Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
According to stats I've seen recently, gun ownership has been trending down for some years, and so has violent crime. There may or may not be any connection between those things.

However, gun ownership is a complicated social situation.

As regards your hypothetical question, we look at the example of other countries which don't have widespread guns and see they have much lower rates of gun crime (and accidents, suicide.)That doesn't necessarily mean that the USA would be the same, however why would it not be?

Presumably if the experiment were tried and failed, it could simply be reversed. Saying that it might not work is not a rational reason not to do an experiment.

Lower rates of gun crime, but higher rates of overall crime. As such my wife will keep her pistol handy thank you very much.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
According to stats I've seen recently, gun ownership has been trending down for some years, and so has violent crime. There may or may not be any connection between those things.

However, gun ownership is a complicated social situation.

As regards your hypothetical question, we look at the example of other countries which don't have widespread guns and see they have much lower rates of gun crime (and accidents, suicide.)That doesn't necessarily mean that the USA would be the same, however why would it not be?

Presumably if the experiment were tried and failed, it could simply be reversed. Saying that it might not work is not a rational reason not to do an experiment.

Sorry if my post comes across as, "if nothing changes, don't do anything in the first place." I'd like to find a happy medium where I, as a legal citizen of the United States, could own firearms if I so choose, as afforded to me by the 2nd Amendment, and I could use these firearms in a lawful manner (defending my home, target shooting, and/or hunting), and I could own these with the knowledge that gun violence is down and that kids aren't being killed because someone snapped for some reason or another.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Sorry if my post comes across as, "if nothing changes, don't do anything in the first place." I'd like to find a happy medium where I, as a legal citizen of the United States, could own firearms if I so choose, as afforded to me by the 2nd Amendment, and I could use these firearms in a lawful manner (defending my home, target shooting, and/or hunting), and I could own these with the knowledge that gun violence is down and that kids aren't being killed because someone snapped for some reason or another.

Part of me wonders whether all these attempts at gun control is an effort to tackle violence in society, but from the wrong angle. Instead of legislating against the, otherwise perfectly legal, tools being used for violence by people who often have mental health issues should there not be more investment in mental health services?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Great way to mis-represent people who enjoy their right to legally own guns without harming other people Maybe you'd care to comment on those who are content to use the deaths of children to push their gun control agendas. I mean if its repugnant for one side to use deaths for political capital why don't you critiscise the other side for doing the same thing? Is it cognitive dissonance?

I'm sick of this mis-representation that anyone looking to exercise their right to legally own a gun is either gloating in the murder of innocents, an apologist for murder, or a murderer-in-waiting. Its crude, its inaccurate, its offensive and the mud slinging polarises the debate instead of finding common ground.

And now you're doing it.

There has been no proposed legislation to take away guns from the people, just legislate the types of firearm available to the civilian population.

I am for gun ownership in this country.

There has been a call for the restriction on the types of firearm the population can own, there is already restriction on the types of firearms people can own. I'd have a hard on for the next decade if I could own a M61 mounted on a truck, I can't, because it's illegal for a civilian to have one. I'd be in 7th heaven with a GAU-8 on the roof of my house, perhaps in a swivel seat arrangement, or if I could wander about town with an AA-12, but they are not legal weapons.

I can protect my home and hunt very effectively without the semi automatic rifles. If they are restricted and that saves the lives of some people in a cinema or school when the next nut goes active, I believe those lives to be a very agreeable payment for not having the most cool toys.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

That wasn't really the point of the video. He was trying to argue that an AR 15 was far easier to use than a 12 gauge double barreled shotgun for home defense in response to the video Biden was in in the OP. It's the one where he talks about firing both blasts off the back porch into the woods to scare people off and all that. Obviously if you ever had to fight at range, it'd be a plus, but like you said the odds of ever having to do that are EXTREMELY low.

A: Because a guy with a hilarious shooting range in his backyard is not any more accurate with an AR15 than a panicky mom defending her backyard from soviets, apparently he certainly seemed like his heart was beating about 130 and his hands were shaking.

B: There's also no relation between having a cone of "will very probably hit" and having a laser of "will hit" esp. considering A:

C: Also the guy has no vested interest in missing, at all, ever, I trust everyone on the internet without question


Don't get me wrong, I like my guns and probably own more than everyone in this thread combined, but gun owners are, in effect, largely morons that spend more time posting nonsense like "lol hi kapasity klips!" and "making fun" of poor legislation and turning them into a demographic that will allways vote red and therefore will not matter, while handing money off to the NRA who blow it on nonsense like deregulating puppy mills when they should be bringing down the lobbypocalypse on this sort of legislation.

His points were that the AR-15 was easier to use (it is), more accurate (it is), has a much larger ammo capacity (it does), and is technically safer in an urban environment (it is, link included below).

http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=26

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

And now you're doing it.

There has been no proposed legislation to take away guns from the people, just legislate the types of firearm available to the civilian population.

I din't say that there was proposed legislation to take guns away from law abiding citizens. So I'm not sure where you got that line of argument.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I am for gun ownership in this country.

There has been a call for the restriction on the types of firearm the population can own, there is already restriction on the types of firearms people can own. I'd have a hard on for the next decade if I could own a M61 mounted on a truck, I can't, because it's illegal for a civilian to have one. I'd be in 7th heaven with a GAU-8 on the roof of my house, perhaps in a swivel seat arrangement, or if I could wander about town with an AA-12, but they are not legal weapons.

I can protect my home and hunt very effectively without the semi automatic rifles. If they are restricted and that saves the lives of some people in a cinema or school when the next nut goes active, I believe those lives to be a very agreeable payment for not having the most cool toys.

I'm going to ignore your attempts to reduce the argument to absurdity. I don't think anyone is seriously looking for the weapons you listed, or if they could be said to be the weapons required by a well regulated militia (such as the banning of sawn-off shotguns).
The problem with the attempts at gun legislation is that stem from the moral panic and opportunism that some people display. The latest attempts to ban "assault rifles" could not even properly define what an assault rifle was, other than external features, which means that the legislation was not going to be effective. By taking the exact same weapon system and putting it into a different housing an illegal scary looking tacticool assault rifle just became a regular legal semi-automatic rifle. In fact many of the features outlined as defining an assault rifle meant that historical pieces would have fallen foul of the legislation and either been modified, thus destroying their historical worth, or surrendered.

Also you are aware that deaths from semi-automatic rifles are in a distinct minority, right? That most of the deaths from firearms are from pistols? Once again showing that legislation is driven by moral panic and the need to do something, rather than something effective.

I'm glad you own firearms and you can enjoy them. But that doesn't mean that you should get to restrict another's right if (s)he feels that a semi-automatic rifle is suitable for their own particular needs. I'm not a gun owner but I would like to be eventually. Looking at the home I live in with my wife and dogs I can say that the only firearm we'd likely have is a pistol. A semi-automatic rifle over .22 would not be suitable because we live in relatively close proximity to other houses and I would hate for someone to get hit by a stray round from an accidental mis-fire. Now, just because my needs likely terminate at a pistol does that mean that I can say with authority that other cannot own a shotgun or rifle? Of course it doesn't. But you seem to think that you can.

The one thing that I will agree with you on is "when the next nut goes active". Most mass shootings are done by people with known mental health issues. Surely the better course of action would be better investment in mental health services to make them more effective and more widely available, rather than deprive an overwhelming number of people who can own and operate a firearm safely and legally of their legal right.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Sorry if my post comes across as, "if nothing changes, don't do anything in the first place." I'd like to find a happy medium where I, as a legal citizen of the United States, could own firearms if I so choose, as afforded to me by the 2nd Amendment, and I could use these firearms in a lawful manner (defending my home, target shooting, and/or hunting), and I could own these with the knowledge that gun violence is down and that kids aren't being killed because someone snapped for some reason or another.

Part of me wonders whether all these attempts at gun control is an effort to tackle violence in society, but from the wrong angle. Instead of legislating against the, otherwise perfectly legal, tools being used for violence by people who often have mental health issues should there not be more investment in mental health services?

Most random mass killers seem to have been legally sane. The cinema shootings seem to be an exception in that respect.

It should also be noted that random mass killinsg, while shocking and a spur to debates on gun control, actually account for only a small number of gun incidents.

The great majority of gun woundings arise from everyday use of guns in legal and illegal ways by people who aren't mental patients.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Sorry if my post comes across as, "if nothing changes, don't do anything in the first place." I'd like to find a happy medium where I, as a legal citizen of the United States, could own firearms if I so choose, as afforded to me by the 2nd Amendment, and I could use these firearms in a lawful manner (defending my home, target shooting, and/or hunting), and I could own these with the knowledge that gun violence is down and that kids aren't being killed because someone snapped for some reason or another.

Part of me wonders whether all these attempts at gun control is an effort to tackle violence in society, but from the wrong angle. Instead of legislating against the, otherwise perfectly legal, tools being used for violence by people who often have mental health issues should there not be more investment in mental health services?

Most random mass killers seem to have been legally sane. The cinema shootings seem to be an exception in that respect.

It should also be noted that random mass killinsg, while shocking and a spur to debates on gun control, actually account for only a small number of gun incidents.

The great majority of gun woundings arise from everyday use of guns in legal and illegal ways by people who aren't mental patients.

You've got a bit of an oxymoron there. "Random mass killers seem to have been legally sane."

If they were, then I think that should really show that the laws in those regards need to be reworked.

 djones520 wrote:
His points were that the AR-15 was easier to use (it is), more accurate (it is), has a much larger ammo capacity (it does), and is technically safer in an urban environment (it is, link included below).

and a mg42 would do the job better, and a quad50 would do the job better than that, im sure rigging your house to implode is an option too.
The point gun controllers are making is an Ar15 may be a good tool for the job (it is) but a shotgun is adequate. The number of crimes prevented by an ar15 that a shotgun simply wouldn't be enough for is pretty questionable, the number of casualties from sprees would not be as severe with shotguns as well, we dont have a time machine to prove that, but I dont see how the simple logic of "2, 6, 8 shots is not as deadly as 120 smaller ones" cant be acknowledged, you want more killing power? then say hey, I want more killing power, "I need 6 to 8 rounds for each person that breaks into my house to be sure its a closed casket funeral" is more accurate than "well after I put a birdshot and two deerslugs into the intruder with my sagia12 that would drop a buffalo he might be so high on PCP that he doesn't notice that he's missing half his organs and his 5 friends may engage me in a running gun battle through my backyard",

But again, its not "LOL PEEPL GOT SHUTZ FRUM DE SHOTGUNZ TOO!" It's the fact that the possibility for more casualties is greater if the person had a drum magazine, a belt fed MG, a MGL, a nuke, you have to draw a line somewhere and some people want the line in different places than other people, thats just how it is, if you resist everything tooth and nail instead of giving a little, the other side is more apt to just go for broke since they will see the same amount of resistance.

My favorites are the ex military (usually) nutters that need them to fight the guvment, isn't that just saying "well a few years ago when I was in the military, me/my unit/whatever totally would have mowed down american civilians if the guvment asked, cause 'merica"

The point that the pro-gun lobby doesn't make, ever, is that violent/gun crime has been on the wane for the last 30 years, instead they say "I blame video games!" or some other nonsense, All the while shooting down things like govt research funding into mental health/gun crime/ect. Because crazy people might buy less guns, I'm guessing, I dont know on that one.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Most random mass killers seem to have been legally sane. The cinema shootings seem to be an exception in that respect.

It should also be noted that random mass killinsg, while shocking and a spur to debates on gun control, actually account for only a small number of gun incidents.

The great majority of gun woundings arise from everyday use of guns in legal and illegal ways by people who aren't mental patients.

I thought that there were concerns about the mental health of the shooter in Aurora, the Gifford shooter and Adam Lanza. I believe I addressed your other points in my reply to MGS

@ Grundz: Let me ask you a serious question. If your life was on the line, would you want "adequate" defense, or "the best" defense?

That's what it comes down to with me. Your references to the other weapons, don't really fly. The MG42 would be a horrible self defense weapon. One, obtaining a real one would be anything but easy, then using it in a self-defense role would be extremely impractical, since it's a crew served weapon. And I won't even touch the quad-50...

 djones520 wrote:
@ Grundz: Let me ask you a serious question. If your life was on the line, would you want "adequate" defense, or "the best" defense?

That's what it comes down to with me.

Adequate, my primary home defense option is loaded rocksalt, buckshot, deerslug deerslug deerslug deerslug which is plenty, a rogue SWAT team isn't going to come to visit, I'm not the punisher, I'm confident in my ability to finish off anyone manually if a gang of fearless bluds who dont care their buddies got bowling ball sized holes blown in them rush my house.

If you're still coming after the first buckshot, you'll probably get the rest, if I miss, somehow, some dude just fired a fking shotgun at you, 99.99999% of the time you have already given up or running for your life.
My bigger options are for fun and are locked away, it's about as necessary as driving a monster truck to work every day because i'm worried some soccer mom might run into my convertible with her SUV (which is about 10,000 times a greater threat than someone walking into my house and not dying.

Again, gun guy, I dont have a problem with registration or requiring a course or something, its a bother but you're getting something dangerous.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

And now you're doing it.

There has been no proposed legislation to take away guns from the people, just legislate the types of firearm available to the civilian population.

I din't say that there was proposed legislation to take guns away from law abiding citizens. So I'm not sure where you got that line of argument.

You said 'legally own a gun', you used it twice in your response. It implies a gun ban and creates the sort of pictures I see endlessly on my facebook from the 'my cold dead hands' folks I know who think Obama is going to try and ban gun ownership. The proposed legislation was a restriction on certain types of firearms.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I'm going to ignore your attempts to reduce the argument to absurdity. I don't think anyone is seriously looking for the weapons you listed, or if they could be said to be the weapons required by a well regulated militia (such as the banning of sawn-off shotguns).

You are quite wrong to label my little list of weapons absurd, if those weapons were legal, people would own them. I've lived in central PA, heart of the militia movement, some of those folks in the mountains do indeed have reweaponized WW2/nam weapons. I've seen them and witnessed them fired. I'd bloody love an AA12, thing is amazing. I understand and support that what I really don't want is some snapped loon wandering the streets with one, so I abide by the restriction on them. Plus I was illustrating a point, certain guns already are restricted, why is that ok but other proposed restriction is the end of the world?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

The problem with the attempts at gun legislation is that stem from the moral panic and opportunism that some people display. The latest attempts to ban "assault rifles" could not even properly define what an assault rifle was, other than external features, which means that the legislation was not going to be effective. By taking the exact same weapon system and putting it into a different housing an illegal scary looking tacticool assault rifle just became a regular legal semi-automatic rifle. In fact many of the features outlined as defining an assault rifle meant that historical pieces would have fallen foul of the legislation and either been modified, thus destroying their historical worth, or surrendered.

It was poor legislation in areas. But background checks and restriction of type according to rate of fire + reloading times seemed fair and likely to result in a decrease in casualties and that was worth it.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Also you are aware that deaths from semi-automatic rifles are in a distinct minority, right? That most of the deaths from firearms are from pistols? Once again showing that legislation is driven by moral panic and the need to do something, rather than something effective.

The semi-automatics and the legislation was specifically about the massacring of civilians in closed areas, schools, cinemas, malls etc. The widened argument about pistols killing more people is a red herring. The legislation was brought about due to the Columbine style of snapped individual setting off to cause the maximum number of casualties in the shorted possible time, the mass murderer. Not the single exchange homicides that are rampant across the nation or even stopping said mass murderer from attempting other ways, but to stop the convenience of taking a high rate of fire, low need for reload time, firearm into a massed civilian area and greasing a lot of people, it's about reducing the numbers of dead.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I'm glad you own firearms and you can enjoy them. But that doesn't mean that you should get to restrict another's right if (s)he feels that a semi-automatic rifle is suitable for their own particular needs. I'm not a gun owner but I would like to be eventually. Looking at the home I live in with my wife and dogs I can say that the only firearm we'd likely have is a pistol. A semi-automatic rifle over .22 would not be suitable because we live in relatively close proximity to other houses and I would hate for someone to get hit by a stray round from an accidental mis-fire. Now, just because my needs likely terminate at a pistol does that mean that I can say with authority that other cannot own a shotgun or rifle? Of course it doesn't. But you seem to think that you can.

(disclaimer, I do not currently own a firearm, we moved state recently) See above where I listed a range of firearms that are already illegal. Tell me in what circumstances you would require an assault rifle? What utility does it have? Either you're using it for hunting deer or pig and frankly it's ridiculous overkill for that job, or you're convinced that you can defend your home with it 'when the time comes' in which case, whatever enemies you're talking about, that would require that level of firepower, organized crime, a new tyrannical government, a hostile alien invasion, would grease your sorry ass with or without your rambo gun.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

The one thing that I will agree with you on is "when the next nut goes active". Most mass shootings are done by people with known mental health issues. Surely the better course of action would be better investment in mental health services to make them more effective and more widely available, rather than deprive an overwhelming number of people who can own and operate a firearm safely and legally of their legal right.

They don't need that gun.
We agree on mental health services and likely all health services here.
Why not have both, that should reduce the chances and the body counts.

 djones520 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Sorry if my post comes across as, "if nothing changes, don't do anything in the first place." I'd like to find a happy medium where I, as a legal citizen of the United States, could own firearms if I so choose, as afforded to me by the 2nd Amendment, and I could use these firearms in a lawful manner (defending my home, target shooting, and/or hunting), and I could own these with the knowledge that gun violence is down and that kids aren't being killed because someone snapped for some reason or another.

Part of me wonders whether all these attempts at gun control is an effort to tackle violence in society, but from the wrong angle. Instead of legislating against the, otherwise perfectly legal, tools being used for violence by people who often have mental health issues should there not be more investment in mental health services?

Most random mass killers seem to have been legally sane. The cinema shootings seem to be an exception in that respect.

It should also be noted that random mass killinsg, while shocking and a spur to debates on gun control, actually account for only a small number of gun incidents.

The great majority of gun woundings arise from everyday use of guns in legal and illegal ways by people who aren't mental patients.

You've got a bit of an oxymoron there. "Random mass killers seem to have been legally sane."

If they were, then I think that should really show that the laws in those regards need to be reworked.

If you subscribe to the view that a random mass killing is a clear sign of mental illness. The fact is that few of the random mass killers in the US or UK (a very small sample over here, of course) had been noted for any clear sign of mental instability even when examining their behaviour after the event. The cinema killer was an exception in view of being under the care of a psychiatrist. Which ironically did not work out as a means of stopping him, so where improved mental healthcare would get us I don't know.

Many random mass killers share a degree of alienation from normal society and depression, culminating in some cases in an event which seems to tip them over the edge -- e.g. Going Postal. If you want to call that situation a mental illness, the net will sweep up an much wider group of people.

Newtown's killer was as well.

I shudder at using this reference, but Mother Jones did a study that found nearly 2/3rd's of mass shooters in the last 30 years had demonstrable mental health issues prior to the shooting.

And we want to keep the freedom to own certain types of gun.

But submit to the government screening us all for our thoughts and 'mental well being'...


... ok then...

Void Comp Tests for All!

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

And now you're doing it.

There has been no proposed legislation to take away guns from the people, just legislate the types of firearm available to the civilian population.

I din't say that there was proposed legislation to take guns away from law abiding citizens. So I'm not sure where you got that line of argument.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I am for gun ownership in this country.

There has been a call for the restriction on the types of firearm the population can own, there is already restriction on the types of firearms people can own. I'd have a hard on for the next decade if I could own a M61 mounted on a truck, I can't, because it's illegal for a civilian to have one. I'd be in 7th heaven with a GAU-8 on the roof of my house, perhaps in a swivel seat arrangement, or if I could wander about town with an AA-12, but they are not legal weapons.

I can protect my home and hunt very effectively without the semi automatic rifles. If they are restricted and that saves the lives of some people in a cinema or school when the next nut goes active, I believe those lives to be a very agreeable payment for not having the most cool toys.

I'm going to ignore your attempts to reduce the argument to absurdity. I don't think anyone is seriously looking for the weapons you listed, or if they could be said to be the weapons required by a well regulated militia (such as the banning of sawn-off shotguns).
The problem with the attempts at gun legislation is that stem from the moral panic and opportunism that some people display. The latest attempts to ban "assault rifles" could not even properly define what an assault rifle was, other than external features, which means that the legislation was not going to be effective. By taking the exact same weapon system and putting it into a different housing an illegal scary looking tacticool assault rifle just became a regular legal semi-automatic rifle. In fact many of the features outlined as defining an assault rifle meant that historical pieces would have fallen foul of the legislation and either been modified, thus destroying their historical worth, or surrendered.

Also you are aware that deaths from semi-automatic rifles are in a distinct minority, right? That most of the deaths from firearms are from pistols? Once again showing that legislation is driven by moral panic and the need to do something, rather than something effective.

I'm glad you own firearms and you can enjoy them. But that doesn't mean that you should get to restrict another's right if (s)he feels that a semi-automatic rifle is suitable for their own particular needs. I'm not a gun owner but I would like to be eventually. Looking at the home I live in with my wife and dogs I can say that the only firearm we'd likely have is a pistol. A semi-automatic rifle over .22 would not be suitable because we live in relatively close proximity to other houses and I would hate for someone to get hit by a stray round from an accidental mis-fire. Now, just because my needs likely terminate at a pistol does that mean that I can say with authority that other cannot own a shotgun or rifle? Of course it doesn't. But you seem to think that you can.

The one thing that I will agree with you on is "when the next nut goes active". Most mass shootings are done by people with known mental health issues. Surely the better course of action would be better investment in mental health services to make them more effective and more widely available, rather than deprive an overwhelming number of people who can own and operate a firearm safely and legally of their legal right.

I don't think he's a citizen yet and can in fact own anything.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
You said 'legally own a gun', you used it twice in your response. It implies a gun ban and creates the sort of pictures I see endlessly on my facebook from the 'my cold dead hands' folks I know who think Obama is going to try and ban gun ownership. The proposed legislation was a restriction on certain types of firearms.

I'm sorry you mis-read me, that was not my intention. It was to differentiate between those who respect and obey the law, and those who do not. Any inference drawn is entirely your own.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
You are quite wrong to label my little list of weapons absurd, if those weapons were legal, people would own them. I've lived in central PA, heart of the militia movement, some of those folks in the mountains do indeed have reweaponized WW2/nam weapons. I've seen them and witnessed them fired. I'd bloody love an AA12, thing is amazing. I understand and support that what I really don't want is some snapped loon wandering the streets with one, so I abide by the restriction on them. Plus I was illustrating a point, certain guns already are restricted, why is that ok but other proposed restriction is the end of the world?

I'm not trying to label your list of weapons as absurd. I'm saying that you are reducing the argument to absurdity - Reductio ad absurdum. That because certain weapons (like the one mounted on an A-10 Avenger which is hardly man-portable) are not available to civilians then no one should be able to own an "assault rifle". Its similar to Michael Moore's documentary on firearms when he kept asking why a gun owner did not want to possess a nuclear weapon.
Also, wouldn't the AA-12 be a Class 3 weapon because it has a full auto fire setting?

You keep saying things like "some snapped loon" and "nut". I am not, nor do I believe that others here are, advocating for people with mental health issues who pose a danger to society to possess weapons. That is clearly not in the interests of those who enjoy their lawful right, nor for society as a whole.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
It was poor legislation in areas. But background checks and restriction of type according to rate of fire + reloading times seemed fair and likely to result in a decrease in casualties and that was worth it.

It was abysmal legislation. The same weapon, with the same rate of fire, same caliber etc. could go from illegal to legal with different housing, and vice versa. Background checks I agree on, as do the overwhelming number of citizens and gun owners. The problem is when those background checks are used to create a de facto registry of weapons which no one wants, when the magazine size is being reduced which was shown to be of negligible benefit etc. That's why it was defeated. Not because the NRA threw money at it, but the Bill had too many other aspects that would have unduly infringed upon law abiding citizens.
Where are you getting rate of fire from, aren't the "assault weapons" that were going to fall foul of the legislation all semi-automatic anyway? And those that weren't Class 3 and very heavily regulated?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The semi-automatics and the legislation was specifically about the massacring of civilians in closed areas, schools, cinemas, malls etc. The widened argument about pistols killing more people is a red herring. The legislation was brought about due to the Columbine style of snapped individual setting off to cause the maximum number of casualties in the shorted possible time, the mass murderer. Not the single exchange homicides that are rampant across the nation or even stopping said mass murderer from attempting other ways, but to stop the convenience of taking a high rate of fire, low need for reload time, firearm into a massed civilian area and greasing a lot of people, it's about reducing the numbers of dead.

"snapped individual"
"some snapped loon"
"nut"
Noticing a trend here besides the fact that many of these shootings took place in gun free zones? Mental health issues. How will punishing people who are mentally fit and who do not plan on committing crime stop those with malice and with the intention to do harm? Short answer is that it won't, hence my later comments on addressing mental health.
The pistol argument is no red herring, its a statement of fact. More people are killed by legally and illegally held pistols than "assault rifles". If there was a desire to meaningfully reduce gun violence you would tackle this rather than deal with a statistically smaller problem that gets more media attention. That is a moral panic rather than addressing the wider social issue.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
(disclaimer, I do not currently own a firearm, we moved state recently) See above where I listed a range of firearms that are already illegal. Tell me in what circumstances you would require an assault rifle? What utility does it have? Either you're using it for hunting deer or pig and frankly it's ridiculous overkill for that job, or you're convinced that you can defend your home with it 'when the time comes' in which case, whatever enemies you're talking about, that would require that level of firepower, organized crime, a new tyrannical government, a hostile alien invasion, would grease your sorry ass with or without your rambo gun.

"rambo gun" - oh, you mean the M60. A Class 3, fully automatic light machine gun (not an "assault rifle") expensive weapon that is out of the reach of most people? Are you forgetting the fact that in Afghanistan and Iraq groups with little training frustrated the largest, best trained and best equipped military in the world?

Define "assault rifle". What makes an "assault rifle" functionally different from any other semi automatic rifle?

Under what circumstances would I "require" an assault rifle? I've already told you that given my personal circumstances it's unlikely that I would need one. Could I see it being desirable to have a semi-automatic rifle for maybe hunting or target shooting or why others might need if if they have much larger properties, absolutely. But as I've already said, just because my personal circumstances are such it does not mean that I should dictate what is suitable for others to defend their property against those with malicious intent, or from wild animals. Just because I'm on dry land doesn't mean I do not see the necessity for someone in the sea to have a life preserver.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
They don't need that gun.
We agree on mental health services and likely all health services here.
Why not have both, that should reduce the chances and the body counts.

No, law abiding citizens do not "need" a gun like they need food, water and shelter. But they do have the right to have a gun. Once again why should the actions of a few be detrimental to the many who can enjoy their rights perfectly legally and without harming others? Should you be forced to give up your car just because drink drivers kill people?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
And we want to keep the freedom to own certain types of gun.

But submit to the government screening us all for our thoughts and 'mental well being'...


... ok then...

Void Comp Tests for All!

No, I want a well trained and qualified mental health professional giving a recommendation as to the state of someone's mental health, and their suitability to own a firearm. That is very different to what you are saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
I don't think he's a citizen yet and can in fact own anything.

Yeah, it'll be a few years yet before I'm a citizen

Move to Oregon and declare your intention to become a citizen in six months.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Move to Oregon and declare your intention to become a citizen in six months.

Too far from my wife

Re-reading my prior post first thing waking up, I should have softened my tone somewhat. The way I put it was unfortunate. But - what is below perfect encapsulates the sentiment, what I think we should probably try and just, like, stop.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I still have a lot of respect for him, because, like him, I am absolutely fething sick of

"Hey everyone, look at this, 10 people got killed in a car pile up, bet Obama's gonna ban your cars now or make you have a license for them!' or 'Look here, this guy stabbed a load of people in a school, bet he's gonna ban knives now' or 'look, a gun other than one of the guns proposed for regulation was used to kill people so I guess that those other guns are just the same as these guns'.... And even the despicable gak eating filth than tried to use the Boston bombing to their advantage for this 'Hah, guess the dictator's gonna ban pressure cookers hah!'

Ad fething infinitum.

In a country where an overwhelmingly vast majority of the populace wants background checks even at gun shows, and the will of the country is thwarted by a special interest group.... that's not anything to cheer about. That's actually the thing most Americans claim they hate about how our country works, not a victory or a football to be spiked. Maybe it's what Ensis said, just an unfortunate byproduct of our political sausage making process essentially that will eventually yield good results, but it's ugly where it is now imo.

 Ouze wrote:
In a country where an overwhelmingly vast majority of the populace wants background checks even at gun shows, and the will of the country is thwarted by a special interest group.... that's not anything to cheer about. That's actually the thing most Americans claim they hate about how our country works, not a victory or a football to be spiked. Maybe it's what Ensis said, just an unfortunate byproduct of our political sausage making process essentially that will eventually yield good results, but it's ugly where it is now imo.

Yup, the majority of the country and gun owners wanted background checks. But it wasn't defeated by a special interests group. It was defeated because of the extras that were tacked onto the Bill and the use of the background checks to create a de facto registry. The public were being given a bait and switch, and that's why it failed. So blame the people who tried to tack on their pet projects to something that was otherwise a sure thing.

Exactly. On the positive the Democrats in the Senate have voted. We now know who they are and who to send money against. Combined with the horror that is the ACA coming into its own now with premium increases of 25% to 50% across the board now expected, 2014 is going to be an excellent year.

 Frazzled wrote:
Exactly. On the positive the Democrats in the Senate have voted. We now know who they are and who to send money against. Combined with the horror that is the ACA coming into its own now with premium increases of 25% to 50% across the board now expected, 2014 is going to be an excellent year.

I'm waiting to see who votes what way on the immigration reform. I have a long memory when it comes to being screwed over, especially when it comes time to vote

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Exactly. On the positive the Democrats in the Senate have voted. We now know who they are and who to send money against. Combined with the horror that is the ACA coming into its own now with premium increases of 25% to 50% across the board now expected, 2014 is going to be an excellent year.

I'm waiting to see who votes what way on the immigration reform. I have a long memory when it comes to being screwed over, especially when it comes time to vote

How would you feel if the immigration bill ends up giving the current illegal immigrants permanent residency (green card?), but make it so that they cannot vote or get welfare until they go through the same effort you did to get nationalized?

 whembly wrote:
How would you feel if the immigration bill ends up giving the current illegal immigrants permanent residency (green card?), but make it so that they cannot vote or get welfare until they go through the same effort you did to get nationalized?

I don't think that anyone should be rewarded for playing the system.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
How would you feel if the immigration bill ends up giving the current illegal immigrants permanent residency (green card?), but make it so that they cannot vote or get welfare until they go through the same effort you did to get nationalized?

I don't think that anyone should be rewarded for playing the system.

Okay... fair enough.

Background checks for buying guns. Tell me more about how criminals only buy guns from dealers who do background checks.

The argument isn't about background checks. The argument is that drugs are illegal, yet a massive black market exists for them, even for ones that are legal(marijuana and pharmaceuticals). That same black market exists for guns, even if it may be harder to find a dealer for.

What happens when the guy who goes and shoots up a daycare had ZERO criminal background? Not every terrorist/psychopath has a criminal history.

Liberals can pretend all they want that background checks will make a difference, but they really won't. Anomalies will always exist that screw up this idea of guns only being used by those with a record.

How often is a gun related crime carried through by a convicted criminal using their own registered weapon? How often do criminals even HAVE registered weapons? And yet they still have weapons, be they stolen or black market.

Either way, I'm off to mod a semi auto shotgun to carry 30 rounds.

 Aerethan wrote:

Liberals can pretend all they want that background checks will make a difference, but they really won't. Anomalies will always exist that screw up this idea of guns only being used by those with a record.

Guess it won't make any difference either way then, best to err on the side of caution

How often is a gun related crime carried through by a convicted criminal using their own registered weapon? How often do criminals even HAVE registered weapons? And yet they still have weapons, be they stolen or black market.

Surprisingly enough, most people that commit crime with a gun don't get it from a guy with a thick Russian accent down at the docks at 3:00am