Have any elected officials called for a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban lately?

[aikoaiko]

Putting Holder's and Clinton's comments regarding the AWB and Mexico aside...

I haven't heard a peep. The silence is very encouraging. Maybe our elected politicians won't be trying to exploit the recent tragedies to push through reductions in the civil right protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Maybe....

Of course this won't stop certain anti-gun groups, media pundits, and internet squeaky wheels from rolling in the blood of the victims and hoping to reduce law-abiding folks use of firearms.

[villager]

1. I love the unending empathy for victims of mass shootings you NRA shills always have...

... and the strident way you use their blood to attack anyone with a different view on gun policy than you have...

[virginia mountainman]

2. attack attack attack attack.............NT

Read your own post......

[villager]

7. Exactly! That was what was in the OP!

n/t

[aikoaiko]

5. So pointing out how anti-gun folks use these tragedies to make a political point is..

using those tragedies to make a political point? I suppose you think you should be given a free pass on exploitation.

:shrug:

[villager]

9. You'll always find an excuse to not think about the victims at all, but your guns instead...

n/t

[aikoaiko]

10. I'm all for enacting ways of reducing gun violence, but not at the expense of other's rights.

That's how I honor the victims of these tragedies.

[villager]

12. you discount anything -- and everything -- the survivors of such violence have to say

...in favor of the industry and manufacturing-slanted rhetoric of the NRA.

But that said, let us glimpse your honoring of the victims: In what ways would you reduce gun violence?

[aikoaiko]

20. OK.

I'm concerned about the wrong people getting guns.

I'd like to see NICS opened to the public and required by States for intrastate private sales to reduce the inadvertent sales to prohibited individuals.

If it can proven that someone transferred a weapon with NICS approval or ignored NICS approval, then fine and/or jail time.

I'm open to a more flexible mental health disqualification from acquiring and possessing firearms, but there needs to be adequate due process. I envision something along the lines of a temporary order like a restraining order, but designed to be authorized by mental health professionals. Even the NRA worked with Democrats to enhance the NICS nets of disqualifying individuals.

on a more general levels

1. Better mental health care. A certain segment of the gun violence appears to be committed by people with known mental stressors and/or difficulties dealing with life. Better access to mental health care would certainly reduce gun violence.

2. End the drug war. Many many lives would be saved in many was including a reduction in gun violence.

All of these suggestions would certainly decrease gun violence without violating the principle of the 2nd Amendment.

So what do YOU bring to the table that doesn't affect the non-prohibited public from accessing firearms?

[villager]

24. obviously, the "need" for an AR-15 eludes me....

... I mean Christ, if you're not planning to mow down a roomful of people, can't you hunt deer with something else?

so you know we're gonna disagree on that.

That said, interesting about the NICS -- spawned, of course, by the routinely derided Brady law. So perhaps there is something we-on-the-other-side have to offer by way of saner gun policy?

How do we open NICS to the public, without violating privacy? I assume you're suggesting someone selling, say, that mystifying AR-15 to someone else, privately, could check?

If so, how do we "trust" them to void the sale, if the recipient is the increasingly inevitable psycho with a mandate-or-a-grudge?

I suspect a lot of that information -- "you shouldn't have sold him that gun!" -- would come out forensically, in investigations *after* mass shootings. And it's that barn-door-closing-post-horse that's always bothered me.

As for your #'s 1 & 2, well, absolutely, yes.

[hendo]

28. the need for an AR-15

is strictly to piss off the anti-gun lobby.

[villager]

50. that's probably one of the more honest answers here...

...copping to there being no intrinsic, or practical, need for the device in civilian life

[rl6214]

52. Can you give and honest

non emotional answer why someone shouldn't have an AR15?

[hendo]

56. because villager does not approve

thats pretty much the anti-gun motto, "If we don't like it, no one can have it."

[villager]

59. Tell me what your favorite toy is *for* Hendo...

...obviously a discussion of the victims of the recent slayings eludes you, so tell me: What is your favorite toy *for*?

It's not the best weapon for hunting, according to your confreres, so what is this magical weapon, that conventiently blinds you to any any all impacts of gun carnage for?

And as an added exercise: Try to answer without a personal attack!

[hendo]

62. my favorite toy?

Well, my favorite toy would be my new computer. And it is for work, gaming, and internet forums ;)

[villager]

63. good. enjoy it tonight, and think before you pull its trigger too often

...sometimes, you might be able to actually engage people you presently only snark at...

Good night....

[hendo]

65. is that some wierd sex act? NT

[villager]

72. isn't everything, really, in a sublimated way, when it comes to guns?

;-)

[hendo]

75. i just wondered if pulling my trigger too quickly

was a new term for masturbation. The only fire arm trigger that i have pulled too quickly recently was a virtual assault rifle in Fallout 3. ;)

[villager]

74. Mainly designed to kill people efficiently, no real practical use as a hunting rifle

(according to what I read from hunters), ergo, why is it in society's interest to let them proliferate?

[jmg257]

76. Hmm - actually ARs make a fine hunting rifle...

there are 5.56/.223 for varmints, & 6.8spc or .308 for larger game. Complete uppers are available so calibers can be swapped out quickly, spare parts readily availble, function under all kinds of conditions, easy shooting, no wood or blued steel to worry about getting wet, rusting, etc. Double as a fun target & competition rifle.

Of course, plenty of people don't hunt, but still like them. And there is still the 2nd amend securing the right to own them. So it is more important to determine if banning them is in society's interest.

[slackmaster]

78. They make excellent target rifles, and are very good for training people to handle and shoot safely

The light recoil of the 5.56 mm round makes it ideal for new shooters. The platform is highly configurable, with upper receiver assemblies available in several different calibers, barrel lengths, accessory rails, etc.

Mainly designed to kill people efficiently...

One of the reasons the NATO countries switched to the smaller round was that it is less likely to kill than the heavier 7.62 mm round. If you kill an enemy soldier, you take one person out of action. If you wound, you take two or three out of action.

[hendo]

55. i know two friends who have AR-15s

when I asked them why they bought them, that was one answer that I heard. The other was, "why not".

The point that there is no intrinsic of practical need for an AR-15 does not however take away from someone's right to own one. If we were to outlaw everything that had no intrinsic or practical value the capitalist global market would dry up over night. There are many things that we don't need, many things that hold no value in their own right.

The value in an AR-15 comes from the joy of shooting one, and it is a blast to shoot one. An AR-15 much like an X-Box or a Lamborghini Diablo should be purchased by someone who will take pleasure in owning one. Heck, why would anyone pay the price of an AR-15 if they weren't going to enjoy it.

[villager]

57. well, the self-involvement involved in owning a Lamborghini to the exclusion

of its societal impacts, is probably an accurate analogy here.

[hendo]

64. and you are saying that an AR-15 requires no self-involvement?

Surely it takes no knowledge of a rifle to disassemble it, clean it, and re-assemble it.


But, you have not answered me concering why an AR-15 should be outlawed.

[aikoaiko]

31. I suppose we will disagree on the AR15.

The way I see it, if police need AR15s to confront criminals who are by and large victimizing the public, then public should be able to keep and use them too.

NICS doesn't report the reason for denying a transfer, only go or no go. No private information is disclosed. Plus, if a person is buying a gun, and this was the law, then they would be in effect giving permission to call NICS.

And yes, it would be a post-hoc "check", but most legitimate gun owners are very careful about following the law and would comply. Those that don't would have to pay the price as it is with most crimes. Right now, my state only requires that I 'not know' the person is prohibited. Adding NICS accessibility would give me a way of knowing for sure.

There really are things we can do to reduce gun violence without limited guns to the law abiding. Gun bans are personally an anathema to me, and I think a political liability to the party.

The thing is I get why some people would like to ban some weapons. The features that make a weapon good for self-defense also make them useful for malice. But in the end, even if every assault weapon is collected, then a rifle that doesn't meet the definition of an assault weapon would be used. Bad guys won't stop getting guns. And if that's true, I'd like to have a useful one for self-defense (just like the civilian police do).

eta: And I forgot the tax credit for gun safes idea. Safes or good steel gun cabinets are pricey. Reducing tax liability by the cost of one would increase their use.

(and I apologize for the incendiary language in my OP)

[villager]

73. well, yes, good to be discussing as opposed to either of us sniping

...and of course I mean that in the rhetorical sense of the word! ;-)

If you can get gun safes more easily into the hands of gun owners (and get them to use 'em?), I'm all for it.

while ultimately any gun can -- and in the broad sense, will -- be used for malice, I think reducing some of the more deliberately, well, malicious ones, is in society's interest. Americans can still be whipped into quite a lather on this issue, of course.

As another poster on this thread said, the issue isn't quite "ripe" yet, unfortunately. Eventually, though, that will change, and we'll collectively move on past our group gun obsessions.

That, or things will have fallen so completely apart, everybody finally will be shooting at each other.

Either way, I doubt the present "balance" will hold in perpetuity...

[hendo]

27. it sounds like you are the one who cares nothing for the victims

why does every tragedy have to be a political point for you anti-gun nuts.

[villager]

54. another sterling example of deep empathy for the victims, Hendo

...even before the funerals. You're spewing "anti gun nut" rhetoric and obsessing over your personal arsenal.

The broken hearts of the survivors of these tragedies mean less than zero to you, compared to the availability of ammo and armaments.

[hendo]

58. My personal arsenal?

what made you think I had a personal arsenal? I do not now, nor have I ever personally owned a fire arm.

And if you remember, it was the anti-gun nuts that posted the articles and then used them as an excuse to take away fire arms from law abiding citizens.

[villager]

60. You mean the articles from the news, about the mass slayings?

Right -- I guess we shouldn't post those, since they offend your sensibilities.

[hendo]

66. I would hope you wouldn't try to make a political point with the articles

you may not have posted them all, but posting one and then saying its a reason why fire arms should be taken away from law abiding citizens is a political point. It's a pretty thinly veiled one at that.

[villager]

61. You mean the articles from the news, about the mass slayings?

Right -- I guess we shouldn't post those, since they offend your sensibilities.

[varkam]

22. Pot? There's a kettle on the phone for you!

:rofl:

[aikoaiko]

33. ring, ring.

[rl6214]

37. Why do you have to attack him

and call him an NRA shill. Do you actually know anything about him? Seriously, he could dislike the NRA just like any of us.

[depakid]

3. The issue's not ripe yet

Not enough innocent Americans, members of law enforcement and/or elected officals have been dead and maimed in a short enough speace of time.

When that happens, calls for sensible policy will prevail over the highly vocal- and irresponsible minority that advocates proliferation.

[ManiacJoe]

6. Why do we need to wait until then?

Why can't we skip all the current unreasonable proposals, and see something reasonable now?

[depakid]

14. Same reason the financial system had to meltdown before enough people took the issue seriously

- and still, America's representatives are having trouble getting responsible policies and regulations enacted.

[ManiacJoe]

81. The reason that the reps are having trouble getting responsible policies ...

... and regulations enacted is because none of the recent proposals are reasonable. Unless the unstated goal is to disarm the law-abiding citizens.

[virginia mountainman]

8. You do realize..

Who is going to pass it?? The Congress just passed a bill, that would STRIP DC of practically all its gun control. And it has a damn good chance of passing the Senate.

The "Brady Campaign" has been getting their asses kicked legislatively for 15 years now..

[depakid]

17. Nothing effective can be achieved on solely a state or local level

In fact, as D.C.'s experience shows us, that can end up to be counterproductive.

The same holds true with respect to a good many things like that. Credit card interest rates, for example (though that's largely due to couple of ill advised supreme court decisions).

[virginia mountainman]

21. On a state and local level...

In most states, Brady has been ran out of town....

Heck, here in Virginia, while they where pushing to close the "so called" gun show loophole, the legislators where busy passing many new PRO gun bills...

Boy you should have heard the "gnashing of the teeth" when they realized that.. O and the "gun show loophole" bill never made it out of committee.

I am certain it helped, that for every one "gun control" advocate that showed up on "advocacy day", their where at least ONE HUNDRED gun rights supporters in attendance!!!

LOL You should have seen them, scurrying around like cockroaches when the lights came on!!

The legislators got the message........and acted accordingly. Not a single peace of gun control legislation got out of committee, while MOST pieces of pro civil rights legislation made it too the governors desk.

[depakid]

23. Not sure about the wierd cheerleader sort of language

But the reason why things like this on't work on a state and local level is because there's always some state out there willing to make a killing by setting up a tax or regulatory haven- or by enacting laws that will undercut the vast majority of other states. Thank South Dakota, for example- for credit card usury, or Delaware for corporate tax and regulatory chisling.

Or certain other states for firearms and assault weapon proliferation.

That's why once the political will to oppose vocal and well funded interst groups reached critical mass, uniform standards (floors or ceilings, as the case may be) need to be set on the federal level, with assitance on implementation (or additional regulation per conditions) at the state and local level.

[virginia mountainman]

26. LOL, Their are only a few, "Gun Control" states....

You know, the ones outside of the mainstream.

[depakid]

32. The OP discussed assault weapons- and my OP told you when and under what circumstances

it will happen.

When those circumstances come about- as they surely will, I've just described a bit about it's going to done. States like Virginia will be reigned in by federal law (just as they have in the past on other issues).

[virginia mountainman]

35. LOL yea....Till the next election cycle...

[depakid]

36. The way the trend's looking. probably well before that

See, under normal circumstances, most people don't give much of shit about your obsession with assault weapons one way or another. They do however, respond to increasing levels of senseless gun violence. My guess is that you'll soon see that reflected rather sharply in the polling data as more tragedies occur.

[virginia mountainman]

38. Then why, in EVERY ELECTION CYCLE, does more pro-gun people get elected??

[depakid]

41. Watch and see what happens

after the next several tragedies.

[virginia mountainman]

42. Are you hoping for more death?!?!

How twisted are you???

[depakid]

46. Are you thick?

This is the problem with obsessed people; they tend to attribute motivations to others who question their policies- and think (for whatever reason) that such folks on the same sort of crusade that they are.

Accusations like that remind me very much of the folks on the circumcision threads- or the anti-vacciners. Same dynamic going on.

[virginia mountainman]

48. Yep, I know...

I am talking to one right now....

[depakid]

53. As far as I'm concerned- it's a largely a public health matter

one that can be described via epidemiological and social science research. Which in turn should be the foundation for rational personal and public policy decisions.

This is why I stress the fear angle- because fear driven decisions about gun ownership (like vaccination) put both the decision maker, their familes and others at a greater risks of harm. In this instance, exceptionally lethal harm.

[virginia mountainman]

67. Fact is, it is a CIVIL RIGHT...

[hendo]

71. quiet you!! bring facts into this!!! HOW DARE YOU!

:sarcasm:

[aikoaiko]

11. Maybe you're right.

[Tim01]

15. You would rather have dead victims than armed citizens.

[depakid]

18. That's twisted logic if I ever saw it.

:crazy:

[hendo]

29. yet its far less twisted than your approach. NT

[depakid]

34. The "approach" is just realism

7 members of law enforcement in 2 weeks- (plus multiple mass shootings over the past month) is not going to be enough to reach the requisite critical mass of people suitably fed up with the status quo to change federal policy at the moment.

[Tim01]

77. 911 recording of woman being strangled. Realism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkS8mdbml0A

She kills her stalker/attacker with a handgun while he is strangling her.

This wasn't in the headlines. And it isn't unusual.

[Tim01]

79. Man uses "assault rifle" to fight off armed home invaders who smashed in his door. Realism

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2009/mar/15/police-armed-burglar-shot-resident/?printer=1/
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2009/mar/15/police-armed-burglar-shot-resident/?printer=1/

Home invasion ends in shooting
Injured intruder run over by accomplices

By Gavin Lesnick
Sunday, March 15, 2009

Awakened by the noise of a group of men kicking in his apartment door early Sunday morning, Derrick G. Murray rushed to retrieve the assault rifle he keeps in his bedroom for protection.

Only seconds later, he pulled the trigger, shooting one of the intruders in the leg and sending all of them fleeing from the residence they had just invaded.


Speaking Sunday afternoon on the front steps of the South Side house where it happened, Murray said his thoughts at that moment turned to his four children and how inaction might mean missing out on their futures.

"I just felt like 'I can't die right now,'" Murray said. "I got too many kids, I got too much to lose. I can't die right now."

This won't make CNN. It isn't uncommon.

[one-eyed fat man]

80. you seem to have

picked some dandy poster boys in the past.

http://www.kansas.com/690/story/745451.html

your poor 15 year old drug dealer shoots and robs his customer.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/story/970060.html

you poor 18 year old stick-up "child" and carjacker.


http://www.breitbart.tv/html/306703.html

you seem to think a rally celebrating a child-rapist and cop killer is justifiable??????????

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5343659&mesg_id=5343721

[krispos42]

25. Yeah, we still need, what, 9 more mass shootings in the next couple of weeks...

...before we can "rationally" discuss the issue?

[virginia mountainman]

40. Kris, how disgusting is it...

That the ONLY WAY, they can see to advance their agenda, is to have MORE death...

[depakid]

43. It's not a matter advancing agenda- but that is what it's going to take

And people like you and the rest of the obsessed are the folks with the blood on your hands- not those of us who for many years have called the shot about gun proliferation and the increasing numbers of mass shootings.

Not that you'll ever accept any responsibility for the consequences of the dysfunctional policies you advocate- any more than the banksters will.

[virginia mountainman]

45. What are you talking about.

It is people like you that assure their are unarmed victims...

[depakid]

47. Whatever....

:crazy:

[hendo]

69. what is it with americans? They think they can just say "whatever"

and go on about thier business.

and your business is sick, not even wanting to give someone the ability to defend themselves.

[krispos42]

49. I think you mean the increasing media coverage of mass shootings

That orange line sure does love to hover in the "tenth-of-a-percent" range, doesn't it?



If you can find similar information on from the Aussie government, I'd be interested in how the numbers compare.

[krispos42]

51. I'm not real happy with it

Legislating from hysteria rarely works out well. And the fact that it would be a future ban on new sales means we're talking two, three generations before significant numbers of whatever definition-of-the-year an "assault weapon" is wind up recycled into I-beams.

:shrug:


The other issue is that what the goal is, that so much money and political activism and time and effort would be spent on... to try to prevent mass shootings that combined account for 1 or 2% of all homicides at most, under ideal circumstances.


I read "Freakonomics" over the weekend, and the section on crime blew me out of the water. Guns control as a crime-fighting measure was virtually non-existant.

[rl6214]

44. The irresponsible minority?

When that happens, calls for sensible policy will prevail over the highly vocal- and irresponsible minority that advocates proliferation.

Who do you think has a louder voice, the gun control advocates or the "irresponsible minority"?

I would think with so many voicing their opinions against gun control that maybe they aren't irresponsible or the minority.

[hendo]

70. you anti-gun guys are the irresponsible minority.

I hope it feels good knowing that you are taking away someone's right to self defense.

Keep your opinion in mind the next time someone was killed simply because they did not have the means available to defend themselves.

[virginia mountainman]

4. Feinstein and McCarthy..

Two battle axes that will not give it up no matter how many seats we loose because of their mouths.

[slackmaster]

68. That is what I was going to say

Both of them are on a "mission" driven more by emotion than reason.

:argh:

[Tim01]

13. It does seem like Holder and Clinton met real holstility from all sides

on their "ban the guns" comments. That is a good thing.

[FLAprogressive]

16. Bobby Rush, the ex Black Panther who wants to confiscate all guns

[virginia mountainman]

19. Odd, He cannot even OWN a firearm......

He has served time for illegal firearm possession,

But yet, he can dictate to the rest of us...

[hendo]

30. If he can't have one, no one can!

he is like a 3 year old when you take away his toys.

[virginia mountainman]

39. LOL! Very true!! NT