Had Enough

[pmanhart 176]

No, but taking the assault weapons that were available to those unstable individuals, would have.

 

Now you are arguing for something that is impossible. You will never rid the US of 'assault weapons'. The UK hasn't allowed people to have 'assault weapons' for more than ten years, yet there are still 'assault weapons' being used to commit crimes.

 

Your argument is implausible, therefore invalid.

[razorhog703 15]

Once again, I will repeat, for the third time....fists, hammers, clubs, baseball bats..etc. were not designed to kill people. They have a passive primary use that can be morphed into a weapon by a deranged individual. An automobile was not designed to kill, it is designed for transportation.

A civilian or military assault weapon is designed to kill as many people as possible, in the shortest time possible. They have no other use.

 

I do see your point however, guns weren't "designed" for mass shooting of people or young kids. Murder isn't breed into a piece of metal and lead. It takes the choice of a HUMAN to commit the crime with whatever tool he chooses. A gun can be used for target shooting, hunting, confidence, home defense, or common good (if you carry at all times). It amazes me how the many "good samaritian" stories of people saved by having a gun are not broadcasted with as much emphasis as the rare horrific ones.

[pmanhart 176]

Wow how did people who support gun control become communists and how did people who are opposed to gun control become responsible for Sandy Hook etc?

 

A bit fewer straw men arguments would go a long way to make it a more constructive debate.

 

I for one am facinated by the US "right to bear arms" legislation. Can someone tell me more about the "regulated militia" part of that law?

 

In order to truly understand the Second Amendment, one must first study the founding father's journals, quotes, and the arguments on the floor of Congress during ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

To make a long story short, here are some excellent quotes of the founding fathers (those who designed and helped ratify the Constitution):

 

“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

 

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

 

“…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

 

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

 

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States” (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution’, 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

[lthendrix 25]

And yes, you are supporting the murder of little children. What happened at Sandy Hook, and Aurora, and Columbine, and all of those other places where deranged gunmen killed scores of innocent people is the fault of people like you who place their own desire to play with toys above the safety and well being of others.

 

these are fighting words!!!!! I cannot fathom that there are my fellow Americans who would be happy to see me made a criminal and my legally owned and registered firearms confiscated from me .I am disgusted.

I am sickened and ######! banning guns wont solve anything . not at all! its a joke. Just a big media circus to keep the sheeple pre-occupied . On the other hand thank you Pmanhart for your most eloquent retorts. I only wish I could be so good at getting my thoughts into the written word.! Oh and just so people know as soon as the cheif signed those papers ,gun stocks went through the roof.....take from that what you will.

[XPX64man 130]

I do see your point however, guns weren't "designed" for mass shooting of people or young kids. Murder isn't breed into a piece of metal and lead. It takes the choice of a HUMAN to commit the crime with whatever tool he chooses. A gun can be used for target shooting, hunting, confidence, home defense, or common good (if you carry at all times). It amazes me how the many "good samaritian" stories of people saved by having a gun are not broadcasted with as much emphasis as the rare horrific ones.

 

The truth of the matter is that assault weapons WERE designed for mass shooting of people. They certainly were not designed for hunting. It takes very little skill to perforate a target with one, so it doesn't improve skill with target shooting and there are rifles and pistols that are much better for improving skill with target shooting. They are extremely impractical for home defense since the chance of killing innocent "friendlies" are massive.

There may be a very rare occurrence of an assault weapon being used for good by a "samaritan", but many more people are unjustly killed by them (taking away those individuals right to live).

 

And yes, you are supporting the murder of little children. What happened at Sandy Hook, and Aurora, and Columbine, and all of those other places where deranged gunmen killed scores of innocent people is the fault of people like you who place their own desire to play with toys above the safety and well being of others.

 

these are fighting words!!!!! I cannot fathom that there are my fellow Americans who would be happy to see me made a criminal and my legally owned and registered firearms confiscated from me .I am disgusted.

I am sickened and ######!

 

Wheww! I sure hope you don't own an assault weapon with that attitude.

[pmanhart 176]

There may be a very rare occurrence of an assault weapon being used for good by a "samaritan", but many more people are unjustly killed by them (taking away those individuals right to live).

 

It's not as rare as you think, please follow the link for the results of a study conducted at Florida State University: http://rense.com/general76/univ.htm

 

If you don't want to follow the link, here's the guts that matter:

 

The new survey, conducted by random telephone sampling of 4,978 households in all the states except Alaska and Hawaii, yield results indicating that American civilians use their firearms as often as 2.5 million times every year defending against a confrontation with a criminal, and that handguns alone account for up to 1.9 million defenses per year.

 

And just in case you were wondering:

 

Readers may be interested to know that Kleck is a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause, among other politically liberal organizations. He is also a lifelong registered Democrat. He is not and has never been a member of or contributor to the NRA, Handgun Control Inc., or any other advocacy group on either side of the gun-control issue, nor has he received funding for research from any such organization.

 

Another study just so I'm not quoting one source: http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/tough-targets-when-criminals-face-armed-resistance-citizens

 

Excerpts:

 

Outside of criminology circles, relatively few people can reasonably estimate how often people use guns to fend off criminal attacks. If policymakers are truly interested in harm reduction, they should pause to consider how many crimes — murders, rapes, assaults, robberies — are thwarted each year by ordinary persons with guns. The estimates of defensive gun use range between the tens of thousands to as high as two million each year.

 

This paper uses a collection of news reports of self-defense with guns over an eight-year period to survey the circumstances and outcomes of defensive gun uses in America.

Federal and state lawmakers often oppose repealing or amending laws governing the ownership or carrying of guns. That opposition is typically based on assumptions that the average citizen is incapable of successfully employing a gun in self-defense or that possession of a gun in public will tempt people to violence in “road rage” or other contentious situations. Those assumptions are false. The vast majority of gun owners are ethical and competent. That means tens of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Now you are arguing for something that is impossible. You will never rid the US of 'assault weapons'. The UK hasn't allowed people to have 'assault weapons' for more than ten years, yet there are still 'assault weapons' being used to commit crimes.

 

Your argument is implausible, therefore invalid.

 

Here's an interesting list of firearm death rates by country:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

 

The U.S,. is up there, the U.K. is way down on the list, They must be doing something right.

 

John

[ajpongress 467]

Any modification against the Constitution is a direct attack against me

 

Fixed your sentence so you weren't speaking for everyone.

 

As someone said, your entire argument is ridiculous considering the 2nd amendment IS a modification to the Constitution.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone...typing errors imminent

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

You probably weren't in Belfast then I guess... Lots of worrying news from that corner of the union these days.

 

Yes, the resurgence of the Belfast issue is something that has taken place since I was last there (11/11).

[metalmike 34]

Gun violence statistics clearly indicate that countries with higher amount of legal weapons & less gun control in general also have more gun violence. That applies with this country too, we have had 2 major school shootings within last 7 years and loads of smaller acts while in our neighbor Sweden with less legal guns & 2x our population there have been 0 major school shootings.

 

There are also countries like Switzerland, Cyprus, and Serbia which have pretty high rates of gun ownership but with relatively low gun violence.

[JohnFromCO 15]

How do you feel about full auto weapons being subject to background checks. Isn't that an infringement of the right to bear arms? I hear some from the far right fringes of this argument say that any such check violates their rights

 

No, I don't think a background check is an infringement at all. The checks are not used to prevent all people the right to own a weapons. They are designed to limit access to those who are not allowed under the law to own a weapon. If the background checks are changed to eliminate the ability for law abiding citizens who don't have mental defects to own a weapon then yes it would then violate the 2nd amendment. Ban's are an infringement but background checks or licensing are not.

 

As I said before, background checks need to be changed to include access to mental health records/reports and need to be required for all purchases or transfers. Our mental health system also needs to be changed where a mental health care provider can alert authorities without repercussions should a patient demonstrate a danger to himself or others. Authorities should then be able to see if that person has applied for guns. James Holmes was under treatment and his schools psychiatrist thought he was danger but when Holmes dropped from campus she thought she no longer had an authority to notify police. As a health care professional she had utmost authority to notify authorities who then should investigate the claims.

 

Also be careful of listening to far right or far left. They are far off for a reason.

 

 

Anyway, those things, more than gun control, need to be addressed. Will they? Not as long as money changes hands and profits are made by Hollywood and the gaming industry.

 

IMO as a gun owner I don't hear gun control and immediately think ban or confiscation. Gun control can also mean restrictions on who can buy or possess a weapon and how they are transferred.

 

People are about as confused as they would be on any subject they don't spend their quality time studying. Not everyone wants to learn about the differentials and distinctions between Automatic, Semi-Automatic and/or Hybrid firearms.

 

If you don't want to educate yourself on a subject then you should state opinions on a subject. If you do be prepared and accept people calling you on your uninformed opinion.

 

You don't see me commenting on molecular biology or have opinions on how genetic mapping is applied. Why because I won't state an opinion without educating myself first.

 

In fact, manufacturers will purposely design a weapon to meet the NFA/CFR standards and specifications for non-AOA, knowing full well that for a few more bucks, the owner can go online or into some gun magazine and buy the "conversion kit" and/or the individual parts necessary to produce an Automatic and/or Semi-Automatic weapon with higher firing capacity.

 

You cannot just purchase a "conversion kit" to modify a semi-automatic rifle and make it fully auto. You are referring to the auto-sear's that can be used in place of a semi-auto sear. Auto-sears require the same NFA background check, registration, and stamp fee an actual burst or fully auto weapon requires. They also require a weapon that can accept them.

 

If your weapon has an auto sear without complying with NFA you will go to prison. In fact if your semi-auto rifle has a defect, due to improper maintenance or damage, and that defect allows more than 1 round per trigger pull you are violating the NFA. David Olofson is a prime example. He was a 16 year Army reservist that allowed a prospective buyer of his AR-15 to take it to the range. The weapon had a defect that allowed it to malfunction and fire more than 1 round per trigger pull. Since it was argued Mr. Olofson did not attempt to repair the defect he was sent to prison for NFA violations by illegal transfer of a machine gun.

 

Most of the sellers in magazines and online offering to sell auto-sear, lightning triggers, or full auto kits are scammers. Their parts are not transferable meaning they can't sell them. They are not Class 2 weapons manufacturers and only want your money. They don't care if you end up in prison. As the AR-15 community says, it is a $23.00 trip to prison.

 

So you statement of buyers can readily just drop in a auto-sear and have a full-auto rifle is incorrect. They require the same high level background checks actual full-auto rilfes require. That is why you don't see every AR owner with an auto-sear. Price is another factor. Real auto-sears made prior to the 1986 cutoff are thousands of dollars. A transferable auto-sear can be in excess of $5,000.00 to buy then you still have the stamp tax then register the lower. A legal fully auto AR-15 can end up costing $10,000.00-$15,000.00.

 

The only way to modify a AR legally to increase its cycle rate without complying with NFA rules is by using a bump fire stock. They cost roughly $350 and uses the weapons recoil to assist in quicker trigger pulls. They are wildly inaccurate, yes I have used a Slide Fire bump stock, and with most AR's only lead to nasty jams. Only way to restrict them is adding it to the NFA.

 

The Secondary Gun Modifications/Parts Market is bigger than the primary market (in absolute numbers - not in economy of scale) in many instances. They provide gun owners a lot of different products ranging from duck hunting gear to overnight thermal protective outdoor tent products. But, it also sells the kinds of products that it knows will be used in the at-home production of what in many states are illegal weapons already (not including any new law proposals).

 

Then you aren't a law abiding gun owner are you? Gun ownership is a right that carries a huge responsibility and laws to follow. Violating either negates you being a law abiding gun owners.

 

If I know 30 round mags are not allowed in NY then I won't carry a 30 round mag into New York. If I do then I pay the price.

 

So, let's just be honest here and conclude that Weapons of Mass Killings, really have no place in a civilized society. I think that is a reasonable position to hold in such an enlightened culture. I don't believe that we need to continue to pretend to not be smart enough to do the math on this. When you give people access to that kind of killing power, somebody is going to use it someday.

 

Considering mass killings have occurred by using everything from Kool-Aid to diesel/fertilizer to airliners to axes to guns according to your theory all should be removed from our society correct?

 

Lets really be honest. Our society is not civilized. Just look at the thug mentality of inner cities. Those thugs commit 3/4 of gun murders yet I have not heard a single politician demand shutting down gangs or eliminating the thug mentality from our society. In fact the thug lifestyle is being pushed harder. Get rich or die trying right?

 

We are a society that has turned their backs on mental illness and creating ways for our society to become safer. A majority of our society don't want to know what caused violent acts to allow for prevention one day, we would rather just find the easiest thing to blame and move on.

 

Until we as a society address all the facts that lead to murders they will still occur.

 

If you truly believe a ban on military style rifles or high capacity mags will prevent future mass killings or lower future gun deaths then I have some amazing ocean front property here in Colorado for you.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

Okay, this has come to an end. It is starting to get personal and over the top. No more.