What's wrong with gun-"control"?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

Last edited Wed Dec 28, 2016, 12:29 PM - Edit history (1)

More specifically, what's wrong with our party's ideas for new gun laws? There's been some debate on the degree of (negative) influence the gun topic had on the last election. As of the 5th of November the "too close to call" battleground states were:
Nevada 6
Arizona 11
Iowa 6
Florida 29
Georgia 16
North Carolina 15
Ohio 18
Michigan 16
New Hampshire 4
Of those 121 electoral votes HRC got 10. Florida, Georgia, Arizona and North Carolina are states where a lot of square miles are places where guns are are popular. Arizona did away with laws mandating a permit to carry concealed and the others all have "shall-issue" policies for CCW. Those 4 states count for 71 electoral votes. You can maybe say that none of those states are overwhelmingly pro-gun but can you say that they ALL favor a ban on assault weapons as the party platform states?

I maintain that an assault weapon ban is a well known convenient target for Republican candidates. Just as guns are the single most often chosen and efficacious means killing, an AWB is the most easily and widely understood simple way to attack a Democratic candidate. The AR-15 is the most popular sold by dealers today and less than 3% of all murders are committed with any kind of rifle at all. AR-15s probably account for less than 1%.

Are you okay with everything else remaining the same and the party dropping an AWB from the platform?

29 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, if a state wants an AWB fine but drop the idea from consideration as a federal law
	25 (86%)
	No, passing a federal AWB is part of what it means to be a Democrat
	4 (14%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[bowens43]

1. If you don't support a federal ban on asssault weapons you should be a republican

dropping it would be yet another reason to say fuck the democratic party. Americans OVERWHELMINGLY support a ban.

[sarisataka]

3. What about

Supporting someone like Sen Mark Kirk who was endorsed by Americans for Responsible Solutions? Should gun control be top consideration for a Democratic voter?

[guillaumeb]

51. Kirk lost. Illinois won. eom

[sarisataka]

55. That doesn't change the fact

that some DU members openly supported him and encouraged others to "vote single issue over party"

[guillaumeb]

56. For some voters, unfortunately, there is only one issue.

Kirk was as independent as McConnell allowed him to be.

[sarisataka]

57. Single issue focus leads to

overlooking the big picture. Especially in the next few elections when every Democratic candidate will need support.

[guillaumeb]

58. And it would help if certain Democratic politicians, Joe Manchin comes to mind,

were more supportive of Democratic positions. My personal Representative, Daniel Lipinski, is still against the ACA.

[DaleFromWPB]

4. No, they don't ... In fact, quite the opposite

http://www.gallup.com/poll/196658/support-assault-weapons-ban-record-low.aspx

The fewest Americans in 20 years favor making it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles. Thirty-six percent now want an assault weapons ban, down from 44% in 2012 and 57% when Gallup first asked the question in 1996.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

6. ITA!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. Any evidence for that "OVERWHELMINGLY" claim? n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. Why? Do you know someone who was killed with hand grip? n/t

[ileus]

9. Goooooooong!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. I miss that show

[spin]

11. I have enjoyed target shooting for years. ...

I have met a lot of gun owners who once were Democrats but now are Republicans.

I find your assertation that "Americans OVERWHELMINGLY support a ban" to be questioable at best.

In U.S., Support for Assault Weapons Ban at Record Low


by Art Swift

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
36% favor a ban on assault rifles, down from 44% four years ago
Half of Democrats and a quarter of Republicans favor this ban
A majority of those in households without guns oppose such a ban



Assault rifles have been a contentious issue in American life for decades. Two years after President Bill Clinton signed a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, Gallup found that a solid majority of Americans favored such a ban. By the time the 10-year ban expired in 2004, Americans were evenly divided. And by 2011, public opinion had tilted against the assault weapons ban, with 53% opposed and 43% in favor. In Gallup's 2016 Crime poll, conducted Oct. 5-9, opposition now exceeds support by 25 percentage points, 61% to 36%.

***snip***

Support for Ban Wanes Among Democrats, Republicans

In the past 20 years, support for an assault weapons ban has fallen among all partisan groups, but more so among Republicans than Democrats. Currently, 50% of Democrats and 25% of Republicans favor a ban; in 1996, 63% of Democrats and 50% of Republicans did so. The partisan gap in support has doubled, from 13 points in 1996 to 25 points today.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/196658/support-assault-weapons-ban-record-low.aspx

[Union Label]

23. If these people were once were Democrats but now are republicants

then they were never Democrats.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. Would you like them to become Democrats?

[yagotme]

25. Some posters here,

if someone owns a gun, probably not.

[Abq_Sarah]

15. It's a good thing you're not the arbiter of who is and is not a Democrat.

I do not support a federal ban that is championed via ignorance.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

17. I couldn't have said it better

An AWB on the federal level; what a loser of an idea.

After a 10 year federal ban no one can point to solid evidence than means a damn thing other than time and money wasted along with some laws and lawmakers that are now the butt of some jokes.

Splendid idea, a federal AWB. While I ponder that maybe I'll consider having my appendix put back in.

[pablo_marmol]

34. If you can't rebut this info., you're saying that you have to be a moron to be a Democrat.

Video:

Slideshow:
http://www.assaultweapon.info/

As has been pointed out repeatedly, banning the nation's most popular rifle (rarely used in mayhem) based on it's looks is felony-dishonest and moronic.

[scscholar]

52. Good point. Republcians always ignore the will of the people (ntxt)

[aikoaiko]

79. Americans DO NOT overwhelmingly support an AWB.

Gun restrictionistas are in total retreat on the AWB. It has only gotten worse for them since Sandy Hook where a completely legal AR15 was used even though Connecticut had an AWB in place.

[IMG][/IMG]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/196658/support-assault-weapons-ban-record-low.aspx

[DaleFromWPB]

2. DROP IT!!!!! Now!!

Banning anything based on cosmetic appearance makes us all look ill-informed and petty.

I know this seems to make perfect sense if you live in NYC or Chicago ... but in 90% of the country guns simply aren't a problem.

It does give our opponents a very large opening to associate every democrat with Sen (Turn 'em all in) Boxer and like-minded Democrats.

The AWB saves very, very few lives and costs many, many votes.

As an aside, I used to ride (Harleys) with a group of military veterans in New Hampshire and, while a gun owner and CCW holder, never carried a gun. I almost positive that I was the only one not packing ... and several of my fellow riders had multiple weapons.

Before you ask -- "What were they afraid of"
The answer -- Not a damn thing

Drop the AWB, concentrate on the economy and jobs

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. My exact point is...

...eliminate a point of division that does little to nothing except cost us votes.

Welcome to DU and the group.

[yagotme]

12. Yes, 2nd the welcome, and let's drop the divisive plank. n/t

[pablo_marmol]

33. Supporters of "assault weapon" bans would weep uncontrollably........

..........if they actually understood how felony-stupid these laws are, and how they hurt us. Good thing they stay in their fact-free echo chambers, or they'd have to spend a LOT of money on therapy!!!

[pablo_marmol]

35. California is out-of-step with Oregon and Washington, and is hurting Democrats nationally.

Check out this stoopid, if you're not already aware:

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2016/11/11/new-california-ammunition-rules-have-gun-shop-owners-concerned/

[yagotme]

36. May as well ban/register ink.

Have to get a permit to write your congressman.

[ToolMaker]

13. Drop the assault weapons ban....

Drop the ideas of repealing PLCAA, wanting to track bullets, register all owners/firearms. Those are just a few that are non-starters for many gun owners, off the top of my head.

These are all ideas that punish or impose restrictions only on lawful citizens and have no real impact on criminal actions. As much as it may pain some in the Democratic Party to think of it, if you want to win elections at the national level, these ideas are contrary to that goal. Talk about polls, piblic opinion and "majority support" all you want, but when you get to the heart of the matter, very few voters cast their vote because a candidate supports such ideas. However, MILLIONS of voters will show up to vote against such ideas!

While those ideas play well to voters that will already cast their votes for democrats, the stink like a fish left in the sun for three days to the vast majority of gun owners, and people outside of places like San Francisco and New York City.

Just my .02...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. Two more ideas that make no sense:

Repeal the PLCAA, register bullets

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. The votes after 12 days

Drop the idea of a federal AWB: 22
A federal AWB is a defining Democratic goal: 4

Explain this for me: Why is a federal ban better than a state ban?

[yagotme]

18. My guess would be

that you could use the militarized alphabet agencies to "enforce" it. Assuming you are asking the "4" voters this.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

19. Well....

...okay but I was hoping for a serious answer. I was asking the 4.

[yagotme]

20. I was trying to put myself in their shoes,

and come up with what they would say if they dared.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

21. You were more amusing than they would likely be.

[yagotme]

22. Thanks!

[zipplewrath]

26. Not nearly enough

The problem is that the AWB isn't nearly enough, and isn't really even a "good start". It's not that it should be dropped, it's that it is a symbolic effort towards a serious problem.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. Well, we'll have to agree to disagree

More mileage would come of empowering people overall to run a BGC before a private sale, to have access to reasonably priced certified safety instructors, to have schools train young children on what to do if they encounter a gun and spend more to improve the NICS.

Running toward an unreasonable AWB will only help to continue to lose elections and alienate people from the party. You can't pass any laws when you lose the election.

[zipplewrath]

44. Sorta

I'll agree that passing laws with limited utility will not move the party forward. Unless one can pass sufficient legislation to provide actual results, it will continue to be primarily a fund raising issue for many organizations, and an excuse for single issue voters. Very few single issue gun control voters, but alot of single issue gun owner voters.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

45. The problem is that most "gun-control" laws...

...will do nothing to very little. Guns can be manufactured with a few simple tools by anyone with gunsmith skills or by one without those skills but having an internet connection and a 3-D printer.

People grow their only cannabis. During prohibition, there was a profit motive in developing the skill to brew alcohol.

There are currently over 600,000,000 guns in private hands worldwide. Half of all of those are here in the US. Guns are not consumable products, they are durable lasting items. Guns are simple tools. Those who believe bans will solve anything are also simple tools.

[zipplewrath]

46. They can work

I agree that the vast majority of gun control laws that actually get passed tend to be rather toothless in this country. The end result is the perception that NO gun control law can work. However, other countries are vastly more successful in controlling fire arms. Of course, some of that is because other western democracies tend to have a greater sense of "law abiding" than we have here in the US where speeding, tax evasion, and building codes are considered minor nuisances to be ignored.

[gejohnston]

47. Actually, gun controls laws don't work

It isn't that the other countries don't do a better job of controlling guns, it is because they don't have the conditions that create urban gangs and their related violence. Our individualism does have some effect, but that has more to do with liking their restrictions on guns, which are often less than New Jersey's, or their restrictions on abortion.

[zipplewrath]

48. Oh, yeah, they do

There are Urban gangs all around the world. And part of the reasons for the increased concern about immigration in Europe is because of the growing immigrant populations that are poorly employed and developing similar structures.

The real problem is that we are basically a violent culture here in the US and we believe that violence is a primary solution to conflict. That's not nearly as universal in much of western culture, although it could be changing with the extensive degree of population movement going on right now.

[gejohnston]

60. not on the level that we do

As a culture, we are no more violent than Europe. Most of the country is as peaceful as Europe. Pockets of urban areas is another issue. You can not compare inner city Paris or Amsterdam with Detroit or Chicago. When you look at the most violent cities in the world, few of which are in the US, have the same characteristics. All but one or two, Detroit and NOLA, have strict gun control laws. Most are in countries that have far stricter laws than anywhere in Europe.
Also, Latin America is also western culture.
poverty
crumbling infrastructure
gangs
political corruption
extremes in wealth inequality.

BTW, your logical fallacy is post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[zipplewrath]

63. Not exactly

It's not a fallacy to show a statistical correlation. Cause and effect aren't established until the manner of the effect can demonstrated. In this case it can.

As a society we accept violence much more than most of our western democracies. It permeates our culture in just about every level. What you are referencing is that the vast majority of us, despite our acceptance of violence as a solution, end up rarely using it. We do however regularly defend those that do, as well as structure our society to ensure that people are permitted.

[gejohnston]

67. no it can't

In fact, there is no correlation outside of cherry-picked countries. The body of criminology suggests there is zero effect. The said countries had just as low rates before they had any gun control at all.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

49. "control"

First, I object to the terminology "gun-control" because the very idea of laws equaling control is a myth. The only real control over humans is self-control. The legislation commonly referred to as gun-control principally burdens lawful gun owners, attempts to ban weapons that used in a tiny minority of overall assaults and make law enforcement work easier. I don't see how compromising on any rights or freedoms is reasonable only to make the work of law enforcement easier. This thread mostly addresses the part of the party platform that advocates another AWB.

It's just not that hard to control what's never been all that popular. I try to look at everyone and all cultures, religions and traditions as different. We need laws that work for us.

About one in three own guns in the US and they aren't all Republicans.

A "greater sense of law abiding" maybe that's why all those laws about DUI were ignored for years. It wasn't until DD campaigns and PSAs on TV that much changed. I maintain empowering people and looking at them as solutions rather than as potential criminals is better. YMMV.

I think UBCs are a good start on things. Do you have any ideas?

[zipplewrath]

50. Yes

Get rid of all weapons capable of holding more than about 3 rounds. Severely restrict who can obtain one at all. Change liability laws to hold people personally responsible for their weapons, including how they are stored.

Oh, and most of this will require that the 2nd be extensively modified if not repealed.

And that will require that we have a major change in our cultural attitude about the value and utility of violence as a primary solution to conflict.

I'm not holding my breath.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

53. One point at a time

Get rid of all weapons capable of holding more than about 3 rounds.

If you're really expecting that to happen sooner than never and not at all, you're terribly naive.

Severely restrict who can obtain one at all.

Several states have constitutions echoing the personal right of self-defense and the conjunction of the 2A and 10A in the federal give the same result. I don't know of almost anyone who would deny a right of self-defense which really ought to include rights to the most efficacious tool for the job.

Change liability laws to hold people personally responsible for their weapons, including how they are stored.

I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that gun owners now have liability for injuries and damage they cause.

Oh, and most of this will require that the 2nd be extensively modified if not repealed.

I should mention here that it is my considered opinion that changing of eliminating any of the Bill of Rights is tantamount to forming a new country. (I think you may need an incredible number of guns to make that happen.)

And that will require that we have a major change in our cultural attitude about the value and utility of violence as a primary solution to conflict.

If you believe that laws will affect a change in collective "cultural attitude", I have a bridge to sell you.


I will point out lastly that 3 rounds will be a tremendous handicap to the police and military.

[zipplewrath]

54. You left out the last line

I believe that the cultural change will have to precede the change in the laws. They will lead, not follow. That change in attitude will address your concern about civil wars being necessary to make these changes. Oh, and obviously the military, and certain police activities would be exempt from these limitations. They already have access to weapons that are heavily restricted.

And more importantly these changes are going to come as the demographic changes occur in this country, which will probably be long after you and I are anywhere near the majority, if we are here at all.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

59. I think this cultural change will never happen

And to specifically address what you said in #50 "...utility of violence as a primary solution to conflict." I don't see anyone but sociopaths who believe that violence is a "primary solution to conflict."

People in this country and others have been deprived of certain freedoms and they will continue to struggle as they are able to further their freedom and liberty. Many many people are giving and kind and will go out their way to help another. It is only when people are limited, threatened and oppressed that they resort to violence.

I agree that laws won't change culture. This is why I feel they are counterproductive.

Firearms have many uses but a large percentage of current owners would as necessary use their guns in self-defense and would resist their removal. I believe this issue alienates people from ever participating with, supporting and voting for our candidates.

There is much to do in solving today's problems. Government help and support are needed but none of that happens when division keeps our candidates from being elected.

I'm not say all gun laws must be abandoned. As I mentioned, UBCs would be a good idea. I do believe that continuing to work for AWB will cost elections.

[zipplewrath]

62. Just about everybody

After 9/11 I think just about everyone considered violence to be a primary solution to conflict. Furthermore, we as a nation have been at war more than we have been at peace, that hardly suggests a peaceful culture. We have "stand your ground" laws so that people don't have to exit a hostile situation if they choose not to but instead engage in acts of deadly violence. Torture is accepted in this country as a primary method of information extraction (despite its dubious utility). Our language is filled with violent expressions that are used regularly in nonhostile situations. We have "wars" on cancer, poverty, and drugs.

Mind you, the vast majority of people when confronted with an actual opportunity (or necessity) to use violence often end up choosing to avoid it. However, they readily accept others plans to do so, as well as defend those that end up choosing to do so.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

64. We, as a country, are far too quick to engage in war

The very same instinct of self-defense which acts for our preservation and is an asset at the personal level but a liability to a nation. Various law enforcement agencies have learned that in certain situations (barricaded shooters, hostage situations...) negotiation is a preferred course versus a strictly tactical solution.

The cold war ('50s - '80s) was a long string of conflicts like Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, China/Taiwan, Checkpoint Charlie, various Middle East conflicts and Afghanistan where hostility erupted into armed conflicts and wars. Cuba, for example, was handled better than Afghanistan but far too much of our foreign policy degenerates into (excuse the expression) measurement of the figurative genitals.

We have for over a century favored building a strong military (and using it too often). I believe in the saying, "When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail." For the public, military victories are easier to understand than negotiations and treaties.

Of the many that were great mistakes here's my short list of the biggest:
War on drugs- this can go on forever since a new arch villain and his major crime in focus can be identified and spread via the media as often as needed.
War on terror- this can go on forever since new arch villains and major crimes in focus can be identified and spread via the media as often as needed.
(the list goes on)

The vast number of people, on their own, work to avoid violence and conflict. This is not true when an authority figure becomes involved. See the Milgram Experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment.

Our leaders often lead us into war and conflict. From Daniel Webster: "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."

I live by the USMC rules for gun fighting #26: "Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation."

[zipplewrath]

65. In conflict

We can probably be accused of engaging in conflict to easily/quickly as a culture. It is the primary feature of a huge portion of our entertainment. Which is a bit odd considering that the majority of our lives are filled with work and family and those two activities are supposed to involve cooperation and unity, although they rarely do.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

68. We -- can -- probably -- be accused...

... Accused??? I think you'd have to be a warmongering republican to even have reservations.

Shootem' up movies and video games are very popular but the idea behind electing experienced officials is they have reserve, foresight and wisdom. That is the whole idea behind a republic.

We need to cut back on war and military spending. Military equipment isn't universally a one size fits all for conflicts. Dress the cops like the military, mobilize them in APCs and hand them military level weapons and then be confused when things don't end well at a protest or march.

Feds have had issues responding to situations. Ruby Ridge, Waco... Just examples of events that escalated too quickly and were poorly handled. The Bundy & co. siege at the wildlife building was an improvement.

[zipplewrath]

81. And I rest my case

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8515846

And this is just on DU.

[benEzra]

69. You do realize that AR-15's and whatnot are common and legal in Canada and Europe, yes?

Get rid of all weapons capable of holding more than about 3 rounds.

You are advocating for laws in the United States that most of the countries you admire have rejected.

Not even the UK has a 3-round magazine limit, and the UK is extremist by European standards.

[yagotme]

74. I can't even come up with

many weapons that are 3 round only, no detachable mag. A few shotguns, (most are more, with an easily removable plug inside the tube), some REALLY high powered magnum rifles, drillings, and that's about it.

[Warpy]

27. What they really need to get off the street are semi auto pistols

Those are the guns that cause the most grief in this town and they were taking over from Saturday Night Specials when I left Boston.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

29. With the exception of single action revolvers...

...almost all handguns are semi-auto. I'm not sure what you're driving at.

[SlimJimmy]

30. I own one wheel gun. All the rest are semi-auto.

I don't exactly get that point either.

[yagotme]

37. I believe the point is,

with a "double action" revolver, you get one shot with each pull of the trigger. Just like a semi auto.

[SlimJimmy]

38. That's true, but the semi-auto is more efficient at that process making it more effective,

mechanically.

[yagotme]

39. Mechanically, yes,

but the argument could still be made that a double action revolver is a semi auto, just going on definition of trigger pull per shot, no other action required. I hear the NY police Glocks have something like a 14 lb trigger pull. Bet nearly all my DA revolvers can beat that.

[SlimJimmy]

40. I suppose, in the very strictest sense, it could be considered a semi-auto.

I would more correctly identity it as a double action revolver. Most semi-autos fire the first round double action, then the rest semi-auto, with the hammer being placed in the firing position by the action of the slide. The revolver requires that the hammer be pulled back manually (via the trigger) for each shot.

[yagotme]

41. Some that want to ban/restrict firearms here,

haven't studied up on their firearms knowledge, and would probably argue the case against DA's. Their technical knowledge, shall we say, is a little lacking.

The Glock could nearly be described as a DA, as the striker is only partially cocked by the slide, remainder of tension put on by the trigger. Any ban/restriction would have to look at the nuts and bolts of operation, otherwise a worthless piece of legislation would be passed. See the 94 AWB for reference.

[gejohnston]

42. some semi autos do,

I have one that does. Another is striker fired, where each pull is single action. The one I carry functions more like a double action revolver. Semi auto simply means casing ejection and placing a round in the chamber is part of the gun's functioning not requiring the shooter to operate the bolt or lever.

[SlimJimmy]

43. Yes. A good example of that would be the Diamond Back DB9.

Internal striker which requires double action for each round fired.

[SlimJimmy]

72. My general definition of a semi-auto is a weapon that automatically loads the next round.

No trigger pull, necessary. But you point is well taken. There are quite a few revolvers on the market with a very light trigger pull.

[yagotme]

73. Your definition, and mine, agree.

Someone with a lack of knowledge, or purposely is trying to blur the lines on mechanical function (see: full auto vs. semi auto, machine gun/assault weapon arguments) could argue the point of 1 trigger pull = 1 shot fired.

[benEzra]

70. And yet revolvers kill ten or twenty times as many people annually

as all AR-15's and other semiauto rifles *combined*.

[SlimJimmy]

71. A revolver, by its very nature, is more accurate.

So, no big surprise.

[yagotme]

75. The "no surprise" part is,

that you can stuff a revolver in your pocket or somewhere else. Jamming an AR-15 or other rifle down your shorts is, most likely, going to be highly uncomfortable and obvious. The gun most used in crime, is going to be the one that can be carried/hidden easily.

A revolver, by nature, can be highly inaccurate, also. You have 6 (on average) chambers, and 1 barrel. Each chamber must be drilled in proper alignment with the barrel, or accuracy will suffer. Properly fitted automatics can be very accurate. Revolver has the jump by being less finicky with ammo selection, and if you have a misfire, can refire immediately. YMMV.

[SlimJimmy]

76. Look up the Diamondback DB9 (9mm) and tell what's not very concealable about it.

It weighs approximately 11oz, unloaded. As to accuracy, I have to respectfully disagree. A revolver in the hands of a trained shooter is extremely accurate. Just ask any police officer who "grew up" with them as a standard sidearm. Plus they rarely, if ever, jam.

[yagotme]

77. I believe you've misread my reply.

I was saying that handguns are more easily concealable than rifles, thus are generally used more for criminal intent.

If you re-read my post, I also stated that revolvers CAN BE inaccurate, due to the cylinder/barrel alignment. A good shot can shoot well with an accurate revolver/pistol, but cannot do so well with an inaccurate one.

[SlimJimmy]

78. Completely agree. I think we are both on the same page.

But you have to admit, the DB9 is a pretty cool, and very concealable, 9mm.

[yagotme]

80. Would have to handle it,

some of those subcompact nines don't fit my hand well. Something about the front to back vs. width. Nice looking piece, tho.

[pablo_marmol]

31. "I'm not sure what you're driving at."

Neither are they. Likely can't even describe what defines a semi-auto firearm.

[pablo_marmol]

32. Uh.........yeah right.

Like the Democratic Party hasn't been beaten up enough over all of the other nonsense we've peddled over the years.

[virginia mountainman]

61. Funny you meniton saturday night specials...

When they banned them, it caused the criminals to up gun, from cheap imported .25's and .22's, that "may or may not" go bang when the trigger is pulled.. To Smith and Wessons, glocks, sig sauers, and Colts, that are at least .38, if not .45 and 9mm,s that are of much higher quality, much more powerful, and DO go "bang" when the trigger is pulled.

The saturday night special ban, is largely responsible for the "up gunning" of urban crooks more than anything else.

[yagotme]

66. Don't forget the "armor piercing bullet" ban.

Brought to light that police officers wore body armor, and if you wanted to shoot one, aim high.