Why do we need another Assault Weapon Ban???

[rangersmith82]

All our President Elect has to do is remove this from his web page....

Current statement....

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

And replace it with this statement..


Replacement statement:

I as the President understand that every free man has the right to own a firearm.
I will never strip the right to own and operate firearms from our great Citizens.
Firearm ownership is the milestone on which this Nation was founded, me nor anyone in my administration will
ever infringe on that right.

If he would do this, we would never hear a peep for the right wing, republican gun owners.

Hell we might get alot of them to cross over, thus making the NRA and their sorts irrelevant

Why can't we as a party support gun owners?????

[DainBramaged]

1. Hmmm, I see this is the most important thing on Thanksgiving night

and we should drop everything and discuss the merits of banning or not banning death by lead.

[rangersmith82]

2. I guess we could talk about the leftover...

Turkey and Sweet Potato Casserole I'm eating right now.

We had a good meal, the wife made way more than we could eat.

The Cheese cake was pretty good too.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

9. Why did you respond if you didn't want to discuss it?

[SteveM]

192. So important you were first in line to respond (nt)

[hlthe2b]

3. Gotta full belly and ready to go out and kill, eh?

Sorry, but geebus. Can't we let this go for one day?

[rangersmith82]

5. Well the Turkey's death was for a good cause

He is gone but not forgoten :)

[hlthe2b]

6. I imagine so...

Fortunately, no assault rifle was used (or you'd have had quite a bit less turkey left to eat)... Palin's pal's method has proved superior on that score...

;)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

12. Why would an assault rifle damage a turkey more than any other rifle?

[rangersmith82]

20. Actualy the 5.56mm would leave a small hole in the turkey

It would be an excellent choice for hunting Turkey.

The AR-15 uses the 5.56 round, a round so small some states will not let you hunt deer with it.

Reason being it wounds the deer and allows the deer to run away and die slowly later.

[hlthe2b]

70. I stand corrected...

[SteveM]

193. Actually, you bring up an important point about proper calibers...

In Texas and other states there is a fall turkey season (in addition to spring gobbler season) wherein one can take a turkey of either sex using a rifle (gobbler season requires a shotgun). This is why some folks use a .243 when hunting deer (since turkey and deer season are roughly concurrent) as you might come across a target of opportunity in the turkey. The .243 is considered "minimal" for taking deer in this region. More appropriate rifle calibers would include the .223, the most common round for the AR-15 semi-auto carbine -- the type which gets the Brady Bunch's underwear into such a twist. The .223 is a moderate power cartridge which would do even less damage than the .243.

BTW, the AR-15 is a semi-auto carbine and not an "assault rifle." That term describes a moderate-powered carbine capable of FULL-AUTO or "select" fire, and has been highly regulated since their first manufacture.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

7. You could have let it go but chose to respond.

[DainBramaged]

11. Why do you even care? Are you the reply police????

:eyes:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. Just curious what you are whining about?

[DainBramaged]

25. "Click"

Buhbye forever.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

27. The sweet smell of victory.

[rangersmith82]

37. LOL

n/t

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

87. The gun grabbers infatuation with the penis continues.

[rangersmith82]

151. lol

The gun grabbers sure like to talk about Penises alot don't they???

[geckosfeet]

4. Ok. So you disagree with the complete statement, or the last sentence?

Cause he is addressing helping law enforcement and deterring illegal gun trade. He is advocating keeping guns from criminals and children.

Personally, I might be agreeable to assault rifle ownership given proper licensing and registration. But restricting law enforcement is fringe.

[rangersmith82]

8. I have to disagree..

I believe the current laws should be enforced.

No need for more laws if we cannot enforce the ones we currently have.

Our President elect should be concentrating on getting us out of Iraq, fixing the economy and Universal health care.

If the economy is good, history shows that gun violence will be low.

I believe many here in the gungeon will agree with me, fix Iraq, the economy and get us some free health care and drop the anti gun stance.

[geckosfeet]

145. I agree in principle. But you don't move forward by standing still.

Current laws can be tuned to better track underground and illegal gun traffic.

Yes, the president has his hands full doesn't he. My sense is that gun violence is not on the top of his to do list.

[rangersmith82]

152. Then again you don't fix something that isn't broke either

Just so you look good in the eyes of Sarah Brady

[geckosfeet]

159. Maybe we different ideas of when to call something broke.

[iverglas]

163. what does this mean?

I believe the current laws should be enforced.

It sure sounds nice. What laws are not enforced?

The CBC documentary to which I jsut referred in a post was about a firearm bought in Georgia in 1997 by Christonia Woods ... a small-time drug dealer in Clayton County, Georgia who felt his job required him to carry some protection.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/firestar/index.html

(Hover over his name for more biographical facts.)

From what I can tell, he had no criminal convictions, but is known now to have been trafficking in cocaine. (He was murdered by two other dealers not long after acquiring the firearm ... presumably, they used firearms.)

What law could have been enforced in such a way as to keep that firearm out of his hands, and thus keep it from being trafficked across the border into Canada, and thus keep it from being used to kill a child?

I'll bet he broke some law against drug dealers acquiring firearms.

So. How do you enforce that one?

[iverglas]

165. oh, and then there's that free health care thing

I hope you get it really soon. (I must disclose my bias: your insurance companies have begun their long-awaited campaign under NAFTA to get their claws into our health care market on this side of the border. You having a universal single public payer system would go a long way to protecting ours.)

In the meantime, do you have any idea what firearms violence costs your economy?

Oldie but goodie:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/12/4/171.pdf

The cost of firearm injuries in the United States in 1990 was an estimated $20.4 billion. This includes $1.4 billion for direct expenditures for health care and related goods, $1.6 billion in lost productivity resulting from injury-related illness and disability, and $17.4 billion in lost productivity from premature death. While these are the best available national estimates, it is likely that they underestimate the economic impact of firearm injuries because they are based on relatively old data and on many assumptions necessitated by data gaps. The need for better data and improved estimates, and their policy relevance, are discussed.

... Edwin Hayashi and colleagues recently estimated the cost of hospitalization, morbidity, and mortality for 134 cardiovascular gunshot-wound patients admitted to San Francisco General Hospital between 1980 and 1990.11 Average hospitalization costs were $15,004 per patient; lost productivity costs due to injury were $33,077 per patient, and due to death, $247,707 per patient. While these patients are among the most severely injured, the $40 million total societal cost and the $2 million cost for hospitalization alone illustrate the huge amount of resources that are required for only a few patients.

And that was in 1990.

I'd be pretty pissed if my healthcare system were bearing that kind of burden and absolutely nothing were being done to reduce it.

[pipoman]

135. There is no restriction on law enforcement

in the Tiahrt Amendment.

"no funds appropriated under this or any other Act with respect to any fiscal year may be used
to disclose part or all of the contents of the Firearms Trace System database maintained by the
National Trace Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or any
information required to be kept by licensees pursuant to section 923(g) of title 18, United States
Code, or required to be reported pursuant to paragraphs (3) and (7) of such section 923(g), to
anyone other than a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency or a prosecutor solely in
connection with and for use in a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution and then only such
information as pertains to the geographic jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency requesting the
disclosure and not for use in any civil action or proceeding other than an action or proceeding
commenced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or a review of such an
action or proceeding, to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of such title, and all such data shall be
immune from legal process and shall not be subject to subpoena or other discovery, shall be
inadmissible in evidence, and shall not be used, relied on, or disclosed in any manner, nor shall
testimony or other evidence be permitted based upon such data, in any civil action pending on or
filed after the effective date of this Act in any State (including the District of Columbia) or Federal
court or in any administrative proceeding other than a proceeding commenced by the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to enforce the provisions of that chapter, or a review of
such an action or proceeding"

The only people this amendment keeps information from are nosy people on fishing expeditions.

[geckosfeet]

146. The highlighted paragraph clearly regulates who can access data.

It also regulates under what circumstances data can be accessed.

In my mind, both these restrictions hamper the traceability of guns.

Personally I think every firearm that enters or is manufactured in the country should be traceable by law enforcement. The fact that someone owns it is almost incidental.

The idea is to adjust the law to be more effective without invading personal privacy.

[pipoman]

148. Who beside

law enforcement actively investigating a crime needs access to this information? This is very similar to the restrictions on NCIC. If a law enforcement official accesses NCIC it must be related to an active investigation or prosecution. Violation of this is criminally punishable. IOW if a leo accesses NCIC to check out her neighbor or to look up her daughter's boy friend, she has violated the law.

It always surprises me how many here at DU are distrustful of law enforcement yet when it comes to firearms are willing not only to give them carte blanche with information which they have no business accessing but also wish law enforcement to have the only access to firearms....amazing.

On edit: Why should your local flat foot have access to records while conducting a fishing expedition into crimes he/she has no jurisdiction to investigate or prosecute, i.e. federal crimes? If he/she has suspicions he/she should forward that information to the appropriate federal agency (BATFE, FBI, etc.).

[geckosfeet]

149. You are focusing on one issue that the current language addresses.

It is an important issue and I don't mean to discount it, but again, as you and others make clear, the current language addresses part of the access issue.

However, imagine, if you will an interactive map of the country or perhaps the world showing the locations of armed robberies and other major felony crimes that involve registered traceable guns. The map has lines showing the path of the guns from manufacturer to the location of the crime.

Do you think that using a visual tool like this, that trafficking patterns might become more apparent?

[iverglas]

155. here's a case in point for you

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/firestar/index.html

The year a gun was delivered to a pawn shop in Georgia, a baby boy was delivered in Jamaica. They met in Toronto. The gun survived.

There's even an interview with Rep. Tiahrt!

If you want US news, you need to watch the CBC. ;)

[geckosfeet]

158. Point taken iverglas. A microcosm of what I imagine. Interactive map

with complete pedigree for every gun that enters or is made in this country, or any other country for that matter.

If we can do it with cars, we can do it with guns.

I can't help but imagine this as an immensely useful tool for law enforcement.

[iverglas]

161. a firearms registry would do the trick

Those computers can crunch up the numbers these days.

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/about-nous/registrar/default_e.asp

In reading about the Canadian Firearms Registry, you have to keep in mind that we are in the throes of a right-wing federal government (re-elected as a minority with just over 1/3 of the popular vote last month ... but possibly about to be brought crashing down by an opposition coalition in the very near future ...) that is ideologically opposed to firearms control, as it is to universal public health care, funding the arts, etc. etc. So the stuff about amnesties, ignore all that, it's the exact equivalent of Bush and his executive orders and it doesn't reflect popular opinion anywhere but in the bible-thumping oil-swigging west.

[pipoman]

169. A tragic story.

How would repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment change anything? With or without the amendment the same route/information could be established.

[iverglas]

173. Eh? What?

I don't think *I* have ever in my life said anything about the Tiahrt thingy.

I was addressing the need for a tracing system for firearms. There happens to be an interview with Tiahrt at that page.

I found him to be utterly smarmy and sneaky and totally lacking in credibility, never actually having heard of him before, myself. Put him in the box for cross-examination and let me at 'im.

But that's neither here nor there.

[pipoman]

181. This subthread that you have injected yourself into

is completely and totally about the Tiahrt Amendment.

There is a tracing system in place, obviously by your story, or it wouldn't have been possible to trace the gun in the story. The tracing system is available to any law enforcement agency conducting an investigation within their own jurisdiction.

I am no fan of Tiahrt, I suspect he had little to do with the writing of this legislation.

[pipoman]

164. This data can and is used in this manner

by law enforcement who has jurisdiction. For instance if more than one crime weapon in different states traces back to the same dealer, this is a BATFE issue and falls under their jurisdiction. It is unnecessary for the state police or local leo to be active in that investigation unless the BATFE decides to set up a task force, in which case the local/state police may then have access.

This is, in part, to keep people like Daily and Bloomburg from using this information to conduct unauthorized, illegal investigations and keep them from releasing private information to the press and their political friends as they have done in the past.

The Fraternal Order of Police, the BATFE, the FBI, and the US DOJ all support the Tiahrt Amendment. I contend that Obama opposes it and wishes to repeal it because of the wishes of Illinois political cronies who want to abuse the access to this information as they have done in the past, prior to the amendment.

[geckosfeet]

171. Abuse it in what way? By keeping tabs on firearms? Explain please.

[pipoman]

180. By attempting to set up

illegal interstate stings, by publicizing information which is supposed to be private outside of the scope of any indictment, by interfering in ongoing federal investigations (which IIRC, is why the BATFE and FBI requested this legislation in the first place), and using this information as a political crutch.

[geckosfeet]

186. Oh. I see. So who would you put in charge of a gun registry? A third

party - a different government agency not associated with law enforcement?

[pipoman]

187. I don't favor nor believe a gun registry is needed

guns can already be traced by BATFE through the network of FFL dealers. I have no problem with the system in place that is if any agency needs to trace a firearm they contact the BATFE. It is unfettered access by anyone who wishes to look which causes problems. A gun registry would be a redundant and extremely expensive venture. Additionally I believe a gun registry would create a Constitutional problem.

To further assist in gun trace ability it would be helpful if private sellers had ability to access NICS. This would allow law enforcement to 1st locate the original buyer. Then possibly subsequent owners more quickly. Of coarse this nor a gun registry is effective for tracking criminals buying, selling and trading guns. They wouldn't use either.

[geckosfeet]

190. BATFE is the logical choice. But I am not aware of a national interactive real time

display of sales and ownership transfers. You can't do it without coordinated (and yes expensive) use of technology. I envision this on an international scale so I guess the expense mushrooms, but then we will probably have other countries to help foot the bill at that point.

Administrating something like this is huge undertaking. Privacy issues are a major consideration but the administering agency (BATFE for sake of discussion) needs a good working association with law enforcement and security bodies. They could charge for subscription services and get some payback on their investment.

A system like this is intended to model illegal trafficking activity. Guns used crimes have (most likely) dropped off the map. But we will have a body of data up to that point where it illegally transferred ownership. While there are many simple cases of gun theft, more meaningful trafficking patterns that can be used to guide law enforcement efforts will become visible.

[pipoman]

191. For what purpose?

Why is this needed? Guns used in crime are like 1/2 of 1 percent of all firearms. Most are illegally obtained through theft or straw purchase both making the colossally expensive system you describe useless. Do you really believe that China, Russia, all of the former Soviet nations, all of the African Nations, etc. are going to participate in this grand illusion? As it is now in the US, if a gun is used in a crime and recovered it can be traced back to the originating dealer/buyer without the expense. There are other countries who have nearly broken the bank trying this.

"we will probably have other countries to help foot the bill"

Really? Any examples of any international venture where the split has been even close to even?

I believe before we indenture ourselves with redundant model makers we should spend some money on enforcement of current laws. Did you know that since the NICS was put into place during the Clinton administration less than 1% of denied transfers have been even investigated? This means that someone walked into a gun shop, filled out a federal transfer form, lied on the form, and signed their name under penalty of perjury that the information was true. Sure, some of these may be minor issues or mistakes, but a fair amount are felons, domestic abusers, and mental patients who are obviously actively attempting to buy a gun. How many leave the gun shop after their decline and go shopping for an illegal weapon? There is no enforcement when the enforcers have names numbers and addresses for these people. Who is going to have time or give a shit about monitoring this massive system?

This doesn't even take into account the (numerous, IMHO) pesky Constitutional issues that would arise.

[WWFZD]

176. Check and mate pipoman.

"This data can and is used in this manner by law enforcement who has jurisdiction."

"...disclose ...to anyone other than a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency or a prosecutor solely in connection with and for use in a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution"

Jurisdiction can cover a mighty large area when interstate.

Don't expect widespread acknowledgment but you nailed it.

[pipoman]

182. The only people who are squeeling

about this amendment are those who wish to misuse the information. It is not compiled for use in witch hunts or fishing expeditions, it is there for use in solving criminal matters and prosecution of illegal firearms transfers. This amendment simply insures that private information remains private and that Federal investigations aren't compromised by a clumsy gum shoe trying to make the newspaper. This legislation insures coordination between federal and state investigations and prosecutors.

[iverglas]

10. why do we need another thread demanding to know why you need another assault weapons ban????

and demanding that the Democratic Party and President-elect alter their policy agendas to suit some johnny-come-lately in the DU Guns forum?

:shrug:


Seriously -- you really didn't think there were enough threads here about this already?

I would really have thought there were, myself.

[DainBramaged]

14. They never give up, and THEY think WE can influence Barack and the Presidenties

[iverglas]

17. Ah, interesting theory

Of course. Kinda like the concern thingies. Interested purely in the fortunes of the Democratic Party, of course.

[DainBramaged]

28. Or like the guys trying to bring Barack's birth certificate before the Supremos

I think there is a tag team effort going on here.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. But of course that is our only interest.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

16. Why did you choose to respond if there are enough threads on this subject?

We know we don't need another AWB, sometimes it's good to go over the reasons anyway.

David

[JonQ]

136. I think it's more to suit the "policy agendas"

of our constitution. I'm pretty sure the majority are against it anyway, but even if they aren't it doesn't matter. There's a reason we have basic rights laid out for us, so that the majority can't strip away the rights of the minority (if indeed the majority opposes the 2nd amendment, which they don't).

I think it's a pretty good system and if we're going to err to one side it should be towards the side of more liberties rather than fewer. Don't you think so?

[revolve]

13. To keep people from purchasing or owning assault weapons

Seems simple to me

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. The last AWB didn't do that all they want to do is renew the old ban.

So it won't stop either.

David

[revolve]

22. So doing nothing because it didnt work is your theory

That makes no sense to me

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. It will increase the value of my assault rifle, that would be nice. It will have no effect on crime

[revolve]

29. So let me get this straight

you are saying that the percentage of gun crime in countries that ban guns is the same as the U.S.

Also why do you own said assault riffle?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

33. You seem to be mistaken.

We are talking about an Assault Weapons Ban not a gun ban. In regards to the assault rifle, I was thinking about shooting competitively in Three Gun matches and was offered an incredibly good deal on one. I have since decided to concentrate on my competitive pistol shooting, I still like to target shoot with my AR-15 though.

David

[revolve]

39. I am not mistaken

I just took it to an extreme. Also why would an assault weapons ban negatively affect you? It seems that there is no need for a civilian to own an assault weapon other than to assault another person.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. A better question might be what would the benefit of restricting freedoms in this manner?

I see no need for banning firearms that are owned by millions of people and used in less than 1% of crimes.

David

[revolve]

47. I dont want to ban firearms used for hunting

but can you tell me the benefit of civilians owning assault riffles and handguns. There are none that I can think of.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

50. Handguns for self defense.

Assault rifles because they are fun to shoot and almost never used in crimes.

[revolve]

61. When looking at countrys that have stricter gun control laws

It seems to me that with those laws you dont need a gun for self defense, its just the gun crazed paranoia of the american culture. As for the assault weapons, I dont see a problem with owning one to shoot for fun, its the keeping it at ones house. Why not store it in a lock box at the range you shoot it at?




P.S. Im not looking to take anyones guns away and dont look down upon the owners of said guns I like to debate an issue and through said debate gain a fuller understanding of the subject. None of this is a personal attack on anyone.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

69. Once you can assure me that no criminal in the country has a firearm...

I'll be willing to discuss it. Until then I'll just keep mine. Although there is that pesky Constitution. There are increasing numbers of home invasion robberies in my area, one which ended in the gang rape of the wife while the husband was forced to watch. Until the criminals get a little less gun crazy, I'm keeping my handguns for self defense. I have enjoyed the discussion and have taken anything you have said personally, many of us have a long history though.

David

[revolve]

85. You can sight the constitution

but it says nothing about an individuals right to own a firearm

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

88. Our new President disagrees with you, as does our Supreme Court.

[JonQ]

140. Really?

I'm assuming you're of the opinion that the 2nd amendment confers a collective right, that is that the government granted itself the right to form and equip its own military (who would it need to protect that right from?).

Could you name one other amendment that confers a collective, rather than individual, right? For example: free speech only means that you are free to form a group of citizens (approved by the government of course) to collectively express your opinions on a subject (so long as what you say is carefully regulated and you must pass a test first; unpopular or frightening speech will of course not be tolerated).

[spin]

162. Obviously you don't know that handguns are used for hunting...

for example...

When you are this close to a big boar hog which can charge you any second
a steady hand and well placed shot is very important



http://www.a-wild-boar-hog-hunting-florida-guide-service.com/handgun-hunting.htm

Some people use handguns to hunt brown bear in Alaska:


http://www.biggamehunt.net/sections/Alaska/Handgun_Hunting_the_Alaskan_Brown_Bear_02050401.html

And some use handguns to hunt in Africa:


The new revolvers performed as well as Dick's original Dan Wesson in the African hunting fields. Irlene Mandrell (L) dropped a trophy springbok with one shot from the new .357 Mag. revolver, and Dick took this warthog with his vintage .445 SuperMag gun.
http://www.shootingtimes.com/handgun_reviews/wesson_041306/index4.html

[iverglas]

168. and I could use DDT to kill my mosquitos

Doesn't mean that a society has to allow me to possess DDT.

Yeesh.

[spin]

172. Question...do you oppose hunting with a bow and arrow...

or a spear and a knife?




7 HUNTERS FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM BAGGED 11 WILD HOGS
WITH A SPEAR & KNIFE DURING A MORNING OF HUNTING ON MARCH 30, 2008

Got to admire those Brits. I've known hunters here in Florida who told me that wild hogs had chased them up a tree. That's one reason a lot of hunters carry a handgun, as the rifle or shotgun usually gets dropped when the hunter starts climbing.

[iverglas]

174. what the fuck is all this buzzing?

Did I say Word One about HUNTING?

NO.

NO.

The question you, or whoever the hell it was, was allegedly addressing was the use of handguns for hunting.

What in the bleeding hell has that got to do with bows and arrows?

I don't even know how to begin to spell things like this out, because they are so obvious to begin with I can't think of how to either adorn or simplify them to help.


I could use DDT to kill my mosquitos
Doesn't mean that a society has to allow me to possess DDT.

Some people use handguns to hunt large animals.
Doesn't mean that a society has to allow them to posess handguns.


If that doesn't do it, you're done too. Here's a fork. Stick it in.

[spin]

178. I was replying to the comment...

I don't want to ban firearms used for hunting.

Therefore, if the poster doesn't want to ban weapons used for hunting, then he obviously would not want to ban handguns.

You popped up with a comment about mosquitoes and DDT. (Sometimes your mind works in strange ways.) I grant your point that society has the right to ban or restrict items. I believe your beloved Canada does restrict handguns. In some states and cities in the United States handguns are also restricted. The recent SCOTUS decision might change this. We have that interesting amendment to our Constitution that the current court has interpreted to favor gun ownership.

Out of simple curiosity, I decided to ask if you are opposed to bow hunting or spear and knife hunting. Maybe I should also ask how you hunt mosquitoes in Canada.

It looks like bow hunting is legal in Canada:



http://www.greyltd.com/Hunt%20News%202007.htm

I can't seem to find any info on spear and knife hunting in Canada.

[iverglas]

179. forgive me, but no, you were not.

You replied to MY post, and I did not say that.

Is the Friday after US Thanksgiving when people traditionally get really bladdered?


Maybe that's another one you all don't know. I dunno.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bladdered

Lordy, if I could get "randomly quoting descartes/proust/or even homer simpson" I'd be in heaven.


So Descartes was on a transatlantic flight, and the flight attendant came along and said:
"Would you like tea or coffee?"
and he said:
"Oh, I think not"
and pouf, he disappeared.


Here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=10520

It's all been done better before.


Crossbows are either restricted or prohibited weapons in Canada. I forget. If that's what that thing is, it's not likely that whatever was being done with it was legal. I guess it's just a fancy bow. A lot fancier than the bows of my youth. Did you know that women are at a physical disadvantage in archery? Hold your arm straight out in front of you with your palm facing up. Rotate your hand so your palm faces downward - without rotating your elbow inward. Can't do it? I can. And that means when I shoot an arrow, the string fwangs my flesh, unless I pay careful attention to rotating my elbow. And wear an arm guard.

Hunting disgusts me in any form. I would think that bladed weapon and bow hunting would be particularly disgusting. I would be very perturbed to see anyone without what would seem to be a necessary high level of skill doing it.

Peanut butter disgusts me too. I haven't yet started a campaign to outlaw it, but I'll give it a think.

[spin]

185. Interesting reply...

On the issue of hunting with bows or spears.

I've never hunted in my life, but I might take it up in the future, assuming the economic situation worsens considerably. I know several hunters, and I believe they would be willing to show me the ropes. Rest assured, I would approach it in a serious manner. The last thing I would want to do is cause an animal unnecessary pain.

I've done a little bow shooting in the past. While it was very challenging, I find handgun target shooting more rewarding. My ex used to embarrass me with her ability at archery until she managed to clip her breast when she released the arrow. She never seemed to enjoy shooting the bow after that. She was also an excellent shot with a revolver, but I was just a little better.

I tend to agree with you that bow or blade hunting might be crueler than using a firearm. Merely my opinion, not based on experience.

We differ as far as peanut butter. I like it. Feel free to start your campaign. Perhaps we can open up a peanut butter forum on DU to argue about the subject

[SteveM]

195. 80% of gun-owners do not hunt. (nt)

[benEzra]

132. "Assault weapons" are the most popular centerfire rifles in the United States.

More people lawfully own them than hunt.

"Assault weapon" doesn't refer to military automatic weapons, which are already tightly controlled by Federal law. The term refers to non-automatic, small-caliber rifles with modern styling, rifles that not only dominate centerfire target shooting in this country, but which are also the most common defensive carbines in U.S. homes.

Given that only 3% of murders involve any type of rifle, outlawing rifles with handgrips that stick out is just asinine, IMO.

[SteveM]

194. Ah, yes the "need" argument, again...

I don't "need" to own an "assault weapon." Or a bolt-action, or a lever-action, or a single-shot, or a pump, or a falling-block. But under the Second Amendment I choose to own some or all of these weapons -- including semi-automatic ones (the so-called "assault weapon").

The problem with the corrupted term "assault weapon" is that it poorly describes the purpose of the gun. An "assault rifle," on the other hand, is capable of FULL-AUTO fire, which is why military forces around the world utilize them: when assaulting another force, FULL-AUTO is seen as necessary fire power. Since the so-called "assault weapon" is capable of only semi-auto fire (I have a semi-auto rifle that is over a century old), it is seen as deficient, nay, obsolete -- like the old Garand M1 rifle, a semi-automatic rifle firing the .30-06 (a FAR MORE POWERFUL round than a semi-auto AR-15 "assault weapon").

You should know that as many as 15,000,000 U.S. civilians now own semi-auto carbines (your so-called "assault weapons") for home defense, long-range target shooting (cheap ammo, low recoil), and increasingly hunting; in fact, gun writers now predict than in a few years re-chambered AR 15s will supplant "traditional" hunting rifles due to superior ergonomics, low recoil, and comparable accuracy. This is easy to predict since the class of weapon you see no "need for" is now the largest-selling rifle (short of .22s) in the U.S.

Think of that 15,000,000 voting bloc, think of that bloc growing rapidly, think of semi-auto carbines as the rifle of choice in the U.S.

Now, try to ban it.

[JonQ]

167. Can you give the legal

definition of assault weapons banned by the AWB, and list the stats supporting such a ban (are they more dangerous, used in more crimes, etc?).

[iverglas]

15. oh, by the way: thanks for flying those true colours

"I as the President understand that every free man has the right to own a firearm."

No comment needed, really.

Now, how 'bout those individuals who are free on parole, hm? Them too?

Not women, I get that. Can't have them dithering around with gunz. But men on parole, surely they have just as much right, and probably more need, to defend themselves with those most effective tools.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

21. Surely you are aware that felons are barred from gun ownership, given your legal "credentials".

[revolve]

23. Surely you know that all parolees are not felons given your "Sarcastic credentials"

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

26. That's why I specified.

[revolve]

32. But in "specifying" you changed the words of what the OP said

He said parolees not felons

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

35. The OP never mentioned parolees or felons.

[revolve]

40. Sorry the OP of this sub thread

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

43. If they aren't barred from owning firearms then by all means they should have that right.

[iverglas]

67. I should clarify

I said "free on parole" for two reasons.

One was to mirror the language (obnoxious as it was) of the post I was replying to.

The other was that I routinely try to avoid referring to people as nouns reflecting a single particular aspect of their identities. I find "felon" about as offensive as "cripple" in that regard.


The point I was making, and the question I have asked repeatedly in this forum to no avail (being met with nothing but Dave's bog standard "but it's the law", ever), was that people with criminal convictions are surely as entitled to exercise self-defence as anyone else, and to have access to equally effective "tools" (they talk like that down here) for that purpose.

Nobody ever wants to even try to get their heads around this stuff, sad to say.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

74. One of the many rights they give away by being a criminal.

[iverglas]

78. You got a list? Is it in your Constitution?

Can you show me?

You looked up "inalienable" yet?

[raimius]

209. prohibited persons

Why, yes, I do believe those who have served their sentences should regain their full rights as US citizens.
However, I believe the current average sentences for violent crimes are FAR too short. If you murder someone, you should spend more than 10-15 years in prison, IMO.

...and yes, I acknowledge those views can be considered extreme. Show me some evidence against those views, and I will reconsider.

[iverglas]

62. oh, Davey Davey Davey

Robert F. Kennedy dreamed of things as they might be, and I have tried over and over and over to explain that just because something IS the law, that doesn't mean it is CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE.

It used to be the law that white folks and black folks couldn't get married, remember?

And how bout that same-sex marriage stuff?

See how that works?

It's the law today. It isn't the law tomorrow. Amazing, isn't it?

"Felons", as you progressive-minded people so progressively call them, are barred from owning firearms where you're at.

They (their counterparts, persons who have been convicted of indictable offences) ain't where I'm at. I guess our set of stone tablets was missing something when we took delivery. And as you know, our "felon" counterparts even vote. Even while they're behind bars.

Any laws out there you'd like to see changed?

Don't bother naming them. Oh, well, really, do. Then I'll get to say

Surely you know that X is Y-ed from Z, given that you're a citizen of the grand old USofA or words to that effect.

Maybe we could start with those DC gun rules. Surely you know what they said. Why on earth would you suggest they oughta have said different?

For about the same reason I'd expect you to say that "felons" shouldn't be automatically barred from possessing firearms, I think.

I gather you call it the second amendment ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

75. Felons give up many of their rights.

[iverglas]

79. C'mon, Davey. Define INALIENABLE.

Open-book exam. Feel free to copy and paste.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

89. I have the inalienable right to have a crush on you.

[raimius]

210. yes

Inalienable, but the government sees fit (based on their individual actions) to restrict their rights...like liberty, pursuit of happyness, freedom to assemble, etc.
Whether they should lose certain rights forever is a topic for debate, but gun-rights are a subset of that much larger debate.

[rangersmith82]

36. Exactly....

Just like the reform bills that will allow felons to vote.

I believe that first time felons should have their rights restored.

Once you have served your time/parole/probation you should have all of your rights restored period.

If you are on Parole you have conditional freedom, once you are freed and prove you can be trusted/taken off parole/probation you should get all of your rights restored.

Now if you commit another violent felony after you serve your time, you should lose your rights for life.

[iverglas]

71. yasss, civil death

Such a charmingly quaint notion.

I'm tired of explaining it, or how it doesn't quite mesh with this modern 21st century of ours, and its ideas like inalienable human rights.

Oh, wait. That idea was kicking around way back a couple of centuries ago, wasn't it?

Anyhow, you just do a little google for "civil death" maybe. There's a wiki article that provides a good introduction to what you're actually talking about when you talk this crap. And then look up "inalienable" in a dictinary.

Then you feel free to get back to me.


html fixed

[Dragonfli]

30. I believe in freedom from restriction, in most forms...

I am willing to change a personal belief on this issue but would need a little help.

I just need to know why a citizen would have need of an assault weapon.
My understanding, admittedly limited as a city dweller that has only heard of their use as weapons used to hunt humans, is that the only use for them over shotguns and hunting rifles is to kill people.

I am not being an ass I really just want to know what people want them for if not murdering other people. I guess I am looking for a point of view I am unfamiliar with out of curiosity.

So please, if you can, let me know why they should be easily available and for what practical use.

[revolve]

34. I have never heard a good reason for them

My father in law is an avid hunter and uses mostly a Bow or a black powder gun and would never think of using an assault riffle to hunt. There is no justification for civilians to own assault riffles other than paranoia in my opinion.

[Dragonfli]

38. I had to ask because all the gang bangers where I live love them.

None of them are known for their hunting trips.
Save for the skin head, but "hunting" for them involves "koons" and "kikes"
at least according to the literature they love to give out.

[revolve]

42. Hey I understand

there was a cop shot behind my house and I believe that the only firearms civilians should have are hunting riffles and hunting shotguns.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

46. Was he shot with an assault rifle?

[revolve]

49. No, handgun, which I think civilians should be barred from keeping at their homes

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

52. That would definitely lose us the house and the senate in 2010.

[spin]

166. Was the officer shot by a honest citizen...

or a criminal?

How about allowing honest citizens to own handguns for self defense, but punishing any criminal caught carrying a firearm with a very long jail sentence.

Over a period of time, criminals would stop carrying firearms because they would fear getting caught. The homicide rate would drop. Honest citizens would no longer want handguns or assault rifles for self defense. The result would be less crime and fewer guns on the street or the homes. True gun control!

Could such a strange idea work?

Federal and state law enforcement officials are crediting "unprecedented" cooperation in prosecuting and monitoring the "baddest of the bad" -- repeat gun criminals -- for this year's sharp reduction in homicides and shootings in Baltimore.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4183/is_/ai_n28112244

[Dragonfli]

55. We have had lots of that around here

The latest think is the shells that pierce body armour (don't know much about what they use).
I don't think the police are an favor of being as out-gunned as they are.
Hard to say because I only know one cop very well, and he hates them.

Just trying to understand why it is so important to some people to have free and unfettered access to that sort of fire-power. I still don't understand it.

I thought maybe it was just a blind spot I had because I live in a city.

Thanks for responding to my post. I don't want to hold opinions based entirely on my experience alone.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

60. Armor piercing bullets have been illegal for years and still are.

[doc03]

128. As are assault weapons, fully automatic

weapons have been outlawed since 1934, unless you have a special permit. Every few days I see where the cops make a drug arrest and they always say they confiscated cash and firearms. I don't know if I ever saw an assault weapon, they are usually a couple old beat up shotguns or pistols. It would make more sense to me to get rid of some of the ridiculous drug laws. They arrest someone for dealing a little marijuana and they just happen to have a couple old hunting rifles and a couple hundred dollars cash in their house and the cops seize it as evidence. That's something that doesn't seem right to me, the cops could break my door down and trash my house and find a 3 handguns, two shotguns, a rifle and a couple hundred dollars cash. They plant a few ounces of drugs and walla they have a dangerous drug dealer within a 1000 feet of a school and don't think that hasn't been done..

[Pavulon]

103. Like these from ww2

also available in 30-60, most common round in the US.

[SteveM]

197. Actually, the average deer rifle is able to pierce body armor. Easily...

and the "sort of fire-power" you describe is in reality medium-powered rounds, usually too-low to do a proper job on the average deer, or reliably pierce body armor.

I have a .22 made in 1905 with semi-auto "fire-power." Nice little antique.

The average LEO has access to semi-auto carbines should they need them, which isn't very often since fewer than 3% of all homicides are committed by rifles of which semi-auto carbines (so-called "assault weapons") are just one of many types within the category of "rifle."

Police have been complaining of being "outgunned" for years. This gave rise (in part) to the .357 magnum (1935) to supplant the older .38 special, to mention one example. Incidentally, the .44 magnum ("Dirty Harry" fame) was developed in 1955 to be a hunting weapon, is is poorly-suited as a "duty" weapon due to its size, recoil and slow target reacquisition. Police now prefer semi-auto pistols in 9mm and increasingly .40.

Funny how Hollywood supplies our images of weapons. I venture to say that more people have been murdered by "assault weapons" in fictional screenplays and teleplays in a given year than in real life.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

45. Most "gang bangers" have long criminals records and are barred from owning firearms.

[revolve]

51. Yet get them from stealing them from "legitimate" owners

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

54. That's odd because gang related shootings are usually committed with handguns.

[Dragonfli]

64. Not around here, guess they didn't get the memo

but in all fairness they do love the glocks a well.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

73. FBI statistics say otherwise.

[Dragonfli]

82. Direct observations could never refute that!

again reading is so much better than what stupid people actually see.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

91. You are right, your own experience can't refute unbiased evidence.

[Dragonfli]

124. Much of my life has been an illusion

is that what you are saying? I wish it were so. I wish it were so.
Can't argue with words that "trump reality", Reality is an illusion or so you say, only the propaganda you choose to read is real.

Someday I would like to take you to my old neighborhood, if I am in luck you will die an illusionary death. Since it is an illusion, it will cause you no harm. 'Till then the only thing real you have said to me is that you feel that assault rifles are the best hunting rifle. I will as I said, consult men that have hunted there whole life to see if you are completely full of shit.

Other than that, I suggest you get your nose out of those book and experience the real world for a while.

I can't argue against one that denies what I have seen and says it never happened, so why bother?

As the saying goes, "should I believe my lying eyes, or you, a stranger". I am sorry to disappoint you but you would come to the same conclusion on that one.

I never should have come to this thread, I had hoped to learn something, not be told what I have seen is not real, what a waste of time.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

127. Sorry you feel that way.

Not trying to insult you just pointing out the statistics of assault weapons and murder. My apologies for minimizing your experiences. Anyhow I'm off to my folks out of town. Have a happy Thanksgiving.

David

[friendly_iconoclast]

139. I'm not being a smartass here, but some cites would be helpful

What you have been saying is at odds with the published FBI stats, so some figures from the Department
of Justice or the State of New York would go a long way

[iverglas]

142. ya think?

Here's what Dragonfli actually said:

I had to ask because all the gang bangers where I live love them.

You got some cites to refute that, maybe?

Nobody has ever suggested that anyone acquires an "assault weapon" in order to commit homicide.

People who do intentionally commit homicide (i.e. commit murder) most commonly use handguns. No one is disputing that, I think. Handguns are what people like that -- including men who kill their female partners, in large numbers -- tend to have at hand.

The observed reality reported by Dragonfli is that the gangbangers s/he knows love them, i.e., apparently, own them.

This is consistent with the reality I devoted a few threads here to a while back -- the frequency with which things like AK-47 style firearms are found in the homes and car trunks of drug traffickers. (And used in homicides, but those dead people don't count, 'cause they're just not statistically significant.) I assumed they were fond of them for the attractive display they made when mounted above the ancestral mantel.

Anybody with a grain of sense and an ounce of honesty knows this to be the situation: that these items, and the features that characterize them, are extremely attractive to people whose lives are organized around particular kinds of crime, and that this is one reason why they were banned in the first place.

Do let's have your cites to refute that obvious reality.

[friendly_iconoclast]

183. I'm not attempting to refute Dragonfli

If there is an upswing in semi-automatic long guns being used by the, ahem, 'businessmen' in his area
and elsewhere, I'd like to see some court documents, police reports of weapons seized, and most
importantly what additional time the goodfellas are getting for having them around illegally.

Especially given the tough NYS gun laws


If the FBI and Justice Department are cooking the stats, we need to know it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

184. Actually Dragonfli said most gang shootings in his area were committed with assault rifles.

So that should be a fairly easy thing to back up, if it is in fact true. I sure he appreciates your help though, in this case is wasn't much unfortunately.

David

[SteveM]

199. Folks here are trying to prevent new perspectives. Stay around (nt)

[iverglas]

94. I'm not quite following your train of thought

The FBI statistics we are repeatedly treated to around here address the use of long arms of various types to commit homicides.

They do not address the numbers/rates at which individuals involved in criminal activity possess semi-automatic rifles, for instance, for, shall we say, business-related purposes. They do not address the numbers/rates at which they use them for those purposes. That is, for furthering criminal goals, such as acquiring/retaining drug trafficking territory, intimidating rivals and neighbourhood residents, etc.

You apparently actually see individuals of this type in possession of firearms of this type. The newspapers are actually rife with reports of firearms of this type being found in the possession of serious criminals / used in the commission of crimes. I am hoping you were being a little sarcastic in your reference there to the observations of stupid people.


... Okay, Dave thinks you were being sarcastic, so I'll trust his judgment. ;)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

105. The crush gets worse every time.

[SteveM]

198. Two years running: fewer than 3% of homicides are by rifles of all types.

The biggest reason most violent criminals are caught is because they run their mouths off about getting juice (killing). Again, with a handgun, usually a revolver. The last crim I know of who used a semi-auto AK-47 (medium-powered carbine) was shot dead on the spot by an Austin police officer using a pistol.

I don't put much credence in the weapons knowledge of most back-woods killers and ghetto thugs.

[revolve]

65. How is it odd?

You own a handgun, if a robber stole it from you he would have obtained a handgun by robbing you, thus my original statement.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

93. I was talking about assault rifles.

[revolve]

100. No, you said "Firearms"

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

102. You do realize this thread is about assualt rifles correct?

[revolve]

110. No I cant read, you caught me.

Yes I realize the Original Post was about Assault Riffles but since then is has gone into other topics of discussion, you realize how one thing can lead to another right?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

115. No need to take this personally.

If you look upthread you will see that this particular thread started with a discussion about "assault rifles" being popular with gangs. Sorry if we got crossed up but that's where it came from. I have been carrying on 3 discussions here. I have enjoyed the lively debate, welcome to DU but now I have to drive to my folks house out of town. Take care and Happy Thanksgiving.

David

[revolve]

121. Happy thanksgivng to you as well

but no need to welcome me since I have been here for years

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

123. My apologies the post # caused the assumption.

There is a reason that word starts with ASS though.

David

[iverglas]

76. Can't put crap over on you!

Don't forget the ones they get by buying them from "legitimate" owners.

All guns is born legal. They take various routes to that sad life of crime.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

188. Shouldn't that be, All guns are born legal?

Someone selling a firearm to a known felon is breaking the law.

[Dragonfli]

59. They send people to gun shows to get them

I know, I was asked once if I "wanted" something added to the list, at a mark-up of course.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

63. Again already illegal.

Assault weapons are almost never used in crimes. Gang bangers buy and use handguns for the most part.

David

[Dragonfli]

66. Have you ever seen gang violence?

You sound like you live in a different world.
I suppose reading is better than seeing eh?

I had to move three times.
The things you say don't exist had allot to do with it.
I live in Buffalo now.
Gangs here are less obnoxious, but they still loves em some assault weapons.
I can get anything I want from them, I just have to putt half down, they send someone to a gun show (will even convert to full auto for me for a price)

The city makes what goes on here look like kindergarten.


edited to add "the city" is the common reference to NYC

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

86. Nothing quite like condescension when losing an argument.

I have personally treated dozens of gang related GSW victims. All shot with handguns not a single assault rifle in the mix. The FBI statistics clearly prove you wrong in regards to the "assault weapon" being the gun of choice for gangs.

David

[revolve]

95. Acctulay according to you an "assault weapon" is being used

since the victim , by definition, is being assaulted.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

101. Or you could just resort to that.

[Dragonfli]

108. I don't see how I lost an argument just because where you live is different

than where I have lived. I have no doubt that wherever you live what you think of as gangs have ethical principals against using that type of fire-power, or more likely are gangs in only their own minds and have little cash.

In some places a great deal of money is at the root of the boundary conflicts and well funded criminals do not us handguns for drive bys.

Perhaps we are both correct, only you prefer to think the sad realities I have witnessed can't possibly be happening because you haven't seen it yourself.

I just wanted to know what uses they had outside of undesirable ones.

You say they are better for hunting, and I say I will take you at your word until I discuss it in detail with the avid hunters I know. Why is that losing an argument?

Many people in Buffalo hunt, lots of good hunting outside the city, I don't because I never tried it, but I don't take issue with my friends that do, they all seem to eat what they kill and I have no problem with them.

I am just trying to understand what the attraction to assault weapons are. Besides the pictures of hot chicks.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

111. Rifles (including assault rifles) are used in less than 3% of crimes.

That's nationwide, since gang related violence makes up a majority of murders nationwide I don't see how "assault rifles" can be the culprit in too many of the murders, if they were they would account for more than 3%.

David

[SteveM]

200. Most gun enthusiasts don't think of "hot chicks" vis-a-vis firearms...

But it comes up a lot when gun-controllers post here. Strange. They must have come from a "penile colony."

Here are some authentic reasons why folks are attracted to semi-automatic carbines of moderate power:
(1) cheap ammunition;
(2) low recoil;
(3) very good accuracy at the range;
(4) good for home defense;
(5) increasingly popular for hunting (esp. when chambered for more powerful rounds);
(6) re-sale/speculation value.

But then there are the "Israeli Girls."

[pipoman]

144. Such

bullshit here.

So you are saying that gang members are roaming around the streets toting military look alike rifles? Where exactly was this again? What are they doing with these rifles? According to the US Department of Justice:

During the offense that bought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun; about 2% had a military-style semiautomatic gun or machine gun

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

I just have to putt half down, they send someone to a gun show

A gun show huh? Those places where federal law doesn't exist? To listen to this one would think that a measurable number of guns used in crime originate at gun shows. Let's have a look at that should we?

In 1997 .7% (7/10ths of one percent) of firearms used by criminals originated at a gun show according to the US Department of Justice.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

(will even convert to full auto for me for a price)

Really? I think someone was pulling your leg (or someone mine). The illusive conversion. You do know that to convert a legal 'assault weapon' to fully auto would require a machine shop and a machinist who could build an automatic from scratch as easily as they could convert a legal gun? If these guns are so easily and often converted why hasn't there been a crime committed with one of these converted guns in the last 10 years? In fact there hasn't been an automatic weapon involved in a crime in 10 years. Don't believe me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTjBxW6Df_A

Los Angeles Detective Jimmy Trahin testifying before the California State Assembly,"in my 12 years within the unit, considering the enormous amount of firearms we have taken into custody, and that's over 50,000 I would say, and these include ones from the hardcore gangs and the drug dealers, our unit has never, ever had one ak47 converted, one Ruger Mini 14 converted, an H&K 8193...never converted, an AR180 never converted, so this media blitz of these military style assault weapons being converted to fully automatic is not true."

This is a very interesting video which explains this issue in an unbiased manner. It includes statements by the director of the BATFE before congress, the LAPD police commissioner, and others.

[revolve]

81. I must ask you Dave, Have you ever witnessed gun violence

because the two people posting here that have are against handguns and assault riffles and the paranoid people are for them so have you ever witnessed it since you are so pro protection .

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

99. I have seen far more violence of all nature than you and your friend put together.

I have worked in the worst neighborhoods of a city with a lot of violence my entire career. Oddly enough when States pass concealed carry permit laws gun violence decreases, more guns less violence how is that possible.

David

[revolve]

106. First of all no you haven't

second of all do you have statistic's for that that involve the areas that passed the laws and those that have not and their gun crimes?

No?

Not surprised.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

109. Really 7 years as a Combat Medic in the Army and 10 as a Fire Medic.

The FBI statistics are clear rifles of any type are only used in 3% of crimes nationwide. That includes assault rifles. I don't see how that's hard to understand.

David

[revolve]

116. Well obviously its hard to understand

because you just stated that it was less than 1%

Also many years as a TV photographer in detroit and flint is up there. And I see both sides of the story and more in depth than the guy that takes them to the hospital.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

120. What's hard to understand?

I'm not sure I follow on that one. You have seen your fair share then. I don't take them to the hospital though so I'm not sure which side you are seeing that I'm not. I have yet to treat a victim with a GSW that was shot with a legally owned firearm.

David

[jeepnstein]

160. Doubt it...

Until you've been elbow-deep in the blood of a career criminal who suddenly has become the most important person you've met all day, gun violence is just an abstract notion. A bunch of people running about after the fact wailing and moaning about how they can't understand how the shooting happened is certainly good entertainment for TV but that's about it. The problem is the lawless lifestyle that is adopted by far too many of our young people. The criminals are to blame for the violence.

Show me five shootings in Detroit, or any other single population center, that were done with an AR15 this year.

[iverglas]

119. ask him about Florida

or google it ... oh, here we are.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm

Legislation permitting the carrying of concealed firearms arrived in Florida in 1986.

The violent crime rate rose steadily from 1,036.5 per 100,000 in 1986 to 1,207.2 in 1992 (virtually identical in 1993) and then declined until 1995, since when it has risen slightly again.

Imagine all the things that might have to be factored in, in order to begin to try to explain those events.

Consider Massachusetts, where the violent crime rate was 556.9 per 100,000 in 1986, rising to 804.9 in 1993 and declining steadily since. I believe Massachusetts is where it is about the most difficult to obtain a licence to carry a concealed firearm.

Gun crime is harder to break down. But the claim made, I believe, was that having the general public walking around festooned in firearms deters crime. Done and dusted, that one.

[SteveM]

196. Yet, most gun violence is still committed with a .38/.357 magnum revolver...

not even a semi-auto pistol (see FBI data). So-called "assault weapons" figure way down on the list of preferred weapons.

You do realize that gang-bangers include folks who go after "spics," "crackers," and "hos," only they don't usually push literature proclaiming who they would like to shoot -- usually with a revolver.

[wartrace]

53. Handguns are used in over 85% of all gun homicides.

Why is it so important to ban semi-automatic rifles? Is it because they look evil? Why isn't anyone talking about banning handguns which are used to kill the vast majority of people? I will tell you why, because it is "feel good" legislation that is easy due to the anti gun propaganda. If it were about banning guns actually USED in gun homicides the handgun would be the target of a ban. Most rational people understand that the anti gun groups will go after the low hanging fruit first & when that doesn't reduce homicide they will go after the fruit higher up on the tree.

[DainBramaged]

80. Why do yu gun guys use the meme that gun owners are always the rational people

yet they are the one's using guns to inflict pain and death? Is that like the RNC's meme "this is a center-right country" even though the Republican party has about 28% approval rating?


Why don't you just get all of your gun buddies together and march on Washington and DEMAND that Barack obliterate all gun laws, then you all can have a field day showing off your little metal Johnson's. Or is it because there aren't enough donut shops along the way?

[wartrace]

107. Everyone with a penis is responsible for rape.

Same statement, isn't it? I fail to see how "gun owners are the ones using guns to inflict pain & death". Perhaps you intended to say CRIMINALS with guns? I wish you would have addressed the benefits of banning assault weapons vs handguns issue but obviously that is less important than showing your scorn for anyone who owns a gun. "little metal Johnson's" LMAOPMFAY!

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rangersmith82]

125. So you are saying

Everyone that opposes an Assault Weapon Ban or hates the Republican backed Brady Campaign is a a right wing, god loving Nascar watching republican???

Do you have to insult me???

I try to bring a valid gun discussion up in the gun forum, and now I get insulted??

Wow surely we are better human beings than this.

[iverglas]

143. "Republican backed Brady Campaign"

So, you got some cites for that?

No, Sarah Brady's antique party card won't be doing it.

Sources of funding might help.

[rangersmith82]

154. She is still a republican

What better way to hurt the Democrat party than trick them into the anti gun trap????

Name one anti gun bill that didn't hurt our Party????

[iverglas]

156. you got some cites for that?

Search this site here and you'll find her campaign contributions record. I know because I've researched and posted it more than once. Funny-smelling Republican, her.

[SteveM]

202. So is Helmke. The GOP has a "win-win" with the Brady Bunch (nt)

[wartrace]

126. At a loss for words?

BTW- fitting "handle" LOL.

[iverglas]

170. failing to see ...

Me too.


I'm failing to see how

"gun owners are the ones using guns to inflict pain & death"

is the same statement (mutatis mutandis) as

"Everyone with a penis is responsible for rape".


I'm seeing a great big difference. Maybe now that the two of them are right in front of you, yu'll see it too.

Seeing it yet?

Here's a hint. There's a word/concept in the second that isn't in the first?

Got it yet?

Well, okay, I'll tell you.

The word is EVERYONE.


Let's construct an actual equivalency now.


People with guns are the ones using guns to inflict pain & death.

People with penises are the ones responsible for rape.

(What is it which you people and your fixation on rape? I mean, you talk about other people's alleged fixation on penises, but I swan, I have never in my life seen as much rape talk as in this forum. You don't even see all this rape! rape! rape! business in the Feminists forum ...)

Okay now, there you are.

Now, does either one of those sentences have the word EVERY in it?

I'm thinking not.

And yet, yours did: EVERYONE with ...

See how you falsified the whole thing?

You made out like the person you were talking to had said EVERY gun owner is ...

But you know. Nobody said that.


Maybe you could contemplate these questions.

Who is "using guns to inflict pain & death"? People who don't have guns?

Who is committing rape? People who don't have penises?


That should do you, I think.

As in: stick a fork in you, you're done.



... and there's one "g" in "failing" ...

[SteveM]

201. Ah, the old penis argument, again...

"showing off your little metal Johnson's": Why is it that some gun-controllers are so obsessed with what's between the legs of folks? I should remind you that there are millions of women who own guns.

Do you get your metaphors from Bonnie & Clyde? Jees.

[old mark]

207. Why wre you anti-gun folks so wrapped up in insulting and attacking the

character, intelligence and sexuality of those of us who exercise our right to own guns?
Why not just decide you don't want to own a gun and let others make their own decision?

This is exactly the same as someone telling you that you have the right to free speech but only in your own home, and you are some sort of moronic jerk if you want to speak anywhere else.

Are you against the first ammendment?
Why are you so against the second?

mark

[iverglas]

83. Now, which firearms are used in most bank robberies?

Mass shootings?

Which firearms are increasingly being found with drug traffickers' stashes?

Which firearm would you choose if your goal was to INTIMIDATE a whole lot of people at once, and seriously injure/kill a few if necessary/you felt like it?

There are reasons why a lot of people want these things, and it has nothing to do with their accuracy or investment value.

[Pavulon]

92. people generally rob banks with handguns

because they can be concealed. Isnt robbing banks banned? Drugs, banned?

When you chuckleheads get the drug ban working and people can no longer buy drugs then move on to guns.
real murders choose hydrogen peroxide and one other chemical in your house to make TATP. hit up youtube and then ban that shit.

Wait bombs are banned. Ban seems to be EPIC FUCKING FAIL.

[iverglas]

104. I keep waiting for somebody to explain things to me

Exactly how would the other side of the war on drugs prosecute that war if it did not have firearms?

The drugs are just the thing du jour that organized crime uses to make a living.

There's not likely going to be a shortage of things / activities available to it for that purpose. Hell. Do you imagine that dog-fighting rings aren't well-stocked with firepower?

How exactly is organized crime going to keep operating if it doesn't have guns to intimidate, to enforce, to acquire, to protect?

How would organized crime in Canada or Mexico operate if it didn't have FUCKING FIREARMS FROM THE FUCKING UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

Oh, I know, Bulgaria would step in.

Well, as long of the USofA keeps refusing to turn a fraction of the attention to international small arms trafficking that it demands that the rest of the world give to international cannabis trafficking, I guess Bulgaria would have a field day.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

141. phew

I have no use for you.

That's a major relief, let me assure you.


There's just such a smell of desperation around here sometimes, ain't there?

Why, those assault weapons (as defined in the legislation in question), they're just pussycats, that's what they are. No criminal has ever wanted or possessed or used one of those things for any evil purpose. Certainly not. What an idea. And the elected legislators involved in the intial legislation and in seeking new legislation, they're ... they're ... stupid and evil and ... and ... Democrats ...

[rangersmith82]

58. Some reasons...

First of all they are not really Assault Weapons...

Assault Weapons are select fire/Machine guns which have been avalible to all Citizens provided you pay the $200
transfer fee and pass the background check.

The so called Assault Weapons which they are trying to ban are the most popular rifle currently being sold in the US.

The AR-15

This rifle is the most popular rifle in the US, it is used for hunting,hobby shooting and target/compition shooting



Here is a non AWB AR-15



They even have California safe AR-15s


The only thing the ban did was ban features like, pistol grips, bayonet lugs and flash hiders.

Here is a link, it explains the difference for you.

If you are offended easily don't click on it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfKADcfE90U

[Dragonfli]

77. Well Chicks love em, so I guess they must be cool

feeling a hard on just checking out the ads.

So they are great hunting weapons.
I didn't know that.
I will just take your word for it 'till I talk to the avid hunters I know.

I have never seen those weapons in their racks, but perhaps because they are the best for hunting they keep them in special cases.

I am not kidding, I really will ask.

spelling edit

[rangersmith82]

97. They make excellent hunting weapons

Here are some examples....








Why would anyone want to take away these hunters favorite rifle??

[revolve]

117. Because they are hacks and have no skill

[friendly_iconoclast]

131. What makes you say that? I see no evidence from the pictures

If you want to see hacks with no skill, go deer hunting in Pennsylvania.

Way too many dolts and drunks using bolt-, pump- and lever-action rifles and shotguns to wound deer, kill cows (and each other) with nary an 'assault weapon' to be seen(as they are illegal for hunting in PA)

Yet all the hate for ARs, SKSs, other semis? Why?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

133. Those look like pretty clean kills, no evidence of hackiness, plenty of evidence of skill.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

134. Those look like pretty clean kills, no evidence of hackiness, plenty of evidence of skill.

[Irreverend IX]

189. Target shooting is the most common use for "assault weapons."

I don't know if you consider that practical or not. AR-15s are the most popular rifle in the country for competitive target shooting. Semiautomatic rifles are also some of the most effective tools for home defense. As for hunting, the AR-15 is also very popular for hunting prairie dogs and similar small creatures. Semiautomatic AKs can be used to hunt wild pigs, small deer and similar-sized animals, and semiauto rifles chambered in 7.62x51 like the FAL, M1A and AR-10 can be used to hunt large deer and anything else that a full-powered bolt action rifle can, since they are equally as powerful. They are lighter, more ergonomic and have more options for mounting optics than traditional-style rifles. But the Second Amendment was not written to guarantee the right to hunt, it was written to ensure that citizens could retain the means for effective self-defense.

Also, can you provide any citations for gang members in New York using "assault weapons" to shoot at each other? As has already been stated, rifles of all kinds account for 3% of yearly US homicides; more people are killed with fists and feet.

[gordianot]

44. I worked hard to get Barack Obama elected.

Time and time again I have had to argue that Democrats are not going to confiscate firearms. As silly as these arguments sound they are very real to many voters who will vote in favor of a candidate who sounds pro second amendment compared to a candidate who represents their real political-economic interests.

Guns are not going to be confiscated in this country. The perception that there is going to be a ban of firearms is enough to eventually lose the hard fought gains we have made this year.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

48. It would help then if renewing the AWB was removed from the party platform.

[gordianot]

56. No argument from me. Why walk into the Republican trap?

Republicans appear to support gun rights, it is an issue that they use to clobber Democrats that works again and again.

[rangersmith82]

68. Yep if an AR-15 was good enough for President Kennedy

It should be good enough for the rest of us

[revolve]

72. Um no, I am a civilian, he was not

I do not need an assault riffle

[rangersmith82]

84. We don't need H2's

Such a vehicle is far too dangerous for civilians to own therefore must be banned!!!

Sounds pretty stupid doesn't it???

[Name removed]

90. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

204. JFK (a civilian) was a strong supporter of the Second Amendment (nt)

[gordianot]

118. President Kennedy has an M-16 full automatic circa 1960's and is a true assault rifle.

It fires so fast they had to install a 3 round selector switch. No civilian without a special license owns an M-16 that has not been modified to fire only semi automatic. The AR-15 looks and shoots like the M-16 as a semi automatic, the AR-15 is not a true assault weapon. Most of the people I know who own AR-15's take them to firing ranges about once a year where they spend a couple hundred dollars on ammo. It is sort of like blowing several hundred dollars on fireworks. With the price of ammo what you could do 2 years ago would today be doubled in ammo costs. So more often the AR's stay home locked up.


This is not an issue worth losing elections.

[SteveM]

203. I sympathize with your views...

Which is why "Forums: Guns" is so unique and important. It provides the ONLY forum where members of a decidedly "progressive" and omnibus organization, Democratic Underground, can analyze the issues surrounding guns. And it is an excellent way by which pro-2A progressives can bring to bear arguments for the Second Amendment. You will note that in DU there are a number of gun-control advocates who still push for assault weapons bans and other restrictions. These are the folks who keep alive "The perception that there is going to be a ban of firearms."

[frogcycle]

96. what an appallingly useless bit of drivel

The whole thread, that is. I did not! You did to! Is! Is not!

[DainBramaged]

98. Please note, many of the thread starters in this forum, come from Florida

coincidence? I think not.

[rangersmith82]

113. So what is wrong with Florida???

We got it right this election!!!

We turned this state Blue :)

[friendly_iconoclast]

129. Please note, many of the persons replying here own computers

Do enlighten us, as another poster pointed out Florida is a *blue* state

[spin]

175. Many gun owning Democrats live in Florida...

many Democratic politicians in Florida support gun ownership for hunting and self defense.

Probably most of the anti-gun thread starters would come from areas where gun ownership is restricted and not common. With little understanding of the gun culture and the people who own firearms, coupled with a high crime rate by irresponsible criminals, it's not at all surprising.

[SteveM]

205. Taking on the whole state? It went for Obama. How'd your's do? (nt)

[rangersmith82]

130. Some more info from a wise member here...

Under a new Assault Weapon ban pistol grips on a semi auto rifle will be a felony...

A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing from the hip, allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon. A pistol grip also helps the shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire and makes it easier to shoot assault rifles one-handed.

Is THAT why high-end bolt-action target competition rifles have pistol grips?



For "spray firing from the hip"? Hmmm.



Pistol grips are more ergonomic for firing from the shoulder, based on human forearm anatomy; they are harder to shoot from hip level than traditional straight-stocked rifles. Try it yourself with a hammer.

A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the firearm can shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire.

Umm, all rifles have forestocks to prevent you from burning your hands on the barrel. Those on "assault weapons" are no different in that regard than those on regular rifles--either wooden or plastic forends.

A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, which serves no useful sporting purpose. The flash suppressor allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire, helping the shooter maintain control of the firearm.

BS on multiple counts. A flash suppressor is extremely useful on a defensive firearm; the purpose isn't to conceal the shooter, it is to keep the muzzle blast out of the shooter's line of sight. It is also helpful on a .223 target gun, as the muzzle flash can be annoying even in the daytime. I've fired a 16" barreled .223 with and without flash suppressors, and the latter is far more pleasant to shoot.

A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer, which is useful to assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen. Silencers are illegal so there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a silencer on a weapon.

Ummm, the barrel is threaded to accomodate a muzzle brake or flash suppressor, not a "silencer."

Here's a semiautomatic "assault weapon" (a Browning) with a threaded muzzle...and a muzzle brake. Duh.





A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet, which obviously serves no sporting purpose.

...but may have collector interest. And as far as I am aware, the number of people murdered with mounted bayonets each year is zero.

A large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines.

"Assault weapons" in hunting configuration have hunting-size magazines. "Assault weapons" in target or defensive configurations have target or defensive sized magazines, just like any other firearm.

this rifle will be illegal under the new Assailt Weapon ban and its ownership will be a felony






And a final observation on the utter stupidity of the "assault weapon" fraud:

[RaleighNCDUer]

137. As an educated man, he will never say

"me...will never..."

Fucking learn english.

[friendly_iconoclast]

138. Because the 2010 elections would be way too easy otherwise.

The GOP is saying, "Oh please, please, please don't throw us into that briar patch"

[wartrace]

147. Because it is the easiest gun ban to enact.

Due to widespread misinformation most people support a ban on military rifles capable of full auto fire. Of course those are already highly restricted but the general public doesn't "need" to have all the facts on that as long as they perceive that it is only machine guns that will be banned.

If this was a new law to save lives it might have some merit HOWEVER rifles of ALL types are used by criminals to commit less than 10% of all gun homicides. If there WAS a concern about reducing gun homicides there would be a push to ban handguns which are used by criminals to commit over 85% of all gun homicides.

So, in response to your question as to why we need another assault weapons ban? It feels good. After this ban is enacted I suspect there will be a push to ban "sniper" rifles which would include most of your popular hunting arms. After that they can work on "street sweepers" (aka shotguns). As soon as EVERY other firearm is banned it will be a matter of course to ban handguns, after all,none of the above gun bans will reduce gun homicides.

[rangersmith82]

150. Thank god for the Heller vs DC decision

At least this will prevent handguns from being banned.

[wartrace]

153. I am sure ANY gun ban will make its way to the supreme court.

I would like to see the Brady bunch explain WHY a semi-automatic gun ban is not an infringement. From this point forward I am not using the term "assault weapon" as it is an inaccurate description of what the ban is about. It is a semi-automatic rifle ban. I might also add that the supreme court has already ruled on military style weapons in this case;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

It is clear that their opinion supports the claim that a rifle ban such as one being proposed is unconstitutional.

[rangersmith82]

157. Well still no good reasons yet..I will ask again....

Why do we need another Assault Weapon Ban???

And please just a list of reasons why we as Americans need it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

177. Because we *know* why the Gulf of Tonkin Gun Ban of 1994 failed

The new one would be the Operation Iraqi Freedom Gun Ban, and is
guaranteed to work!

[Xela]

206. I'm with you

As a Pacifist Armed liberal who voted for Obama I'm with you.

Xela

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

208. Talk is Cheap...

"All our President Elect has to do is remove this from his web page: Current statement -
And replace it with this statement: Replacement Statement:
If he would do this, we would never hear a peep for the right wing, republican gun owners.
..."

Talk is cheap.
Especially when the voting record of you and your constituents is both public knowledge and contrary.