Florida: Man shot dead at Edison Mall

[ellisonz]

Story Created: Dec 23, 2011 at 11:54 PM America/New_York

FORT MYERS, FL - Fort Myers police say a man has been shot and killed outside the Edison Mall. The shots were fired sometime around 9:00 PM, triggering a chaotic scene during a busy shopping night. Police believe 40 to 50 shots were fired from a high powered assault rifle. Officers tell WINK News, the gunman is still on the loose after leaving in a grey 4-door vehicle. We also know bullets hit cars; at least one vehicle's windshield was hit by two bullets. The mall, packed with holiday shoppers, went into a short but scary lockdown. Several witnesses said they saw people screaming, running and ducking down.

"I was shopping inside Guess and all of a sudden you see everybody running around screaming gun. Then all the gates started to shut and you got stuck in the store and saw everybody running around with their guns," said Angel Montoney, a shopper inside at the time of the shooting.

The lockdown has since been lifted.

-------

Officers tell us there's surveillance video that should help them in their search for the gunman.

http://www.winknews.com/Local-Florida/2011-12-23/Man-shot-dead-at-Edison-Mall-

More coverage: http://www.abc-7.com/story/16387936/2011/12/23/police-two-people-shot-outside-edison-mall

Do you think we are likely to see more of these types of shootings as more "high-powered rifles" enter private hands? Do you think the "Federal Assault Weapons Ban" makes a difference in reducing the supply of these firearms to criminals? If not, where do you think criminals such as these would obtain this amount of firepower? Do you generally think the majority of these types of firearms used in crimes such as this are smuggled into the country or are obtained from inside the United States?

[William769]

1. I was there last night to pick my mother up from last minute Christmas shopping.

We had just missed it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

2. "High-powered rifles" have been in private hands since about 1885.

30-30 (a round of similar performance to the 7.62 x 39 used in the SKS and Kalashnikov platforms) repeating rifles have been around since that period.
And, no, they're not really high-powered. I suspect lazy journalism.

But to answer your questions:

1. No
2. No
3. What difference does it make?
4. Inside the US. That's like asking if the getaway car was domestic or imported- it, too, makes no difference.

[Deejai]

3. No gun ban can ever keep guns from criminals

Most of the illegal guns I've seen were stolen. Theres a whole underground network for the sale of illegal or stolen firearms just like there is for drugs. Most of the full automatic weapons or explosives I've seen were foreign and probably smuggled. If you were a criminal and well connected, you could probably get anything you wanted. A couple years ago, I saw a couple live hand grenades ready to be sold on the street for $300 bucks a piece.

There is no law that can keep criminals from getting guns because they live in an underground world outside the law.

[Logical]

7. This is what the "Anti's" do not understand! Criminals will always have guns.

[ellisonz]

12. If that is true, then why do Japan, Australia, and Europe...

Have such low gun homicide rates? I mean it's not like Russia and the former Soviet Union isn't the worlds biggest gun bonanza. Are Americans just more violent?

[X_Digger]

15. They had virtually the same gun homicide rate *before* substantive gun control

Compare London of the 1880's to NYC of the same time frame- NYC had five times the rate of London, and neither had gun control.

That thing you're confusing? Correlation? Isn't the same as causation.

And Japan? If you want a soft police state, feel free to lobby for it. Of course we don't report a father killing his wife and two children as four suicides, either.

[ellisonz]

17. So Americans are just more violent?

It's not like those places don't have poverty, immigrants, drugs, gangs, and organized crime - it's just that they don't shoot it out daily in the streets.

I agree about the Japanese reporting - but imagine it'd still be much lower than ours.

At a certain point, once you rule out other factors as being causal, correlation becomes a strong indicator.

[gejohnston]

19. no just less suicidal

what about rope violence? If committing suicide with a gun is "gun violence" then hanging yourself is "rope violence"
if suicide is a violent act, then their higher suicide rates make them equally and more violent than us.

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. "...Japanese reporting - but imagine it'd still be much lower than ours." And you'd be wrong.

Japan's suicide rate is higher than our suicide *and* murder rates combined.

[ellisonz]

25. Most of them not using guns...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Japan - I wonder how many innocent bystanders are killed by gunfire in Japan every year

Most sociologists will tell you that suicide is a whole different subject. Ever read Durkheim?

[gejohnston]

26. no kidding

Then it is dishonest to lump suicides with "gun violence" in the US. It either is or it is not.

[ellisonz]

30. I, personally, have never made such a "lump"

And would not think it to be sociologically conceptually correct.

Suicide is a whole different motivation - the harm is inflicted onto yourself, and not others.

[gejohnston]

31. you would be the exception

Most of your allies do, and when the lumping was pointed out, one of your allies claimed that separating them is a NRA propaganda scam to deflate the actual numbers of "gun violence" (since most are suicides).

[ellisonz]

35. Do we even what to talk about what your "allies' believe?

Mele Kalikimaka!

[gejohnston]

39. I think we are reality based

than yours.

[ellisonz]

46. ...

My allies:

"The city of Chicago has gun laws, so does Washington, DC," Obama said. "The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate gun safety laws to deal with gangbangers and random shootings on the street isn’t born out by our Constitution."

Obama often boasts, in his stump speeches, that he would be a President who understands the Constitution because he has taught the Constitution. Today a reporter asked for his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, which gun owners often cite in their arguments against gun control.

Obama said this: "There’s been a long standing argument by constitutional scholars about whether the second amendment referred simply to militias or it spoke to an individual right to possess arms. I think the latter is the better argument. There is an individual right to bear arms, but it is subject to common-sense regulation just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulation. So I think there’s a lot of room before you getting bumping against a constitutional barrier for us to institute some of the common-sense gun laws that I just spoke about."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/02/obama-common-se/

Yours:

Well if I posted what I should post it's just not worth the rule violation.

[gejohnston]

48. so Obama agrees with us

as far as being individual right. The only difference is the definition of "common sense". I think the definition should be left to people who actually know what they are talking about instead of emotion based and dishonest propaganda.
The pistol grip is not used for shooting from the hip
bare hands are used as murder weapons more
mechanically, there is no difference between any semi auto from another

[ellisonz]

59. "I think the definition should be left to people who actually know what they are talking about"

[gejohnston]

77. this one is actually dishonest

given that the background check system was the NRA's idea after the Brady one was struck down as a unfunded mandate on local authorities. (10A)
So you are saying that ignorant and dishonest people like Josh Sugarmann should be making policy? We do that too much on other issues as it is.

[SteveW]

162. Well, there goes your "militia clause" argument! LOL. nt

[beevul]

176. Your allies, from your own lips...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10149616#post58



Not that many of us didn't already suspect it, but confirmation is nice.

[ellisonz]

177. OMG...I support the Brady Campaign.

Now you can smear me with everything anyone has ever said and make me try to defend it (yes, the tactic is obvious).

Also, does this make you feel warm and fuzzy?

Do you support the NRA?

[beevul]

181. No, really?

Of course you do.

"Now you can smear me with everything anyone has ever said and make me try to defend it (yes, the tactic is obvious). "

No, I think I could limit my words to those of the people that run the org - republican founded and up until recently republican led (but you knew that didnt you) - that you support.

And nope. I'm not an nra member.

[ellisonz]

187. ...

I'm not opposed bipartisanship with Republicans, I am opposed though to their good friends the NRA and their mission of gun expansion.

You're sniping at the Big Dog with that little rhetorical game...

[X_Digger]

32. Apparently so. Our *non* gun homicide rate strips most european countries *total* homicide rates. nt

[Pacafishmate]

53. That comic makes no sense

Who cares if a death is related to guns? Are gun deaths somehow worse than stabbings? If you wanted to kill someone and didn't have access to a gun, you'd just use a common object like a knife or a pipe.

[ellisonz]

60. "If you wanted to kill someone and didn't have access to a gun, you'd just use a common object"

I've been waiting to roll this one out.

[rl6214]

91. Glad you got the chance

it's about as stupid as all the other ones.

[SteveW]

163. Yeah, no NRA royalty check for that one. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Actually, yes, we are more violent.

Deduct all firearm related deaths, and we still kick Europe's collective asses in killings with simpler tools, like fists and feet.

We also have between 60,000 and on a good year as many as 100,000 lawful defensive gun uses, per the Department Of Justice.

[Atypical Liberal]

79. I don't understand harping the European angle.

There is no doubt that fewer firearms in circulation will mean fewer deaths. So there is little doubt that if we had gun control like other countries we would have fewer firearm deaths like they do.

But we would also have fewer freedom like they do.

I'm not willing to chase utopia by giving up my right to keep and bear arms.

As Benjamin Franklin said in 1775, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The right to keep and bear arms is an essential liberty. I'm not going to give it up in an attempt to gain safety.

[ellisonz]

120. "There is no doubt that fewer firearms in circulation will mean fewer deaths."

spin and I have ad a similar conversation here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10144745#post7

Mele Kalikimaka!

[Atypical Liberal]

134. limits on the numbers of guns you can own.

I did not spend much time slogging through that. I noticed that one of your proposals is to limit the number of guns that people can own.

I don't think this will have much impact on crime. Just as with nuclear weapons, you don't worry about the guy who owns a hundred of them, you worry about the guy who only owns one.

I doubt most people who can afford a collection of firearms are going to be involved in crime very often. The guy who can only afford to own one firearm is probably much more likely to be involved in crime.

But like I said - I'm not going to support any attempts to restrict ownership of firearms to try and make us more like other countries or have crime rates like other countries.

Yes, other countries have less freedom to own firearms, and they enjoy reduced firearm crime because of that. I'm not willing to make that tradeoff. I'll live with the higher crime rate so that I can enjoy the right to own firearms as I will.

I'm also not going to support punitive taxes that attempt to limit gun ownership by making it more expensive. Just like I don't support Governor Walker's attempt to stifle free speech by saying that any grouping of 4 or more protestors will have to pay fees to protest. Or poll taxes. Constitutional rights should not require onerous fees, especially ones specifically designed to curtail the right.

[ellisonz]

139. "I'll live with the higher crime rate so that I can enjoy the right to own firearms as I will."

I'm sure the victims of this nonsense appreciate your enjoyment

[Atypical Liberal]

153. I would feel the same way if the situation were reversed.

The simple fact is, in a society with free access to firearms, you are going to have people that use them to do bad things.

Right now if you assigned every violent crime in the United States to a firearm owner every year, it would still mean that something like over 95% of firearm owners aren't involved - they can't be because there aren't enough violent crimes to go around all the 40-80 million gun owners.

So is it sad that people die from the criminal use of firearms? Sure. Is it bad enough to curtail the rights of 95% of the firearm owners in this country who aren't involved in violent crime? No.

Do the victims feel any better about being victims? Of course not. But we aren't going to let their emotions drive the policy that effects the vast majority of firearm owners.

Especially when no matter how onerous you make the paperwork, my guess is in the end the criminal acts will continue to be committed by criminals who pay no heed to the paperwork.

[ellisonz]

155. Preztel logic.

"Do the victims feel any better about being victims? Of course not. But we aren't going to let their emotions drive the policy that effects the vast majority of firearm owners."

"Especially when no matter how onerous you make the paperwork, my guess is in the end the criminal acts will continue to be committed by criminals who pay no heed to the paperwork."

[Atypical Liberal]

156. I do not understand your post.

You quoted two correct statements from my post and submitted a cartoon that has nothing to do with either.

Perhaps you would like to try again?

[ellisonz]

157. The statements don't merit a direct answer.

They are absurd notions in direct contradiction of the grand social contract that underlines our civic life: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Would you care to consider how the Second Amendment conforms within this idea?

[Atypical Liberal]

160. Then why bother posting at all?

Look, if you don't want to or can't engage in a proper intellectual debate with me on the subject matter, why bother posting at all then?

They are absurd notions in direct contradiction of the grand social contract that underlines our civic life: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Would you care to consider how the Second Amendment conforms within this idea?

As I have said, the second amendment puts military-grade small arms in the hands of civilians, because it is necessary to the security of a free state.

It allows The People to respond violently to those who would oppress them. It allows The People to respond to anyone who would try and take away Justice ordomestic tranquility. It allows people the tools with which to create the common defense, and to secure the blessings of liberty.

The second amendment provides the teeth of the Constitution. It is the ultimate reset switch for our government.

[beevul]

178. What you quote there...

What you quote there, is a general statement of purpose.

The constitution contains authorization of powers toward those ends.


The bill of rights contains prohibition of the exercise of powers which may be used to those ends.


Quoting what amounts to a general statement of purpose, doesn't really get you anywhere.

[ellisonz]

179. Yeah...

...The preamble to the United States Constitution doesn't matter. My choice reading of the Second Amendment, bought and paid for by the NRA, for their right-wing allies, matters far more than any silly general notion about the purpose of the Government that is established in the country. The Second Amendment should just strangle the rest of the Constitution and expressly the First and Ninth Amendments.

[beevul]

180. Do you really think nobody can see what you're doing?"

"The preamble to the United States Constitution doesn't matter"


Who exactly said, implied, or eluded to that?

And in what hatred addled circles does "a general statement of purpose" equate to "doesn't matter"?

I think we ALL know the answer to that.

[ellisonz]

185. Your *concern* for my doings is noted...

I've been told there's no right to public safety and that the police do not protect the individual rights of citizens, clearly both statements are false.

You would do well to quite expressing your concern for posting over and over again and consider the outlandish nature of many of the absurd statements made around her to justify a claim to a near-absolute right to do with arms as one pleases in this country

[X_Digger]

186. Intentional misrepresentation or lack of reading comprehension?

The police have no legal obligation to protect you, the individual. Piles of court cases attest to that fact.

Sometimes they do protect people- but they're not obligated to do so. Anyone who predicates their choices based on that protection being there is a moron.

[ellisonz]

188. That's not the argument.

I agree that "anyone who predicates their choices based on that protection being there is a moron," but even you would not deny that they have an obligation to general public safety.

[X_Digger]

189. 'general public safety', yes.

Let me remind you-

[div class='excerpt']I've been told there's no right to public safety and that the police do not protect the individual rights of citizens

Police have no obligation to help you. Their obligation is to the 'general public safety', as you put it.

That's usually accomplished by catching those who break the law. Usually after a crime has been committed.

There is no 'right to public safety' as can be exercised by an individual. You can't hold the government responsible for infringing that right by not keeping you safe. See DeShaney v Winnebago, Gonzales v Castle Rock, Riss v City of New York, etc.

[ellisonz]

191. So I guess when the Constitution says "the people" they don't mean individuals...

"You can't hold the government responsible for infringing that right by not keeping you safe"

But you sure as hell can request it...

Hoisted by your own canard.

[X_Digger]

193. You're not making sense now.. nobody said 'the people' in any of the previous replies..

Did you lose your place, spinning and regurgitating cartoons and videos?

See US v. Verdugo-Urquirdez for a salient definition of 'the people' though.

[ellisonz]

195. You missed the sarcasm...

Oy Vey.

[beevul]

190. When you misrepresent the words of other posters , thats what you get hereabouts, concerned people.

"I've been told there's no right to public safety"

I'm fairly sure what anyone meant by wjhatever statement you're referring to, is that its not a PROTECTED right.

Ask that poster. /shrug.

"and that the police do not protect the individual rights of citizens"

I've seen the statements you refer to here, and no thats not what they said.

What you were told is that the police have no LEGAL DUTY to protect the individual, and you were provided with legal prededent to back it up.

Maybe you should take the time to actually read and understand what others post to you, rather than misrepresenting it as something it isn't.

Edited to add:

You appear new at this, so I'll give you an example.

When someone described something as ""a general statement of purpose", and you characterize what that person said as equating to "doesn't matter", that is a prime example of misrepresenting the words of others - since nobody actually said, implied, or eluded to that.


Now that you know what it is, had it pointed out to you, will you cease doing it?

[ellisonz]

192. So basically you're conceeding that in actuality...

...none of those statements have significant basis in reality and are simply posturing for the sake of bullshit argument.

I'll post as me please, why you trying to deny me my First Amendment right dude? Does this mean I can deny you your Second Amendment right?

[beevul]

194. Only under the gun control reality distortion field...

Only under the gun control reality distortion field, does court precedent have no "significant basis in reality".

"I'll post as me please, why you trying to deny me my First Amendment right dude? Does this mean I can deny you your Second Amendment right"

Yep, and you'll continue to be called on it when you misrepresent the words of others.


Every. Single. Time.

[SteveW]

164. Now, that one should get an NRA royalty check!

Those poor cowering folks. Do they seem Amish to you? The Amish are known to be relatively well-armed.

[gejohnston]

18. in Europe

the guns flow with the drugs.
If you include suicides as violence, they are more violent than we are (your side always does with "gun violence&quot . It has everything to do with history and culture.
Their murder rates were equally as low before the laws were passed.

Japan's rate is skewed because when it comes to murder/suicides (not uncommon there) what we count as one suicide/three murders, Japan counts as four suicides. Cold cases also get written off as suicides.

You know that but stick to the same fallacies.

[ellisonz]

22. "the guns flow with the drugs."

That happens here too...so you're blaming this on American inclination to kill over money basically? I'd also point out that Europe's demographics have changed and the Soviet Union is gone, but still no spike in gun violence, and no we're not even going to broach the suicide issue. Let's stick to homicide.

[gejohnston]

28. your side is the one

including suicides in "gun violence" Suicide is either a violent act or not.
Money and market share.
If you want to stick to homicide, stick to homicide. It is not the same as "gun violence"
So are you talking about "gun violence" or homicide?
Not blaming anything. Still pointing out your side's inconsistencies and flaws in reasoning.

[SteveW]

159. Do you think the Russians kill more by other means? nt

[aikoaiko]

4. So many questions....

...but they all have answers.

You wrote: Do you think we are likely to see more of these types of shootings as more "high-powered rifles" enter private hands?
My response: Not really as rifles are not the preferred weapon of criminals.

You wrote: Do you think the "Federal Assault Weapons Ban" makes a difference in reducing the supply of these firearms to criminals?
My response: No, there just wasn't that much of a reduction in the use of rifles overall when the so-called ban was in place. Some rifles like the Ruger Mini-14 or Mini-30 weren't even covered in the ban, but they could take 30round magazines shoot the some ammunition as AR15s and kalashnikov styles rifles.

You wrote: If not, where do you think criminals such as these would obtain this amount of firepower?
My response: From the same places they are now. AR15s and semi-auto Kalashnikov style rifles were still available during the ban only they weren't sold with bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, or come new with 30 round magazines. 30 round magazines, however, were still available.

You wrote: Do you generally think the majority of these types of firearms used in crimes such as this are smuggled into the country or are obtained from inside the United States?
My response: Not now, but if a true ban and confiscation were successful you would create a black market easily filled by organized crime (similar to alcohol prohibition). In fact, you may open a pipeline of fully-automatic weapons from other counties into ours as a unintended consequence of feel good legislation in the US.

[ellisonz]

14. What would one need a 30 round magazine for realistically that's a legitimate use?

Self-defense form Al Capone?

"you may open a pipeline of fully-automatic weapons from other counties into ours as a unintended consequence of feel good legislation in the US." - Weapons are a much heavier and less profitable smuggling item - I think this would be highly unlikely since the market here is so flush already from decades of poor regulation. Why would organized crime want to risk such a high penalty for such a low profit? Ironically, this is one of those things I never really found that credible about the whole Sons of Anarchy show gun trading bit.

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. Unless one prefers that criminals be forced to reload, banning them is rather pointless.

A two-shot derringer in the wrong hands is a dangerous weapon. A 75 round drum magazine on a KalashniKlone in the hands of a law-abiding owner
is just another rifle.

[ellisonz]

24. Being forced to reload stopped Jared Lee Loughner...

...just sayin'

"A 75 round drum magazine on a KalashniKlone in the hands of a law-abiding owner is just another rifle."

[GreenStormCloud]

38. He wasn't reloading. His gun jammed.

His magazine held 33 rounds. He fired 30. It is not uncommon for very high capacity magazines to fail to feed the last rounds due to uneven spring tension. Reloading a semi-auto handgun is extremely rapid. Other posters have posted videos of just how fast it is but you ignore your own eyes.

[ellisonz]

47. Big difference...

http://www.newser.com/story/109344/61-year-old-woman-stopped-gunman-from-reloading.html

[gejohnston]

49. what are the odds

the reporter knew he or she was writing about?

[GreenStormCloud]

62. Reporters are routinely ignorant about guns.

His pistols jammed because he was using a high capacity magazine. He could have been like Cho and carried a bunch of regular capacity mags and swapped mags when one was finished. If he had done that he would have been able to shoot anybody who tried to stop him. That is what the Cho did and what the Luby's shooter did.

The facts are that he fired 30 shots. And the mag held 33. Too bad that you don't like inconvenient facts.

[ellisonz]

68. The reports aren't quite clear...

Mueller said the shooting involved a legally purchased Glock 9-millimeter, a semiautomatic pistol. Loughner allegedly fired all 31 bullets in the magazine and was reloading when a woman in the crowd, already wounded, attempted to grab the gun from him. He finally changed the magazine and tried to fire, authorities said, but the gun jammed. Meanwhile, two men from the crowd grabbed him and subdued him, according to officials.

http://www.mlive.com/news/us-world/index.ssf/2011/01/charges_filed_against_jared_le.html

A woman tried to grab the gun from Loughner as he reloaded. Two others grabbed him as the second magazine jammed, Dupnick said.

The woman, who was later identified as Patricia Maisch, was wounded while "trying to get the gun away from him," Dupnik said Sunday morning. Later, authorities said Maisch was uninjured.

Deputy Jason Ogan gave the following account:

Maisch was at the event, in the rear of the line, waiting to take a photograph with Rep. Giffords when the suspect began shooting.

When the suspect tried to load a fresh magazine into his weapon, Maisch was able to grab the bottom of the magazine and prevent it from being inserted. This pause in shooting allowed for two men, Roger Salzgeber and Bill D. Badger, to tackle the suspect to the ground and restrain him until deputies arrived.

http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/010911_loughner_suspect/fbi-director-loughner-suspect-giffords-shooting-rampage/

Deputy Sheriff Thomas Audetat, a chiseled former Marine with three tours in Iraq to his credit, dug his knee into the gangly young man’s back and cuffed him. With the aid of another deputy, he relieved the heroic civilians of their charge and began searching for weapons other than the Glock semiautomatic pistol, secured nearby under a civilian’s foot, that had just fired 31 rounds.

In the left front pocket, two 15-round magazines. In the right front pocket, a black, four-inch folding knife. “Are there any other weapons on you?” Deputy Audetat recalled demanding.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/us/16loughner.html?pagewanted=all

He had two other magazines with him, besides the two extended clips. The chain of events in between him stopping firing and being tackled aren't quite clear. The stories aren't consistent, and the fact remains that without the high-capacity mags he probably doesn't cause as much carnage.

[GreenStormCloud]

69. Your're wrong. The hi-cap mag caused the jam.

Among gunners it is well known that hi-cap mags have a high failure to feed rate on the last couple of rounds. Cho and the Luby's killer had no problems with rapid mag changes. They used standard mags.

[ellisonz]

87. The question is more did he clear the jam and load another magazine.

[GreenStormCloud]

126. No. The slide was locked back.

That means that the jam was not cleared.

[SteveW]

165. ...another NRA royalty check...

[ellisonz]

82. Sheer sophistry.

"A 75 round drum magazine on a KalashniKlone in the hands of a law-abiding owner is just another rifle." - And in the hands of a criminal?

What will you think of next?

[gejohnston]

97. cool idea, I'll have to market those in more bike friendly places

that also have schultzenfest. Adapt them for air guns...........
Biking to the range in Norway and New Zealand.

[SteveW]

166. ...maybe an NRA royalty check, but...

I saw at least 2 hunters in Sam Houston National Forest using bicycles with little ball-hitch carts towed behind -- to carry rifle(s) and deer.

[aikoaiko]

27. Answer me this: What do you think is an adequate mag capacity to repeal a dangerous person?

[ellisonz]

29. No more than 12...

Why how many do you think is necessary? Are you being attacked by roving bands of Somali pirates?

[aikoaiko]

33. What if there were two or three dangerous intruders in your house?

You like to use the rofl icon and refer to Capone or Somali pirates, but a home invasion by two or three motivated dangerous people is not a laughing matter. It happens. Its often horrible when it does. Do you really think its funny?

I'm fine with anyone with a clean record having a rifle or handgun with 30 rounds for self-defense and you should be too. You post enough stories of criminal behavior to convince me that its a legitimate use.

[ellisonz]

34. Hypothetically.

I think you'd be just as likely to shoot your own family as you would be to hit the criminals. I thought you were all supposed to be expertly trained? Do you really need to go all Robert De Niro in Heat on them? Did you think the shooting in Tucson last year was funny? He had two 30 round extended pistol clips.

"I'm fine with anyone with a clean record having a rifle or handgun with 30 rounds for self-defense and you should be too."

I think you should do some reading on the history of the Thompson sub-machine gun, and how about the BAR while you're at it.

Besides, the Supreme Court in Heller is clearly indicating toward such limitations:

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision

The Supreme Court ruling that is being held up as such fine rule-making on the "individual right" is not fine with your analysis on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." If 5 sitting Republican Supreme Court Justices think you're wrong, and the other 4 agree even more vehemently. Then clearly you might as well be on the wrong side of Nixon vs. US because you're not going to win that argument in a Court of Law silly.

Have a good Christmas.

[aikoaiko]

36. I see you don't like your own math. You are fine with 12 rounds for a single intruder,

but apparently not any more if there are more intruders. The 13th or greater round must be a menace to society. Yeah, that makes sense in pro-gun control world.

The part of Heller you cited does not say what you think it says. AR15s are very popular and not dangerous. I always thought the asinine AWB of 1994 helped popularize AR15s. Your side can't win for losing.

Oh, I'm fine with the court of law. Those who wish to increase asinine gun restrictions have been losing badly in court for a long time. Its been kind of fun watching them piss in the wind and become surprised when they are all wet and no one wants to sit near them. They've got nothing to show for their efforts for the last ten years.

[ellisonz]

61. "They've got nothing to show for their efforts for the last ten years."

Aww thanks GWB...besides ruining the economy, waging one war based on lies, the other poorly, and trying to gut just about everything we hold dear, you also rolled back gun control. What a swell guy!

[beevul]

72. The facts do not bear out the conclusion you assert.

The AWB sunset, as it was DESIGNED to.

Congress never passed an extension to be signed or vetoed.

[Straw Man]

78. Dubya said he would sign the AWB...

...if it came to his desk. Congress didn't reauthorize, so it sunsetted.

Does that make you feel warm in your heart for ol' Shrub?

[ellisonz]

84. He also said he wouldn't engage in "nation building."

If you're taking GWB at his word, I don't know what to tell other than that if you believe that to be his sincere opinion, I have a bridge to sell you.

Does that make you feel warm in your heart for ol'Shrub?

[rl6214]

96. What don't you understand about congress never even voted on it?

[Straw Man]

111. He didn't -- he engaged in "nation wrecking."

[div class = excerpt]If you're taking GWB at his word, I don't know what to tell other than that if you believe that to be his sincere opinion, I have a bridge to sell you.
Makes you wonder why he said it, doesn't it? It flew in the face of his party's traditional stand on gun control issues and risked alienating their base. What's the ulterior motive?

[div class = excerpt]Does that make you feel warm in your heart for ol'Shrub?
That's my line. If you're going to use my material, I'm going to have to start charging you.

[aikoaiko]

81. It wasn't GWB that did much for the RKBA. It was individual states and the SCOTUS who did the most.

Also, you have conveniently forgotten that President Obama has abandoned your cause.

Candidate Obama had a strong record of increasing or seeking to increase gun control. For the last three years, he's kept all those who favor increased gun control silent. I don't think there has been a personal change in ideology on gun control, but at least a pragmatic change that leaves your cause in the dust.

The classic strategy of those who seek to increase gun control by exploiting the victims of gun violence, do-it-for-the-children pleas, and misinformation about firearms doesn't work anymore.

[rl6214]

94. GWB said he would sign the AWB if it got to his desk

it never got to his desk so you can blame the congress for that. You really should learn what you are talking about before posting. The ban had a sunset provision in it so it wasn't up to him to renew it, it was up to congress and the senate.

[ellisonz]

95. You take GWB at his word?

[X_Digger]

106. His opinion didn't mean shit..

What, you think he could have signed the renewal all on his own?!? My, you've made a rather mythic character out of such a moron.

[rl6214]

197. It really is a non issue because the party in control

never got it passed, never even got it brought up for a vote.

[X_Digger]

37. That's quite a reply.

[div class='excerpt']I think you'd be just as likely to shoot your own family as you would be to hit the criminals.

What leads you to this conclusion? Or is it just bullshit-flinging?

[div class='excerpt'] I thought you were all supposed to be expertly trained? Do you really need to go all Robert De Niro in Heat on them?

I guess that answers my question- bullshit-flinging.

Here's a serious question in response to your asinine insults: What's the 'hit' percentage for trained police officers? (Hint, it's higher than 25% and less than 35%.) Second question, how many bullets does it take to stop the average criminal that a police officer fires on? (Higher than three, less than five..)

With your magic 12 bullet limit, and let's say the same 30% hit percentage, and three or four hits to stop a determined criminal, the second and third intruder may be facing an empty gun.

Fuck the victim, eh?

[div class='excerpt']Besides, the Supreme Court in Heller is clearly indicating toward such limitations:

Did you pull a muscle with that reach? Notice the 'in common use for lawful purposes' language? Well gee, most full-sized semi-autos sold today come with magazines holding 13-15 rounds. The most popular centerfire rifle sold in the US (the AR-15) routinely ships with a 30 round magazine. You're kind of screwed on that count, eh?

[ellisonz]

44. Indicative statistics...

1.

Will your gun help you in the case of a home invasion?

Category: Gun Ownership
Posted on: January 5, 2011 10:00 AM, by Greg Laden

Statistics and various studies show that yes, it might, but they also show that having a gun in the home is also potentially very dangerous, so the net aggregate outcome (and economists have strong armed us into thinking that net aggregate outcomes are the only criteria that are acceptable, bless their pointy heads) of having a gun in the home is that someone in your home is more likely to be shot and possibly killed than that the gun will be used to thwart a home invasion.

Assistant Professor at University of Minnesota
Instructor, Post Doc at Harvard University
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/01/will_your_gun_help_you_in_the.php

2. You can't demonstrate that having a 25, 30, or 75 rounds is really going to make a difference. The real question we should be asking is what the totality of victims are in these sorts of contexts?

3. A court probably wouldn't consider what happened after the ban in this context, 30 round magazines are nothing new, and prior to the current madness they were not the common weapon. This is why to my knowledge an Assault Weapons Ban has never been ruled unconstitutional, unless you can show otherwise. I'm sensing some real seething at the Supreme Court in this regard. They've been very clear that such regulations are permissible. I could go probably find the precedent in Miller, but instead I'll just link to John Paul Stevens dissent in Heller: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html - but I guess anyone who disagrees with such outlandish arguments just wants to take away your guns right?

[gejohnston]

50. the real question is

should "common sense" be defined by firearms and self-defense experts or people who don't know shit but feel justified telling those who do "what they need"?
Example:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11722018
Brady is being dishonest (with demonstrably false claims) and a poster basing his views only on what he has been told by Brady et al? How is it common sense to have policy driven by the dishonest and the unknowing?

The AWB was not "common sense", it was political theater dreamed up by Bill Bennett, supported equally by both parties, and made Newt speaker of the House.
Among its largest supporters is a Enron loophole supporting DINO (that ran as a Dem only after losing the GOP primary, and was still registered Republican after being sworn in) who thinks heat seeking bullets cook deer and a barrel shroud is something that "flips up"

This guy is just another blogger with his own biases.
Since the AWB never come up........

[X_Digger]

51. That's not at all the suggestion you made..

Here let me quote you- In response to: "What if there were two or three dangerous intruders in your house?" you responded, "I think you'd be just as likely to shoot your own family as you would be to hit the criminals."

Nothing in anything ever quoted by you or anyone else leads to that conclusion- having a home invasion and a homeowner shooting their own family. You're stretching so hard that you pulled something and ended up in absurd territory.

Utter bullshit.

I know it must chap your ass that 2007-2008 had the lowest accidental death rate from firearms ever recorded (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm)- even with an increase in firearm purchases (based on NICS checks). 0.19 per 100,000, compared to 0.20 per 100,000 for the previous year.

[div class='excerpt']2. You can't demonstrate that having a 25, 30, or 75 rounds is really going to make a difference. The real question we should be asking is what the totality of victims are in these sorts of contexts?

There are home invasions where a homeowner ran out of ammunition against multiple attackers, such as this local one- http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8432140 - this is the third home invasion for this homeowner, and one of about a dozen in the surrounding area in the last 8 months or so.

Feel free to tell him that he only needed 12 rounds.

[div class='excerpt']A court probably wouldn't consider what happened after the ban in this context, 30 round magazines are nothing new, and prior to the current madness they were not the common weapon. This is why to my knowledge an Assault Weapons Ban has never been ruled unconstitutional, unless you can show otherwise. I'm sensing some real seething at the Supreme Court in this regard. They've been very clear that such regulations are permissible. I could go probably find the precedent in Miller, but instead I'll just link to John Paul Stevens dissent in Heller: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html - but I guess anyone who disagrees with such outlandish arguments just wants to take away your guns right?

There have been guns with >12 round magazines since at least 1872. The purported 'test', if such a test can be intimated from the Heller decision pivots on 'in common use for lawful purposes'. Trying to ban the most popular magazine for the most popular centerfire rifle will fall pretty damned flat using those criteria. Every year, over 800,000 AR-15 pattern guns are sold, according to the NSSF.

An assault weapon ban has never been ruled unconstitutional because the question has never been litigated as such. Portions of California's ban have been ruled unconstitutional, but others have been upheld; but both cases weren't about the provisions of the ban itself, but how guns were added to the list, or due process procedures. (There's a new case in the works in CA that more directly addresses the 'vagueness'- http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/21/californias-assault-weapon-ban-challenge ).

If you did go looking in Miller you'd find the same protections outlined in Heller- the arms protected are those 'in common use' for lawful purposes.

Interesting side article on the absurdity of the so-called AWB- http://reason.com/archives/1994/07/01/weapon-assault

[ellisonz]

52. Well riddle me this then...

1. How maneuverable would an AK or an AR-15 be in a narrow hallway. Should everyone just start buying MP5's and and Uzi's?

Also, nowhere in that article do I read that he ran out of ammunition. Could you please quote exactly where that is because I'm not seeing it. I think my source indicates quite well that "someone in your home is more likely to be shot and possibly killed than that the gun will be used to thwart a home invasion." The whole argument that more guns means more safety is ludicrous - where are all of these home invaders getting their guns and why is it a persistent sociological problem? They're illegally obtaining your guns and using them against you!

2. Home invasion resulting in gun theft:

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/south_bay&id=7944582
http://www.mlive.com/news/bay-city/index.ssf/2011/11/bay_city_man_gets_probation_in.html
http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/pearland-news/article/Police-Home-invasion-gun-theft-preceded-1650759.php
http://www.journal-news.com/news/crime/16-weapons-stolen-in-home-invasion-relative-arrested-512511.html
http://www.gazette.com/articles/three-128270-people-arrested.html

In many of these cases, the home is targeted precisely because the attackers want to steal weapons. Thus having a ludicrously large gun collection makes you a prime target. Home invasions are very rarely random attacks; these criminals are attacking with a purpose.

3. You're just making my point that these types of weapons are only common because they're legal for sale, without them, most people don't buy them - they still to my knowledge represent a small percentage of gun ownership with possession of handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles being far more common historically. The Thompson sub-machine gun was not the weapon of choice before they were banned from sale in 1934: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) defines a number of categories of regulated firearms. These weapons are collectively known as NFA firearms and include the following:

Machine guns—this includes any firearm which can fire more than 1 cartridge per trigger pull. Both continuous fully automatic fire and "burst fire" (i.e., firearms with a 3-round burst feature) are considered machine gun features. The weapon's receiver is by itself considered to be a regulated firearm.

Short-barreled rifles (SBRs)—this category includes any firearm with a buttstock and either a rifled barrel under 16" long or an overall length under 26". The overall length is measured with any folding or collapsing stocks in the extended position. The category also includes firearms which came from the factory with a buttstock that was later removed by a third party.

Short barreled shotguns (SBSs)—this category is defined similarly to SBRs, but the barrel must be at least 18" instead of 16", and the barrel must be a smoothbore. The minimum overall length limit remains 26".

Suppressors—this includes any portable device designed to muffle or disguise the report of a portable firearm. This category does not include non-portable devices, such as sound traps used by gunsmiths in their shops which are large and usually bolted to the floor.

Destructive Devices (DDs)—there are two broad classes of destructive devices:

Devices such as grenades, bombs, explosive missiles, poison gas weapons, etc.

Any non-sporting firearm with a bore over 0.50", such as a 40mm grenade launcher often used in conjunction with military rifles. (Many firearms with bores over 0.50", such as 12-gauge shotguns, are exempted from the law because they have been determined to have a "legitimate sporting use".)

Any Other Weapons (AOWs)—this is a broad "catch-all" category used to regulate any number of firearms which the BATFE under the NFA enforces registration and taxation. Examples include, among others:

1) Smooth-bore pistols 2) Pen guns and cane guns 3) A firearm with combinations smooth bore and rifle barrels 12 inches or more but less than 18 inches in length from which only a single shot can be made from either barrel. 4) Disguised firearms 5) Firearms that can be fired from within a wallet holster or a briefcase 6) A short-barreled shotgun which came from the factory with a pistol grip is categorized as an AOW rather than a Short Barrel Shotgun (SBS), because the Gun Control Act describes a shotgun as “…designed or redesigned to be fired from the shoulder…” 7) Handguns with a forward vertical grip.

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

4. You just also made my point that not a single assault weapons ban has been ruled unconstitutional as a whole.

5. I'm sorry, I don't read libertarian magazines, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, and proud of it: http://www.thenation.com/blog/gun-insanity

Merry Christmas to you, may peace and goodwill prevail on Earth!

[X_Digger]

54. Answers inline..

[div class='excerpt']How maneuverable would an AK or an AR-15 be in a narrow hallway. Should everyone just start buying MP5's and and Uzi's?

A short AR-15 pistol is accurate, powerful, and manageable, while not having a round so large as to over-penetrate house walls.

[div class='excerpt']Also, nowhere in that article do I read that he ran out of ammunition. Could you please quote exactly where that is because I'm not seeing it.

I'll find the other article mentioning it- it was local for me, so it was covered by a couple of different stations.

[div class='excerpt'] I think my source indicates quite well that "someone in your home is more likely to be shot and possibly killed than that the gun will be used to thwart a home invasion."

You were combining two separate events whose purported probability was compared to each other into one event combining both scenarios. If you can't see the stupidity in that- I can't help you.

[div class='excerpt']The whole argument that more guns means more safety is ludicrous - where are all of these home invaders getting their guns and why is it a persistent sociological problem? They're illegally obtaining your guns and using them against you!

That's another straw man argument. You might want to address the words I actually write. The farthest I'd say is that more guns does not mean more crime or more violence- that's a fact easily backed up by measured statistics, not predictive studies. (Empiric reality trumps predictive bullshit for the win.)

[div class='excerpt']Home invasions are very rarely random attacks; these criminals are attacking with a purpose.

Who said they were random? *looks around*

In the neighborhood I mention above, there have been a dozen or so home invasions- it just happens to be an upper-middle class neighborhood that's close to the interstate.

[div class='excerpt']You're just making my point that these types of weapons are only common because they're legal for sale, without them, most people don't buy them - they still to my knowledge represent a small percentage of gun ownership with possession of handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles being far more common historically. The Thompson sub-machine gun was not the weapon of choice before they were banned from sale in 1934:

And the toothpaste is out of the tube for the guns & magazines previously covered by the so-called AWB. You can't put it back in. They're commonly used for lawful purposes. You knowledge about what guns are popular seems to be out of date- go talk to a local gun shop owner. Springfield XDs, Glocks, etc (holding magazines with 11-18 rounds depending on caliber) are hot sellers, as are AR-15 / AK clones with 30-40 round magazines. Hell, even *during* the so-called ban, AR-15's were selling like hotcakes-

[ellisonz]

57. "And the toothpaste is out of the tube for the guns & magazines previously covered by the so-called"

The Founders would scoff at such a notion, as did Lincoln at secession. The right of the Federal Government, in accordance with the Constitution, to regulate as public safety and the assurance of the Government is not debatable: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Everything else is mystical propaganda spread by a faction intent on securing itself from such fearful notions as an absolute right to individual self-defense in whatever manner they would so please - you can't have an M-60 machine gun and you can't have a flamethrower. If they were to legalize both, and distribute them widely, that would not prohibit the Government from re-instating such a ban and taking them from you with, if necessary, the force of arms. The toothpaste will go back in the tube.

I. "To Keep and Bear Arms"

Although the Court’s discussion of these words treats them as two “phrases”—as if they read “to keep” and “to bear”—they describe a unitary right: to possess arms if needed for military purposes and to use them in conjunction with military activities.

-----------

This reading is confirmed by the fact that the clause protects only one right, rather than two. It does not describe a right “to keep arms” and a separate right “to bear arms.” Rather, the single right that it does describe is both a duty and a right to have arms available and ready for military service, and to use them for military purposes when necessary.13 Different language surely would have been used to protect nonmilitary use and possession of weapons from regulation if such an intent had played any role in the drafting of the Amendment.

----------

Indeed, not a word in the constitutional text even arguably supports the Court’s overwrought and novel description of the Second Amendment as “elevat[ing] above all other interests” “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

[GreenStormCloud]

64. Flamethrowers are not illegal.

We had one on the ranch were I grew up. We used it to burn thorns off of prickly pear (A form of cactus that is common in Texas.) so that the cattle could eat the cactus. Flame throwers are agricultural equipment.

[ellisonz]

66. You're right...

Most military flamethrowers use liquids, but commercial flamethrowers tend to use high-pressure propane and natural gas, which is considered safer. Most military flamethrowers use liquids, but commercial flamethrowers tend to use high-pressure propane and natural gas, which is considered safer.

----------

In the United States, private ownership of a flamethrower is not restricted by federal law, but is restricted in some states, such as California, by state laws (cf. California Health and Welfare Codes 12750–12761, Flamethrowing Devices).[30]

In California, unlicensed possession of a flame-throwing device—statutorily defined as "any non-stationary and transportable device designed or intended to emit or propel a burning stream of combustible or flammable liquid a distance of at least 10 feet" H&W 12750 (a)—is a misdemeanor punishable with a county jail term not exceeding one year OR with a fine not exceeding $10,000 (CA H&W 12761). Licenses to use flamethrowers are issued by the State Fire Marshal, and he or she may use any criteria for issuing or not issuing that license that he deems fit, but must publish those criteria in the California Code of Regulations, Title 11, Section 970 et seq.[31][32][33][34]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame-thrower

Let's just substitute grenade launcher for flamethrower - no one needs a grenade launcher for self-defense in America.

[GreenStormCloud]

70. Grenade launchers are legal too. It is the grenades that are controlled. N/T

[AtheistCrusader]

173. Strike two.

As the poster above me pointed out, a grenade launcher is perfectly legal. it's just a damn metal tube.

Try try again.

[X_Digger]

73. "in common use for lawful purposes" -- both Heller and Miller

Those are the arms protected by the second amendment.

As much as you piss and moan, both Heller and Miller confirm it.

And your ignorance is showing- flamethrowers aren't firearms. You can buy one tomorrow. Their use is regulated by local burn codes.

[ellisonz]

86. I'd rather have my ignorance showing...

...than my worship of militarism showing.

[X_Digger]

93. 'militarism'?!? Weak sauce.

Face it, you're not going to get a new AWB, and you're not going to get a 12 round limit. They're in use by too many people for lawful purposes.

The farce that was the AWB deserves to be left buried- any nonsense that depends on cosmetics (ooh, scary bayonet mount and pistol grip, that's double-plus-dangerous) is doomed to failure. Any proposed ban that goes further (say, all semi-automatics) is even less likely.

[ellisonz]

98. Look who benefits...

The firearm industry and the GOP from the furthering of a culture of fear...



“...overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty.”
― George Washington, George Washington's Farewell Address

[X_Digger]

105. Militarism, though? I think you lost the train of your thought.

What does people having access to modern design semi-automatic weapons have to do with the military?

It just sounded good and you didn't think it through, did ya?

[PavePusher]

112. Armed Civilians are now "overgrown military establishments"?

[rl6214]

100. And you talk about snark?

[ellisonz]

102. My snark isn't malicious. n/t

And I apologize when I'm over-the-line...

[DissedByBush]

184. You have succeeded

Multiple times.

Congratulations.

[burf]

118. Very interesting link you used there.

How does the dissenting opinion have any bearing? It makes about as much sense as the cartoon that accompanied the post.

[ellisonz]

119. "How does the dissenting opinion have any bearing?"

"It makes about as much sense as the cartoon that accompanied the post."

Did you feel that way about Justice Stevens opinions? How about the dissents in Bush v. Gore? Or Plessy v. Ferguson? Or Dred Scott v. Sanford? Are you telling me the Court always get's it right?

Do you generally feel this way about the more liberal members of our society?

[burf]

125. Mind answering the question? n/t

[ellisonz]

137. I did answer, you just don't like my reply. n/t

[burf]

144. No, you did not.

There is a difference between a reply and an answer.

[ellisonz]

149. That's your opinion. n/t

[gejohnston]

55. even before the NFA

they were unusual because few people owned them partly because of there expense (machine guns)
Not all libertarians are right wing, many are left wing.
While that was a nice ideological rant, the accuracy and sanity is questionable. By accepting any label, you also accept the group think, hypocrisy, inconsistencies, and self serving BS that comes along with it.
That is why my ideology is like my religion, undefined. That is not the Nation's better work.

[ellisonz]

58. "That is why my ideology is like my religion, undefined."

"Not all libertarians are right wing, many are left wing."

[GreenStormCloud]

65. Wiki has an error in that article.

Firearms that can be fired from within a wallet holster or a briefcase

That is incorrect. It is the wallet holster that is illegal, not the gun. Any small pistol can be fired from a wallet holster so such a law would outlaw small pistols.

[PavePusher]

74. Huh?

Bugger, links not worky...

but Google "pocket holster" and "wallet holster". Quite legal and many available.

[GreenStormCloud]

127. Not precisely.

There are lots of holsters that change the outline of the gun to resemble a wallet. Those are legal, even with the gun in them. A real wallet holster fully encloses the gun except for a hole where the finger can access the trigger, and a hole for the bullet to exit. They are legal to own. But when the gun is fully enclosed in a wallet holster the entire set-up them becomes illegal. Hair-splitting difference.

[gejohnston]

40. unusual weapons

would be things like flame throwers, pen guns, rocket launchers, machine guns, mortars.

Why are pen guns in this category? Ask the ATF and whoever wrote NFA because it seems absurd to me.
That is actually the only cartoon that isn't stupid.

[PavePusher]

41. And Empirically, you are wrong. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

63. No, I'm not just as likely to shoot my own family.

Do you think I would close my eyes and fire in random directions? Please do try to be sensible. Most self defense situations are at distances of less than 10 feet, and about half of those are at 3 feet or less. At that distance one does not need to be a world-class competition shooter to be effective. Those are point-blank distances. The bad guy is going to get powder burns on him as well as bullet holes.

BTW - In Texas one has to demonstrate accuracy with a handgun to get a CHL (Concealed Handgun Liscense). On the test I scored 250 out of a possible 250. I suspect that most, if not all, of the pro-RKBA posters here could do just as well.

[ellisonz]

67. Ok.

Do you need 30 or 75 rounds in a magazine to do that?

[GreenStormCloud]

71. The U.S. does not have a Department of Needs.

Personally, I don't like the super high capacity magazines as they aren't that reliable in action. Reliability of your weapon in a gunfight is extremely important. Loughner was taken down in hand-to-hand because his pistol jammed due to the 33 round magazine improperly feeding the 32nd round causing a jam. Cho and the Luby's killer were able to do rapid reloads and killed those who attempted to charge them.

I do have a nine round magazine for my Bersa .380. Standard is seven. The magazine extends a bit below the butt and that part is shaped to provide a grip for the little finger so I can use my entire hand to grip the gun, providing greater controlability. I bought a nine round mag for my SIG P220 but discovered that the gun feels funny in my hand when I load one into it. They cause the balance to be different so I don't like them.

Doctrine for self-defense shootings is a constantly evolving thing as more civilian encounters become available to be analysed. Earlier doctrine was to shoot twice, called a "double tap". Current doctrine is to keep shooting until the threat is neutralized. If your attacker is high on drugs he may not even know that he has been shot unless a major supporting bone is broken. There have been cases in which drugged out attackers have been shot by police over 30 times and we still fighting.

[ellisonz]

83. But it does have a Constitution...

And the Constitution is clear on the right of the people to regulate such dangerous items as high capacity magazines.

[X_Digger]

107. That was the point sailing over your head..

The burden isn't on people to demonstrate 'need', the burden is on the government to meet the criteria for limiting a right.

You don't "need" to write a letter to your congressman.. you don't "need" to demonstrate.. you don't "need" to vote in every election.. but your right to do so is protected.

[ellisonz]

123. Even the Republicans on the Supreme Court disagree with you on this point...

It's clear as day in Heller

[X_Digger]

132. No dear, that's a fundamental principle of our government. Duh.

That's why we have scrutiny doctrine in the first place.

Go take a con law class, or at least pick up a good text on the subject if you really don't get that.

[ellisonz]

138. Rubbish, Sophistry, and more Rubbish.

[X_Digger]

141. So no substantive reply?

Piss, moan, and stomp your feet some more. It's kinda cute.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Here's a link to get you started on your much-needed education:

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

[ellisonz]

142. You didn't merit a substantitive reply.

Your argument is essentially that because assault weapons are increasingly becoming more commonly held in the United States that negates any previous judicial considerations such as previous rulings, acts of Congress, and social considerations. Nothing could be further from the truth. The body of rulings in this regard provide plenty of basis for the Supreme Court to make such a ruling. Like many conservatives, you seem to have the impression that the court exists to be strangled by its own canards. I reject such a view of the powers of the Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

It's the Warren Court motherfucker...watch out, it's social activism is dangerous!

[X_Digger]

145. You seem to have lost the thread of conversation..

We were talking about your bullshit 'need' justification.

Rights don't work that way. You don't have to justify why you should be 'allowed' to exercise a right, the government has to justify why it can infringe it (hence the standards of scrutiny for judicial review).

I know, you're busy spinning and spluttering, but do try and keep up, eh?

[div class='excerpt']Your argument is essentially that because assault weapons are increasingly becoming more commonly held in the United States that negates any previous judicial considerations such as previous rulings, acts of Congress, and social considerations. Nothing could be further from the truth. The body of rulings in this regard provide plenty of basis for the Supreme Court to make such a ruling. Like many conservatives, you seem to have the impression that the court exists to be strangled by its own canards. I reject such a view of the powers of the Court.

No dear, the test set out in Miller and Heller both refer to the second amendment protections extending to arms 'in common use for lawful purposes'.

Face it, you're screwed. Not only *won't* it happen again (the arms in question are too common- even remington is making a camo version of both the AR-15 and AR-10), it *can't* and withstand challenge under Heller.

[ellisonz]

147. Wrong.

I'm quite clear. The Court has acknowledged in the past that it makes incorrect rulings, it is likely to do so again in regards to this "bullshit" notion of an individual right. As Justice Stevens points out, it's not even really an appropriate topic for debate in this regard. Face it, your argument is entirely disconnected from the actual phrasing of the Second Amendment. You are brutalizing the Constitution, and this country will only stand it for so long. You will not succeed in turning the Constitution into a noose with the Court as its knotting.

As we say in Hawaii: Auwe!

[X_Digger]

148. Riiiiight..

Let's look at the preamble to the Bill of Rights-

[div class='excerpt']The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The Bill of Rights was intended as a 'the government shall not' document- "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"- not a 'the people can' document. Rights aren't limited by the bill of rights; rather the scope of protections of certain rights are set. If the Bill of Rights were a listing of all a person's rights, there would be no need for the ninth and tenth amendments ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." respectively.)

Then, let's look at the second amendment itself-

[div class='excerpt']A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Who does the right belong to? The militia? No, the people. See US v. Verdugo-Urquirdez for the salient definition of 'the people'.

Grammatically this can be broken down into two clauses- a prefatory clause and an operative clause. Similar wording can be found in other writing of the time, though it's fallen out of favor these days. For comparison, see Rhode Island's constitution, Article I, Section 20- "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject..". That construction- '{reason}, {statement}' exists today, but we usually swap the clauses- "I'm going to the supermarket, I'm completely out of soda." or we add in a 'because' or 'since'- "Since I'm completely out of soda, I'm going to the supermarket." or "I'm going to the supermarket because I'm completely out of soda."

I know that complex English is lost in today's twitter-ful and facebook-y terseness, but it really does pay to read older documents when you want to analyze what a sentence from that era actually means.

So a modern restatement of the second amendment would be-

"Since a well functioning militia is necessary to state security, the government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed."

or

"The government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed because a well functioning militia is necessary to state security."

Nothing in either of those statements says that arms are only for militia service, rather the ability to raise an effective militia is why protecting the right to be armed is protected. Since we know from the preamble (and the 9th/10th amendment) that the bill of rights is not exhaustive, we have to look outside the bill of rights itself to see if the founding fathers expected this right to extend beyond militia service.

State analogues of the second amendment that were adopted in the same timeframe give a clue-

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/WhatStateConstitutionsTeach.htm (sections rearranged by me)

[div class='excerpt']The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Vermont: Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution. It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."

Kentucky: The 1792 Kentucky constitution was nearly contemporaneous with the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791. Kentucky declared: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Delaware: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."

Alabama: The Alabama Constitution, adopted in 1819, guarantees "that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state"

Arizona and Washington: These states were among the last to be admitted to the Union.* Their right to arms language is identical: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

Illinois: "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."** (footnotes removed)

So from analagous documents created by many of the same founding fathers or their peers, the individual right unconnected to militia service is fairly well laid out.

* Admittedly, not analogous in time to the others, but still demonstrates the point.
** same

You should read other cases such as US v Cruikshank ("This right is not a right granted by the Constitution . . . neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." ) or Presser v Illinois ("the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms" )

ed: grammar & smilies

[krispos42]

117. Is that really correct on how Loughner went down?

I recall that initially, it was reported that his magazine jammed and he was tackled while trying to clear a jam. Later on, it seemed that there wasn't a jam, but he was reloading when he dropped the second magazine and a woman on the ground grabbed it and fought him for it until somebody cracked Loughner in the head with a folding chair and a third person tackled him.

That's how the current Wikipedia article on the subject reports it, anyway.

And this story by ABC News seems to confirm it.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/heroes-rep-gabrielle-giffords-shooting-tucson-arizona-subdued/story?id=12580345

[GreenStormCloud]

128. I admit that there is a lot of confusion on the issue.

The mag held 33 rounds. He fired 31 rounds. So I am going with the jam as it explains the two unfired rounds.

[krispos42]

135. Hmmm...

...okay.

I understand that those kinds of magazines can be hard to load to full capacity. Maybe he left the last few out?




It definitely is indefinite.

[PavePusher]

76. I don't know....

but if your predictive abilities are on par with your knowledge of actual laws, events and facts, I'll make my own decisions on the issue, thanks.

Since you won't be there if I do get attacked....

[rl6214]

101. I scored 249 out of 250 when I took my Texas CHL class.

I missed the bullseye from the 25 yard mark.

[SteveW]

167. So you like THAT part of Fat Tony's ruling, eh?...

You don't know how conservative Scalia is:

"The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." Pp. 54–56.

My goodness. What he said is the "opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions..." Yup, ellisonz, you got that right at least. That's what those guys mean by a limited, conservative view of the Constitution, and the rulings made therefrom.

You really want to die on the hill of oversized magazines? You should study Cho and his smaller ones and ask "Why?"

BTW, both the Thompson and the BAR of the same period are FULL-AUTO weapons. But you know that. Or are you "confused" like Sugarmann?

[ellisonz]

174. When the right-wing Roberts Court thinks you're nuts...

...you're probably nuts.

[SteveW]

175. So you DID quote Scalia in the Heller decision...

You got a whiff of something from the devil you liked, and voila! here you are.

You know, I've seen your argument style many times before. Very standardized, very predictable, not very effective. That is because you really don't seem to have much an investment in the issue of gun-control. You DO have an investment in playing a poor version of "bull in the ring." What motivates that, I don't know. But I've seen it many times.

It is good that most of your posts are styled in the fashion they are. It not only reflects on your approach, but makes it easier for pro-2A Democrats to routinely and effectively play whack-a-mole.

[rl6214]

92. Cho fired 170 rounds from his pistol, reloading 17 times with 10 round mags

tell me how your 12 round limit would have stopped him?

[ellisonz]

99. You say Cho...I say Loughner.

[X_Digger]

108. Loughner's gun wouldn't likely have jammed with a 10 round mag. n/t

[ellisonz]

122. So if these magazines are so unreliable...

Why do people by them? So they can defend their family?

[GreenStormCloud]

129. Some people are stupid.

Not all hi-cap mags are unreliable. The Kel-Tec PMR30 has a 30 round magazine as its standard mag. It is in .22 Magnum, double stacked, so you don't get into the spring tension problem that you would have in larger calibers. I wouldn't mind buying one of those except that I have other financial priorities.

[X_Digger]

131. Mostly for range use.

So that you can shoot instead of loading magazines. At a range, especially if you're paying by the hour, you want to maximize your shooting time.

[AtheistCrusader]

172. A better question would be, why does only one special weapons element of a single miltiary

in the world use them, and what purpose do they use them for?

A: Full-auto fire in the Glock 18, for certain special weapons applications.

As Glocks are somewhat standardized and modular, recreational shooters have discovered and used the mag for range shooting, and basically juvenile stunts. I imagine you can see why, post-Loughner, that these magazines aren't widely used at all.

[PavePusher]

113. Dodge. n/t

[SteveW]

168. Ah, check-mate again. nt

[Atypical Liberal]

80. Civilians own them for the same reason the military owns them.

What would one need a 30 round magazine for realistically that's a legitimate use?

The intent of the second amendment is for civilians to be able to own small arms appropriate for infantry use. This is so that they could function as military troops should the need arise.

The legitimate reason we own military arms with military-capacity magazines is the same today as it was then - to keep military grade small arms in the hands of civilians so that they can function as military troops should the need arise.

[ellisonz]

89. The need isn't likely to arise any time soon.

I'd hope you'd agree with that, and given that generally the military starts training on obsolete weapons to my knowledge, such militarism is fast becoming a danger to public safety.

If the need were to arise, the militia could be trained up to military standard quickly.

[oneshooter]

103. The military starts you with a full auto M-16a1 or a2. n/t

[gejohnston]

104. that was true during

the lead up to WW2, I knew a guy that used Daisy Red Ryders in basic.
Of course, that was pre MIC. Now you train with what is in the field.

[X_Digger]

109. I think you need to do more research..

It seems a lot of your 'common knowledge' is out of date. Why not bone up a bit and catch up?

You weren't aware that flame throwers are agricultural implements not covered by the 1934 NFA, you're not aware of what firearms are popular in gun stores, and now you think that the military starts training with obsolete weapons?!?

[ellisonz]

121. So you're telling me you can walk around town with a flamethrower?

And the police aren't going to look askew - many states do heavily regulate their use. You still haven't demonstrated that assault rifles have surpassed handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles in sale - those are common use firearms. Your argument in this regard is contingent upon the expiration of the ban.

"Drill & Ceremony training begins during week 1. This refers to correct procedures for marching, and body movements such as standing at attention, "facing" (right-face/left-face), "at ease," etc. For this and many other exercises, soldiers are sometimes issued fake rifles known as "rubber ducks", so that they can become familiar with the proper handling of their weapon before they have actually been trained to use it. More recently recruits have begun to be issued fully functional M16A2/A4s during the first week of BCT to allow for early familiarization with the weapon."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Basic_Training#Basic_Combat_Training_2

I think you need to get off your high horse and think about this failure to effectively regulate firearms is resulting in for your fellow citizens.

[gejohnston]

124. the question was NFA

which has nothing to do with state laws. They are still not firearms. Demonstrate how states regulated flame throwers.
Assault rifles are NFA items. What you call assault rifles, esp the SKS, are common hunting rifles in US and Canada.

Your block quote is not what you think it means. When I went through Army, and later Air Force, basic training we did not learn rifle shooting until about the middle. We used the current rifle at the time (M-16A1). Now they moved it to the first week.

[X_Digger]

130. They're agricultural implements, regulated by burn codes. Not the NFA or firearms law.

And nice dodge on drill practice. That's not even close to what you said earlier.

Go visit a gun store and ask them which guns are the top sellers. You'll find that semi-automatic handguns with >12 rounds and AR-15 rifles are in the top sellers.

At least 5.7 million AR-15 rifles were sold between 1994 and 2001 -- *during* the ban.



(This is from the DOJ funded study on the effectiveness of the ban- http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf )

[Atypical Liberal]

133. Absolutely. I've seen them at gun shows.

So you're telling me you can walk around town with a flamethrower? And the police aren't going to look askew - many states do heavily regulate their use.

Yup, you can. I've seen them at gun shows. They are not classified as firearms by the BATFE.

Mostly they are used for controlled burns in agriculture.

You still haven't demonstrated that assault rifles have surpassed handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles in sale - those are common use firearms. Your argument in this regard is contingent upon the expiration of the ban.

I have heard it often said that the AR-15 platform is now the most popular center-fire target rifle in America. I don't have a citation for it but I believe it is likely to be true.

I doubt that assault rifles outsell handguns though. But there is no doubt that the AR platform is hugely popular now. It started with the Assault Weapons Ban, which hugely popularized and increased the demand for assault rifles.

[AtheistCrusader]

171. You know what the A2 and A4 variants of the M-16 are, don't you?

No, of course you don't.

[SteveW]

170. "militia... trained up to military standard quickly?" That means full-auto, right? nt

[Marengo]

196. Speaking from my experience as a USMC veteran...

We were trained on the issue weapon, the M16A2. Not the A1, M14, M1, M1903, or any other "obsolete weapons".

[SteveW]

161. Cho at VT had no use for 30-round mags. He used easily-concealed short mags.

Yet, he killed more people in a school shooting than anyone else.

[X_Digger]

5. No, the percentage of rifles used in homicides hasn't changed appreciably.

Check FBI's crime in the US reports and you can check for yourself-

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/documents/CIUS2004.pdf
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_10.html
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_10.html
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_11.html
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

2000: 3.1%
2001: 2.7%
2002: 3.4%
2003: 2.7%
2004: 2.8%
2005: 2.9%
2006: 2.9%
2007: 3.0%
2008: 2.6%
2009: 2.5%
2010: 2.8%

You'll notice that the two highest years are *during* the so-called 'assault weapon' ban.

[slackmaster]

6. Obviously the defunct federal "AWB" does not make any difference

It didn't make any difference during the 10 years that it was in effect.

[ileus]

8. People need to have more respect for their 2A rights.

[PavePusher]

9. I'll bet $10 it was neither an "assault rifle", nor "high powered". n/t

[ManiacJoe]

10. Never mind the fact that the two phrases are mutually exclusive.

[PavePusher]

11. Shhhh! This is my action, damnit! 8>P

[Glassunion]

13. And in other news...

A man was stabbed 7 times over a pair of Air Jordan's.

[ellisonz]

16. "But the 20-year-old victim...was expected to recover from his injuries"

Wonder if this would be true if the perpetrator had used a handgun

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. Perhaps. Crooks aren't known for their combat shooting skills.

[PavePusher]

42. Getting shot has a mortality rate of, IIRC, less than 20%.

I'll try to find the cite for that.

There is this false myth that getting shot equals dying, but it's far from truth.

[Fair Witness]

43. Are you the Black Knight from Monty Python's Holy Grail reincarnated?

Every time I read your posts I think of the poor fellow...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Knight_%28Monty_Python%29

[ellisonz]

45. And everytime I read posts such as the ones that profligate around here I think of...

[PavePusher]

75. Carlin predicts something that had already occured?

Color me... unimpressed.

His ghost is laughing at you.

[ellisonz]

85. Color you...reading comprehension impaired.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings
Uploaded by tyler0896 on Dec 19, 2007

Matthew Murray killed four people at churches in Colorado.

Carlin called it way back in 1999.



The ghosts of all the senseless gun violence victims in this country are crying at you.

[X_Digger]

110. Color you (and Carlin) uninformed..

Church shootings had happened before Carlin was born and many before 1999.

The 1932 Zion Traveler Church Shooting
The 1933 Cleveland Klink shooting
1937 Oakland First Presbyterian shooting
1940 Heritage Baptist Church shooting
1975 Dayton Freewill Church shooting
1980 First Baptist Church shooting

[PavePusher]

115. No, anyone with a reasonable knowledge of history and the ability to spell "Google"....

is laughing at you.

[Fair Witness]

136. Profligate doesn't mean what you think it means. Perhaps you intended "propagate"?

[ellisonz]

140. It's an acceptable use.

1prof·li·gate
adj \ˈprä-fli-gət, -ˌgāt\
Definition of PROFLIGATE
1
: wildly extravagant <profligate spending>
2
: completely given up to dissipation and licentiousness <leading a profligate life>
— prof·li·gate·ly adverb
See profligate defined for English-language learners »
See profligate defined for kids »
Examples of PROFLIGATE

She was very profligate in her spending.
<profligate movie producers hoping to create the next blockbuster>
In a curious way, part of the genius of America has been a collective forgetfulness, a talent for somehow outdistancing problems in a headlong race toward something new. It is a form of heedlessness, perhaps, blithe and profligate, but also an exuberant forward spin that may spare people the exhausting obligations of revenge. —Lance Morrow, Time, 4 Apr. 1988

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/profligate

[Fair Witness]

143. An adjective is an acceptable use as a verb?

What's your first language?

[ellisonz]

146. insert "are" and it's even more of a plainly acceptable use.

Who died and made you Grammar Nazi?

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

"What's your first language?"

[Straw Man]

150. Insert "are" and it's no longer a verb.

It becomes a subject complement, in which case the adjective is appropriate. Without the linking verb "are," it is not even close to "plainly acceptable."

I suggest that you really meant "proliferate," a verb through-and-through.

I am the Grammar Nazi. We have ways of making you talk correctly.

[ellisonz]

151. Well...

I'll talk any damn way I please...Fuck the Nazis, and those that support arming their modern day successors...

I suggest I meant to included "are," I meant to use profligate as a negative description of the quality of debate on the gun enthusiast side, and that you both would better spend your time educating one of your fellow gun enthusiasts here about the proper use of the English language, you know who I'm talking about.

For two people so inclined to the study of the English language, that you both could so poorly misread the Second Amendment is astounding.

Eat my shorts

[Fair Witness]

152. "Eat my shorts"????? jebusfukinchrist, are you like 12?

Arrghh

[ellisonz]

154. I'm a Simpsons fan. n/t

Do you not like the Simpsons?

You're just looking like you lack a sense of humor...

[AtheistCrusader]

169. It's pretty funny you posted the definition of the word

and yet you fail to use it correctly.


"I suggest I meant to included"

Ahahaha, now you're just trolling.

[Straw Man]

183. That's fine.

[div class = excerpt]I'll talk any damn way I please...
You're welcome to do that -- just don't expect people to understand you.

[div class = excerpt] ...you both would better spend your time educating one of your fellow gun enthusiasts here about the proper use of the English language, you know who I'm talking about.
Nope, don't have a clue. Perhaps you could point out one of his/her posts, and we'll parse. I'm an equal-opportunity nitpicker.

I promise that in the future I'll comment on grammar and lexicon only when they impact meaning, i.e. when what you have said is less than clear. I try to make that my policy, but I may have overstepped a few times in the heat of the moment.

[rl6214]

90. Answers

Do you think we are likely to see more of these types of shootings as more "high-powered rifles" enter private hands?

NO, these are NOT "high-powered rifles", they are medium powered at best. Your average hunting rifle is much more powerful.

Do you think the "Federal Assault Weapons Ban" makes a difference in reducing the supply of these firearms to criminals?

NO, it did nothing the first time around, why to anti-gun zealots think it would do something the second time around?

If not, where do you think criminals such as these would obtain this amount of firepower?

It's NOT high powered firepower so this question is a falsehood.


Do you generally think the majority of these types of firearms used in crimes such as this are smuggled into the country or are obtained from inside the United States?

These types of weapons are used in less than 1% of crime and long guns in general are used in less than 3% of crimes so again, this is a non issue and only spread by people like you.

[krispos42]

116. No.

Mainstream media "it bleeds it leads" reports aside, the homicide rate plunged during the 90's and, while it flattened somewhat out during the Bush pResidency, continues to creep downward.

This is despite the fact that AR-style and AK-style rifles have gone mainstream, selling hundreds of thousands if not millions annually, the federal ban on 11+ magazines has expired, the federal ban of arbitrary cosmetic features (so-called assault weapons) had expired, and 49 states are now either shall-issue or may-issue concealed pistol permits.

In short, the per-capita ownership rate of semi-automatic rifles fed from detachable magazines has climbed at a pretty good pace, the per-capita concealed-carry rate has climbed at a pretty good pace, tactical ammunition gets continually more effective, gun-attached tactical lights and lasers are more and more commonplace as the prices drop, "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" laws have become common in many states...

And yet, the homicide rate continues to creep downward.



There are plenty of semiautomatic rifles around now of the AR and AK variety. Millions of them. Anybody that wants one can buy one. The market is largely satisfied.

And I'll say again... the fastest way to sharply and permanently reduce gun violence is to legalize recreational drugs.

[SteveW]

158. A: Not likely, Fact not in evidence, NA, who knows? nt

[DissedByBush]

182. By definition, assault rifles are not high-powered

By definition, they use an intermediate round, more powerful than pistol, less powerful than a normal battle rifle. A battle rifle is equivalent in power to an average hunting rifle, like a .30-06.

These probably weren't assault rifles either, but semi-automatic civilian rifles (no news stories mention automatic fire). By the news accounts, there's nothing even showing the rifles would necessarily be classified as "assault weapons" under the failed 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. But for the sake of argument, I'll go with it probably being an AK or AR variant, which is what normally sticks in the ignorant mind as an "assault weapon" or even for the more ignorant as an "assault rifle."

"Do you think we are likely to see more of these types of shootings as more "high-powered rifles" enter private hands? "

No. High-powered rifles have been in peoples' hands hundreds of years. Most hunters currently own rifles of much higher power than what was used here.

"Do you think the "Federal Assault Weapons Ban" makes a difference in reducing the supply of these firearms to criminals?"

It didn't before, why should it again? These types of weapons are rarely used in shootings.

"If not, where do you think criminals such as these would obtain this amount of firepower? "

"Firepower" has pretty much nothing to do with the AWB. Slap a new stock on a "non-assault weapon" and it suddenly becomes an "assault weapon." It was mainly about things that made guns look "evil."

What I wonder is why a guy with a history of drug sales and grand theft auto was let out on $30,000 bail on charges of aggravated assault, firing a weapon at people in a car, and possession of a firearm by a felon a month prior to this shooting. And that was the victim. So most likely he pissed off a fellow criminal.

BTW, you received an education above about what is and isn't an assault rifle. I expect you to not repeat this error. If you do, it can no longer be blamed on ignorance. It must therefore be a willful effort on your part to deceive. I will be watching.

If you would like to show an even higher level of honesty, correcting the lies in the news story would be appreciated.