I'm all for a total ban on semi-automatic guns

[Hugabear]

Total ban. No grandfathering. No exceptions. If you're a police officer, military, or anyone else who routinely carries a sidearm - you check in your weapon at the office, you don't carry it home with you. Eventually I'd like to see us reach a point where police don't need to carry guns at all.

Once the ban is in place, institute an amnesty period where people can voluntarily turn in their semi-automatics. Hell, I'd even support a national buy-back program. We already have private buy-back programs around the country that are highly successful in taking guns off the street. Yes, it would be expensive - but so is the cost of treating gunshot victims.

You can still own non semi-automatic weapons, like shotguns, revolvers, bolt-action rifles, etc. These take longer to reload, and do not have nearly the capacity as today's semi-automatics. Yes, I know there are some "experts" out there who can operate a bolt-action rifle just as effectively and quickly as a semi-automatic. But that is not a skill that an average person would have, just like hitting a bulls-eye target at 100m would be. A revolver or shotgun can be just as effective (if not MORE effective) for home defense than an AR-15 semi-automatic. You can hunt just fine with a bolt-action rifle.

Will this eliminate gun crime? No, but over time it should have a very large impact.

As far as the Constitutionality of this, the 2nd Amendment does specify "Well-Regulated". That's what this is. Enforcing the "Well-Regulated" part.

I know the Gungeoneers on this site will have a field day with my post, I'll be flamed as a "gun-grabber", etc. I don't care. I'm tired of this country being more interested in protecting semi-automatic instruments of death than protecting the rights of Americans to send their children to school, the movies, church, etc without the fear of being gunned down.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. Semi automatic handguns are the best available choice for self defense

and self defense is a legitimate reason to use deadly force.

I teach firearms mostly to GLBTs and women for that reason. They are often reluctant gun owners but have come to the realization that until things change in the US, they have little choice. The police cannot be there in real time, and are sometimes part of the problem. These are not people in bad neighborhoods participating in questionable activities. Sometimes it follows them home. T*s are being slaughtered in some cities and NOTHING IS BEING DONE. These are not gun nuts. They will probably never by any kind of long gun, AR, AK, or otherwise. They will disarm when the threat passes.

Maybe you can be the one standing over them telling them that it was better they get their brains bashed in or got tortured and shot rather that own an evil semi automatic pistol. I however, will continue to help them until the threat passes. It seems the progressive thing to do.

[Hugabear]

4. How so?

How is a semi-automatic handgun any better than a revolver or shotgun?

I've read that just the sound of a shotgun being pumped can be a huge deterrent, enough to frighten away all but the most hardcore intruders.

[NeedleCast]

9. A revolver is semi-automatic

that you don't understand this is the primary reason why I can't take your argument seriously.

At it's most basic level, semi-automatic means that when you pull the trigger, the gun fires one round and prepares the next round to fire. Exactly what a revolver does.

[rustydog]

14. nice try, but there is a distinction..but lets play SEMANTICS and cloud a life and death

issue!

jimmy, tell the audience what our winners prizes are today!!!!

[Hugabear]

17. You are wrong. Not all revolvers are semi-automatic

Many revolvers require that you cock the hammer before each pull of the trigger. Therefore, they are not considered true semi-automatics.

But I can see that you're one of those who prefers to parse over definitions and details, so I won't take you seriously either.

[NeedleCast]

19. Hey, you made the distinction

I would think that most people trained in the use of a revolver could fire it almost as fast and that "almost as fast" is likely not going to matter much in mass shooting situation. Guess I don't understand why'd you'd be for banning a type of gun that is almost as dangerous as the ones you do want to ban.

[Lurker Deluxe]

27. Really?

Again, I am not going to get into can this happen, should this happen, blah blah blah.

But you think that a revolver is as deadly as a semi-auto 15 in the clip one in the pipe 9? You can post the video and all that. There are but a handful of people that can fire a revolver that fast and accurate. Simple fact is if any of these punks had to use revolvers instead of semi-autos the carnage would be no where near the same.

[NeedleCast]

45. I guess the question I'd ask is

...could a shooter (Colorado, Virginia Tech, Newtown, etc.) kill just as many people with a pair of six-shot revolvers and an auto-loader as they could with a semi-auto, higher mag capacity and in most cases, to me it looks like the answer would be yes. In the case of Newtown, Lanza killed himself before law enforcement intervention and that's generally how these things have gone...either the shooter kills himself or gives himself up based on whatever brand of crazy they're on before the cops kill them.

So the question I find myself asking is - regardless of whether the weapons being used shoots fast or really fast - is whether or not a shooter would have been stopped before they killed themselves, ran out of targets or just stopped because their crazy switch did something different (like in the case of the Aurora shooter). To me, it's not a matter of body count - the implication being that it would somehow be less tragic if Lanza had only killed a dozen kids with his revolvers instead of 20+ with his semi-auto handguns. I'd like to see the argument changed from one of semantics (which is what the OP's argument is) to one of cause.

DU not really interested in that though.

[Hugabear]

84. Then ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of auto-loaders.

There. Problem solved.

If you want to load your revolver, you do it the old-fashioned way.

[Recursion]

133. An autoloader is a little plastic disk with six holes in it

I can't even imagine a practical way to ban that. Do you have some cardboard and a hole punch? You're six seconds away from having an autoloader.

[immoderate]

134. Most murder victims are not killed in massacres.

Most murders would not be affected by a semi-auto ban. Compared to common shootings, mass murders are rare. So little affect on the total murder rate, unless you do something else (restrict sales, background check, etc.)

I recommend, for one thing, a facility be envisioned for treating these homicidal people. It could be called a "mental hospital." But that's just one thing.

--imm

[tblue]

226. Hey, ONE life would make it worth it.

Could be you or someone you dearly love.

[immoderate]

232. Yeah, but you could wipe out a lot of freedoms with that reasoning.

OTOH, if it's ME! ...

Consider that there are 12,000 gun murders a year. You ban all semi-automatic weapons, and next year there are 11,999 gun murders. That would make you happy?

--imm

[krispos42]

262. Cheney's 1% doctrine was unacceptable then...

...and it is now.

Implanting an RFID chip in everybody so the government can track your movements? "If it saves one life...".

[NeedleCast]

136. You're still making a semantic argument

Your argument is the equivalent of saying that it's okay to walk into a classroom and shoot six people but not ten. What's the magic number?

Discussion needs to be had among lawmakers about the root causes, not semantics. That's not going to happen though. Not going to happen on DU either.

[RainbowOverTexas]

194. exactly

its always more guns v less guns and never why are people killing each other

[libdem4life]

228. Root causes...gun-speak for more mental health counselors and pills to deter the violent sociopaths?

Also, get rid of the ghettos and crime and poverty...red herrings. Angry or fearful or paranoid people, plus guns plus ammunition plus aggravation or drunkeness or mis-calculated risk = death of family, innocents or self. If the above does not apply, then prove it with thoughtful and actionable events...not pie in the sky "fix the psychological, emotional, social, financial and generational familial causes of angry and potentially violent people in our midst."

Fail. Protection of one's home and family and the license to hunt in-season game...agreed. All anyone needs...except...back to the original. And no, It's not "semantic", FFS.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

242. Fail

We had the same kind of weapons in US society since then end of WWI. We did not have this level of mass killings or individual shootings. What has changed?

[libdem4life]

253. We did not have 300 million weapons and middle class, white folks paranoid about their neighbors

or their own government or FEMA taking us away to concentration camps. Yes, paranoid.

WW I and WW II, the enemy was "Them"..."The Bad Guys". Later is was "Them ... ethnics and poor in the Ghetto" Now, it appears to be, gasp, "Us".

That's what is different and how it is even a discussion on a supposedly Left-of-Center Board.

[Lurker Deluxe]

90. Again

I am not going to argue if this ban could happen, or should happen. There is no doubt that conversation will go nowhere.

The fact is that someone who is untrained and just decides to go off and start blasting the hell out of people would have a much more difficult time doing it with wheel guns and bolt action rifles. If you practice can you get that speed down? Yes. Would you be able to accomplish that in a stress enviroment? Most likely not. It was reported that teachers charged these ass clowns and were shot down doing so. Comming through that door with a wheel gun and dropping the adult in the room is alot harder with 6 shots before reloading than 16, or 30. Even with a speed loader your ammo reload will drop after that speed loader is used. Some of those kids were shot 11 times, that's a reload per victim.

I think everyone can agree that semi-autos are one hell of a lot more effective at gunning down people than wheel guns and bolt actions.

If your honest.

[NeedleCast]

143. Stil. Semantic. Argument.

Same thing I said to OP. You're creating a magic number of acceptable bodies. The OPs proposed ban works out to this: It is okay to kill six people but not ten.

I'd prefer to work on the root cause so the number is zero. That's hard though. So it wont happen among lawmakers. Wont happen on DU either.

[Lurker Deluxe]

175. I am not arguing that point

I am not saying this ban should be proposed, or even considered. I did not say anything of the kind, I agree that root causes are the issue and that if someone decides to kill a bunch of people there is very little that anyone can do to stop it from happening.

I do take issue when people argue against the Op because wheel guns and bolt actions can inflict as much damage as semi-autos. It is simply not true. If it was the semi-auto would not be used, it can jam ... wheel guns and bolts can not.

That is my only point here. A person that decides to go off can inflict one hell of a lot more carnage with the semi-auto than without.

And, if you are honest you have no choice but to agree with that SINGLE point.

[NeedleCast]

180. TO an exent, I agree with that single point

It does, however, assume a limited amount of time - e.g. that rate of fire/clip size will ultimately have an effect on the number of people killed. In the case of Newtown, I don't think it would have. From what I've seen, Lanza pretty much cornered a bunch of people, mostly kids, in a confined area and started shooting them. At that point only two things really play a factor - either the shooter stops shooting for some reason, or someone stops the shooter from shooting. In the majority of these killings, the former has been the reason the shooting stops, not the later.

If I'm a shooter and I have a bunch of people cowered in a confined area (school room, movie theater, etc) my rate of fire isn't that important because I can keep shooting and reloading until I decide to stop or someone stops me.

[Lurker Deluxe]

188. To that point

He "shot his way in" to the school through a locked glass door. Adults were the first to respond and the first to die.

If that was not what it was, do they catch him in a reload? Maybe? I don't know I was not there.

Six adults died in that attack. You grab your bolt action and take on some adults in close quarters, bring a wheel gun with you.

I would much rather face that than the working end of a XR-15

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bushmaster.jpg

[krispos42]

265. In this case, the shooter at Newtown...

...Mr. Fuckstain, probably would have had several revolvers with him, and would not have wasted time and ammunition shooting some of his victims so many times. Enter the classroom, kill the teacher, then kill the students. They're 6 to 8 years old; you can reload while they're screaming and hiding. They can't stop you; they're first graders!


Of course, we have to admit that Fuckstain used a rifle at Newtown, so given the restrictions of the OPer, I would guess he would have had either a lever-action or pump-action rifle, or a pump-action shotgun. More powerful than a handgun, certainly. And pump rifles use detachable magazines like semiautomatic rifles. The bullets are pointed; you can't use a lever-action-style tubular magazines.



Of course, semi-autos are more effective for killing lots of people in a short amount of time; it's the nature of the beast. However, despite the higher potential, these kinds of rifles are rarely used in homicides. That's the reality of the situation. Despite being common and powerful and with lots of killing potential, the most deadly tool of the murderer is... the handgun.

[Hugabear]

42. How long does it take to reload a revolver versus a clip-fed semi-automatic?

With most semi-automatic guns, all you have to do is remove the empty clip, pop in a new clip, and you're ready to go within seconds.

With a revolver, you have to physically load each bullet. Do you really think that the body counts in recent mass shootings would be as high if the killers had been using revolvers instead of semi-automatics?

So yes, the method of loading the gun IS different, and DOES make a difference.

[NeedleCast]

59. Speed Loader

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedloader

Makes reloading a revolver easy in seconds.

As to your question of whether or not I think the body counts at recent mass shooting would be as high had the shooter only had revolvers as opposed to semi-auto handguns - yes, I think the body could would be about the same as in most cases of mass shootings, the shooter usually stop shooting for whatever reason and surrenders or kills themselves. They rarely seem to be the case. In the case of Newtown, it appears that Lanza kept killing until he killed himself. If it's Lanza in a class full of kids methodically shooting them then I don't think clip capacity or rate of fire matters at all unless you want to bring up the hypothetical that police might have arrived sooner and taken the steps to stop Lanza in the small amount of time the difference between a revolver and semi-auto handgun would have made.

[Hugabear]

73. You're absolutely delusional

If you think that the body counts in recent shootings would be the same if the killers were using revolvers instead of clips.

Gun lovers like to think that all mass shooters are highly trained experts with specialized equipment for faster loading and killing. Although I would have no problem with banning such speedloaders.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

80. Its not that hard to learn how to do it, just about every cop knew how

and hey are standard issue for cops who still carry those antiques.

Revolvers are almost historical anachronisms at this point.

[rustydog]

108. Wrong, but you'll still believe what you want

I've owned them. In a REAL shooting scenario, it is a bitch. it is only faster than loading one at a time. In a real shooting scenario when you are being shot at...try not to shake when emptying the revolver, keeping cover, removing the "speed-loader" while shaking, maintining cover while being shot at and loading...easy to write down as a defense of your position, hard in real life.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

116. I never said they were good, just that they were trained

LEOs have gone to semi autos almost exclusively, just like civilians.

[Jenoch]

221. In how many of the

recent mass shooting has the shooter been shot at?

[NeedleCast]

96. Why is it Delusional?

Lets take the case of the Newtown shooting. Lanza goes into a classroom and starts shooting. He appears to shoot until he has no one else to shoot in his immediate vicinity, and then kills himself. So your argument is that he would have killed less people if he had only revolvers...why? Who would have stopped him? At that point it becomes a hypothetical argument. His potential to kill people is the same with revolvers as it is with handguns.

Same thing in Aurora. The shooter appears to have stopped because he decided to stop. Then he walked out of the theater and was taken into custody without further incident. The point is, in the majority of these mass shootings, the shooter wasn't stopped by an outside force. They stopped when they decided to stop, or they stopped when they shot themselves. Rate of fire isn't really applicable to the body count in most of these situations.

(and just for the sake of argument, I'm not a gun lover, nor do I own any guns).

[Hugabear]

128. It makes it much harder

Your average person isn't going to be able to quickly reload a revolver as quickly as a semi-automatic. Regarding speed-loaders, those can be banned or tightly regulated.

Now I suppose that these killers could have had a duffel bag filled with pre-loaded revolvers. Although, even that can be mitigated by placing strict limits on the number of guns that anyone can purchase at one time, and by keeping good records. If we notice that somebody is buying up a bunch of revolvers, then we could watch that person - just like we closely monitor sales of fertilizer, sudafed, etc.

[Recursion]

139. OK, but monitoring Sudafed hasn't actually done anything about meth production

I mean, it makes the DEA feel like it's doing something, but people still cook a shitload of meth in this country.

[NeedleCast]

165. Your argument is still about rate-of-fire/reload

In practically all the mass shooting situations we've seen in the media, rate of fire had little or nothing to do with body count.

Look at Virginia Tech. The shooter killed two people, then MORE THAN AN HOUR LATER, killed 30 more people, and himself. The key here, and I hope I'm being clear, is that the shooting stopped when the shooter decided to stop. The shooter wasn't taken down by cops or some redneck yahoo with a CC permit. They stopped killing people when they decided to stop killing people. Rate of fire was not a factor. Magazine/clip capacity was not a factor because the shooter had enough time to stop, reload and continue firing - and that has been the case in the large majority of shooting massacres. When you have a considerable amount of time to shoot people, rate of fire/mag capacity is not an issue. The only issue is number of targets and number of rounds you have. Going back to Newtown, if I have 25 young kids cornered in a classroom it doesn't matter how many rounds my gun holds or how fast it can fire them because unless someone kills me first, I can take all the time that's required to kill everyone.

Now, you start to get into some real issues in your last paragraph. Yes, I think we need tighter regulation and (much) better enforcement of existing laws.

[Jenoch]

225. Your idea about

limiting the number of revolvers is not analogous to the limits placed on Sudafed. I am unaware of stockpiles of Sudafed in public circulation. (I wonder how much of a problem there is with straw purchases of fertilizer)?

[krispos42]

266. Moon clips

A piece of sheet steel or plastic with slots in it to hold a revolver reload.

They make "full moon" and "half moon" clips.


Originally it was to use rimless autopistol cartridges in revolvers. But they are also used as improved speedloaders. Open the revolver and eject the old full-moon clip and the cartridges it holds, then drop in a new clip with fresh cartridges in it. Close the cylinder and you're ready to go.

Unlike a speedloader, you don't have to turn any knobs or anything. Just drop it in.

There are competitive guns that use moon clips with conventional revolver rounds as well, simply as an aid to quick unloading/reloading.



This is a revolver with 6 rounds of .45 auto in a full-moon clip.





Here's some loaded and empty full-moon clips.




FYI.

[rustydog]

95. reload in seconds in a shooting range in controlled situations maybe,

I've used speed loaders.

You have to open the revolver's cylinder, upend the gun and empty the cylinder of spent cartridges, unsnap the loader holster. remove the speed-loader, insert it in the cylinder, twist the release mechanism, drop the loader to the ground, close the cylinder and resume firing.

All the while there is yelling, screaming, shooting, etc going on. it may be dark, cold, wet or just dark in your home at 2am....you WILL not be calm, you will be shaking, you will be in fear of your life...it is not as simple as stated. real life is never as simple as the NRA wants to make it seem.

A good guy with a gun does not automatically mean the good guy wins...

[Recursion]

141. OK, but Lanza killed 26 people in 20 minutes

Even with just reloading a revolver the old-fashioned way, that's not much of a rush.

[rustydog]

211. First of all: Lanza didn't use speed-loaders in a revolver,

he used an assault rifle with extended magazines. Secondly: He was the shooter, he didn't need to be "rushed".
Thirdly: When you are the one being shot at (and you OBVIOUSLYhave never been shot at due to your cavalier statement) you are "rushed".

[Recursion]

215. Oh, I agree; I was thinking of rate of fire in general

My point was that even without a speedloader you could easily get the rate of fire required to do what he did with a revolver. My only thought on speedloaders is that it's difficult as a practical matter to ban "disks with six holes in them"

[JohnnyBoots]

61. they have speed loaders for wheel guns. reloading quick is easy with them.

[Indydem]

65. So they carry half a dozen guns - still dead people.

Those who are intent on killing people will kill people.

If they need to strap on 5 revolvers to get the job they want done, they will.

And with the larger caliber bullets of most revolvers, they won't need to shoot a child 11 times; once will suffice.

Stopping someone who is bent on doing terrible things is an exercise in futility.

[Hugabear]

79. So your answer is we shouldn't do anything, because criminals will still find ways to kill

That seems to be the attitude among many gun lovers. Even if we ban guns, criminals will still find ways to kill people.

Well the fuck, why not make pipe bombs legal, because people can create those very easily and use them if they want.

[Indydem]

81. Do pipe bombs serve any other purpose?

Are pipe bombs protected by an amendment to the Constitution?

No? Fail.

[Hugabear]

93. The only purpose of a gun is to kill.

The 2nd Amendment only mentions "arms". It does not specify what type of arms.

The 2nd Amendment also clearly specifies "Well-Regulated". We already heavily regulate automatic machine guns. We forbid the private ownership of heavy arms such as artillery, RPGs, missiles, etc.

So we just add semi-automatic weapons to the list of arms that are regulated.

[Indydem]

105. That is absolutely not true.

Firearms have many other uses besides to kill.

The fact that you can't see that, or acknowledge it, simply shows that you have no idea what a firearm is for.

Your opinion has been discounted because you honestly believe that the dozens of other uses for a firearm that will never result in the death of anything, let alone a human, do not exist.

Sad, really.

[frylock]

229. can you list the "dozens of other uses for a firearm?"

i'll get you started:

hunting (killing)
target shooting

i'll need at least 22 more uses plz.

[pkdu]

255. Still crickets ? Nt

[Indydem]

270. Sorry.

I have a life besides DU.

[frylock]

273. yeh, i'm sure you do

[theKed]

259. To refine that list a bit

Uses for guns:

1. Killing animals
2. Killing people
3. Practicing to kill animals and people
4. ???
.
.
.
24. ???

[Indydem]

269. Of course I can.

1. Skeet shooting
2. Target shooting
3. Competitive shooting
4. Biathlon training
5. Historical recreations
6. Investing
7. Restoration and display
8. Personal protection
9. Home protection
10. Sentimental reasons (inherited family items)
11. Intellectual curiosity
12. Historical significance (M1, etc)
13. To be prepared for whatever may occur
14. A right exercised is a right secured
15. To use as a starting pistol
16. Teaching safety / proper respect
17. Professional reasons (LEO)
18. Signaling
19. Social interaction
20. Each gun has its own role - 2 or more will be required
21. Conscription
22. Scaring your daughters dates
23. Zombies
24. Just because you want to

[frylock]

274. weak fucking sauce..

how about:

bathroom protection
walking from bathroom to kitchen protection
small dick protection

[Indydem]

275. I made you a list.

I'm sorry that your response is to devolve into insults.

It must be very sad for you.

[frylock]

276. i thought you had a life outside of DU?

surely there are dozens of other uses for your precious time.

[Indydem]

277. I'm available at the moment.

Not usually in the evenings.

[pkdu]

281. Thanks for making the effort. I too have a life outside DU, so I empathize ....but..

Many are same thing... 1,2,3,4

Many are irrelevant to current discussion....5,7,12,16


Many are , sorry , bullshit...6,7,10,13,14,15,16,18,19,21-24....but you knew that

[Recursion]

109. It is totally within Congress's power to reschedule semi-automatics under the NFA

That's also about 80% of firearms in private hands today. Call it 200 million weapons. Machine guns were never common in private ownership so banning them was comparatively easy. Sawed-off shotguns are in the same class as machine guns. Shotguns and saws are common in the US. That's why we still have a significant number of crimes committed with sawed-off shotguns, despite their having the same legal status as machine guns.

[upaloopa]

18. We've been over this before. Because someone

doesn't have your gun knowledge that doesn't discount what they are calling for. You need to drop that talking point since the people in this country want gun control and they are not about to go to gun school before they get what they want.

[barbtries]

107. thank you upaloopa!

[Flatulo]

282. I'm seeing a mixed message. People want assault-style weapons banned,

but overwhelmingly support handgun ownership. They want high-capacity ammo clips banned, but thnk that gun ownership does more good than harm.

See the latest USA Today/Gallup poll

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

[Hoyt]

33. Oh Jeeez, more nomenclature obfuscation. The OP is clear. I agree with OP.

Here is a simple definition even the most ardent gun supporter can understand:

A revolver typically has a cylinder in which a fixed number of bullets may be loaded. A semi-auto, has a magazine that can carry a bunch of bullets in case one wishes to shoot a bunch of people with minimum reloads.

If there were no semi-autos, gun sales would all but dry up because even the most callous, gun lover just doesn't get excited about having a bunch of revolvers to play with.



Yahoos lined up at Atlanta gun show to buy assault weapons only one week after Sandy Hook would have stayed at home if all they could have acquired/fondled were revolvers:






This guy is not using a revolver:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=SfDjvhsdQoo

[pkdu]

256. Wow , does that guy ever need his penis extension device. Nt

[Kaleva]

263. But there is a difference between a semi-automatic revolver and a semi-automatic pistol

[krispos42]

264. No. It's a repeater.

It is a gun with one barrel and multiple chambers. It requires manual action (cocking the hammer/pulling the trigger) to remove the spent cartridge and load a new one. In this case, it is the rotation of an unfired chamber in-line with the barrel.

Because of the cylinder, the manual action is light and short enough to be incorporated into the trigger mechanism.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. There are any number of treatises as to why...if I post any them, there will be cries of

gun porn, talking points, and multiple alerts. Let me summarize...

More accurate shooting (self cocking of the hammer)
easier to keep safe (if not in a safe)
Better grip choices and caliber choices

A shotgun or any long gun has problems maneuvering in tight spaces.
Shotgun pattern spread at household ranges are minimal
The sound of a cocking may not be heard or recognized.

[DanTex]

29. Treatises, yes. Evidence, no.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

68. What evidence would you accept?

Just about every defensive shooting instructor and LEOs of all types use semi autos.

[DanTex]

86. Something that shows that carrying a concealed gun makes a person safer.

Or that carrying a semi-auto is measurably better than a revolver (assuming a revolver doesn't count as "semi-auto&quot . Or pepper spray.

Also, even if we accept that carrying a semi-auto does make a person safer (something I haven't seen any evidence for), the safety benefit of a general ban on semi-autos for everyone would clearly outweigh this. In other words, a person with no gun in a world where semi-autos are banned would be safer than a person with a gun in the world we currently live in.

[rustydog]

98. The NRA says the "Only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"

To think I used to belong to that group of social retards.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

112. I was referring to the semi vs revolver...

The data needed to answer you concealed weapon question is unknowable
- We do not know how many people carry. Some have permits but never do. Others are in states where no permit is needed.
- No mechanism exists to track Defensive Gun Use. Even if there were, unless a weapon is fired, the police would rarely know anyway.

The rest is conjecture on your part, an opinion, but neither lemma nor fact.

[DanTex]

123. In other words, there is no evidence.

On the other hand, there is evidence that reducing gun availability reduces homicide rates. There have been several studies linking higher gun ownership rates to higher homicide rates, both internationally, and also at the state and county level. It is also well documented that gun assaults are more deadly than knife assaults, meaning reducing the number of guns and replacing them with other weapons would reduce the fraction of assaults that result in homicides. Etc.

However, when it comes to the safety benefits of guns, there is no evidence that carrying or owning a gun makes a person safer. In fact, the studies have generally pointed in the opposite direction: that the risks are greater than whatever benefits there may be.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

142. The paucity of data means your (or others) conclusions cannot be valid

The key metric is all of this is DGU. Its not available, its not collected, and no one is even trying at this point. Without it, it is not possible to tell the net benefit. Both sides spin what data there is, but its not based on real numbers.

Gun issues have become so charged that no one it telling the truth to pollsters, the cops, or their friends. Most of my GLBT shooting students have told me that they will not/do not tell anyone that they are now armed.

[DanTex]

160. DGU is only one of many metrics.

In fact, even if we could agree on the DGU number, that still wouldn't tell us what we need to know because it's hard to determine how many DGU incidents actually save a life or prevent harm. Just because someone claims self-defense doesn't mean it was a necessary and beneficial act.

But that doesn't mean there's no data.

There are case-control studies, where the compute the likelihood that a person who owns or carries a gun is a victim of a crime, versus a person with no gun. It turns out the guns are associated with an increased risk, rather than decreased risk, even after controlling for things like criminal history and drug/alcohol use.

There are ecological studies, where the look at rates of homicide and compare them to rates of gun ownership. It turns out that, where there are more guns, there is more homicide, even after controlling for other socioeconomic factors.

In the end, the totality of the evidence supports the common sense conclusion, which is that safety is enhanced by having less guns, not more.

[Flatulo]

213. Many jurisdictions will routinely arrest/charge any person for DGU.

In Massachusetts, the various county District Attorneys have been quite aggressive in pursuing charges against even non-lethal defensive gun use.

Any type of brandishing or display of a firearm in even a dangerous (to you) situation will most likely end very badly for you.

I know that I certainly wouldn't volunteer this kind of information to the authorities, especially if an attacker was frightened off.

[rustydog]

10. If you can't kill your zombie, commie, home-invasion bad guy

with a 6-shot .357 Or .44 magnum(go ahead, punk, make my day (squint) or a good old 12-gauge pump..you better practice pissing your pants cause your semi-auto won't do SHIT pal, you're already dead, raped or robbed.

next arguement!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. Revolvers and shotguns are lousy for concealed carry

and sub optimal for home defense. Use what you want, but there is no reason to handicap those who need it

[bongbong]

30. concealed carry?

So much fear in so many people.

[Indydem]

41. You want to talk about fear?

The statistical likelihood of a child being murdered in their school (or anyone being part of any mass shooting for that matter) is negligible.

The fact that anti-gun advocates are using this statistical anomaly as the basis for a campaign to eliminate the private ownership of firearms is despicable.

You want to talk about fear? Fear of gun owners and guns is unfounded, baseless, and frankly, crazy.

[bongbong]

47. Really?

> Fear of gun owners and guns is unfounded, baseless, and frankly, crazy.

Tell that to the tens of thousands that die in the US every year because of Delicate Flower Paranoia Syndrome.

[Indydem]

54. Your "delicate flowers" aren't murdering people.

You continue to refuse to acknowledge who is committing murders, and it isn't "gun nuts" NRA members, or anyone of the like.

It's law breakers who are bent on committing crimes, not gun enthusiasts who have firearms for lawful purposes.

You can continue to act as if the people who support gun rights do so because they want to murder people, but the statistics will continue to show you are just making things up to suit your agenda.

[bongbong]

88. Sheesh

> not gun enthusiasts who have firearms for lawful purposes.

Oh yeah, I forgot. The moment that Adam Lanza killed his "gun enthusiast" mother who had her Preciouses for "lawful purposes", the guns became his by inheritance and thus his actions were those of a "bad guy" unconnected to NRA fear-mongering.

[Indydem]

100. That is a ludicrous argument constructed to fit your narritive.

The firearms that Adam Lanza used were stolen. By any definition of the law, the owner of those firearms did not authorize their use. We still don't know whether she had them secured, and how he gained access to them, but I am certain that using them to kill her and then attacking a school full of children would not have warranted her permission.

Was Adam Lanza a gun enthusiast? Was he a "delicate flower"? Did he have an NRA membership? How about his participation in "gun culture"? Did he associate and socialize with other gun owners?

By all accounts, no. He was a deranged, mentally ill individual that (for whatever reason) decided to commit a terrible act and kill children.

Your attempts to warp reality, to make Adam Lanza one of the people you insult and are full of hatred for, is a sign of desperation.

You cannot make a logical and sound argument for your positions so you have spent hours of your life demonizing and insulting millions of Americans because YOU are afraid of firearms - for no logical reason.

I really feel very sorry for you.

[bongbong]

111. Hmmm

> The firearms that Adam Lanza used were stolen.

Yeah, too bad the mother couldn't stay awake 24x7 with her assault rifle cradled in her lap to keep all the "thugs" away.

> Was Adam Lanza a gun enthusiast? Was he a "delicate flower"?

Seems like the answer is "yes" to both of those questions, but I can only say with 95% certainty.

> He was a deranged, mentally ill individual that (for whatever reason)

And right up until that moment he was a "law-abiding gun enthusiast" who enjoyed going to the range to pop off a few with his mommy, the other "law-abiding gun enthusiast".

> Your attempts to warp reality, to make Adam Lanza one of the people you insult and are full of hatred for,

I don't have hatred for Delicate Flowers. I have pity since they are consumed by their fears of the world outside of the space under their beds, and wish they could all get some counseling for their paranoia.

[Indydem]

131. Wow. I really do feel bad for you.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Adam Lanza was any kind of gun enthusiast whatsoever. He did not own any firearms of his own, and by all reports, he went along with him mother, once (perhaps a few times) to a range. It wasn't his hobby of choice or a regular activity. There is no evidence I have seen or heard that his mother wanted to keep "thugs" out - another projection from you.

You do hate "delicate flowers." The fact that you have labeled gun owners as such shows you have nothing but scorn and derision for them. Gun owners that I know have neither fear no paranoia. Your continuing to project these emotions on to them is really sad.

Being a gun owner isn't needing of counseling. Running around treating every one of them like they are just waiting to kill a room full of children may warrant some, however.

[bongbong]

149. ???

> There is no evidence whatsoever that Adam Lanza was any kind of gun enthusiast whatsoever.

He went to the range with his mother. That's plenty of evidence for me.

> You do hate "delicate flowers."

I don't hate them. I think they just need counseling to get to the point where, without their guns, they can become productive members of society.

> Gun owners that I know have neither fear no paranoia.

Take their Precious away from them and get back to me on that.

[Indydem]

163. Really?

So going to a gun range now makes you a gun enthusiast? You better talk to the millions of cub scouts who go to a gun range a few times to fire .22 bolt action rifles - you just turned them all into "delicate flowers."

What metric do you possibly use that would classify a gun owner, as an unproductive member of society? Unless of course, you are just making up new terminology for "productive."

So, if you take away the possessions of a group of people, in violation of their constitutional rights, in the same manner as dictators across the ages, people have no reason to be paranoid or afraid? You are confusing "after the gun grab" and before the gun grab. I would fully expect everyone in America to be afraid and paranoid if the government started shutting down churches or newspapers. Only in your world is the second amendment less important than the others.

[bongbong]

171. LOL

> So going to a gun range now makes you a gun enthusiast?

Seeing as how "gun enthusiast" is a completely subjective term, arguing over its definition is silly at best.

How about if we say that "gun enthusiast" includes those, that for whatever reason, use a gun as a tool to snuff out life? After all, slaughter is not an easy task, and you must be enthusiastic about such a job if you're going to take it on.

> What metric do you possibly use that would classify a gun owner, as an unproductive member of society?

I'm not as long as they can give up their addiction to their Precious. Just like a lot of really sad, deeply-addicted heroin addicts turn into productive citizens once their addiction is kicked.

> n violation of their constitutional rights,

Nothing of the sort. They can still join a well-regulated militia like the Constitution & Federalist Paper #29 talked about in detail.

[rbixby]

117. So essentially the only answer to the gun violence problem

can be more guns, in your opinion?

[Indydem]

135. There is no clear answer.

But the OP's solution is just plain silly.

More in depth background checks. A reasonable tax to fund mental health. A short, yet reasonable waiting period.

I can get behind all of those.

None of those would have stopped Sandy Hook. There is no silver bullet. There is no feel-good legislation that makes statistically anomalous events go away.

[rbixby]

146. So no part of the solution is 'less guns'?

[Indydem]

150. Nope.

Being killed by a gun is still a statistical anomaly. Reducing the number of guns through any mandatory action is a violation of the second amendment.

But the better question is this: what do you believe reducing the number of firearms will accomplish? When there were fewer firearms, say 20 years ago, were there fewer murders? I think you know that isn't true.

[rbixby]

159. By your logic, then the answer is definitely 'more guns'

[Indydem]

167. That's a black or white view.

My answer is "stay the fuck out of it." If gun ownership goes up, it goes up. If it goes down, it goes down.

If being murdered by a firearm becomes a statistical likelihood for normal law-abiding citizens, then there are plenty of initiatives that can be undertaken that do not involve violating the second amendment.

[rbixby]

172. I'm not sure that the thousands who die by gun violence every year

Are okay with letting it continue because they're a 'statistical anomaly'. Is that something you'd say to the families of those killed by gun violence "Don't worry, its a statistical anomaly"? We're talking about real human beings here, people with families, with jobs, with friends, people who'll be missed. To write them off as a statistical anomaly to say that we shouldn't do anything to reduce the amount of gun violence is to really dehumanize them, and I really find it sad that that's something you can do.

[Indydem]

179. My apologies.

I guess letting "science" "math" and "facts" determine my beliefs as opposed to "emotions" is a terrible thing.

I choose to recognize the actual likelihood of being killed by a firearm is minute. Therefore spending time on this issue, when we have millions of Americans without jobs, and losing hope every single day, is more important than worrying about something that will have no effect, or worse yet, is a pipe dream.

[rbixby]

183. Reducing people to numbers makes it easier

to reduce murder to the cost of doing business. I get it

[Indydem]

184. Making it seem like it happens all the time

Makes it easier to fulfill your desire to achieve other goals.

I get it.

[rbixby]

190. I don't really have other goals

I just think that too many people die because of gun violence. I'm not sure what you think my 'other goals' might be. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

[Hugabear]

168. Bullshit.

Was reducing the number of fully-automatic weapons a violation of the 2nd Amendment? As you know, these are already highly regulated - you can't just go to your gun shop and buy one.

Under my OP, you would still be allowed to own guns - so your right to bear arms would not be infringed. However, the 2nd Amendment does not mean that you have the right to own any type of arms that you want.

As far as reducing the number of firearms, just look at countries that already have strict gun laws - they do not have anywhere near the level of gun crime that we do in this country.

[Indydem]

176. Neither does Canada.

A higher percentage of Canadian households own firearms than Americans. Gun ownership in Norway is also high.

There are many differences that make a difference in our murder rate. Gun control, while the most fashionable, and seemingly simple (especially for those predisposed to be anti-gun) won't address the root causes of our gun violence.

[DanTex]

224. Why are pro-gunners so clueless?

A higher percentage of Canadian households own firearms than Americans. Gun ownership in Norway is also high.

This is completely false. Gun ownership rates in the US are a lot higher than either Canada or Norway. I get that you are opposed to gun control, but don't you think it would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with some basic facts first?

The major difference between the US and the rest of the developed world in this area is that we have far looser gun laws, far more gun ownership, and a far higher homicide rate -- and this is due to gun homicides. Our overall rates of violent crime are not out of line with Canada, Western Europe, etc., but since there are more guns in the US, and since guns are much more deadly than other weapons, we have more murders.

[Recursion]

187. Actually winding up with "less guns" is the rub

It's very difficult to ban things effectively, as opposed to behavior.

[Hugabear]

144. What do Adam Lanza, James Holmes, and Jared Loughner have in common?

None of them had any criminal backgrounds that would have prevented them from buying a gun.

James Holmes and Jared Loughner actually purchased their guns legally.

So much for the "only law breakers commit crimes".

EVERY criminal is a law-abiding citizen until they commit their first crime. Each of these murderers I named would have been considered a "law abiding citizen" before they went on their killing sprees.

[Recursion]

170. That's part of why mass shootings shouldn't be what drives gun policy

They're complete outliers and difficult to to much about. It's common to rhetorically ask "do you think he would have killed that many people with explosives?" (or whatever the other deadly thing somebody has mentioned is.) I think for your "normal" murder, not having access to a gun probably would prevent it -- a man who shoots his wife's lover in a jealous rage probably wouldn't club him to death in a jealous rage. I also think the Loughners and Lanzas (and McVeighs) of the world probably would find some other way to commit a mass murder if guns weren't available.

[Coyote_Tan]

63. The statistically significant portion of DU who would move...

... if they found they even lived in proximity to a "scary" gun is enough to show that the whole argument is fear driven.

Pools, pets, drugs, doctors, cars and a myriad of other things cause deaths or many times more deaths per year than guns but for some reason these are scariest. It's all about controlling other people, which is of course impossible in a free society.

[bongbong]

83. LOL

So you're another believer in the "scientific" nature of this poll?

You know, you sound real smart. I have a bridge that I inherited that I want to sell. You could buy it, and get rich collecting tolls on it! PM me.

[Coyote_Tan]

110. Who said anything about scientific...

However, I can observe human nature.

A horrific event happens and emotional masses scream for something to be done. They don't really care that what is done will not prevent the same event from happening again. It is just enough that something is done and someone has paid a price, even if they were not involved.

It's that emotional fear that keeps folks from accepting reality. In a free society there are rough edges and sometimes terrible things will happen to innocents. The only way to change it is to step away from a free society to a completely regulated one. Until all of our actions and thoughts are completely controlled bad stuff will happen.

It isn't gun specific, it's just a part of human nature.

Personally, I prefer more freedom and to take my chances (statistically very slim) that some of these things will happen than to surrender control to someone else who "knows better."

[bongbong]

129. FREEDUMB!

> It's that emotional fear that keeps folks from accepting reality.

Thats why gun sales went up after Newtown. Fear-filled Delicate Flowers.

> In a free society there are rough edges and sometimes terrible things will happen to innocents

Yeah, I know how you feel. I want to drive my tank around town and the lousy laws stopped me. And those laws stopping me from driving 150MPH and weaving in and out of traffic really crimp my style.

> Personally, I prefer more freedom

So would have the 20 1st-graders, but the only freedom they have now is to become food for worms.

[Coyote_Tan]

186. You obviously prefer control of others...

... to quell your own insecurities.

Silliness like tanks in the streets, child like insults and a desperate appeal to emotion pretty much prove my point in one neat tidy package.

I think I'll bookmark it..

Much appreciated.

[bongbong]

189. Fear

> I think I'll bookmark it..

OHHH, a stalker! Yahoo!



> to quell your own insecurities.

If I was scared I'd buy a gun! Your fear of walking around without one is clear. It's funny to see your projection.

[Coyote_Tan]

192. You obviously misunderstood...

I don't particularly care about you and doubt I'll remember your username later tonight.

I'm just going to save that one post as an example of how control types like to "debate" with fear, insults and absurdity and appeal to emotion over logic.

You are absolutely scared. It just happens to be that you are scared of guns. Statistics be damned...

[rustydog]

55. Your statistics show your child runs a MUCH higher risk of being killed in your HOME

by your gun. period.

[Indydem]

60. Still statistically negligible.

There are 300 million firearms in America. The likelihood of being killed by one is still so statistically small as to be negligible.

More kids drown in pools or die of SIDS.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

85. Actually I was referring back to some of what the prior poster wrote

And yes, there are segments of our population who do live in rational fear.

[bongbong]

102. LOL

> , there are segments of our population who do live in rational fear.

By DEFINITION it's irrational fear, since statistics clearly show that if you have a gun you're more likely to get hurt than if you don't.

I guess in Delicate Flower world everybody is above average and don't need to worry about facts.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

126. Tell that to the GLBT community some time

[bongbong]

140. Ho boy

I've posted my rebuttal to this already in this thread.

[rustydog]

50. How many home invaders have you had to kill? How many times while shopping at b-mart

for more ammo did you have to draw and kill the invading Mooslim terrists?
how many times at the movie theater did you prevent a mass killing by getting the gunman only with your AK47? your HK, Your glock 19 with law enforcement mags?

If this country is that fucking dangerous we all need to carry? Get the fuck out.

Oh, and in my line of work, I am threatened with death regularly for over 30 years and I still do NOT carry concealed, open, or whatever the fuck else there is. and I am still here!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

62. More than a dozen...

They all had scales. I did it with an open carry revolver with mixed load out including shot shells. For home defense I am old school, an 1911A in 45 ACP.
I live in an unusual area. I normally don't carry when I am driving, just riding.

For GLBTs, this can be a dangerous place. The police cannot be there in real time, and are sometimes part of the problem. These are not people in bad neighborhoods participating in questionable activities. Sometimes it follows them home. T*s are being slaughtered in some cities and nothing is being done. Do you have any solutions for them?

I also do not project my experience as the baseline for everyone else.

[rustydog]

82. You've had to kill more than a dozen and we haven't seen you in the news?

I've had drug dealers come after me, gang members threaten me. i've run into a couple of dangerous mental health patients on the street who threatened to murder me the next time I saw them and I am still here...I ran into a real ass-wipe who got out of jail before I got off work. (He was going to kill me the next time he saw me) He ran into me in the bar, calling names threatening...he is alive and so am I.
I didn't know concealed carry was the only answer to this problem.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

99. Did you miss the word "scales"

I live in prime rattlesnake country...between the spring and the fall its not unusual to take out a dozen snakes. I don't keep track anymore, but I did need to buy more snake shot rounds. I carry when riding since if I go down, it could be a while until I get help. I live in the raw desert, not the suburbs, exburbs, rural or city.

Now I am sure you are a tough guy who has never been bashed, stalked by an angry ex-boyfriend or husband. However, there are many who are not up to your level of badassness. They needs tools to defend themselves. Who are you to deny them that?

[rustydog]

147. No I didn't miss scales. you're trying to distract because you're arguement is lame.

I lived around, caught rattlers by hand. haven't been bit. was able to kill them with rocks and sticks
Not as glorious as with a gun, but then there you go.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

158. Your prior reply showed no such intent

I will accept you backpedaling as concession.


There is no glory in killing a rattler, just necessity. It doesn't seem to make a dent in their population, but keeps me and my visitors safer.

[rustydog]

216. Backpedal? hardly, but I used sticks and stones (hummm) to kill rattlers

Keep trying though, you may make a good arguement.

[Flatulo]

250. Maybe not everyone is as incredibly tough as you are.

I'm small and disabled. I can't run two steps or lift more than a few pounds. I can barely walk. A 12 year old kid could kick the shit out of me.

I'm glad that you can fight off hordes of assailants, but we're not all in that category.

[Flatulo]

220. Why do you consider a wheel gun a poor choice for CC?

I have a Glock 19 and a Ruger SP101 chambered for .38 Special or .357. The Ruger is much smaller and hence more concealable, and has plenty of punch in .38 (although is totally unmanagable in Magnum).

Just curious.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

239. Size...much easier to be "read"

a flatter single stack automatic is much easier to conceal, often with a shorter barrel. The silhouette of a revolver is more recognizable. Kahr Arms are good examples of this...Zimmerman carried one IIRC.

That said, the vast majority of the time, I carry a revolver since I want a mixed loadout. I use a shoulder holster under my riding jacket. It hides well unless I open my jacket. If you carry for a while, hang out with LEOs, etc, you can get to the point where you can read others fairly well. I've been read 2-3X in the last few years.

There is a DU poster who has stated and defended vociferously that if you suspect someone of carrying you should detain them until an LEO gets there. Truly amusing

[Flatulo]

244. It took me a long time to find acceptable holsters for both the Glock and the Ruger.

But the Glock is a double-stack, so the grip and overall thickness is pretty large. Still, I can conceal it under any garment except for a slim-fit tee shirt if I wear it in the small of my back. The Ruger, on the other hand, can be worn in a side holster that rides up high and tight, almost under my arm. That is virtually impossible to detect.

I do feel that CC should be taken seriously. I've seen a few people with an open flannel shirt very poorly concealing their piece. It makes no sense to freak people out.

I was in a Wal-Mart one night and a fucking SWAT team came in and evacuated the store because a holder was barely concealing and a frightened clerk called 911.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

246. I bet you can still be read by a pro

Most won't care if you don't look like you are up to no good. If its done well, they often assume its legitimate. The amateurs just stuff it in their pants sometimes with amusing results. You already know to keep your permit handy.

Had a similar incident happen to a friend of mine at a street fair/wine walk in a small town. He had his big smartphone in an Otter case underneath his Hawaiian shirt. Some Delicate Flower thought he was carrying and told the cops who were there showing off the town's new police bike. One of the cops walked over to him told him what had been reported and asked him to lift his shirt. They both had a good laugh. The Delicate Flower was lurking nearby and turn bright red, outing himself.

[Flatulo]

254. Expect a lot more of this kind of harassment in the future as fear and ignorance spread. nt

[DustyJoe]

153. Amen

I'd pit my 45yr old .357 revolver I carried as a LEO in the 70's against a 9mm glock semi. Both in power and reload with speed loaders.

It is a sad statement though that 1 deranged criminal with 2 handguns and 1 rifle would incite a call for a ban against 300 million plus lawfully owned firearms. I am surprised with the DWI accidents that kill a family of 5 like happened here a few years back, a total motor vehicle ban wasn't called for with a push to return to horse and buggies. Both are tragedies, but the fault of the criminal not the tool used.


We could always go back to the 1800's when the single action Colt Peacemaker revolver, lever action Winchester rifle, or a double barrel 12 gauge is all that could be owned. History shows that was a bloodless period doesn't it ?

Punish criminals, not the whole country.

[upaloopa]

13. No matter what idea comes up gunners will

have a definitive reason why it won't work or is a bad idea. I'd say you better get use to the idea that there are controls you don't like that are going to be in place soon.
The day is past where "no controls" is the main stream.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. I am for some additional controls

But banning all semi autos is not the right answer

[Warren Stupidity]

234. Your support is for doing nothing about the absurd flood of weapons in this country.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

241. That is not true...what follows will slow down the illegal weapons traffic in this country

without doing stupid and meaningless things.

Things I support

NICS checks or equivalent on all transactions, even private party transaction, inheritance, and gifts. My approach would be a Federal FOID that you would automatically get at 18yo so they are not a "firearms ownership licenses", a common objection to that approach. The check is then if the FOID is still valid for the sale to proceed. This is easy from the IT perspective. Note the NRA rejects the FOID approach.

Limitation of pistol magazines to what fits inside the grip of the gun. Require that new designs not support magazines that extend beneath the handle (BATF already has authority to force design changes). This is readily demonstrated by the Ruger line of .22LR handguns and the Astra 400/600. Grandfather or buy back at retail price non-conforming magazines. This approach also slows down magazine changes. Note that the NRA has rejected magazine limitations

All firearms must be secured when not in use, being cleaned, transported, etc. While California got stupid on parts of this, its the right thing to do. Some will miss their old time glass front display cases or wall rack, but proper security is a must. Would consider an exemption for non-functional devices. I believe the NRA has fought mandatory safes. It adds costs to gun ownership, but this has to be done.

Mandatory reporting of theft or loss. This is a no brainer. A number of pro gun people say they will report theirs missing to avoid registration etc. That should be felony country.

Enforce the existing Federal laws about false paperwork by purchasers. Bloomie and I even agree on this one

Somethings I have mixed feelings about/no definitive solution

Mandatory owner training. It is not required to exercise any other enumerated right, but I have seen some very scary stuff over the years. Not sure what the standards should be, but I come down on the side of some training being required. The NRA has fought this.

Mandatory safety training for children. Enough for them to overcome their natural curiosity and get an adult should they find an unsecured firearm. While some would find that more offensive than the fundies find sex ed, until things change, its basic safety and needs to be done. Not sure the best way, but it is clearly called for. NRA has not taken a stand on this but does offer such classes. I don't see it as a talking point.

Waiting periods. For someone who already has firearms, not sure what purpose they serve. For first time owners I support them. Overall I think they are a good idea. Not sure what the right time length should be. 1 weeks seems good. There are reports that Lanza tried to buy a rifle but was stopped by the mandated waiting period (if the media reports are to be believed). NRA opposes waiting periods

Better mental health reporting and supervision. Seen a number of posts on that here. Clearly something is called for, but how to do it is not clear. Loughner never should have been allowed to have a gun. Also we cannot and should not demonize the mentally ill and the people who serve them as some have done. The NRA has fought additional reporting of some types of problems yet is trying to blame the "crazies". Go figure

===============================================
That's my current working list. Still thinking about long guns, and have some thoughts, but not enough to post yet. Those will address some of the concerns. Clearly it is not enough based on your prior posts, but its a fair start.

[spanone]

16. ban them. now.

[Chuckster]

32. I know at least one woman...

... who says she would rather be tortured, beaten and raped than own a gun. For that matter she said she would not want her attacker to be prevented by using violence. She even said she would not use violence, let alone a gun, to protect her children. Go figure.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

44. To each their own and its a choice that should be respected

I know some Quakers. Remarkable in their willingness to live their beliefs. I have a great deal of respect for that even though I disagree with them on some issues.

However, in supporting the GLBT community I find those who have been threatened and/or assaulted have changed their minds and want to be able to resist effectively. Being armed in the GLBT community is much more controversial than in other parts of society. Most keep their gun ownership in the closet regardless if the rest of their lives are or not.

[Flatulo]

251. That person is an idiot, but it's her choice. No one is forcing her to defend her life.

She has the option to lay down and die at someone else's hand.

Me, not so much.

[TheKentuckian]

258. I support her right to make her own choices, I think it is way disturbing that

she would condemn her children to molestation, torture, and death for her choice.

Noble suicide for your own principles is one thing, standing by and volunteering your kids is a sickness, if you won't protect them then who the hell will? Perhaps she should consider adoption if she cannot morally protect her children at need.

My mother would deal swiftly to protect her children and always had the means to do so.
For all her faults, I'd want my children to have a mother like mine than the person you describe.

Go figure is right, that is the most fucked up thing I've heard in maybe ever.

[Warren Stupidity]

233. handguns are a public health issue, everyone around them is in danger.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

243. Which is why LEOs carry them?

Public Health basis has been pretty well debunked at this point.

[Warren Stupidity]

248. Only amoung right wing NRA chat groups denizens.

In 2005, in this country, 30,694 people died from gunshot wounds; 17,002 cases were suicides, 12,352 were homicides, and 1340 were accidental, police-related, or of undetermined intent. Nearly 70,000 more people received treatment for nonfatal wounds in U.S. emergency departments. The disheartening 30% case fatality rate is 18 times that for injuries to motorcyclists. More than 80% of gun-related deaths are pronounced at the scene or in the emergency department; the wounds are simply not survivable. This reality is reflected in the fact that the $2 billion annual costs of medical care for the victims of gun violence are dwarfed by an estimated overall economic burden, including both material and intangible costs, of $100 billion.1 It's unlikely that health care professionals will soon prevent a greater proportion of shooting victims from dying; rather, we as a society must prevent shootings from occurring in the first place.
Gun violence is often an unintended consequence of gun ownership. Americans have purchased millions of guns, predominantly handguns, believing that having a gun at home makes them safer. In fact, handgun purchasers substantially increase their risk of a violent death. This increase begins the moment the gun is acquired — suicide is the leading cause of death among handgun owners in the first year after purchase — and lasts for years.
The risks associated with household exposure to guns apply not only to the people who buy them; epidemiologically, there can be said to be “passive” gun owners who are analogous to passive smokers. Living in a home where there are guns increases the risk of homicide by 40 to 170% and the risk of suicide by 90 to 460%. Young people who commit suicide with a gun usually use a weapon kept at home, and among women in shelters for victims of domestic violence, two thirds of those who come from homes with guns have had those guns used against them.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0800859

[Flatulo]

252. You could sit next to my pistol for 10,000 years and you would not be in any danger. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

268. Your grasp of epidemiology is stunning. I suggest a letter to NEJM.

[Flatulo]

280. If it's dying you're worried about, rest easy. According to the CDC, homicide

is dead last (pun intended) among the top 15 causes of death in the United States. You're 3X more likely to die from the flu or some other accident.

Data is for the year 2009.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

Relax, have a beer and a cigar, enjoy your life. I do.

1. Diseases of heart (heart disease) 599,413
2. Malignant neoplasms (cancer) 567,628
3. Chronic lower respiratory diseases 137,353
4. Cerebrovascular diseases (stroke) 128,842
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries) 118,021
6. Alzheimer’s disease 79,003
7. Diabetes mellitus (diabetes) 68,705
8. Influenza and pneumonia 53,692
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (kidney disease) 48,935
10. Intentional self-harm (suicide) 36,909
11. Septicemia 35,639
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis 30,558
13. Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal dis­ease (hypertension) 25,734
14. Parkinson’s disease 25,565
15. Assault (homicide) 16,799

[cherokeeprogressive]

2. How would you keep them from crossing the southern border?

[Hugabear]

7. Seems that most of our guns are going into Mexico, not the other way around

Mexico already has very strict gun laws, and much of their guns are coming in through the US.

Clamp down on the supply in this country, and you'll see a reduction of guns going into Mexico.

It won't be a fast process - it will take years, if not decades, to get most of the guns off the street. But we have to start somewhere.

[Hugabear]

46. I'm honored that you used one of your 8 posts since 2001 to respond to me

n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

103. I found that odd too...

I am wondering is there are some issues in the user database

[Hassin Bin Sober]

113. Yeah, there are some issues alright.

[cherokeeprogressive]

260. I'm curious... Do you think the War On Drugs caused more marijuana to be grown in Mexico

than was grown there before it really cranked up?

I think we all know the "government" in Mexico is riddled with corruption, and that a fair percentage of "government officials" in Mexico are complicit in the drug trade. A large percentage of people crossing the border TONIGHT will be carrying illegal drugs and they'll WALK to a highway and disappear into the US population and be given compensation for what they carried.

I'm getting the impression you think that WON'T happen with the very firearms you want to ban outright. I'd bet that a semi-automatic handgun will be MUCH more profitable and MUCH easier to carry across the border.

THOUSANDS of people will cross the border TONIGHT. Do you think that it'll be easier to keep guns from crossing the border than it is to keep drugs from crossing the border?

Personally, and I hope this doesn't escalate into a pissing contest; I think your idea of banning semi-automatic handguns will cause Northern Mexico to be one of the most weaponized places on the PLANET.

[jeff47]

76. Same way we keep full autos from doing so

Prison terms for those caught with them.

Seems to work well enough to stop full auto guns.

[upaloopa]

3. I'd like to see a scale with the extreme ideas

on the right and left of the scale. One extreme would be complete gun ban the other extreme would be complete gun ownership freedom or no restrictions at all.
Then place all the ideas on guns and gun control on the scale based on how extreme they are.
Then under the scale the percentage of support the ideas have among the population as a whole.
Leaving out the Constitutionality of the idea for this exercise.
My guess is the largest amount of support would be in the middle.
What can both sides agree on? Background checks? AWB ?

[onehandle]

5. Cue gungeoneers to claim you are endangering women or minorities.

Or something like that.

Because all humans need to be armed like dudes who rock back and forth in their basement waiting for the gubberment to come get them.

[Agschmid]

8. It already happened in the 1st post to the OP.

Quick huh?

[onehandle]

12. Ah. I have 90% of them on ignore.

Figures.

[Agschmid]

15. I should use ignore more I guess! n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

31. Why not engage instead?

There is no need to follow the example of those who are unwilling to see viewpoints contrary to their own, delicate flowers that they are.

There are not any hard core gun nutters here. Most of us are pretty liberal and/or progressive in many other areas. Most all of us support some level of increased restrictions. One issue does not define people except in the eyes of the ideologues.

[Chuckster]

38. Personally, I like to hear opposing opinions.

It makes me think and strengthen my position. Of course, Trolls are another matter.

[onehandle]

49. A number of them were following me around the board and stalking me.

The admins suggested I ignore them. I ignored nobody for the first ten years I was here.

And they are largely, imbedded NRA talking point parrots, anyway.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

66. Actually a number of people felt they were stalked by you

Most likely explanation, both sides were drawn to the same threads...

[onehandle]

75. One has been active today, I am told. (by PM)

It responded to my first response to you.

On edit: And now it thinks there is some backroom 'conspiracy' here at DU.

Hoo Boy!

Nobody PM me about my stalkers again today. Thank you.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

120. Thank you for confirming the oft rumored back channel

[bongbong]

35. The NRA has strict guidelines on chatboard posts

If you're a Delicate Flower posting on a Liberal chatboard, you use women, minorities, poor, etc to convince people that your paranoia is justified. Remember, it's not a lie if your Precious is endangered!

If you're a Delicate Flower posting on a repig chatboard, you talk about how how much firepower you need and how you'll get all those "thugs" (altho' 99% of repig chatboard denizens don't need any encouragement at abetting killing more Americans)

[dairydog91]

6. Why only semiautos?

A basic turn of the century bolt action can be reliably fired 10 to 12 times per minute (That speed being in the hands of a lightly-trained conscript, not an expert). Sure, its slower than a semiauto, but bolt-action rifles generally fire extremely powerful rounds, are robust, and are almost stupidly simple to operate.

[Lurker Deluxe]

21. Really?

I am not going to chime in on if this would ever pass, would ever work ... blah blah blah.

But why the semi-autos and not the bolts?

You can fire a semi from the aiming position until you are out of bullets. A bolt will require you to move from the proper holding position to operate the bolt, most likely having to actually un-shoulder the weapon unless you practiced alot ... alot. A young person (seems to be who is doing this stupid shit) would have serious concerns about be charged by an adult and being disarmed.

Huge difference in weapons.

[dairydog91]

36. Makes no difference if you're shooting 6 year olds.

I shot a Gewehr 1898 once, and 10-12 RPM was an easily-achievable firing rate for shooting at targets that were 50 feet away. I didn't have to unshoulder the weapon to cycle the bolt. The ammo came on strip clips, which made reloading quick and simple.

[Lurker Deluxe]

164. I had to look it up

I am not a gun expert, I am a gun owner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gewehr_1898

Ok, so you can operate the bolt without un shouldering, great. You still have to take your finger off the trigger, operate the bolt, get your hand back in position, finger in the guard, and press the trigger. With a 50" long gun. That's over 4 FEET long, and you think that is as effective as an AR platform?

If I am close to you, and that first round doesn't knock me down, I will beat you to death with that hockey stick.

Unbelievable.

[guardian]

191. Ever seen one of these?

For $5 and 10 minutes you can turn your 50" long gun into a 16" barrel. Or are you going to license hacksaws too? And if you are a sick bastard that is going to shoot 6 year old hiding under their desks at point blank range it won't make a whit of difference in the number of children killed.

[Lurker Deluxe]

193. The funny part of all this.

This is the thing. I am not for a gun ban. I am not for a ban on semi-autos.

I decided to take the opposite point on this thread, and I will have to agree with the anti-gunners on this ... there is no rational discussion when gun advocates will not even admit the most basic of facts that semi-auto AR platform weapons are much more efficient at gunning people down than bolt action rifles (long guns).

It is beyond normal thought.

The fact that you can not see past your own prejudice is amazing. There is no doubt, no discussion, no reasonable way anyone being honest with themselves can dispute the fact that semi-auto AR platform weapons are machines made to get the rounds out of the mag faster.

I'm going to have a beer at the local watering hole, you can argue with yourself.

[Flatulo]

227. Gotta agree with you, sir. Life long gun owner here, and I have to think that

one reason, in addition to the ones you've already pointed out, that these loonies always turn to an AK or an AR is that they been romanticized by the popular media as really swell killing machines. You'll never see Arnie gunning down terrorists with an M1 or a Springfield 30-06. Not sexy enough.

I'd support a ban on the manufacture and ownership of high capacity magazines, say more than 7 rounds, as well as semi-auto rifles and carbines popularized as assault-style weapons.

We'd have to work out the details of compensation, time-frame, penalties, etc. But I think America is ready for this. I know it won't be 100% effective - nothing will, and it may take several generations to purge our supply, but it's time to start.

[billh58]

196. Ah, and another

Gungeon fresh recruit is giving out free advice. Welcome to DU, and please enjoy your stay. You may want to try some of our pizza before you go...

[Agschmid]

11. +1 million

"I'm tired of this country being more interested in protecting semi-automatic instruments of death than protecting the rights of Americans to send their children to school, the movies, church, etc without the fear of being gunned down."

[JohnnyBoots]

20. A 12 gauge with #4 buckshot would

have been as or more deadly than that AR in .223 at Sandy Hook at that close range. It is the intent, not the delivery system that needs to be addressed. A ban on semi autos will get a lot of LEO's and Feds killed trying to enforce that ban. This is a pie in the sky post, it will never happen.

[bongbong]

37. Going Rogue

> A ban on semi autos will get a lot of LEO's and Feds killed trying to enforce that ban.

So all those "law-abiding" Delicate Flowers will go rogue, huh?

[JohnnyBoots]

57. I would guess

20 to 30 percent will. If even one confiscation agent gets killed isn' t that too much, or is their life worth less than that of a civilian? Total and semi auto ban people are the ones who are putting them in harm's way when they have no skin in the game themselves.

[bongbong]

77. ???

> 20 to 30 percent will

Funny, I didn't see such crazy numbers when Australia and England ramped up their gun control laws.

> Total and semi auto ban people are the ones who are putting them in harm's way when they have no skin in the game themselves.

No, the ones with skin in the game are the ones being buried in Newtown (as well as in so many other places)

[JohnnyBoots]

130. England and Oz did not have

their Cultural identity as tied to firearms and the right to bear them as many Americans do. Australia collected around 650,000 weapons with their ban, there are 300,000,000 legally owned guns in the US. Neither country had half of their citizens convinced that the head of state taking their guns was an illegitimate ruler pushing a Socialist agenda. Many on the far right are itching for a fight. To think not is naive.

[bongbong]

138. Nope

> their Cultural identity as tied to firearms and the right to bear them as many Americans do.

You'll have to, as the Delicate Flowers say, "PROVE IT!" I don't accept it at all. Just because Delicate Flowers center their life on their Precious (without it they would be unable to stop trembling with fear), doesn't mean America does.

[Recursion]

157. Australia also has a higher gun ownership rate today than before the buyback

*shrug*

I'm not against buybacks in the US, though. Any stimulus is good.

[guardian]

199. You may be right about 20% - 30% "going rogue"

I think it would be less. But even if only 1% of gun owners go rogue that is about 1,500,000 highly pissed off armed citizens who feel they have every right to take violence against what they would feel is an unconstitutional tyrannical government that they had feared for years anyway. The number of people killed in a gun confiscation program will be in the hundreds of thousands. You'd have a 100 Wacos every day.

Compare 1,500,000 of the most extreme gun owners against the estimated paltry 130,000 insurgents in Iraq after 2003. Think of what 130,000 insurgents did against the US military and how they left Iraq in shambles. What could a couple of million do?

I fear that if an outright gun ban is imposed upon the citizenry that we are in for a very bloody and protracted period in this country.

[JohnnyBoots]

200. Especially when everyone

looks the same and speaks the same language. I agree with you, it would be Northern Ireland under the English thumb on a much larger scale. I think there would be a lot of bombings on Federal targets and workers as well. A lot of people on the Left have their head in the sand as to what could actually happen. It is scary to see politicians being so narrow minded and short sighted. There's a large segment of this country, just waiting for a reason to explode. They are angry for a multitude of reasons and well armed. Taking away their 2nd Amendment right would be the match lighting the powder keg.


I suggested down thread that they should compromise - no AWB or Mag bans in exchange for a mandatory background checks and a three day waiting period for all firearms purchases.

[Hugabear]

201. Nobody is talking about going door-to-door

We still have the 4th amendment, so police couldn't just show up and demand to search your house for guns. And I haven't heard anybody seriously call for the idea of doing so.

You might see authorities use existing gun registrations to send notices to gun owners informing them that their guns are no longer legal, and give them a period of time to turn those guns in. If the gun owner refuses to respond to the notice, I suppose a search warrant could be issued - but I doubt that would happen.

More than likely what would happen is that anybody caught with a semi-automatic gun on their possession would be subject to forfeiture and possible arrest.

[JohnnyBoots]

203. I think you under estimate the

number of people who would not comply with requests to turn over their semi-auto guns. They would make the Feds come get them, which would not end well in a lot of cases. A lot of agents could be walking into ambushes in that scenario. A total semi-auto ban, I think, is logistically impossible with out any blood being spilled. It might go smooth until an agent is killed, then the Feds will go all Waco or Ruby Ridge to assert their dominanance which will cause the other side to escalate their actions as well. While I think your intentions are pure, it will lead to a lot of carnage.

[guardian]

204. "There's a large segment of this country, just waiting for a reason to explode."

From The Hill website yesterday http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/276023-poll-77-percent-say-politics-causing-country-serious-harm

Poll: 77 percent say Washington politics causing serious harm

The vast majority of Americans worry that politics in Washington is causing serious harm to the country, according to a new Gallup survey released Monday.

Of those surveyed, 77 percent said the way politics works is causing the nation serious harm, versus just 19 percent who say the effects were not serious. Republicans were most pessimistic, with 87 percent arguing federal politics was damaging the country. But support for the sentiment was broad — 79 percent of independents and 68 percent of Democrats responded in the same way.

Pretty damn scary statistic IMHO.

[Chuckster]

58. Yeah. LIke those Delicate Flower pot growers in Humbolt.

[billh58]

238. Well goodbye Chuckster

we hardly knew ye...

[billh58]

237. Yep, you Gungeoneer

NRA sock puppets just keep on believing that "it will never happen." I'd love to be able to see your facial expression when it DOES happen.

Are you actually suggesting that gun owners who purchased their semi-autos legally would turn into cop killers just to keep from turning them in? Do you really believe, and advocate, that otherwise lawful citizens are so emotionally attached to a lethal weapon that they would risk going to prison for life by shooting a police officer?

That says more about you and your Gungeon buddies than I could ever write in a post, so I'll just place you on ignore and let the sane DU members judge your post for themselves.

[krispos42]

267. I'm thinking the following

The police are told that the turn-in period for semiautos has expired, but they have it on good authority that Mr. Smith at 1234 Maple Street still has is semiauto.

Now, what does the police do?


Does a lone officer, or pair of officers, simply knock on his door and tell him it's time to turn it in? Maybe. But that might put the officers at risk.


Or does the SWAT team go in with a no-knock warrant and flashbang grenades?


What does Mr. Smith do when his front door is smashed in at 2am and what he believes are shotgun blasts begin going off in his house? Well, he might just grab a gun (perhaps the now-illegal semi-auto) and start shooting back at what he believes are armed criminals breaking into his house and threatening him and his family.

So, what happens? Mr. Smith might get killed, a cop or two might get killed, Mrs. Smith or one of her kids might get killed.



Mr. Smith, who was not going to flee for the forests and abandon his civilized life all for the sake of his now-banned semiauto, now has killed a cop. Or Mr. Smith or his wife or his kids were killed by law enforcement because, yanno, Mr. Smith's gun was too dangerous for society to allow.



There are tens of thousands of independent law-enforcement agencies in America. How are they going to respond to having to enforce the law? I don't know, but it will be very diverse.

[regjoe]

23. How would you enforce your ban?

[bongbong]

40. NRA Talking Point alert

Beep Beep Beep!

[Indydem]

48. Didn't answer the question.

But no surprise there.

[bongbong]

97. LOL

"You can't have gun control because too many people would resist!" (and its variants) is a classic False Dilemma NRA Talking Point, so beloved of Delicate Flowers - and conclusively refuted, among countless other times, in 1865.

[Indydem]

106. So you are advocating a Civil War?

Is that the solution you desire to see?

[bongbong]

121. Hey, you said it

I just hope all those "law abiding" Delicate Flowers can stay law-abiding. If not, they choose their fate.

I believe the phrase you're looking for is "The very definition of a republic is an empire of laws, and not of men", said by some dirty Liberal named John Adams.

[Lizzie Poppet]

125. It's a great quote.

And it was made by someone who'd just finished breaking laws he considered unjust and unacceptable.

I trust you see where this is going...

[bongbong]

132. Won't work this time

> I trust you see where this is going

Yeah, more posturing and threats from the Delicate Flower minority trying to hold the majority hostage from passing gun control laws.

[Indydem]

145. What makes you believe that "delicate flowers" are a minority?

Depending on the survey, between 35 - 50% of households own guns.

Add to that the millions of Americans who believe in the second amendment, and who would never support a gun ban, or a mandatory buy back, and I think that you will find that YOU are in the minority.

Not to mention, those "delicate flowers" tend to disproportionately make up politically active percentages.

[bongbong]

156. Numbers

> Depending on the survey, between 35 - 50% of households own guns.

Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of them are the ones calling for stricter gun control.

Your Preciouses have blinded you to reality.

[Indydem]

169. Is the stricter gun control they are calling for include bans?

Nope. Nice try though.

[bongbong]

177. Prove it

> Nope. Nice try though.

For your statement to be true, every single gun-owner in America would have to be against a total ban. So now that the thesis is set, let's see your proof.

You can start by polling all gun owners in America. It'll have to be an individual poll because of the thesis statement.

[Indydem]

182. Ahh, you made the original supposition.

Therefore, you must prove that in reality, some portion of the 35-50% are advocating a gun ban.

I'll await the statistics showing "Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of them."

But I won't hold my breath.

[Lurker Deluxe]

185. <--- Gun owner

I can tell you right now, if you were after my semi-auto shotgun I would have an issue. I have an auto pistol, but could live without with no real problem and would happily trade it in for a nice S&W 357. Other than that I have wheels, levers, and bolts.

I would like to see some serious gun control. ENFORCED!

[spin]

218. Consider this ...

Many people that favor gun control would not be happy with just banning semi-auto rifles and pistols but after that was successful would push for the ban of all handguns including that nice S&W .357 you traded your auto pistol for.

I can understand why they feel that way as most criminals and drug gangs use handguns far more frequently than they do long guns and revolvers are still very popular with many criminals.

One fact that is commonly ignored by the media in this debate is the fact that firearms are used for self defense.

Gun violence in the United States

***snip***

The effectiveness and safety of guns used for personal defense is debated. Studies place the instances of guns used in personal defense as low as 65 thousand times per year, and as high as 2.5 million times per year. Under President Clinton, the Department of Justice conducted a survey in 1994 that placed the usage rate of guns used in personal defense at 1.5 million times per year.[70]...emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Self-protection

[Lizzie Poppet]

154. Depends on the law.

If you fearful Precious Snowflakes (see: I can pull that horseshit, too...) advocate reasonable laws, which most gun owners support, too...no problem. If it's nonsense like the proposal in the OP? Nope.

[Hugabear]

151. Seems to me the only ones advocating civil war are those desperate to cling to their guns

A 2nd Civil War or Revolution over gun control is something you usually find on conservative gun-loving sites.

I haven't seen any gun-control advocates supporting the idea of a civil war. It's those resisting gun control who often warn of civil war.

[regjoe]

56. What good is a ban if you don't enforce it?

That's not an "NRA talking point," it's freakin commonsense.

[Recursion]

70. Well, how *would* you enforce it?

Saying "the NRA makes that argument" is not a refutation. The NRA also supports background checks for sales at gun stores.

[rustydog]

124. Get stopped and you're carrying...arrest and confiscation

involved in a shooting, confiscation. Police at your home taking a crime report and see evidence of gun ownership..search warrant and confiscation..of course this is after voluntary surrender of weapons not kept secured in a licensed firing range.

[Recursion]

127. So, like we do with pot?

That's done a great job of getting rid of drugs, right?

[Hugabear]

162. Anybody can grow pot in their backyard or inside their house.

Not quite so easy to make your own guns.

Oh, I know...I'm sure you'll point out that it's actually quite easy to manufacture a gun in your house by using your Hasbro "Easy-Gun Oven". Fact of the matter is that you would need specialized equipment to make a functional semi-automatic gun. If it were so damned easy for anyone to make, then why do so many people flock to gun shows and pay hundreds or thousands of dollars, if they can just make them at home?

And even with the arrival of 3D printers in the house - you still need the instructions and templates for creating such weapons. This can be taken care of by requiring 3D printers to have special controls, just like how we have printers that do not allow you to print your own money, or copyrighted works. And for those that persist and still create their own guns - if they get caught with those guns, then they get arrested.

But I highly doubt that you'd see home-made guns with the same proliferation that you see home-grown pot.

[Recursion]

166. You can't grow heroin, it comes from Afghanistan for the most part

If it were so damned easy for anyone to make, then why do so many people flock to gun shows and pay hundreds or thousands of dollars, if they can just make them at home?

Why do most pot users buy it from someone else?

Anyways, no, I don't think you'll see a huge ton of homemade guns (though you'll see more than you do today), you'll just see a ton of illegal transfers of a lot of the 300 million guns that are already out there, which unlike drugs are not consumed when they are used.

[guardian]

205. Well the war on drugs

has done a great job of making prison corporations rich. Maybe we could double the number of people in corporate prisons with a 'war on guns'?

[Hugabear]

214. We need to decriminalize drug use

I'd much rather lock up illegal gun owners than drug users.

[jeff47]

87. Really not that difficult

Prison term if you are caught with one, resulting in attrition. Kinda like how you don't see tommy guns being used to commit a lot of crimes today.

Will people squirrel some away? Sure. But guns hidden away aren't being fired into people.

[Recursion]

101. There were never all that many machineguns in the US to begin with

Heroin is a prison term if you're caught with it too. Has that market dried up lately?

[jeff47]

148. Compared to when there was no law against it? It's way down. (nt)

[Recursion]

152. Interesting, "Heroin" is a trademark of Bayer

I had no idea. Apparently it was legal from its invention in 1874 until 1914 (when it required a prescription) and then 1924 when it was made Schedule I.

I have no data on the heroin use rate before 1914, do you?

[jeff47]

181. The vast majority of what are now illegal drugs were very widely used

They were roughly as common as alcohol is today.

[Hugabear]

115. Here you go.

I know you probably meant your post as a rhetorical question, but I'll bite.

Gun-lovers like to think that banning guns will lead to door-to-door searches. There are other ways to enforce a ban without violating the 4th amendment.

Start with an amnesty period where anyone can turn in their semi-automatic weapons, no questions asked. You could also institute a national buy-back program, so that you at least get something of value in exchange. This has been done around the country for years with plenty of success.

Then after that, go through all of the gun registration records, and notify those who have purchased semi-automatic weapons that they have a specified amount of time to turn those guns in to local law enforcement, or to notify if the gun has been stolen or transferred. Failure to respond at all could be considered grounds for a fine or warrant. This would be the most "extreme" and controversial aspect - and there's a good chance that this step probably wouldn't take place.

After that, anybody caught with a semi-automatic weapon could be charged with illegal possession. Just like nowadays, if you happen to be caught with drugs on your possession, you get charged with that. If a LEO sees you with a semi-automatic in your possession, you would be subject to arrest.

[regjoe]

174. It was an honest question and thank you for answering

[hack89]

219. What registration documents?

few states require gun registration - none of mine are. The vast majority of guns are invisible to the authorities - as it should be.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

24. I wouldn't go there...

if for no other reason than I don't think it would fly politically.

On the other hand, if we regulated them to the same extent that we do fully-automatic weapons, with a ban on future manufacturing and importation, we would see the number of these weapons slowly dry up over the years. And as law enforcement takes them from criminals, we would eventually see them only in the hands of sane and sober individuals.

When was the last time you heard of a death by machine gun?

[onehandle]

39. Automatic weapons of today are basically machine guns.

[bongbong]

43. You went there

> Automatic weapons of today are basically machine guns.

Oh boy. Now you're in for an endless pile-on of posts about why the "Rambo Super-Killer XP-433P" is so RADICALLY NOT THE SAME as the "DieHard Super-Murderer XP-433Pa" from the Delicate Flowers.

[onehandle]

52. I can't see it, but I assume that's what lies below. nt

[bongbong]

91. Yep

The NRA-bots distract to run out the clock, among other things.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

173. Not an NRA-bot...

But if you're going to have a discussion about guns and safety, we have to be clear about what we're talking about. Machine gun several orders of magnitude more dangerous than a semi-automatic (even though they look like basically the same firearm), and that's why they've been very strictly regulated since the 1930's and only the most hard-care gun rights advocate thinks they should be loosely regulated.

Under the right circumstances and with the appropriate controls, I don't have any problem with somebody owning a semi-automatic (or a machine gun, for that matter), but we can't just let these things be floating around in our society where any lunatic can buy one. I'm not a big fan of banning guns in part because banning alcohol and drugs didn't work out so very well for us. I'd rather not give organized crime a new product line.

I think we CAN ban high-capacity magazines, have complete licensing and regulations for ALL types of firearms, and require background checks on purchases of both firearms and ammunition. If that doesn't work, then I'm still open to firearms bans, but I'd like to see if something less-draconian (and frankly easier to pass and to enforce) can't work first.

[billh58]

240. Please edumacate me here:

Is that DieHard Super-Murderer XP-433Pa the Mark 10, or the Mark 14 1/2 model that you're talking about? It makes a lot of difference you know, because one is a gun that kills 30 people a minute, and the other one is a model that only kills 26 people a minute, and should not be banned.

As for the Rambo Super-Killer XP-433P, they are only for hunting and are warrantied by the 2nd Amendment from scratches, dents, and confiscation. This is the model that James Madison wrote about in the Colonial NRA Newsletter just before he signed the Constitution.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

51. Not true in the least

[bvar22]

53. Lee Harvey Oswald used a bolt action rifle.

Your call for total ban on all Semi-automatic guns shows a deep lack of knowledge,
and is ill conceived.
How in The World do you propose to implement and enforce this ban?

We currently have a window of opportunity in which to impose regulation and accountability which WILL have an effect, but only if we use this opportunity wisely.

Your call for a total ban of Semi-Autos is unwise,
and a waste of time and momentum.

[derby378]

64. Boom.

I don't see anything in the 1968 GCA calling for a ban on bolt-action rifles.

Time for some of these folks to stop playing Chicken Little with our Constitutional rights. Otherwise, who knows where this is going to end?

[bongbong]

69. LOL

> with our Constitutional rights

I can't find the phrase "The right of frightened Americans to buy any gun they want with no limits or regulation as long as it is approved by a vendor who pays the NRA shall not be infringed" anywhere in the Constitution.

[DanTex]

67. How does it show a deep lack of knowledge?

Very, very, few gun deaths are due to bolt-action rifles. You can argue that a ban on all semi-autos is not politically feasible, but it's hard to argue that it would have no effect. The effect would be huge.

[Recursion]

74. Very, very few gun deaths are due to semi-automatic rifles, too

Rifles are not popular choices with murderers, handguns are.

[jeff47]

92. And those would be covered by this proposed ban (nt)

[DanTex]

94. Many (most?) handguns are semi-auto these days.

I agree, handguns are a much bigger problem. Bolt-action rifles are a really bad argument to use against a semi-auto ban. So bad that, arguably, it demonstrates "a deep lack of knowledge". If that person had said "revolvers", that would be different.

[bvar22]

155. The fact that Oswald was able to fire 3, well aimed shots...

...at a target moving over 20MPH...in under 6 seconds...with a bolt action rifle completely undercuts the OP argument that banning semi-autos will magically make us safer.
In most hands, a bolt action is not that much slower than a semi
when the time it takes to aim is taken into consideration.
Lee Harvey Oswald PROVED that.

Lee Harvey Oswald would not have been able to fire more than 3 aimed rounds in under 6 seconds even if he had been using a semi-automatic rifle.


In case I was unclear in my post,
the point is
[font size=3]We currently have a window to impose some effective regulation and accountability[/font].
Wasting time and momentum on the minutia between semi autos and bolts is only going to sap the momentum and waste the opportunity we NOW have.

There ARE things that we all agree upon,
and we SHOULD be co-ordinated and unified in our voices to demand these changes:

*Close the Gun Show Loophole

*Ban Large Capacity clips

*Better Background Checks

[font size=3]*Allow liability Law Suits against Gun Manufacturers[/font]

*enlist the aid of responsible gun owners by NOT demanding ill conceived, impossible to implement, and not-a-chance-of-passing-Feel-Good regulations.

If you want to waste this opportunity by going off half cocked without aiming your shots....well I guess that is your right.

I strongly advise that we take care to aim our shots, and check downrange,
to ensure we don't wind up with collateral damage....
like a Republican SWEEP in 2016.

[DanTex]

178. Of course, it's possible to kill people with a bolt-action.

It's just harder than with a semi-auto. Especially if you are trying to kill a lot of people quickly.

I'm really not sure why you are going with the bolt-action counterexample here. The real gap in a semi-auto ban is not bolt-action rifles, but revolvers. A ban on semi-autos and revolvers -- now that would make a huge difference.

I agree that a ban on semi-autos and handguns is not politically feasible, and that the points you list are a more realistic objective. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be discussing it. It's kind of like single-payer healthcare. It's not going to happen in the US any time soon, but if it did, it would have a dramatic effect.

Why are you so anxious to limit the spectrum of discussion to the politically feasible? Would you react the same way to someone advocating single-payer?

[bvar22]

210. #1, I believe that incrementally expanding MediCare was not only possible,

....but easier than passing the ACA. It is no mistake that the Forces for Privatization blocked ANY discussion of this alternative,
and prevented ANY representatives FOR this path to be at-the-table.
The door to a national, government administered Health Care plan would then be WIDE OPEN and impossible to block.

#2) The ONLY reason I brought up Bolt Action is because the OP did so,
and I brought up Lee Harvey Oswald to illustrate myth that "Bolt Actions are safer". Oswald fired 3 well aimed shots in under 6 seconds with a somewhat awkward antique Bolt Action Rifle.

#3)Say I agree that banning semi-autos will magically make us safer,
what about lever actions and pump actions?
Some of those are every bit as fast as a semi-auto.

[font size=3]We have a window to implement Effective Gun Regulation.[/font]
Demands spawned from ignorance will NOT be helpful in using this opportunity.

[Warren Stupidity]

235. Oswald was a trained marksman. You left that part out. nt.

[rustydog]

118. actually, you're wrong, they are number two on the mass killing weapons list

[Recursion]

119. I didn't say "mass killings deaths" I said "gun deaths"

Mass killings are so rare that they don't even make a dent in overall homicide figures.

[JohnnyBoots]

71. Agree

The left should agree not to ban anything if the right agrees to mandatory background check and three day waiting period on all gun purchases. Would do a lot more than yelling at each other and doing nothing.

[Hugabear]

197. I don't want to get too deep into conspiracy theories on this thread...

Just suffice to say that many people have a hard time grasping the notion that someone with marginal shooting skills could have carried off such precise shots on a moving target at long range.

Regardless, what does that have to do with anything? How many mass shootings over the past decade or so have involved bolt-action rifles?

And just because something would be hard to do, doesn't mean that we shouldn't try.

[vkkv]

207. And if Oswald had a machine gun?

Many more would have died.

[Recursion]

230. Probably not. They're bad at hitting things

He certainly wouldn't have been able to get three bullets into the car with one. Though it was crowded enough he could have hit a bystander.

[kudzu22]

72. Unreasonable

First, semi-autos are pervasive these days. It's the standard, like automatic transmission in cars. You'd be calling to get rid of 80% of the weapons in private hands. It will cause a lot of uproar among the electorate.

Second, it is probably unconstitutional on several fronts. The Heller and Miller cases established that the weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment are those that are consistent with militia service. Common riles & handguns are not likely to be deemed unfit for militia service. Also, it is not likely that a law that takes away people's property would hold up in court.

Bottom line, if you want to ban them all, you need to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

[Indydem]

78. There are plenty here who would welcome that.

The Second Amendment is gladly discarded by many in the name of murdered children.

[onehandle]

89. Nothing the OP proposed suggested 'taking people's property.'

And fine, form a militia, with 'arms' of the founder's time.

[kudzu22]

272. I took "no grandfathering" to mean you have to turn 'em in

That to me is taking people's property. If I misconstrued, I apologize.

[jmg257]

161. We can ban Assault Weapons, which are the closest non-NFA weapons we have

that would be wonderful for Militia duty. We already severly limit assault rifles, which are THE actual weapons used for Militia duty. We can impose capacity limits on magazines, well below the common militia-use magazines. But suddenly we can't ban semiautos in general because of the militia clause?? Doesn't make sense.

Want to argue them as 'a whole class of firearm primarily chosen by people for self-defense'?...well...maybe.
But no need to go after them all (capacity limited/fixed mags ok).

Confiscating items deemed contraband unconsititutional? Tough call there too.
Maybe a little buy-back seed money would be in order, tax credits or what-not. Atleast during the grace period.

[barbtries]

104. hugabear

i agree all the way. get these things put away - we're trying to have a civilization here.

[Dems to Win]

114. I'll sign on to this plan. We need REAL action to stop the carnage.

No civilized country tolerates routine gun massacres. Time for the US to enact real gun law reform and join the ranks of civilized nations.

[jmg257]

122. I'm thinking more targeting 'repeating arms with removable mags/without fixed capacity.'

Semiautos are ok, just like pump, lever, bolt, revolver, as long as they have a fixed capacity.

If weapons like revolvers due to speed loaders and M1s due to enbloc clips become a major issue, then we can revisit the issue.

[rbixby]

137. I think the problem is that our country is awash in guns, legal, illegal, stolen, etc

As long as that's the case, this problem will continue and we'll get people endlessly arguing that we need more guns, we need to arm more people, etc etc. Its a neverending death spiral.

As long as we're awash in guns, we'll never get rid of the problem of gun violence.

[RainbowOverTexas]

195. once the guns are gone

we will be wondering why there is so much knife violence

we need to treat the cause not the symptoms

[SCantiGOP]

198. horseshit, texasrainbow

Nobody is capable of going into a building with a knife and killing scores of people. The tide is turning against the NRA and their cronies.

[RainbowOverTexas]

202. maybe

you should tell China that. If people want to kill they will find a way. Im all for the AWB but banning semi-automatics is ridiculous.

[frylock]

236. how many people in china died last year in mass knife attacks?

[jmg257]

212. I say...couldn't we do both??? nt

[billh58]

247. I totally agree with you,

and the cause is too many unregulated guns in too many irresponsible hands, all made possible by the right-wing, neoconservative gun-lobbying group -- the NRA. The symptoms are too many dead children, more civilian gun deaths per year than the Vietnam War, and legalized vigilantism.

Yep, you sure hit the nail on the head: let's treat the causes, and the symptoms will slowly diminish and go away.

[vkkv]

206. Gun nuts want to claim 2nd Amendment rights?

Gun nuts want to claim 2nd Amendment rights?

Five year olds have equal rights under the 2nd amendment to own firearms too.. and a frustrated 11 yr old who isn't happy about being bullied at school also has a right to firearms according to the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd amendment makes no distinction of age. And yet we found a need to write laws to protect the public - JUST AS WE need laws to protect the innocent from a tool used in acts of violence that can kill masses in minutes.

[SCantiGOP]

208. conversation with a libertarian

I wouldn't call it a discussion, but several of us used his 'logic' to get him to admit that government did not have a moral right to ban an individual from owning a tank or even a nuclear weapon.

So we beat him to death with sticks to show that he should have had his gun with him.

[Hugabear]

217. Technically speaking, you are absolutely right. Gun nuts simply do not want to acknowledge this.

The 2nd Amendment merely refers to "arms". It does not state "firearms", "guns", or any other specific word.

Gungeoneers will tell you that 'well, you can tell what the Founding Fathers meant by reading some of their other works, it was generally accepted at the time this is what arms meant, blah blah blah'. That may be fine and dandy, but we have to go with what is actually written in the Constitution - not by what we think they meant. This is why you can get differing opinions from the SCOTUS, and why SCOTUS judges can go back and overrule previous SCOTUS rulings. Especially when you're dealing with language as vague as the 2nd Amendment.

But if you were to go with the most loosely based libertarian interpretation of the Constitution - then there would be absolutely nothing at all the US government could do to restrict private ownership of tanks, RPG's, missiles, grenades, bombs, armed drones, etc - after all, these are all considered "arms".

Fact of the matter is that we DO rely on a sensible interpretation of the 2nd Amendment so that ordinary civilians do not have access to military-grade weaponry.

[SCantiGOP]

222. strict constructionist, we must obey the Founding Fathers

Everyone has the right to own as many swords and muskets and those rifles that fired one shot every 45 seconds (if you were really skilled at reloading) as they want.

[jmg257]

209. Ha! The 2nd makes a distinction because 5 & 11 yr olds aren't in the well-regulated Militia...

...oh..wait...never mind...

<sarcasm>

[Nye Bevan]

223. +1. And a mandatory prison term for anyone caught with one after the amnesty period (nt)

[samsingh]

231. kick

[Soundman]

245. Why not tax the living shit out of certain guns?

By taxing the living shit out of them no one is abridging the nut cases of their god given 2nd amendment rights. I don't know, does a 30k gun tax sound about right? It should be be obvious there is no reasoning with the insane.

[SCantiGOP]

249. $30k is too high

How about a 100% tax with the money to go to gun violence victims and their family?Call it the Gun Victims Relief Fund, and make the Republicans vote against it.

[libdem4life]

257. Take the actuarial data from the cost of gun violence...like we do health care and autos ...

require insurance for each weapon, based on the average "kill ability", and spread out the liability and costs borne by families, businesses, towns to those who want or feel they need weapons, not the taxpayers or the public. Must carry both registration and proof of insurance. Then require re-registration at 2 year intervals for every firearm ...unloaded, stored, antique ... that has the capacity to end a human life. Failure to comply...confiscation of weapons and a misdemeanor.

No intelligent person can argue with this.

[billh58]

271. +100

Great ideas!

[krispos42]

261. I've been saying this since calls for a new assault weapon ban popped up after Newtown

I don't agree with you, but I appreciate the consistent manner in which you approach the issue.


"Assault weapons" are semi-automatic guns with too many secondary features. It's a failed attempt to differentiate between "good" and "bad" semiautomatic guns, the apparent thinking being too many secondary features make the gun "bad.

I wrote a post on this if you're interested: http://www.democraticunderground.com/117295365

You would have to compensate people if you take their guns; fair market price for them. That would probably average $1,000 per gun. Maybe more. It would be a sizeable chunk of change, hundred of billions of dollars.



Honestly, I don't think it would reduce either gun crime or overall crime. 95% of murders are single-victim incidents, most murders are done with handguns, a large chunk of murders are because of gang activities, etc. But your approach is logical and does not have ambiguities and exceptions that are hallmark weaknesses of the old expired and new proposed AWB.

[bongbong]

278. LOL

> You would have to compensate people if you take their guns; fair market price for them. That would probably average $1,000 per gun. Maybe more. It would be a sizeable chunk of change, hundred of billions of dollars.

That's why Delicate Flowers are even mouthing this idea; the sheer price would doom the idea, and we'd be back to - gasp - no new gun control.

Instead, utilize my (and many others) idea of mandatory liability insurance that covers lawsuits & damage from use (both legal & illegal) of the Precious. My rough calcs showed it would cost about $1,000 per gun per year.

So if need your Precious, pay for the real societal costs of it. Personal Responsibility & all that stuff.



Don't worry, I've already got the answer (actually several answers) for the Flowers who will whine about this making Preciouses out of the reach of poor people.