One Can Only Hope
New Calls for Assault-Gun Ban
Gun-control activists have renewed calls for the federal government to reinstate a ban on so-called assault weapons in the wake of Tuesday’s deadly shooting rampage in Alabama.
Stricter national gun-control laws face dim prospects in Washington, however, despite Democratic control of Congress and the White House.
Gun-control advocates say Tuesday’s bloody spree, in which 28-year-old Michael McLendon killed 10 people in southeastern Alabama before committing suicide, offers strong evidence of the need for an assault-weapons ban. Mr. McLendon used two assault rifles—an SKS and a Bushmaster—along with a shotgun and a .38-caliber handgun to fell his victims, according to the Alabama Department of Public Safety. He appeared to overwhelm police in an area where many citizens also own guns, for hunting or self-defense.
The weapons used in the Alabama shootings “are military-bred firearms developed for the specific purpose of killing human beings quickly and efficiently,” wrote a coalition of groups, including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, in a joint release on Wednesday. “Today we call on the U.S. Congress to pass a federal assault weapons ban.”
get ready for the gun to spoon analogies and the oldie but goodie “pools kill more people”
Also, my personal favorite “projectile launcher”
Ahhhhh, guns that shoot 200 bullets in like 15 seconds…but, don’t get me wrong, they weren’t made to kill….
Banning assault weapons is not banning all arms, you know, since not all arms are assault weapons. You can still buy a glock.
I am a 150% foaming at the mouth 2nd amendment supporter – so an assault weapons ban works for me.
However, you can have my arquebus when you pry it from my cold dead hand.
**
This is like the comment someone put up on the pro-life/pro-choice post earlier: “We need to find other ways to limit abortions.” There is another way: ban penises. Unfortunately, this is difficult and painful to do, and very unpopular with at least 50% of the population.
Ahhh 2nd Amendment only covers primitive black powder arms….says the man who is using a computer and the internet to exercise his 1st Amendment rights. That’s as ironic as it is short-sighted.
Von Cracker…you could buy a Glock (maybe depends on how the laws are written, they’re illigal to buy here in Mass) but you certainly can’t buy the factory-standard magazines under the ’94 AWB.
Lastly “military-bred firearms” is a pure BS term, and given that Jason’s arquebus was a military arm at some point, I think we see the misinformation being spred. And as far as:
“developed for the specific purpose of killing human beings quickly and efficiently,” not exactly, buddy of mine has a very slick bushmaster AR set up for long-range target shooting, I know people who have ARs set up for hunting. But when it comes to personal defense, they call it “Justifyable Homicide” for a reason.
There are times when “killing human beings quickly and efficiently” (I would say “Stopping” because killing isn’t my intent…tho it very well may be the end result) is exactly the whole point.
There aren’t many police cars in america that DON’T have an AR or similar “Patrol Rifle” in them for this very reason. Stopping a threat is a very good thing. A gun that can’t effectivly stop a threat is as good for defense, as a dull scalpal is for surgery.
And before I’m again attack for being closed-minded, I’ll be here for discussion, as well at my linked blog.
In all seriousness, you would have to kill me to get it.
An illegitimate stripping of one part of the Constitution is the undermining of all of it. If you don’t like the second amendment then the founders provided a mechanism for you to change it, beyond that, you lot can go fuck yourselves.
Tom, I don’t think all that would be necessary. I mean it’s not even like they can justify (or even define) what “Assault weapons” are, or why they should be banned.
But we’re the ones with the “Closed Minds”.
See?
Jeez Weer’d…
We’re not allowed to trust our own eyes about gun mayhem? I that it? Gun crimes are all an illusion, right ? A trick played out by the liberal media. Is that it?
A co-worker nearly died because he was shot in a road rage incident. I’m supposed to just pretend that the crazy nutcase with the gun who shot him is an outlier?
C’mon.
Nope, Gun mayhem is quite real. Mostly perpetrated by people with no legal access or right to guns in the first place.
But you also must trust your eyes to guns saving lives. FBI crime statistics place defensive gun uses high above “gun mayhem” rates, and all evidence points that that number is quite low.
Of course also you have to stop screening personal actions based on tools.
Even if we got rid of all guns magically (which is simply impossible, given that police and military will still have them, they can be smuggled in from other locals, and black market manufacture of them is not as difficult as you feign to know) we would still have violence.
So essentially you’re wishing the world back to that great liberal progressive time that was the Dark Ages! Where the physically strong have all the rights while the weak and oppressed.
I don’t call your kind Pro-Ignorance, Anti-Freedom for nothing!
I WISH that I could own a rifle that shot 200rds in 15 seconds. Those are called Machine Guns. We can’t own any of those made after ’86 that are ALSO registered with the ATF. The ones left are now very very expensive. You have to have a chief LEO sign off on it, get an FBI background check, and pay a $200 tax stamp.
jason330… Ok. Lets go back to those days where we its just muzzleloaders. Your 1st amendment rights are limited to word of mouth in PERSON, written parchment with quills, and the handpress. Also, lets remove voting rights for women, restore slavery, and make your children your property. Oh yeah, no more kinky sex either. Might as well bring back dueling.
Weerd. Just give up on these guys. If things progress, and it comes to civil war, we’ll see then who’s side wins. After all, if their side is filled with guys like this? What are we so afraid of?
I just like popping their little fantasy bubbles with reality.
Plus I’m just wondering if maybe one of them might come up with a logical argument against our position.
Until then I like to see how dishonest they can be to support something they should know is wrong.
Roadkill –
No. None of that stuff. Just the muskets. I think we can all agree that your rights will be protected and we’ll all be getter off under my program.
“Matchlocks don’t kill people; people with factory made guns kill people,”
The logic is unassailable and that pisses you off.
If things progress, and it comes to civil war, we’ll see then who’s side wins..
Now see, it’s comments like this that make me question your… um… mental state.
…and patriotism. These guys talk a big game, but their love of country is so flimsy that they can’t take having a President from another party.
Sad.
If things progress, and it comes to civil war, we’ll see then who’s side wins.
Probably the same result as last time.
In all seriousness, you would have to kill me to get it.
Apparently their guns are more important to these folks than anythings else, including family, friends, and community.
Family values on full display.
While I support an assault weapon ban, I am open-minded to arguments to the contrary. WB, to what extent would support (or perhaps how stridently would you oppose) any of the following:
I mention each because each one helps against a particular kind of violence:
1. Helps protect against garden-variety whackjobs and unhinged teenagers. People who’ve never been professional criminals, but are thinking about going on a shooting spree because they have mental issues.
2. Helps combat muggers and other small-time thugs by making them easier to catch.
3. As I said, helps prevent accidents.
None of the above stops organized crime or major gangs, but those problems are much bigger than guns and require more complex solutions.
Slippery slope bullshit to commence after breakfast.
“Weerd. Just give up on these guys. If things progress, and it comes to civil war, we’ll see then who’s side wins. After all, if their side is filled with guys like this? What are we so afraid of?” – Roadkill
Them’s fighting words …or a terrorist threat. What it does is prove my point that Glen Beck is grooming the wingnuts for civil war where americans kill americans so his rating can go up and he and Billo can buy more Thai boys to fuck
mornin’ everybody 🙂
Agreed, X. However, I’m at the point where I no longer call children injured or killed by their parents’ firearms an accident. If a child can get to your gun, I don’t care what precautions you took, it was not properly secured.
When my children started going to friends’ houses I spoke to them about guns. I told them that if their friends ever pulled out a gun they were to leave the house immediately. They were not to try reasoning with the other child. They were to get out. No gray area. No hero attempts. Just leave and hope for the best.
And, yes, I realize how cold that sounds, but it’s not my child’s job to protect your child from your gun.
First up, Pandora, that’s a great rule and a good one. It also happens to be part of the safety program endorsed by the NRA.
Wow, Actual discussion of relevant issues! Thanks xstryker ! Appears that intellectual discussion is like chicken teeth ’round here!
#1. The ” gun show loophole” is a myth. All people selling guns as a business ANYWHERE in the united states must conduct a federal background check and submit the required ATF forms, as well as be a federally licensed dealer of firearms. Just for real-life examples, I have bought guns from an FFL in a gun shop, at a gun show, and in a parking lot. All of those I had to fill out ATF paperwork and undergo a background check.
In most places people may lawfully sell their property privately so long as they are not doing as a buisness, and so long as no laws are broken in the transfer of property. When it comes to guns violation of EITHER of these laws is a felony, and has been since 1968.
Any new laws proposed do nothing to change the criminal sale of firearms, but inconveniences those who are following the law.
#2. Traceable ammo is a neat idea, and a neat technology, but it is currently only being offered by one cooperation (who happens to be the driving lobby force for these laws) and all of their technology has been produced in small batches by hand. They have shown no means that ammunition serialization can be transferred to mass production of commercial ammunition.
Many shooters, such as myself manufacture our own ammunition (mostly as a cost-saving method, but also the product can be much higher quality for bargain prices) such laws would ban the handloading hobby…but also create a black market for non-serialized ammunition. Also this would make public shooting spots a legal liability, as the brass buckets would be filled with sterilized ammo registered to a lawful person. All one would need to do is carry a handful of mixed brass to scatter at a crime scene while fleeing to render the technology useless.
I’ll also invite you here or elsewhere to show me where other such registries have actually solved crimes, including gun registries, or ballistic fingerprinting.
#3. Trigger locks can be a VERY good idea in many instances, and not only do I own huge amounts of them as well as other security devices. Most gun makers sell their gun with some means of locking these days.
Still trigger lock laws are arbitrary by forcing specific storage means, and forcing child-proofing on those with no children. Also such laws are redundant, as leaving a gun in such an state where children can gain easy and unsafe access is criminal negligence and child endangerment in every state, the same with leaving dangerous chemicals and sharp objects where young kids can access them. Why would we need further laws that effectively do nothing different than the current ones?
I’ll close with a question to you. Why do you support an ban on “Assault Weapons”?
pandora: I’ve killed less people than Ted Kennedy for one. Make sure you ask 330’s mental health too. This is a terribly emotional subject. There is no lack of the anti-side that believes that killing in self-defense equates murder and that I’m a subhuman warmongering mongoloid that deserves to be locked away for my own good and that of society. And on the other side of the fence, we think the antis are just as crazy as they think we are. For one thing. If it did come down to civil war, I don’t think your average anti would fight. They’d leave it for some uncivilized knuckledragging marine or policeman to enforce their wims. I’m sorry, but I have natural rights that I will defend.
xstryker: Ah. Some interesting points.
1. The gunshop loophole is actually a bit misleading. Venders inside gunshows actually must use the NICS background check system to sell their wares. If its a business for you, you must be licensed and doing things on the up and up. Or its federal jail time. However, sales between private citizens are at the heart of the issue. Gunshows are places where folks meet and sometimes they buy and trade from other private citizens rather than the FFL holders. That is where the loophole sits. Selling firearms between two law abiding citizens is legal in most places(naturally selling to felons will get you jail time!). It does not require a background check. This can happen in my house or at a gunshow. There is no private NICS system. If there was, I would use it. Absolutely.
2. See, the problem with this is that its ultimately futile. Lead can be easily transformed into bullets. And if you collect your shell casings or use a revolver, this fails. Muggings rarely end in shootings. The criminals will steal this stuff. It might help find some idiot that is using ammo HE personally bought for this. However, this would really just increase the cost of ammunition to the citizen and to law enforcement. Its just too easy to circumvent.
3. I have no issues with trigger locks or smart technologies. Personally, I think that anyone with children that doesn’t keep their weaponry inside a safe or rendered safe is foolish. I do have issues with making it mandatory to have them on until you need it. I’d like to see more smart tech come out for keep weapons usable only in the hands they need to be. That is a worthwhile technology, but only after its proven failsafe.
Several points.
The so-called assault weapons ban doesn’t address assault weapons – it addresses cosmetic features on a standard type of SEMI-automatic (one pull of the trigger equals one projectile going down range, all other things being equal) for demonization.
Talk of “high rate of fire” is simply silly in that context. Further, the rifles the so-called AWB claims to address are often in sub-optimal or hunting-equivalent calibers. As an example, barring artificial price inflation, SKS and AK series semi-auto rifles fire a 7.62 round similar to that fired by a .30-30 rifle – and barring artificial price inflation, are normally an inexpensive alternative hunting rifle for lower-income or subsistence level hunters.
Similarly, the cop-killer argument is dispelled when the light of honesty is shined on things and we discover that any modern rifle caliber is capable of penetrating soft armor vests without substantial difficulties. Given the reality that most of the rifles proposed for this false-flag AWB are at the distinct low end of the power spectrum…it’s a bit ludicrous to refer to them as high-powered. In many states the .223 cartridge is banned as a hunting round as being inadequate for a “clean kill”, for instance.
Movie/TV magic to the contrary, guns of black hue or with box magazines are not some sort of magic wand, nor are they typically full-auto (that would make them *machine guns* and covered under the Gun Control Act of 1934). Neither do they grow tiny little legs and try and molest the washing machine.
The Gun Show loophole is a myth, as others have addressed. At a gun show you have two distinct categories – persons in the business of selling guns (who in turn have the same legal requirements, already, when at the show as they do in their home shop) and private individual come to sell one or two (or Grandpa’s collection that duplicates much of someones own) firearms, either to a dealer or to another private individual – who they might as well encounter initially online or at walking down a street, and engage in lawful transactions there.
What, at base, the myth of the gunshow loophole was designed to cripple was not gun shows as places where gun transactions take place – but rather, to cripple the socializing and politic’ing that takes place at those events, to the detriment of those you typically find pushing the “Gun Show Myth”.
The “traceable ammunition” tech currently out there is one of the better scams I’ve of which I’ve heard. As others have pointed out, we have a *single vendor* with an exclusive patent on their “way cool” unproven technology demonstrated only in cherry-picked test, trying to foist their questionable product on the public using a legislative mandate marketing plan. “Buy our product or go out of business or go to jail – never mind if it works or not!”
Serious doubt has been raised about the survivability of any such marking system under the heat and pressure of a normal cartridge firing, and yet more doubt has been raised about whether such a system *can* be implemented at the major manufacture level.
I can’t support the legislative imposition of huge expense for the benefit of talented con artists to implement an unproven and likely ineffective scheme resulting in no particular benefit.
Moving right along to trigger locks, depending on the situation most of them are either ineffective (with sufficient manipulation, you can still achieve a firing condition), insecure (you can break them off fairly easily with common tools and motivation), or downright dangerous (i.e., taking critical moments to undo when you find yourself in sudden need).
Given our collective experience with consumer electronics, I have difficulty understanding why anyone would consent to being stuck with a gun that has “smart technology” – a bright shiny new failure point(s). Whether we consider battery life (and honestly, many guns DO sit for years), the effect of age/moisture/recoil on delicate electronics (i.e., none of those are GOOD), or the effects of sweat or injury (if you’re in a situation where a gun may be an appropriate solution, it’s quite possible your hands will be sweaty/cut up/scraped/not pristine) on recognition tech…
Like a fire extinguisher, one hopes never to need a self-defense firearm for its’ intended purpose (and the same is true of hunting gear – you seriously believe hunters don’t ding themselves up or get mud on them?), but when you do, it needs to *just work*. The smart tech on the market today has a huge “way cool” factor in the laboratory…but is actively dangerous to implement outside the laboratory.
I don’t live with kids. Should that change, I will avail myself of a couple of gun safes (not a trigger lock, thank you) as more effective, safer, solutions.
The three proposals by Xstryker are all well-intended, but their impracticality or mythic basis are in direct proportion to the good intentions – likely because Xstryker (and many others who’ve been sucked into those approaches) simply haven’t had the opportunity or interest to examine the real world consequences of said proposals.
GC
Hey Roadkill – I’ve killed less people than Laura Bush for one.
So the gun whackos like Roadkill are out explaining why if they make traceable bullets all the criminals will immediately learn how to make their own bullets and then set-up in-house ammunition factories.
Because criminals are just that smart.
And this is from a guy who would kill his fellow Americans rather than give up his guns.
Thanks for honestly engaging in discussion.
I think we agree in principle but disagree on practice in most cases.
1. “Gun show loophole”
My personal opinion is that buying a gun from licenced gun dealer makes you responsible for the gun you bought. Just as you are liable for loaning your car out to a driver who gets drunk and kills someone, you should be liable for anyone who you give a gun to. I don’t see people protesting the licence plates on their cars or the fact that when you sell another private citizen your call, you have to officially transfer the title to them. The only *practical* (as opposed to philosophical) reason guns aren’t as carefully regulated as cars is because of the fear that gun enthusiasts have of being in a situation where they won’t be able to procure a gun quickly enough to defend themselves. And that’s something I can compromise with. We’re essentially arguing over matters of cost and inconvenience from a position of “how much”. So maybe there is some way of making a registration system available to private citizens while still protecting the integrity and liberty of private information. And maybe that would be too costly, or maybe not.
2. Bullet tracing
You guys overestimate criminals. If criminals were smart, they wouldn’t need guns. Back to license plates – tons of crimes (minor and major) are solved (ie criminals apprehended) thanks to licence plates. It’s not difficult to forge a licence plate, but by and large criminals fail to do this. Bullet tracing? Probably not quite as effective, but effective enough? It could be, under the right circumstances. Let some city require it, and see if they make any progress, that’s my suggestion. But why ban it?
OK, then make the law specify sale rather than possession. Let people who want to commit crimes make their own ammo. The material they use and the bullets they make ought to be distinguishable from commercial bullets and from each other, so it still ought to help in tracking them down.
Ammunition is not all that expensive. And if it reduces the chances that someone will need to fire their weapon in self-defense, I think that’s worth it. Of course, it does depend on the actual cost involved. Everything always does.
3. Trigger locks
Once again again, our only difference is procedural. When it comes to matters of law, many laws are passed to clarify existing law. I imagine we could find a wording that we agreed on if we worked together on it.
Finally, WB’s question:
Now we’re going to get a little closer to our philosophical differences. It would be unacceptable for a private citizen to own a nuclear weapon, right? Think about why. Would anyone argue that any private citizen might need to be able to nuke the commies in the case of Civil War or Total Armageddon? OK, now that we’ve eliminated the absolutes, we can haggle over interpretation and necessity. We have created two categories – arms too dangerous for private citizens to own, and arms acceptable for private citizens to own. The reality of our argument is differing perspectives on what is dangerous and what is necessary. I think assault rifles are too dangerous for private citizens to own for the same reasons I think nuclear weapons are too dangerous for private citizens to own. You think I overstate the danger. You think widespread private ownership of assault rifles might be necessary in the event of the Total Collapse Of All Civilization. I think you overstate the necessity.
Finally, let’s address constitutional principles.
Unlike the First Amendment, this does not say “Congress shall make no law…” The wording here is considerably weaker than that of the First. And it starts very clearly with the phrase “Well regulated”. I think gun ownership should be regulated well. The debate over what constitutes “infringement” should be just as vigorous as that over free speech rights and voting rights. Voters have to register. Speech is limited by restrictions on libel and incitement of a riot. So too should there be reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. Another point is “the security of a free State”. Note that it refers to the security of “a free State”, not of an individual. Thus, the intent of the framers is stated directly in the wording – such rights are protected to prevent the collapse of a state, not to protect individuals after such a collapse. The consitution was designed to establish, defend, and maintain a Democratic government of the people, not to defend future dwellers of a post-apocalyptic scenario under which there will be no Constitution anyway.
Finally, a gem:
This deserves it’s own Comment Rescue post! Stay tuned!
Anonone –
http://www.dillonprecision.com/
Learn how to? There are hundreds of thousands of folks out there already loading their own for improved precision (a projectile/cartridge/powder/primer combination can be tuned much more finely when you’re trying to make it work in “just one unique firearm” than when you’re trying for “must be safe and reasonably accurate in all guns with a given barrel/chamber dimension), economy (once used brass and hand poured bullets are dramatically cheaper, as one example), or innovation (brewing up new wildcat calibers for fun, profit, or simply because they can). It requires some care, but it ain’t rocket science.
As a gay man, I carry for self-defense. Random assaults by bigoted bashers younger/faster/spryer than I just strike me as depressing as all get-out. However, ammunition cost is a significant issue – would you rather have me (or your local LE agency, who ALSO must practice) able to afford range time to maintain proficiency, or should that be limited only to the economic elite?
Finally, the ammo micro-stamping notion remains a sad hoax intended to draw in the concerned using smoke and mirrors, so that a significant profit might be gained. The ability of micro-stamping to survive the heat and pressure of normal firearms discharge is in significant doubt (more simply, “it doesn’t work”), large-scale production utilizing this technology is doubtfully practical (what works as a process making a hundred widgets doesn’t necessarily work when making a hundred thousand widgets), and ammunition already costs $25.00/box (or more) for any non-trivial round (yes, .22 is DANDY for target shooting…but for defense or hunting, it’s rather…questionable).
In conclusion, in the current economic times, we are seeing more and more folks counting on the fall hunting season to supplement meat in the freezer over the winter…it seems unkind, at best, to price them out of that option.
Which by nature makes it even more traceable than that sold in stores.
And how long will that box last you?
anonone: Who needs a factory? You don’t even need a machine shop. Are you smart enough to do some googling? Hell, you might be smart enough to reload your own ammo. It doesn’t take much.
I’d rather not kill anyone. However, I’m perfectly willing to stop, by any means possible, any American Citizen(or anyone else for that matter) that breaks into my home and thus threatens my family and my property. Such criminal acts are certainly a violation of my rights, aren’t they? What makes you think that I wouldn’t be willing to consider anyone else violating my right a criminal? I am not willing to surrender my rights just because you want a false sense of security.
Once again, I make the point that its not like you would come and try and take it. You would leave it up to police, and military to do it.
xstryker
1. I disagree. One of the biggest fears is confiscation. This is a practical fear. Much of the way our constitution was written was due to the fear of a powerful central government taking over.
2. Do not underestimate criminals. Most of the criminals we catch are stupid criminals. Its the smart ones that we don’t catch. Ok, simple enough. Stealing bullets then? Buying them from out of country? They do plenty of these things in the drug trade every second. As for expense. Think about how much IDing would need to be done with a single round of ammunition. You’re talking about at least stamping on the case and the bullet, in multiple locations. How much is this machinery going to cost? Will it work with lead? Copper? Steel? Polymer? Lacquer? Tungsten? Brass? How well will it stand up over time? How unique is this going to be? Does it change the number for each bullet? Cost of development? You’re going to require the manufacturers to make this technology, right? Then the cost of machinery? Then records keeping, linking each box of ammo to each serial number? It IS going to cost. This is going to cost the Law Enforcement, unless they get away with not having to comply. Or the military? 5 cents a round? is that ok? Think about how many rounds LE needs to expend to train properly? If the ammo costs 10% more to make? Does that mean LE uses 10% less? you have to pay 10% more on your taxes? I could continue.
3. Very few accidental deaths from firearms happen. Trigger locks can be picked. Safes can be cracks. Blah blah. Once again, I could go on.
4. What exactly puts the ‘assault’ into assault rifles? Is it the pistol grip, detachable magazines, the black finish, or fact it fires one shot per pull of the trigger? I’d really love to hear your response on this one.
5. Constitutional Issue: No where in the constitution where it says “THE PEOPLE” does it mean anything other than all of us. Though with 330’s magical wonderland, it would mean just white male landowners.
5. Well, that was said in sarcasm. What does an anti think of someone that makes their living by fighting and/or carrying arms?
Roadkill.. i’m not asking this to intimidate you cause i dont want you to shoot me, but where do you live? part of the country will do
I ask this because i had a very intelligent conversation on this site (along with other bloggers ) with a pro-gun guy from Ohio. Owning whatever fire arm you want and having easy access to all sorts of weapons may be ok where you live. But living near a city where 6 cops in 2 years have been murdered make me really question the idea that if everyone has guns, everyone will be safe.
The human trash that got those gun probably bought them illegally, BUT I’m sure the gun originated from a legal sale under really flimsy gun control laws.
and that cuts to the heart of the argument. gun CONTROL not gun bans. If you want a gun, you should be able to wait a few days while it is established that you aren’t a criminal, no matter where you buy it. If a crime is committed you bought, it is your fault. you brought the gun into society, it was your responsibility.
assault weapons- what possible reason is there for someone to own an ak47. or full automatics, etc. rifles that are used for hunting is fine, and yes i know you can hunt with a sniper rifle, but a sniper rifle was invented for one reason,.. to kill humans.
Again. I, and I’m sure many many many many other gun control people are the way we are because the place we live is filled with gun violence and our lives would feel safer if guns were simple harder to get. If you live somewhere where everyone can own guns and feel safe, great. But there is a large country and other people out there.
more than you and your family.
Even Dodge City had gun control laws.
I love how you can read about people cooking crystal methamphetamine, or free-basing Cocaine into Crack, or making pipe bombs….but suddenly running an ammo press becomes rocket surgery!
If there’s good money to be made from it a black market will arise. Hell just look at all the elaborate means people smuggle drugs into the country!
“assault weapons- what possible reason is there for someone to own an ak47. or full automatics, etc. rifles that are used for hunting is fine, and yes i know you can hunt with a sniper rifle, but a sniper rifle was invented for one reason,.. to kill humans.”
Wow that’s damn near the most factually incorrect paragraph in the history of writing, Price!
First up Full automatics have been the most heavily regulated guns since the 30s, and were essentially banned from Sicilian purchases since 1986 with the exception of the guns already in private hands. Those guns became extremely expensive collectors items overnight, there have only been two murders (one committed by a police officer) using full-auto guns in the 20+ years since the ban, and only a minuscule number of crimes have been commited with them in the 70+ years since the NFA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
Of course the Anti-gun groups love to confuse the terms “Assault Weapon” with Machine Gun, and Assault Rifle, which none of these laws regulate in any sense. I will assume your error was a natural mistake, just remember that people on your side of the gun issue are prone to using misinformation like that to forward an agenda.
As for civilian legal rifles that are lumped into the “Assault Weapon” pile they are routinely used for hunting, target shooting, and can make excellent personal protection arms (and no I’m not talking about extreme overkill here)
Also most of the sniper rifles used by the military actually have been hunting guns modified for military use. Guns like the Remington 700, or Winchester M70 are prime examples of Deer guns that were adopted by the US Military for sniping.
The much maligned Barrett M82 .50 Caliber rifle was designed as a long distance target rifle for competition. When the military saw the distances it could accurately hit, and noted that Ron Barrett had built the rifle around a military cartridge the US already had large stockpiles of, they adopted it as a counter-sniper and anti-material rifle.
Also I like the name calling that’s going on as well. It certainly only makes our side look much better. Please continue that!
Weer’d aside from not actually answering my question…. you also spewed pro gun talking points again without addressing my point. you probably dont live in an urban area either. My safety and the safety of police officers is more important than your penis compensating gun collection
shove it
Is Boston Mass not an Urban Area.
Ahhh the Dick jokes. Throw in that “Talking points” Canard and we have some weapons-grade irony.
No talking points BTW, I was just correcting your factual errors. Maybe they were intentional?
As far as the safety of family members and police officers, I’m happy that when my wife is riding home on Mass Public transportation though several of the train stops that have a heavy gang presence she has a gun on her.
BTW the gun doesn’t seem to do anything about my Wife’s lack of penis. It certainly helps tho if somebody with superior body strength (which when it comes to my pencil-pushing wife, is just about everybody) a gun becomes a very good tool to have in one’s tool box.
Of course since you’re now calling me names and using wonderfully friendly wordings like “Shove it” when I’ve been nothing but respectful shows me exactly how much you care about others.
Very “progressive” of you!
thank you. i pride myself on my ability to shift drastically between intelligent and immature based on who I’m talking to. For example, you will never be convinced that our gun laws are way too lax and lead to hundreds of deaths that could otherwise be avoided, so I have no reason to even try. You ignore everything point and example proving how sideways your views on gun violence is.
so with that in mind, i give you all the maturity you have proven worthy of
PPOOOOOOOOOOOPPPYYYYY!
“For example, you will never be convinced that our gun laws are way too lax and lead to hundreds of deaths that could otherwise be avoided, so I have no reason to even try.”
Well seeing as I was an anti-gun liberal not terribly long ago, and I changed my mind simply because I did some research into the subject and found that one side offered overall sound arguments, while the other side offered misinformation and dick jokes, and seemed to be only concerned with violent crime involving guns, while the other side looked at the big-picture that I felt was more realistic and true to the real-world.
So in short, I’ve changed my mind on this issue before, there’s no reason to say I won’t do it again.
So make a convincing argument. I’m all ears.
I need to be convinced why tracing bullet sales and making it more difficult to buy guns is a bad thing. First of all, the Coulteresque language you use about liberals makes me not believe that you ever were one.
second, one CAN blame the media for reporting on all our school shootings, and rampages through malls and churches and metro areas… OR you can blame the fact that it is just way to easy to get a hold of things that only exist to end lives.
I don’t want you to surrender your guns. If the terrorists ever decide to fight us here, people like you will be the reason they fail.
I want the gang member fucks that live around the corner from me to stop finding loop holes and buying guns legally.
I want people like the kid from V-tech and the little cowards from Columbine to be recognized for what they are and not be sold a gun.
“I need to be convinced why tracing bullet sales and making it more difficult to buy guns is a bad thing.”
I’ll get to the 2nd point later. But simply put, Ammo serialization is easily circumvented, is patented to one company meaning the law would force a monopoly into the market (I think we can agree this is a bad thing, or will you convince me that things like Haliburton no-bid contracts are a good thing?), and the technology does not exist in a form compatible with mass-production techniques.
So to implement sterilization it very well could bankrupt the gun industry, and make ammunition unfordable, meanwhile black market channels could easily keep gang people in enugh ammo to cause the troubles they cause today.
Your second point can easily be addressed by your fallacies in your closing statement:
“I want the gang member fucks that live around the corner from me to stop finding loop holes and buying guns legally.” They aren’t buying them legally. Felons, subjects of protection orders, people with drug convictions, and people with mental illness, as well as those below the age of 18 (21 for handguns) cannot legally buy, sell or posses firearms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act
As far as Cho from VT legally buying there were a few flaws with the system that let a mentally ill person like him buy his guns. Because of this flaw the NRA and Brady Campaign passed the NICS Improvement act. I also supported this bill. I think overall it’s a good law.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=NICS_Improvement_Act_of_2007
As for Columbine the teens involved in the shootings were prohibited persons due to them being under age, and convicted felons. They had a friend buy guns for them. Her name is Robyn Anderson, and she never faced charges for the multiple felonies she committed in that act. I’m appalled by that, I would like to see her sent to prison for her acts. It won’t happen tho.
If guns are so “easy” to get legally, why do you use examples that are untrue?
We certainly need to get more police, and enforce stricter sentencing for ALL violent crime, and weapons possession charges.
You can debate the “Guns don’t kill people, People Kill People” cliche, but with violent criminals locked up, I don’t think we’ll see very much violence of any sort.
My comment can be seen here if the mods here somehow feel that facts are too dangerous to post:
http://weerdbeard.livejournal.com/489941.html
ok, so first of all, wikipedia is not a good source. you can make it reflect whatever “facts you want”
second i know felons cant get guns. people buy the guns and they make their way to felons.
Im done with you. I should have left it at pooopy. by the way who uses live journals anymore. 2001 called, they want their “come read about my life” site back.
Calm down, Weer’d. If you post that many links you get thrown into moderation. A little less drama, please.
I rescued your comment.
Sometimes I think these nuts are purposefully ignorant of standard commenting protocols on WordPress and elsewhere (even after we have explained them time and again) just so they can play the victim and cry censorship.
Conservatives just love playing the victim.
Thanks Pandora, I was just suprised that my comments suddenly weren’t going through. Didn’t know how your system works here.
Price, I’m sorry you don’t want to discuss the issue, or exchange ideas. I think we can all see which party is willing to discuss and which party isn’t.
I did submit a wikipedia entry, as it’s a lot less dry and easier to understand than the full text of the bill.
http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htm
But I think we all know you’re giving a cop out.
Again I leave my blog and here open for discussion of the issue, and presentation of rational arguments.
O.K fine. i shouldn’t cop out because you used a tabloid of a website to make a point.
Post the act all you want. It doesn’t address the point that guns are too easy to get. It doesn’t answer for the inner city gang violence, or the kids in the mid west who get a hold of their parent’s guns and kill their classmates.
if every one had guns, everyone would be shooting each other. You can argue against that, but if you look at every other industrialized country with tougher gun control laws, we look like freakin’ mexico.
You do know that Mexico has stricter gun laws than the United states, Right?
You’re proving my points quite well.
mexico was a bad example. they do have tougher laws, but a broken government incapable of enforcing those laws. i should have used Congo or something.
It is statistical fact that we have the highest rate o gun violence among first world counties, and the most lax gun laws among them.
Fun factoid – personal ownership of firearms for anyone other than the official military and police in The Republic of Congo is strictly illegal.
But obviously, they need stricter gun laws over there as well.
Care to cite some statistics (of course use “non-tabloid” websites) on that?
You are correct about US having “lax” gun laws compared to other nations. You are incorrect about our violent crime rate….unless you redefine “first world countries”.
IIRC the UK passed our gun crime rate as of 2006. Are they not 1st world? They certainly have themselves a shitload of gun control.
Also, I’m curious, why are you so pre-ocupied with gun crimes? I mean is a knife murder any better for society than a gun murder?
ok im striking out. CLEARLY we seem like a nation with a government that cant enforce it’s own laws based on the barbaric way we shoot each other and don’t do what is needed to stop it.
it is easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife.
Im interested in YOUR solution to our trademark shooting sprees. if gun control isn’t the answer to school shootings, what is?
But people do get murdered with knives….and you don’t want to talk about those numbers.
You’ll ignore a story like this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/4631857/Scotlands-murder-rate-is-fastest-rising-in-Western-Europe-UN-finds.html
Simply because they use knives, which you don’t feel like banning, rather than guns that you do.
See where I’m going with this?
Xstryker one, to address your question, a box of 50 lasts (excluding the tiresome thumbing of one round at a time into a magazine), I’d estimate about 1/2 hour to 45 minutes on the range.
To stay at the level of proficiency I prefer, I like to send 150 rounds down range or so in a session in order to drive in “muscle memory” and good habits (flinching, for instance, is at best bad form and at worst can get someone hurt).
In short, at todays prices (and by my own standards of proficiency) a good range session costs between $125 and $150 per firearm you want to grow/maintain proficiency with. That’s already expensive enough, thank you.
Practice, and you can improve what you can reliably hit whenyou shoot at it. Don’t practice, and your skill level falls off – as with any athletic activity. You will retain a core set of skills in most instances, but not “your best”.
My own personal view, which I don’t think should be forced on anyone else, is that if I am going to take the responsibility of carry…that I should practice as much as is practical in my current life circumstance. Then again, I *enjoy* the eye-hand coordination and the satisfaction of shooting paper bullseyes – not everyone does.
To address your second comment…
As regards the identifiability of handloads, note that not everyone loads for *precision*. That is, in fact, a small sub-set of the hand-loading community. Many hand-load from standard recipes (which and how much powder, bullet weight/design, primer-type, etc) either as a hobby or simply to produce less expensive “practice-grade” ammunition.
However, to follow your argument through…let us say I acquire a badge and stumble into a crime scene with lots of formerly hand-loaded ammunition scattered about – what can I identify/prove?
1) Recovered Projectiles – unless both unusual and hand-poured, nothing especially unique beyond the usual land and groove markings distorted by impact that may or may not be unique either to a firearm (i.e., someone has done something major and unique, yet not entirely destructive to the inner surfaces of the barrel) or class of firearms (i.e., “this projectile came from one of the hundreds of thousands of Taurus 9mm’s out there).
2) Powder. Hardly anyone makes their own (doable, but messy and dangerous, when it’s not mind-numbingly boring) but the commercial powders out there are made in vast batches – chemically identical within a particular recipe. (“GREAT! You’ve established it’s a small grain pistol powder from company X! They shipped 30 tons in 1lb tins last year! This helps us how?”)
3) Brass. Most re-loaded ammunition uses recycled brass (not only environmentally good, but CHEAP)…with…guess what….markings from previous firings, often through different guns.
4) Primer. If you are *lucky*, you will find unique primer markings – but then again, you’d have just as much chance of finding that on a commercially manufactured round.
The *functional* problem with micro-stamping is that it expects a small delicate impression in metal to survive in a high-temperature environment where pressures range from 30,000 PSI to nearly 70,000 PSI – more than enough for metals to get a bit malleable, and fine engravings to stampings or engravings become distorted beyond legibility or perhaps even existence.
To this, add that beyond the micro-batches produced by the technologies vendor, this is an untested technology – and one that looks to impose huge manufacturing costs (see above) that will, of course, be passed along – meaning that police, military, and private individuals will all be less able to afford range time. I think we can agree, at least, that having cops that can hit the broad side of a barn is a good thing?
Given that we’ve now looked at “doesn’t work”, and “hugely expensive” with microstamping, let us proceed to motivation.
I will, for the moment, pretend that elected proponents are motivated by pure thoughts and noble intentions (and not current and/or potential campaign contributions) and have no intention of a back-door ban via economic warfare…and point out that there is but a single company offering this technology, a company that is the prime lobbyist for this technology, that would benefit HUGELY from the co-erced broad adoption of their unique and patented technology (no matter how useless it is, the licensing revenue would be GREAT while it lasted).
knives serve other purposes. I could kill someone with a hammer, of course we shouldn’t ban hammers. unless you need to hunt to feed your family or collect antiques, the only reason to have a gun is to kill people, or protect yourself from other people with guns
Im interested in YOUR solution to our trademark shooting sprees. if gun control isn’t the answer to school shootings, what is?
Well, we could try better parenting, addressing the fact that much of our school system is in total disarray, or perhaps even educating our children about firearms instead of letting them learn about guns from television and video games.
But all of those things require work, and investment from largely disinterested parents and massively overworked teachers, so we should probably just slap an ineffective band-aid on it like gun control instead, that way we can feel good about ourselves and not actually have to stop watching American Idol or take time to invest ourselves in our children’s lives.
i guess i have a different take on people. my experience has shown me that if you let people have things like guns, they will use them on each other. and it is much harder to survive a shooting than a stabbing. People in general aren’t responsible enough to handle something that can end a life with little effort or thought.
“the only reason to have a gun is to kill people, or protect yourself from other people with guns”
So I can’t defend my life with an effective tool if somebody (or a group of somebodies) attack me with knives?
Guns are for personal protection. Here’s a neat website for you. Before you attempt to discredit it, you’ll note that all stories have links to the newspapers that published them:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
People in general aren’t responsible enough to handle something that can end a life with little effort or thought.
What, like a car?
In all seriousness, your sample size isn’t big enough then – I know literally hundreds of gun owners who have never used a firearm for anything other than target shooting. Most of these people carry firearms legally as private citizens, and you don’t see them getting into gunfights.
I mean, if you have self-control issues, then you’re right, you shouldn’t own a gun. But projecting your own issues of self-control on to 80 million other Americans is kind of lame, dude.
http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/vumcpub/index.html?pubID=7&articleID=192
“Patients treated at VUMC for gunshot wounds have an average survival rate of about 80 percent. About 60 percent of these patients of all ages, the lucky ones, are treated and discharged directly to home. Two percent of VUMC’s gunshot victims are discharged directly to jail.”
You’re wrong again. This is REALLY Easy! Can you make it a little more difficult, Price?
I didn’t say i lacked self control. I don’t own a gun because i am… as you may have deduced, opposed to guns. The people you reference aren’t what I am talking about. I am speaking of 2 things.
1) the gun violence rate in our cities
and
2) those who don’t live in the city who “snap” and go on a shooting rampage.
for those reasons i want it to be harder to get guns. Funny how conservatives dont mind the government taping their phones to find terrorists if they “have nothing to hide” but try and make it harder for Americans to get gun as to protect lives and they freak out.
I’m one of those Americans who is opposed to Both. You know, the bill of rights and all.
#1) Most inner cities have the highest gun control in the nation. What exactly do you think they’re doing wrong?
#2) Those who “Snap” are a rarity and don’t constitute a huge portion of the murder victims in this country, and are generally greatly media sensationalized. Still I won’t cop out on you, I’ll simply point out that spree killers always seem to stop shooting people and kill themselves when they encounter armed resistance. Be this police, or be it a private citizen with a personal firearm. Also Spree killers tend to choose areas where guns are prohibited.
Again, the vast majority of the people with guns you have an expressed problem with are not legally possessing guns. So what do you propose we do?
I don’t own a gun because i am… as you may have deduced, opposed to guns.
How do you feel about the police having guns?
I am a law abiding citizen. I have no reason to fear the police. Man Weer’d you are getting all of your buddies into this one aren’t ya? great fun!
You gonna answer my questions, or just dodge?
How would you feel about a cop shooting someone who had a gun pointed at you?
A. Price.
I regret you’ve been misled by a common fallacy. I lawfully carry to, should my other pre-cautions against gay-bashing and the general run of street crime fail (chief among them “don’t be where the bad things happen” – for health reasons, “run away, run away” doesn’t work for me…”run, fall over, gasp” is just not helpful.) deal with felonious assaults upon my person or those of other known innocents in my presence.
Under the law in my state (YMMV), that means that once I’m faced with multiple or large attackers, knives, clubs, exotic weapons (“Why yes, that IS an authentic Aztec-era obsidian axe!”) I am lawfully able to utilize my sidearm to ensure my continued health and well-being.
Just because you and your three best buddies are, in the course of an attempted gay-bashing, attempting to cave my skull in with a 2×4 doesn’t mean I’m limited to hunting up my own 2×4 – once it’s established you intend to do me serious harm, I can lawfully trump a 2×4.
Like fire extinguisher, I rather hope never to need to use a pistol to defend myself. However, having a pistol and the accompanying skillset available strikes me as a worthwhile fallback position, and in the mean time, shooting bullseye targets both enhances my skillset and provides a harmless afternoons enjoyment.
“Just because you and your three best buddies are, in the course of an attempted gay-bashing, ” did you just hint that a screaming liberal would ever attempt to gaybash?
Looks like he’s switched to stalling, rather than discussing the issues.
Are you ready to give up now, Price?
it is easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife.
how exactly would one go about supporting that kind of statement? where would one find decent evidence either for or against it?
GC, you are not what i am concerned with.
Weer’d, what i propose is that the pro gun lobby calms the hell down every time legislation is raised to control the flow of fire arms in our cities.
If you obey the law, and make sure your kids dont kill each other with your weapon, i have no problem you. have fun, be safe.
calm down weer’d im watching Larry the Cable guy, and blogging on another topic that interests me more. jeeze im only one man. i’ll get to you, relax baby you’re still my number one.
Yep, he gave up.
o.k weer’d think what ya want. last thing i want is for you to feel threatened and come looking for me to defend yourself. and when you use 5 different names and personalities to argue with me it gets annoying.
Waffle all you want, Dude.
I asked for a convincing argument, you came up with nothing.
There’s a reason for that. I’m off to Bed.
BTW you come up with an argument my blog is posted.
sweet dreams
A. Price, it was an allegorical reference.
However, I’ve observed hateful folks operating from fear and emotion at both ends of the political spectrum that I would consider deeply unwise to find in a dark alley.
And you fail to consider the effect of “I’m dating your 25yo son” on even the very most liberal (but untested) parent. Those magic coming out moments CAN go completely sideways.
Specifically, some of the responses I’ve gotten as a gay man who doesn’t hew closely to the popular political group-think left me in significant doubt of some individuals on the lefts anger management skills, violent tendencies, and general self-control.
My observation is that regardless of the perpetrator, at the end of the day I will be just as dead or beat up should they go rogue in my direction. I don’t care to cooperate in producing that set of situations.
I do have a question for you – in those regions in the United States where the gun control is strictest, the rate of violent crime tends to be highest – even when the areas are demographically similar. Why is extending that situation to less-plagued regions a good thing?
Purely as an aside, my comments are also preserved at http://nwfreethinker.blogspot.com
A. price, if you’ll check *my* blog, you’ll find I’m *not* Weer’d. 🙂
To respond to your previous question… (apparently it was eaten by wordpress or moderation?)
A. Price, it was an allegorical reference.
However, I’ve observed hateful folks operating from fear and emotion at both ends of the political spectrum that I would consider deeply unwise to find in a dark alley.
And you fail to consider the effect of “I’m dating your 25yo son” on even the very most liberal (but untested) parent. Those magic coming out moments CAN go completely sideways.
Specifically, some of the responses I’ve gotten as a gay man who doesn’t hew closely to the popular political group-think left me in significant doubt of some individuals on the lefts anger management skills, violent tendencies, and general self-control.
My observation is that regardless of the perpetrator, at the end of the day I will be just as dead or beat up should they go rogue in my direction. I don’t care to cooperate in producing that set of situations.
I do have a question for you – in those regions in the United States where the gun control is strictest, the rate of violent crime tends to be highest – even when the areas are demographically similar. Why is extending that situation to less-plagued regions a good thing?
Purely as an aside, my comments are also preserved at http://nwfreethinker.blogspot.com
a. price: Sir… I am sorry if I have made it seem like I don’t want you exercising your 1st amendment right. Nothing is further from the truth! If I were to strike you or harm you for speaking your mind, I would be a criminal and I would deserve to have my guns taken from me and myself put in prison! I fully support the rights to free speech of everyone that has posted here. Nor am I intimidated so easily. I am in Kentucky.
On the issue of ‘assault rifles’, full automatics are already strictly regulated. Citizens can only own full auto rifles that have been registered with the BATFE before 1986. Next, an FBI background check is done and a local chief law enforcement officer must sign off on you acquiring the machine gun. Lastly, on top of the grossly inflated price is a 200 dollar tax stamp.
The ‘assault weapons ban’ deals with semi-automatic rifles, the sort you get one bullet per pull of the trigger. There is plenty of reason for owning one. There are no finer defensive arms in the world! Your military style rifles like these are easier to use, more ergonomic, lighter, more reliable, and often easier to maintain than many ‘hunting rifles’. Most people from 10-70 can use an AR-15 and use it pretty well. They make fine hunting rifles too. The semi-auto AK-47 clones when fitted with 5rd magazines and using softpoint ammuniton are insanely reliable in bad weather and in bad backcountry conditions. They can and have taken a deer in many states. It may be a military design, but it does very nicely. Guess what, most hunting rifles are descended from military rifles!
In that vein, a ‘sniper rifle’ is really indistinguishable from a long range hunting rifle. They do the exact same thing. Hit living creatures accurately at long range. They do not on average have large magazines either. One is black and looks a bit meaner than the other. That is the main difference.
Road, you know more about guns than i do when it comes to mechanics. I cant deny that, and you like this guy, David i was talking to on this sight, seem like someone i am not worried about owning a gun.
In my area, (philadelphia metro area) gun violence is a huge problem. cops are being killed, when 24 hours go by that someone isn’t gunned down, it is considered a victory.
The answer COULD be for me to move
A) i dont have the means at the moment
B) other than the gun violence i really love Philly, and the are
C) it doesn’t stop the problem
trust me, more guns is NOT the answer.
“C) it doesn’t stop the problem
trust me, more guns is NOT the answer.”
The data doesn’t support that, but I’ll play devil’s advocate.
You admit the people who you have the real problems with don’t legally posses their guns.
You also admit that Mexico is not a good example for your cause as they have VERY strict gun control, but their troubled govenment is unable to enforce the laws they have.
Wouldn’t you think that maybe the US inner cities suffers from the same problems? It’s pretty obvious that these people need to break multiple laws to commit the crimes they commit (also have you read the rap sheets on those Philly Cop Killers? Are you as suprised as I am that dangerous people like that are allowed to walk the streets? Also most of them have been on parole at the time. Obviously parole supervision needs to be revised as well as sentencing for violent crimes) So it seems that the problem is the enforcement of our current laws needs to be ramped up.
I mean if the laws we have aren’t working, why propose new laws? Especially when you look at the broad scope of something like the Gun Control Act of ’68 (text posted in link above), and the generally ineffective scope of something like the ’94 Assault Weapons Ban.
If a really good law isn’t working, what help is a really bad one?