and ballistic fingerprinting would help a lot of types of gun violence...and I don't see how they possibly encroach on your rights. Your gun control position is like the ACLU suggesting that cops should NEVER have a right to enter your house...

As for the "arm everyone" solution...that might SOMETIMES help, but it's not a complete solution. For one thing, it REQUIRES everyone to turn into some gun-toting Rambo just to live in a safe society, whether they want to or not. But more importantly, it makes a lot of unproven assumptions about the value of random people carrying guns in a suddenly dangerous situation. Life isn't an action movie.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Muse

Doing research for a school project last week, military style rifles account for about 1.5% - 2% of all gun crimes. Let's stop targeting the guns and start targeting the criminals. The majority of gun crimes are committed with small 7 round 380's or 32's or 9mm's.

If most gun crimes are committed with small guns that doesn't mean that the crimes committed with brutal assault weapons are unimportant and shouldn't be controlled. A lot of the most heinous gun crimes involve assault weapons. I think they should be unavailable to the public, i.e. illegal. Your argument to target the criminal and not the gun is typical of gun fetishists, you hear it again and again. It sounds completely wrong every time I hear it.

Really?

Virginia Tech happened with 2 handguns, the shooter reloaded 15 times.
The NIU shooting happened with a shotgun and handguns from someone that should have not legally owned a firearm.
Columbine shooters used a handgun, a double barreled shotgun, and a 10 shot carbine rifle not covered by the AWB and a shotgun.
JFK was killed with a bolt action hunting rifle.


I can keep going if you want. I can't even think of a "heinous crime" that was committed with a legally obtained or owned assault weapon. I'm sure there are some, but it's just a fact that the majority are not.

Automatic weapons have been illegal for decades. That's why heinous crimes aren't committed with them.

Ummm, no they haven't. In most locales, automatic weapons simply require more paperwork, longer and more stringent background checks, and a lot more money to obtain legally; but any citizen in good standing is legally welcome to do so.

Fact is, very few crimes are committed with automatic weapons; and, those few that do involve automatics are very rarely, if ever, committed by legal gun owners.

The same is true with semi-automatic rifles. Those that are used in crimes are most often bought and sold by criminals on the black market, not by those who walk into a Gun Shop and ask to see the latest AR15 models...

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Muse

Doing research for a school project last week, military style rifles account for about 1.5% - 2% of all gun crimes. Let's stop targeting the guns and start targeting the criminals. The majority of gun crimes are committed with small 7 round 380's or 32's or 9mm's.

If most gun crimes are committed with small guns that doesn't mean that the crimes committed with brutal assault weapons are unimportant and shouldn't be controlled. A lot of the most heinous gun crimes involve assault weapons. I think they should be unavailable to the public, i.e. illegal. Your argument to target the criminal and not the gun is typical of gun fetishists, you hear it again and again. It sounds completely wrong every time I hear it.

Yeah, like the whopping 2 murders committed with a fully automatic weapon since 1934, one of them by a law enforcement officer using a department weapon. Gotta crack down on those, they're completely out of control.

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Muse

Doing research for a school project last week, military style rifles account for about 1.5% - 2% of all gun crimes. Let's stop targeting the guns and start targeting the criminals. The majority of gun crimes are committed with small 7 round 380's or 32's or 9mm's.

If most gun crimes are committed with small guns that doesn't mean that the crimes committed with brutal assault weapons are unimportant and shouldn't be controlled. A lot of the most heinous gun crimes involve assault weapons. I think they should be unavailable to the public, i.e. illegal. Your argument to target the criminal and not the gun is typical of gun fetishists, you hear it again and again. It sounds completely wrong every time I hear it.

Really?

Virginia Tech happened with 2 handguns, the shooter reloaded 15 times.
The NIU shooting happened with a shotgun and handguns from someone that should have not legally owned a firearm.
Columbine shooters used a handgun, a double barreled shotgun, and a 10 shot carbine rifle not covered by the AWB and a shotgun.
JFK was killed with a bolt action hunting rifle.


I can keep going if you want. I can't even think of a "heinous crime" that was committed with a legally obtained or owned assault weapon. I'm sure there are some, but it's just a fact that the majority are not.

Automatic weapons have been illegal for decades. That's why heinous crimes aren't committed with them.

An assault style weapon does not an automatic make. Thanks for playing.

 

[OnePingOnly]

So has the consensus of this discussion been made? That effeminate liberals who are chomping at the bit to exert their will over all men and would love nothing but to ween every civil liberty away from the American citizen?

 

[OnePingOnly]

By the way, ZeroIQ, I love that signature.