Interesting; some are of the opinion that only law enforcement should have firearms.

[Remmah2]

A little dated, but quite relevant.

I wonder if the sheriff/perp had a high capacity magazine?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crandon,_Wisconsin_shooting

[rfranklin]

1. Sorry...out of date and irrelevant...

try another lure.

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. Besides ...

Even if true ... The idea works pretty well in countries that strive for it.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. some are of the opinion that we should have sensible regulation.

but others interpret that as 'gun-grabbing'.

[NewMoonTherian]

16. I certainly think we should have sensible gun regulation.

I'm actively seeking to get our gun regulations relaxed to the point of being sensible.

[leveymg]

3. Semiautos, yes. You can keep your bolt-action hunting and home-defense shotgun/revolver.

Nobody will come and take any gun already in legal possession away - even a bloody .50 cal -- that would just set off more violence. Just ban resale trade in semi-autos, big clips and autos.

[Pacafishmate]

5. Good luck getting that passed.

More and more people are supporting the rkba. Concede defeat and move on to your next pet issue.

[leveymg]

6. Sorry, but more and more people are supporting effective firearms restrictions.

I, for one, was pretty much a 2nd Amend. agnostic until recently.

[Pacafishmate]

7. Problem is,

Most people only "care" because it's on the news. Gun owners always care and are always vigilant because they have a dog in the fight. You're more likely to have your kids drown in a pool than to be shot, so few people are actually foaming at the mouth when it comes to banning guns.

[leveymg]

8. I don't think this is going away, again.

Body count has reached the limit. Bag's the limit. Your side is way over, now.

[spin]

11. Of course you are totally ignoring the lives saved by firearm ownership ...

and concentrating only on the tragedy that the misuse of these weapons can cause.

Unfortunately the media which largely supports your view rarely reports on such incidents and chooses to focus on the negative side of gun ownership.

Also firearms are often used to stop an attacker who has the intention of inflicting great bodily harm or to murder and no shots are fired. No statistics are accumulated on such incidents and they rarely receive media attention.

[bongbong]

12. Saved lives?

Are you talking about the thousands of people who don't die in countries with effective gun control?

[spin]

15. But we don't live in such nations ...

The possibly sad reality is that we live in a nation where firearms are everywhere and unfortunately many are in criminal hands.

In many of the nations you mention knifes are the criminal choice as firearms are largely unavailable.

I find this article interesting:

UK is violent crime capital of Europe
The United Kingdom is the violent crime capital of Europe and has one of the highest rates of violence in the world, worse even than America, according to new research.

By Richard Edwards, Crime Correspondent

7:00AM BST 02 Jul 2009

Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power.

The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.

Opposition leaders said the disclosures were a "damning indictment" of the Government's failure to tackle deep-rooted social problems.

The figures combined crime statistics for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

I think we might agree that the UK has strong gun control. Perhaps you wish we had the same. However our violent crime rate has decreased to levels last seen in the late 60s

What's Behind America's Falling Crime Rate

By David Von Drehle Monday, Feb. 22, 2010

Health care, climate change, terrorism — is it even possible to solve big problems? The mood in Washington is not very hopeful these days. But take a look at what has happened to one of the biggest, toughest problems facing the country 20 years ago: violent crime. For years, Americans ranked crime at or near the top of their list of urgent issues. Every politician, from alderman to President, was expected to have a crime-fighting agenda, yet many experts despaired of solutions. By 1991, the murder rate in the U.S. reached a near record 9.8 per 100,000 people. Meanwhile, criminologists began to theorize that a looming generation of so-called superpredators would soon make things even worse.

Then, a breakthrough. Crime rates started falling. Apart from a few bumps and plateaus, they continued to drop through boom times and recessions, through peace and war, under Democrats and Republicans. Last year's murder rate may be the lowest since the mid-1960s, according to preliminary statistics released by the Department of Justice. The human dimension of this turnaround is extraordinary: had the rate remained unchanged, an additional 170,000 Americans would have been murdered in the years since 1992. That's more U.S. lives than were lost in combat in World War I, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq — combined. In a single year, 2008, lower crime rates meant 40,000 fewer rapes, 380,000 fewer robberies, half a million fewer aggravated assaults and 1.6 million fewer burglaries than we would have seen if rates had remained at peak levels.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1963761,00.html

Since the peak of violent crime in the mid 90s firearm sales have skyrocketed and "Shall Issue" concealed carry swept across our nation.


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

Now there are many factors to consider when discussing the violent crime rate but if firearm ownership and "Shall Issue" concealed carry were extremely important negative components, we would have seen the violent crime rate increase rather than decrease.

[rDigital]

24. Excellent contribution.

[spin]

30. Thanks for your support. (n/t)

[Serve The Servants]

31. California...

Might as well be red.

[kelly1mm]

9. You don't need to buy one- you can now print one on a 3-D printer with $30 of materials.

Link:

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/thinking-tech/uh-oh-3d-printer-produces-a-real-gun/12527

Excerpt:

You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who has anything bad to say about 3D printing. Besides having the potential to revolutionize the manufacturing industry, the machines seem to spit out one crowd-pleaser after another, objects like musical instruments, candy, toys, trinkets and even cars. But now that someone has figured out how to print out a fully-functional firearm, the technology is about to become a whole lot more controversial.

Photos of the world’s first 3D printed gun were discovered on the AR-15.com, a forum for firearms enthusiasts and supporters of gun rights. The creator, who goes by the username HaveBlue, assembled the weapon by combining the body of a normal .22 caliber pistol with that of a printed plastic version of the lower receiver used in AR-15 assault rifles (similar to the military’s M16). HaveBlue then tested out the creation by successfully firing 200 rounds without any signs of malfunction or complications, according to a post on the web site.

HaveBlue documents his gunsmithing process in such a detailed way, it might be a bit unnerving for some folks. With little more than a Stratasys 3D printer, a $30 batch of plastic resin and printing specifications available on the internet, the user was able to produce several of the necessary working parts. A step-by-step blueprint for making your own AR-15 lower receiver can also be found on Thingiverse.

While only one part of the gun was actually ”printed,” the lower receiver is the critical piece that enables the weapon to fire. It holds the bolt, trigger and the magazine, where ammunition is stored. Thats why under the American Gun Control Act, it’s this lower part that constitutes an operational gun and thus is heavily regulated.

[leveymg]

10. Nobody said there won't be those who try.

For them, there is federal prison.

[Union Scribe]

20. Modern revolvers are semiautomatic.

One pull one shot, just like pistols.

[MicaelS]

23. Right...until some maniac...

Commits a crime with a "bolt-action hunting and home-defense shotgun/revolver". Then we'll see the call to ban those.

[rDigital]

25. Charles Whitman did just that unfortunately.

Last edited Thu Aug 9, 2012, 12:40 AM - Edit history (1)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
13 people killed with bolt action rifle. He shot from an elevated position.
Hunting rifles are the most powerful and underrated firearms.

[Daemonaquila]

13. Thanks, I prefer to keep the guns out of the cops' hands.

This opinion makes me nuts. With all the people being pepper-sprayed, falsely arrested, shot, beaten, tased, killed with impunity with a cover story afterward... militarization of police... drones... WHAT in the world makes people think that cops should be armed to the teeth, especially among an unarmed populace? As for the story, I don't know if it's all that relevant. We get stories practically daily of abuse and murder by police. It really doesn't matter whether or not they're on duty at the time, or whether it's a single victim or a mass shooting.

[Ashgrey77]

18. I fully agree with you.

[Missycim]

14. I get a kick..

I have been lurking on DU for months really before joining and i love this place the best, most anti-police posters i have ever heard/seen are on here, but are 100% of the belief that only cops/military should have fire arms. I dont know what to make of it.

[Remmah2]

22. I have several friends who are in law enforcement (local and federal).

They have varied opinions of the people they work with. They have co-workers they trust with their lives, there are others they can't put enough distance between. The different agencies also have varied views of their peer groups. The mentality and team ethic from one agency to another varies.

[TheKentuckian]

17. Have such folks considered our police? You know the folks that are such fuckheads

that the whole segment needs a re-boot to not be absolutely toxic.

Anyone who trust the roided up gang more than the common citizen is an authoritarian leaner and possibly suffering from delusions about the make up of the 1%'s foot soldiers.

I also don't grasp why self proclaimed liberals think it is liberal to remove power from their fellow citizens and concentrate it into the hands of the few and a few that tends to identify as right wing, a few that proves largely beyond civilian control and oversight, a few that is regularly abusive, and a few that sees it's self as separate and above the citizen.

It isn't very liberal to seek to concentrate power into the hands of the few. It is never liberal to concentrate power and remove checks on it.

The people are the source of all power and legitimate authority. If you cannot trust the people then there are far bigger problems than any there is any claim of addressing

[Oneka]

19. Ironic that...

the folks hereabouts, who advocate for more "reasonable restrictions" on firearms, sales, possession, resale, manufacture, etc, don't seem to realize the irony.
The people who will be charged with enforcing the new "reasonable restrictions" advocated for here, are going to be men with guns.

When statistics are presented here, that indicate, that more gun ownership =/= more crime, we gun rights advocates are often told how ridiculous it is that we would advocate for, "guns as a solution to guns" .
Meanwhile "reasonable restriction" is nothing more then a weakly veiled euphemism for "guns as a solution to guns" when armed
men and women will be doing the enforcing of those restriction.

[Union Scribe]

21. Excellent post! nt

[rDigital]

26. Thank you for your excellent analysis. : )

Elitists of all types do not trust an armed populace.

[mercymechap]

27. I'm not for banning guns totally from the general

public, but enforcing the current laws would help. Also, do people need assault weapons? Those are for our armed forces to be used at war, not to go shoot deer or duck or whatever.

[Jenoch]

29. What do

deer and ducks have to do with anything?

[still_one]

28. If guns were outlawed only the rethugs would have guns. Guns don't kill people republicans do