Assault Weapons?

[accadacca]

What is the definition of an assault weapon?

Should they be banned?

[BruteForce]

So many murders have been committed without an "assault" style weapon.. OK City bombing, 9/11, ad nausea.

For the sake or argument, let's say the POTUS gets away with yet another ban. The last ban grand-fathered existing assault-style weapons, so whats to prevent a lunatic from using one of those? Additionally, the crazies and criminals don't care about a "ban".. If they have one, or have access, they're still going to use it.

Per the FED, an assault weapon is classified as:


Semi-automatic rifles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_rifle) able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescoping_stock)
Pistol grip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol_grip)
Bayonet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayonet) mount
Flash suppressor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_suppressor), or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenade_launcher) (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_grenade), though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

Semi-automatic pistols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_pistol) with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor)
Barrel shroud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_shroud) that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_firearm).

Semi-automatic shotguns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_shotgun) with two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.

[DiscGo]

:annie:

[BruteForce]

FYI, this is an assault weapon: My AR-15:

http://www.xmission.com/~jamesk/guns/ar2.JPG

[Byron]

Hey Brute...that's a beautiful firearm. Funny thing is, I don't know you nor have ever met you, but I have trust that you'll never use that weapon to kill anyone. Some may say it's naive of me to give you the benefit of the doubt...but I can't help but feel that you're responsible.

I own firearms too, and the last thing I would ever do is turn on on someone unless I was defending myself. All these shooters have one thing in common...they're crazy. Angry crazy people with guns, knives, baseball bats, car bombs, ice picks...a slingshot, they don't mix.

Speaking of slingshots, I had one and never did anything bad with it. If some punk kid down the street uses his to take out windows and shoots at dogs then why should my parents take away mine? It's a knee jerk reaction.

There are probably millions of people in this country alone barley surfing on the edge of sanity...these types of things will never end. It's awful, yes...I was looking at some of the pictures of the kids and it made me sick to my stomach, but life can be harsh and we'll never have a perfect society, never.

[accadacca]

I understand that criminals will get them anyway. However, would the gunman in the recent shooting (with no criminal record) have had access to an assault weapon if the laws were different? If they were not so readily available would that decrease some of the violence? The gun used was licensed and legal, etc. Of course the shooting could still have happend, but obviously an assault weapon is much more deadly when used. I guess I dont understand why the public needs them? For the record, I do own as described above assault weapons. Maybe a certain caliber is not allowed? I understand that there is very little middle ground...

Totally playing devils advocate here. It is a sensitive time of course. I had to send two of my kids to elementary school today and it certainly made me think after what happened.

[Sombeech]

62068

[BruteForce]

I understand that criminals will get them anyway. However, would the gunman in the recent shooting (with no criminal record) have had access to an assault weapon if the laws were different?

Yes he would have had access. After he murdered his mother, he stole her weapons (per the news media). He was denied a purchase, but stole/took his mother's -- so, even if a ban existed, all existing weapons are generally grand-fathered in and still legal to own/use.

[BruteForce]

Hey Brute...that's a beautiful firearm. Funny thing is, I don't know you nor have ever met you, but I have trust that you'll never use that weapon to kill anyone.

I too hope that's the case. I bought my AR-15, as an "FU" to the government and as a precaution against another pending ban. I don't anticipate ever having to use this AR, except for target shooting. The AR would not make a reasonable home defense weapon, so instead I use my "assault weapon style" shotgun for that.

[Iceaxe]

For the record... the military considers a high powered rifle (deer rifle) to be the most deadly weapon available to a single soldier, not an assault rifle.

The reason being is a single man can snipe from a safe position, cause destruction over a wide area and than vanish to strike again.

The Texas bell tower, the DC sniper, and Kennedy assassination are a couple of examples....

Sent using Tapatalk

[oldno7]

There is no nationwide average as it varies greatly for obvious reasons, but let me ask you--what is the police response time to your house?

Would the terror of standing by unarmed and watching your wife/husband/children being raped, murdered;be more powerful than the terror of stopping one of these acts?

If you have a tool that is going to have a chance of saving your families life, wouldn't you want the best tool available? Our police and military use AR type rifles so they must be pretty good, right?

Police generally arrive at a violent crime in time to gather evidence and document said crime. Up to the point of their arrival, your on your own.
But hey, nothing terrible could happen in 3-10 minutes, right?

[denaliguide]

the guy was sick, he was evil. hard to legislate against evil.

any legislation is only going to effect the law abiding citizens not the nut jobs and criminals.

[Iceaxe]

But hey, nothing terrible could happen in 3-10 minutes, right?

Response times to 911 calls normally take more then 10 minutes and response times of under 9 minutes are rare. So something to consider, if things go really bad you are probably on your own for at least the first 10 minutes.

[oldno7]

Question----

Would an assault weapon ban have stopped the Newtown shooting?

[BruteForce]

Question----

Would an assault weapon ban have stopped the Newtown shooting?

Not at all, as I've previously responded. This person still had access to these weapons and would have probably reverted to the two pistols (not on the pending ban list) in his possession. Again, the LAW will not stop a criminal or nut-job.

[oldno7]

Not at all, as I've previously responded. This person still had access to these weapons and would have probably reverted to the two pistols (not on the pending ban list) in his possession. Again, the LAW will not stop a criminal or nut-job.

I have a bit more than this, I'll hold on for a bit.
There IS an absolute answer(hint)

[accadacca]

I am doing my first triple quote... :stud:


Would the terror of standing by unarmed and watching your wife/husband/children being raped, murdered;be more powerful than the terror of stopping one of these acts?
I wasn't talking about a gun ban across the board. I was asking about assault weapons.


Question----

Would an assault weapon ban have stopped the Newtown shooting?
Nope. Next time...


Response times to 911 calls normally take more then 10 minutes and response times of under 9 minutes are rare. So something to consider, if things go really bad you are probably on your own for at least the first 10 minutes.
I guess it depends, but I wonder if more people could be killed in 10 minutes with an assault weapon...

[oldno7]

I am doing my first triple quote... :stud:


I wasn't talking about a gun ban across the board. I was asking about assault weapons.



So was I, it is addressed in the next paragraph.

[oldno7]

Scott
You often advocate getting the newest high tech Apple devices--Why?

What's wrong with the Apple I or II?

[Iceaxe]

I wasn't talking about a gun ban across the board. I was asking about assault weapons.

The first problem with your question is please describe and identify an assault weapon for me? The last time the Feds tried to ban assault weapons the firearms manufacturers just looked at the definition and designed around the issue....

For example.... bayonet lugs were removed (who cares, no one uses bayonets in modern warfare), the folding stocks were pinned (but could be turned into a folding stock by drilling out the pin), 10 round magazines were required (but the guns were designed to work with older 20 round magazines that were in plentiful supply), yada, yada....



http://i46.tinypic.com/ehl36.jpg

[accadacca]

:lol8:

http://blogs.pjstar.com/thesnap/files/2009/11/Richwoods_SHG16-900x657.jpg

[oldno7]

Sorry Scott, no intent to pile on just offering a different perspective.

Click this link when you have time, it is current CT law

http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/glossary/assaultweapon.htm

It appears it wasn't effective.

On a positive note--my daughter and I just went out and shot the mean AR

We both had a ball, there was some significant wounding of dirt though.

nuther note--We kept checking each other to make sure but neither of us felt compelled to commit a felony while in possession of said gun...

[oldno7]

on another note(I know, lotsa notes)

We did have police show up at the scene of our shooting, the local on duty officer.
He was greatly interested in our .22 conversion kit. We talked for quite awhile.
He said they will have to bring in the un, if they want to confiscate guns, law enforcement won't partake.

Did I mention the whole time we were talking my daughter was holding a loaded AR? Weird huh.... Not everyone who shoots AR's is a criminal.

[BruteForce]

nuther note--We kept checking each other to make sure but neither of us felt compelled to commit a felony while in possession of said gun...

Sadly, I've had to start locking up all my guns as I found them trying to sneak out of the house after midnight to commit wanton murder! Bad guns..:nono:

[accadacca]

I'm glad you had a good time shooting and I don't doubt for a second that responsible people can handle guns. Also that Brute's guns wont wander out on their own and murder people. Pretty silly arguments... :lol8:

I grew up shooting guns, own several and my Dad has a safe full of them. Guns obviously dont transform normal people into killers. However, easy access to killing machines by crazies is what I am afraid of... :scared:

[BruteForce]

However, easy access to killing machines by crazies is what I am afraid of... :scared:

And your solution is what? How do you keep legally owned guns away from nut-jobs? I have a gun safe, but I'm sure it can be forced open with enough effort and the right tools (sadly, its not a high-end gun safe, something that I hope to rectify soon).

[oldno7]

However, easy access to killing machines by crazies is what I am afraid of... :scared:

I agree--after Oklahoma city bombing, I faught hard to get Ford econoline vans banned

[accadacca]

I agree--after Oklahoma city bombing, I faught hard to get Ford econoline vans banned
Agreed. Mass bombings happen every few months in the US. :fitz:

Nobody has thrown any fancy charts into the mix yet...

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/civilians_225.gif

http://assets.motherjones.com/interactives/projects/2012/12/updated-mass-shootings/GunPossUpdate_121712.gif

http://mjcdn.motherjones.com/preset_51/fatalities3.png

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

[oldno7]

But, seriously--What Constitutional right do you or others possess that trumps my constitutional right to go out and shoot a legally obtained firearm with my daughter?

[oldno7]

Most recent Supreme court ruling, since you want to dig up facts and stuff

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

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citation) (2008), was a landmark case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_case) in which the Supreme Court of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) protects an individual's right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms) to possess a firearm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm) for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, in federal enclaves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_enclaves). The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state),[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#cite_note-1) which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago) (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#cite_note-2)

[accadacca]

But, seriously--What Constitutional right do you or others possess that trumps my constitutional right to go out and shoot a legally obtained firearm with my daughter?
Would you give up that right if 20 children could have been saved?

http://img.ehowcdn.com/article-new/ehow/images/a04/7q/ld/clean-bait-casting-reel-800x800.jpg

[BruteForce]

Acca, you're a troll now.

This lady nails it in the last ~4 seconds of the clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEJFAvA-ZUE&feature=youtu.be

[accadacca]

Good clip. I wish she would have had her gun too and I fully understand her point. There certainly isn't a black and white answer.

[BruteForce]

Stats prove that where guns are banned (schools, churches, gubm't offices, etc) there are more weapons related crimes. Where those restrictions don't exist, less so. You do the math: Potential for CCW carriers = less crime/gun violence. No CCW allowed = FAR MORE GUN related violence.


An armed society is a police society! 'Nuff' Said!

[accadacca]

Stats prove that where guns are banned (schools, churches, gubm't offices, etc) there are more weapons related crimes. Where those restrictions don't exist, less so. You do the math: Potential for CCW carriers = less crime/gun violence. No CCW allowed = FAR MORE GUN related violence.

'Nuff' Said!
Completely agreed. I'm pro gun and pro concealed carry.

[live2ride]

I'm going to go buy an "assault riffle" soon before they are banned. Any suggestions?

[BruteForce]

I'm going to go buy an "assault riffle" soon before they are banned. Any suggestions?

Hit Cabelas, and if they're still on-sale, spend $600 on the DPMS, then outfit it via Cheaperthandirt.com and opticsplanet.com..

[accadacca]

I'm going to go buy an "assault riffle" soon before they are banned. Any suggestions?
:lol8:

I'd imagine that the gun manufactures are loving the publicity and they'll ramp up advertising. There will be plenty of deals!

[oldno7]

Would you give up that right if 20 children could have been saved?

http://img.ehowcdn.com/article-new/ehow/images/a04/7q/ld/clean-bait-casting-reel-800x800.jpg

Come on, Scott----hundreds of thousands of American soldiers HAVE died so WE do have that right.
Do you suggest we minimize their contribution to a free society? It is not easy to be a free society, there are many things that trip us and make us want to take the implied easy exit.
No murder is right, no slaughter of innocent children should be tolerated, I am sickened by this event. But not sickened to the point of giving up on this Country and what has stood for since it's inception along with the Constitutional rights it guarantees us ALL. If we go down this path of under cutting and changing Constitutional amendments, which one do you prefer to lose next? So I suggest you either support them all, even when it's inconvenient to do so, or we abolish the Constitution and start over, I was never made aware that our Constitutional rights were to be ala-carte.
There is absolutely no possible way to prevent an evil person from committing a crime, your the Dutchman sticking his finger in the dike, there will always be a method for those who seek it out, to inflict massive casualties upon society.
I have no real answers how to stop this kind of heinous event but I would venture a guess that banning guns won't slow the flow, rather just change the impetus of it's delivery.

[Iceaxe]

Would you give up that right if 20 children could have been saved?


Careful.... that's a very slippery slope you are heading down....

The short answer is "NO" I would not give up any of my rights to save 20 children. Freedom has never been free.

9-11 killed how many in the name of religion? What about Waco? Jim Jones? How many young girls raped by FLDS? Maybe we should outlaw certain religions?

Here is the deal as I look at it. The right to keep and bear arms in guaranteed in the bill of rights…. The same document that says you have freedom of speech and religion, among other things.

The minute you allow anyone to take one of those rights from you the method of taking the rest of your rights has been paved as you now have a precedent. So if you believe in firearms or not, you need to fight to protect them if you value maintaining the rest of your rights.

Or as the old saying goes…. I might not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

[BruteForce]

It's funny. In my neighborhood, I'm one of 2 non-Mormons. The common thread thus far has been, "if the Zombie apocalypse hits, they will hide at my house". My comment has always been, " I will hit your house first for your food stores, before I eat my dogs/cats and kids". You too could be on the menu, so don't get too comfortable in my basement".

Why is so much of my neighborhood dependent on my "Neighborhood Watch" stuff and access and training with weapons? :roll:

[Byron]

The big news in Colorado today is that applications for guns (background checks) were so high this weekend that it swamped the system. The last few days have seen the highest increase for gun applications in our history.

Certainly, some of these people fear regulations, but I'd bet that most are buying for personal protection more than anything else. Talk all they want, but as long as we are all living, guns in this country will be ubiquitous. Shootings like this will continue to happen, people will yell and scream...pointing fingers, but nothing will really change. Just cross you fingers and hope it's not you or someone you know.

[Sombeech]

Certainly, some of these people fear regulations, but I'd bet that most are buying for personal protection more than anything else.

An excellent point, after major tragedies like this we see a spike in gun ownership. Is it ever anticipated that there must be a spike of gun violence coming up? Ever? Not that I can recall. So there must be SOME reason the majority of gun owners react to these situations, and it's with self defense in mind.

One of the main reasons for the assault weapon ban is because of the number of bullets that can be held in a clip. Like the woman said in her testimony before the court, it took 1 second or less to load that extra clip. Where most people will say "that's when you can take the shooter down, when he's reloading". Not a chance. If you think the shooters haven't practiced changing clips over and over and over and over and over and over again, you shouldn't be passing laws.

[Bluff-Canyoneer]

What is the feeling on gun safes? I keep mine locked up. If I felt unsafe while at home (I don't) I could just unlock the safe while there and lock it while gone.
Helps keep kids and thieves from getting there hands on my goods.

[BruteForce]

What is the feeling on gun safes? I keep mine locked up. If I felt unsafe while at home (I don't) I could just unlock the safe while there and lock it while gone.
Helps keep kids and thieves from getting there hands on my goods.

I think it would be irresponsible to own weapons and not have a safe (if you have children in the home)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[oldno7]

I think it would be irresponsible to own weapons and not have a safe (if you have children in the home)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Agree--BUT--it would be unfortunate to have someone break into your home and be between you and your safe.

Lots of room here for common sense.

Guns should definitely be kept from locations where children will be unattended.

I think the best precaution with children is to teach them about guns and gun safety,lack of knowledge and familiarity increases the attraction.

But teaching should only be in addition to responsible parenting.

[Glockguy]

What is the feeling on gun safes? I keep mine locked up. If I felt unsafe while at home (I don't) I could just unlock the safe while there and lock it while gone.
Helps keep kids and thieves from getting there hands on my goods.

We have guns and little hands in our home. Our guns are locked up. Some are in safes that have quick access for adults.

The kids are also taught at age appropriate gun safety. They are tested on this using airsoft guns that look like real guns. They are also told anytime they want to look at the guns they just have to ask an adult. This takes the mystery out of the whole thing.

[Iceaxe]

If you want to keep your kids safe around guns I'd say the number 1 thing you can do for them is send the kids through Hunters Safety.

The course is 90% about gun safety. Your kids will learn how to safely handle a firearm. My kids went through hunters safety at an early age (8 y/o). Hunters safety is something ALL kids should go through no matter what you feel about guns or hunting. To me it is like drown proofing your kids with swimming lessons, it's just something kids should know.

My kids were also taught there is no need to play with guns, just ask and we'll go shooting.

FWIW: My guns are locked up... some have quick access...

[hank moon]

Interesting gun-control outcome in Australia:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_austr alia_s_laws_provide_a.html?wpisrc=most_viral

P.S. There is no evidence that the shooter was evil, deranged, etc. The potential for such violence is in all of us.

[oldno7]

Interesting gun-control outcome in Australia:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_austr alia_s_laws_provide_a.html?wpisrc=most_viral

P.S. There is no evidence that the shooter was evil, deranged, etc. The potential for such violence is in all of us.

I can only suggest that this country needs to ban canyoneering. It has been proven that canyoneers cannot be trusted to keep canyons from being vandalized.

There can be no amount of vandalism that is acceptable, shut em down and shut em down NOW!!!

[Iceaxe]

You want to see a major shooting spree? Try and take my guns.... And I know I'm not alone with that thought.


62114

[oldno7]

Interesting gun-control outcome in Australia:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_austr alia_s_laws_provide_a.html?wpisrc=most_viral

P.S. There is no evidence that the shooter was evil, deranged, etc. The potential for such violence is in all of us.

The British have a history of surrendering their arms. Also in their history, was a war they lost to the USA, who promptly began creating a Constitution to alleviate future repression. I can provide you links if this is un familiar to you.

[Iceaxe]

I can provide you links if this is un familiar to you.

:roflol: :roflol: :roflol:

[MSchasch]

Another hero eh boys! : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/randall-white-shot-little-caesars_n_2322256.html?ncid=txtlnkushpmg00000029&ir=Business&utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=2454656,b=facebook

[Glockguy]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Two-wounded-in-theater-shooting-4122668.php

Another conceal carry person stops a shooting. This one was an off duty female officer. The principles that matter are a trained and prepared person was able to save lives.

[Sombeech]

Another hero eh boys! : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/randall-white-shot-little-caesars_n_2322256.html?ncid=txtlnkushpmg00000029&ir=Business&utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=2454656,b=facebook

Veggie pizza????

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[hank moon]

The fear that anyone's guns will be "taken away" is ludicrous propaganda and about as likely as a constitutional restoration of slavery. If you believe your guns will be taken away by the gov't, please examine/challenge that belief in yourself, and with friends, and see if it really holds up under proper questioning. If we could take such laughable notions off the discussion table (or at least cover them up with a napkin, like a wad of gnarly gristle), we might get somewhere with a civil accord on gun control.

[oldno7]

Immediate gun confiscation is a non issue due to numbers, I believe that....With gun bans--confiscation will be due to attrition.
I happen to have kids and grandkids, I expect them to enjoy the same rights that I am guaranteed, not a watered down version that proves ineffective.



So--hank--I'm not going to take the harness you use for canyoneering, you can keep that, despite your lack of ability to eliminate canyoneers from pasting graffiti all over canyon walls. What I propose be banned are ropes used in canyoneering, you can keep the ones you have but there will be no more. And by the way--since you are a canyoneer, you are a terribly bad person because others, just like you, paste/scratch graffiti in our canyons.
You can't be trusted

[oldno7]

Veggie pizza????

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Exactly--kind of like the salsa made in new york city commercial.........

[Iceaxe]

we might get somewhere with a civil accord on gun control.

Oh... you want to talk realistically, leaving the smoke and mirrors behind along with the dog and pony show? I never actually heard that from a gun control advocate. I guess I need to know what exactly you consider gun control?

Something to keep in mind before we start. Approximately 95% of all gun related crimes are being committed by someone illegally in posession of a firearm. Perhaps this is an enforcement issue and not a gun issue?

At least one study indicates that 'legal' guns are used 2.5 million times a year to properly and lawfully protect citizens. So it's understandable I want to maintain this right to protect my family.

So what are your suggestions to control guns without infringing upon my rights or the rights of my children and grand children?

[Iceaxe]

To those playing along at home who are not well versed in the pro/con gun battle......

The way you remove firearms from a society is to make it illegal to transfer firearms between owners and force all guns to be registered. When the registered owner of the gun dies the gun is turned in. This will remove all legal guns from circulation in a generation. This is also why gun owners venomously oppose gun registration, they understand it's the first piece of the puzzle and a requirement nessasary to taking their firearms.

[Sombeech]

The fear that anyone's guns will be "taken away" is ludicrous propaganda and about as likely as a constitutional restoration of slavery.

Nobody believes this is possible. It's just that idiot masses keep calling for it, a lot more than restoration of slavery.

[Iceaxe]

Nobody believes this is possible.

Actually it is possible and has been done before in other countries.

It has also been done before in this country when the Feds effectively eliminated the ability of most private citizens from owning automatic weapons.

[hank moon]

Nobody believes this is possible. It's just that idiot masses keep calling for it, a lot more than restoration of slavery.

i'm unaware of any popular movement to take guns away. Maybe an angry voice now and then saying something foolish, but..."masses" - please enlighten me if that is fact.

[hank moon]

Actually it is possible and has been done before in other countries.

It has also been done before in this country when the Feds effectively eliminated the ability of most private citizens from owning automatic weapons.

when I use the term "take away", i mean you already own a gun and a law is passed that causes that gun to be removed from your possession w/o your consent. I don't mean a law is passed that bans the sale of certain guns. That is not "taking away" guns, that is restricting the right. As long as the fundamental right to own and bear is preserved (and not just for the rich), the 2nd amendment is satisfied. Reasonable gun control might be increased traceability of guns and ammo, more intensive pre-sale background checks (also for private sales). Could be a little odious, but prolly not as odious as obtaining a Utah driver's license (what a pain)

What is possible in other countries is not necessarily possible in the U.S. - right? I don't see guns being taken away (per def. above) in this country. And for the record, I don't think this is a good time to enact gun control legislation. Everyone's acting out of feeling, fear, etc. The last assault weapon ban didn't hold up long because it lacked popular support. If "gun control" is a good idea, let it flourish in the absence of fear and propaganda.

[Sombeech]

i'm unaware of any popular movement to take guns away. Maybe an angry voice now and then saying something foolish, but..."masses" - please enlighten me if that is fact.

Really? And an angry voice now and again, like an isolated incident? Then where the hell are all these articles coming from that are being posted up? :lol8:

[Iceaxe]

FWIW: the Feds basically made it so an average citizen in the U.S. can not afford to own an automatic weapon. To legally own one you must have a Class 3 FFL. Along with the Class 3 FFL comes a "Special Occupational Tax" (SOT). The Class 3 FFL is extremely expensive and you don't even own an automatic weapon yet. Paying the transfer cost to actually obtain a full auto firearm is enough to bankrupt a small country.

[Iceaxe]

What is possible in other countries is not necessarily possible in the U.S. - right? I don't see guns being taken away (per def. above) in this country.

You must have missed the part where I explained how the Feds eliminated automatic weapons in the US. As I said, it has been done before in this country, which is one reason gun owners are so defensive.

[oldno7]

when I use the term "take away", i mean you already own a gun and a law is passed that causes that gun to be removed from your possession w/o your consent. I don't mean a law is passed that bans the sale of certain guns. That is not "taking away" guns, that is restricting the right. As long as the fundamental right to own and bear is preserved (and not just for the rich), the 2nd amendment is satisfied. Reasonable gun control might be increased traceability of guns and ammo, more intensive pre-sale background checks (also for private sales). Could be a little odious, but prolly not as odious as obtaining a Utah driver's license (what a pain)
.

how is restricting not taking away.............
gotta love the wordmasters

Did you know Connecticut had restrictions on guns in place at the time of the murders?
They called it an Assault Weapons Ban--those restrictions failed to save 20 children from a crazy person.
Do you have plans for restrictions on crazy people as well?

[hank moon]

You must have missed the part where I explained how the Feds eliminated automatic weapons in the US. As I said, it has been done before in this country, which is one reason gun owners are so defensive.

But how many gun owners (the law-abiding kind) actually aspire to own an automatic weapon? I think this is a marginal issue that has been used to create misguided support for some of the more dangerous NRA propaganda.

[hank moon]

You must have missed the part where I explained how the Feds eliminated automatic weapons in the US. As I said, it has been done before in this country, which is one reason gun owners are so defensive.

I don't think it is useful or fair to say that the Feds "eliminated automatic weapons". That is a propaganda-level statement as it fails to address the details of the ban. I personally don't have a problem with limitations on the types of weapons that may be legally carried/owned per the 2nd Amendment. My libertarian friend does, though. He thinks we should all have access to nukes. seriously, that is what he says. I''m really glad my friend can't legally own a nuke 'cuz he does make a pile of money.

There will always be disagreement on where to draw the line. From a pragmatic standpoint, I don't see the "need" for your average citizen to own an automatic rifle (for example). It is basically a dangerous toy.

If we can't come to consensus about gun control, then perhaps we should consider a national, mandatory gun education act. Part of social studies in the schools.

[Iceaxe]

And for the record, I don't think this is a good time to enact gun control legislation. Everyone's acting out of feeling, fear, etc.

If you notice all the pot stirring going on at the moment is from the anti-gun crowd attempting to capitalize on all the raw emotion.

You will also notice you have yet hear a peep out of the NRA, but after a respectful period of morning you can expect the NRA to come out with both barrels blazing.

[Iceaxe]

I don't think it is useful to say that the Feds "eliminated automatic weapons". This is propaganda-level statement as it fails to address the details of the ban.

If the Feds didn't eliminate automatic weapons than who did?

It was federal legislation that eliminated the weapons. The weapons were eliminated during the Depression years when outlaws were successful because they out gunned law enforcement. If you really want the details of the ban beyond the readers digest condensed version I just supplied I can give them to you. But bottom line.... the Feds eliminated automatic weapons by making the cost prohibitive to ordinary citizens.

[hank moon]

what do you mean by "eliminated automatic weapons"? exactly?

[oldno7]

If we can't come to consensus about gun control, then perhaps we should consider a national, mandatory gun education act. Part of social studies in the schools.

Alright--whats the catch, you really didn't mean to say something that was based on logic and common sense.

Whoever just stole hanks keyboard and posted on his bogley acct, fess up.

Man--when he gets out of the bathroom he's gonna be pissed.

[hank moon]

You will also notice you have yet hear a peep out of the NRA, but after a respectful period of morning you can expect the NRA to come out with both barrels blazing.

Hmmm. sounds a bit different this time. Might actually be.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/12/18/slatest_pm_the_nra_speaks_at_last.html

and (what the NRA has said before)

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/12/nra_and_gun_control_the_national_rifle_association _scares_its_members_into.html

excerpt from last link:

After the April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech shootings that killed 32 people: “The NRA joins the entire country in expressing our deepest condolences to the families of Virginia Tech University and everyone else affected by this horrible tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families.”

After the Feb. 14, 2008, shootings at Northern Illinois University that killed six: “We think it is poor form for a politician or a special interest group to try to push a legislative agenda on the back of any tragedy. Now is the time for the Northern Illinois University community to grieve and to heal. We believe there is adequate time down the road to debate policy and politics."

After the April 3, 2009, massacre at a Binghamton, N.Y., immigration center that killed 13: “Now is not the time to debate politics or discuss policy. It's time for the families and communities to grieve.”

After the Jan. 8, 2011, shooting spree that wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed six: “At this time, anything other than prayers for the victims and their families would be inappropriate.”

After the July 20, 2012, massacre at an Aurora, Colo., theater that left 12 dead and 58 wounded: “We believe that now is the time for families to grieve and for the community to heal. There will be an appropriate time down the road to engage in political and policy discussions.”

The “appropriate time” never arrives. It’s an ingenious communications strategy, one thatremoves the NRA (http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/how-the-nra-communications-twitter-handles-a-mass) from stories about the latest national outrages. When the outrage fades, the NRA returns in full flush. Just a week before the Newtown, Conn., shootings, Arulanandamtold a reporter (http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-expected-to-push-gun-control-in-second-term/article/2515196) that the NRA was “planning for the worst” and had “told people to plan for gun bans and a Supreme Court stacked with anti-gun judges.”

---

So the discussion never happens or goes anywhere. I think now is the time to talk, but not to act (drastically). It will be up to our "leaders" to ensure the discussion doesn't die or get stifled.

[Brian in SLC]

FWIW: the Feds basically made it so an average citizen in the U.S. can not afford to own an automatic weapon. To legally own one you must have a Class 3 FFL. Along with the Class 3 FFL comes a "Special Occupational Tax" (SOT). The Class 3 FFL is extremely expensive and you don't even own an automatic weapon yet. Paying the transfer cost to actually obtain a full auto firearm is enough to bankrupt a small country.

Not true. You pay 200 bucks for the transfer is all if you're a private individual. What made it cost prohibitive, is, the limited pool of items (May 1986 was the cutoff). Price has gone sky high. Pre-'86, you could get an MP5 for around 600 bucks...now? Around 20k. Some friends were saavy pre May '86 when this went into effect, and, they registered all their HK items as machine guns, even though they hadn't done the conversions yet. Pretty good pay off for them.

Have at 'em:

http://www.impactguns.com/machine-guns.aspx

[rockgremlin]

I don't think it is useful or fair to say that the Feds "eliminated automatic weapons". That is a propaganda-level statement as it fails to address the details of the ban. I personally don't have a problem with limitations on the types of weapons that may be legally carried/owned per the 2nd Amendment. My libertarian friend does, though. He thinks we should all have access to nukes. seriously, that is what he says. I''m really glad my friend can't legally own a nuke 'cuz he does make a pile of money.

There will always be disagreement on where to draw the line. From a pragmatic standpoint, I don't see the "need" for your average citizen to own an automatic rifle (for example). It is basically a dangerous toy.

If we can't come to consensus about gun control, then perhaps we should consider a national, mandatory gun education act. Part of social studies in the schools.

+1

I have a friend in a similar situation. If he had the means and were it legal, he would line his front yard with tanks.

I fail to see any good reason for an average citizen to own weapons of mass destruction. I don't have a problem with reasonable gun laws, but an outright ban making it illegal to own a gun of any kind is too extreme, and I don't see it ever happening in this country. It's too much a part of our culture and heritage.

[Iceaxe]

what do you mean by "eliminated automatic weapons"? exactly?

Made it nearly impossible for the average citizen to own.

Sent using Tapatalk

[oldno7]

The NRA just released this:

Important Statement from the National Rifle Association
Posted on December 18, 2012

The National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters – and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown.

Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting.

The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.

The NRA is planning to hold a major news conference in the Washington, DC area on Friday, December 21.
Details will be released to the media at the appropriate time.

[oldno7]

If you have a hard time understanding the 2nd amendment, maybe the framers con make it more concise and you will understand why many of us hold these guaranteed rights so dear.



Second Amendment– The right to keep and bear arms.
"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."
"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has the right to deprive them of." –Albert Gallatin, October 7, 1789, New York Historical Society
"...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" – from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2.
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." –Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds, Boston, 1850).
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." –William Rawle, A View of the Constitution125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." –Joseph Story, called the father of America’s Jurisprudence, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution .
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and the keystone under independence." –George Washington
COMMENTARIES ON RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." –Thomas Jefferson papers
"It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it." –James Madison, Federalist No. 46.
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." –Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press, 1975)
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" –Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." –Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." –Zachariah Johnson
"A free people ought … to be armed …" –George Washington
"… the people have a right to keep and bear arms." –Patrick Henry and George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386
"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny, or in private self-defense …" –John Adams

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." –Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia … taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater … confidence than an armed man." –Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment (1764).
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside…Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…" –Thomas Paine, Writings of Thomas Paine, at 56,1894, Thoughts on Defensive War (1775).
"When firearms go, all goes; we need them every hour." –George Washington
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." –Thomas Jefferson, The Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318, Foley, Ed.
When speaking in Virginia in a fiery speech for freedom, Patrick Henry proclaimed; "… an appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!"
Warning
[B]"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." –Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers

[BruteForce]

Well, Magpul PMAG 30's have just doubled in price today. Yesterday and on Saturday, I could get them for $17-19/each (with the window), now they're going for $28. The stores (brick-mortar and online) smell the pending ban and are jacking up the prices.

[Iceaxe]

Let's talk about the title of this thread.... First there is no such thing as an "assault weapon". The term is nothing but a label applied by the anti-gun crowd in an attempt to begin banning all privately owned guns used for sport, defense and hunting. Any weapon you could assault someone with would be and assault weapon, including a rock.

[rockgremlin]

Hopefully this handy dandy reference chart will clear up all this confusion....


http://www.gunssavelife.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Humor_funny_journalists_guide_to_firearms_ak47_glo ck.jpg

[accadacca]

Well, Dicks Sporting Goods and Walmart just took "assault weapons" off the shelves: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/video/walmart-dicks-pull-assault-rifle-connecticut-shooting-18006749

[accadacca]

There will always be disagreement on where to draw the line. From a pragmatic standpoint, I don't see the "need" for your average citizen to own an automatic rifle (for example). It is basically a dangerous toy.

If we can't come to consensus about gun control, then perhaps we should consider a national, mandatory gun education act. Part of social studies in the schools.
Agreed.

[Byron]

But how many gun owners (the law-abiding kind) actually aspire to own an automatic weapon? I think this is a marginal issue that has been used to create misguided support for some of the more dangerous NRA propaganda.I would love to own a fully automatic weapon....back in the early 90s, my cousin's husband (a really great guy) owned a fully auto AK-47. Man, that thing was a blast to light up. If they were legal, I'd bet that a double digit percentage of current gun owners would buy one, or two. I know I would.

[BruteForce]

Well, Dicks Sporting Goods and Walmart just took "assault weapons" off the shelves: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/video/walmart-dicks-pull-assault-rifle-connecticut-shooting-18006749

So did KSL.. We are truly doomed now!

[Iceaxe]

So did KSL.. We are truly doomed now!

I see a golden opportunity for someone with serious IT skills. KSL was Utah's gun store. Someone will capitalize on KSL leaving and fill the void, while also banking some major coin if it is done correctly.

Sent using Tapatalk

[accadacca]

Oh brother!!! :lol8:

62122

[accadacca]

23445793


http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=23445793&nid=148&title=firearms-listings-temporarily-suspended-on-ksl-classifieds&s_cid=featured-4

[accadacca]

There is a zombie apocalypse special airing tonight on discovery. Right now!

I take back EVERYTHING I said. :lol8:

[oldno7]

I see a golden opportunity for someone with serious IT skills. KSL was Utah's gun store. Someone will capitalize on KSL leaving and fill the void, while also banking some major coin if it is done correctly.

Sent using Tapatalk

Go to ksl.com now--several web sites vying for the position. One will take hold.
When one door closes....

[Bo_Beck]

If you have a hard time understanding the 2nd amendment, maybe the framers con make it more concise and you will understand why many of us hold these guaranteed rights so dear.

Very precise and thourough when it was written! Definatelty gives Adam and others like him the inaliable right to bear arms! If he had been in Virgin Utah....what would have kept him from bearing arms? Does the town of Virgin have in place a "check-gate" to determine who can or cannot own a firearm? Which ammendment determines mental illness?

[hank moon]

The 2nd amendment is not currently relevant to the discussion of gun control. The right to own and bear arms has always been strongly supported in American politics (that's how it got in the Constitution).

Reminds me of this other red herring:

62123

[Bo_Beck]

The 2nd amendment is not currently relevant to the discussion of gun control. The right to own and bear arms has always been strongly supported in American politics (that's how it got in the Constitution).

Reminds me of this other red herring:

62123

I don't suggest gun control at all. I own a firearm. I'd hate to see my right of ownership denied Hank. I merely wonder (or rather ask) how is a determination to be made that might keep guns out of the hands of people like Adam? Is there some sort of resolve to what seems to be a cancer in our society?

[oldno7]

Very precise and thourough when it was written! Definatelty gives Adam and others like him the inaliable right to bear arms! If he had been in Virgin Utah....what would have kept him from bearing arms? Does the town of Virgin have in place a "check-gate" to determine who can or cannot own a firearm? Which ammendment determines mental illness?

Bo
I agree with you 100%, I don't know the solution to mental illness and/or crazy people but it seems some in congress are calling for this to be addressed.
Simply put though--I see no possible method to keep someone bent on inflicting harm, from doing so.
Methods of delivery are vast and ones who will inflict harm will find a way. I hope you and I, and others who are so prepared, would be able to stop these people from harming us and those we care about.
I'm somehow not aware of the point your making in regards to Virgin. I do recall awhile back they imposed mandatory gun possession for it's citizens. I haven't followed the progress of this.

[hank moon]

I'd hate to see my right of ownership denied Hank.

as I said in the last post, that 2nd Amendment right is not threatened. It's a non-issue. As to your other question, super moot, but let's keep mootin'

[Iceaxe]

If we can't come to consensus about gun control, then perhaps we should consider a national, mandatory gun education act. Part of social studies in the schools.

I'm all for this, and the program already exists. Just take the current Hunter's Safety Course, rename it "Firearm's Safety". All the material could be covered in one week during Social Studies. If you wanted to cut out the hunting regulations of the program the safety aspect could be covered in 2 or 3 days.

Since Hunter's Safety was introduced in Utah the accident rate has dropped something like 90%. It is amazing what a little education can do.

But people need to understand, nothing will stop a mad man, who has no designs on escaping alive. With $100 in Walmart fertilizer and diesel fuel from the corner gas station you can create a bomb that will take out 100 kids at a whack. The propane tank from your BBQ with a small trigger available over the interwebs also creates a nice big bomb... you can't legislate against insanity.


62124

[oldno7]

The 2nd amendment is not currently relevant to the discussion of gun control.

It's very much relevant, it is only moot to those who wish it would go away and somehow we could become a gun free society.

I wonder how those who's view on the war on drugs has not been a success, somehow think the war on guns will be.

[oldno7]

Which ammendment determines mental illness?

maybe not determines, but would definitely give those who are mentally impaired, rights, would be the 9th amendment.

What possible rights those might be--I have no idea. The 9th was written as a catch all, or maybe--represent all, in some capacity.

The right to not take prescribed drugs?:ne_nau:

[Iceaxe]

Instead of just sitting on my ass today I decided to do something positive... and least In a firearm sence....

This is my new toy, a S&W 6906. It's cambered in 9mm and came with two high capacity clips. I swapped out the standard spurless hammer for one with a spur from a 5906. That allows me to shoot single action and accomplice some real gun control (meaning hitting what I aim at).

Today was a good day :)

Sent using Tapatalk

[Sombeech]

If we can't come to consensus about gun control, then perhaps we should consider a national, mandatory gun education act. Part of social studies in the schools.

You know what's ironic is every year, sometimes twice a year, every school has the emergency fire drill. They line the students up, they know where to meet outside. Earthquake drills too. (I'm forced to participate in these too)

Do you know how many students have died in a school fire in the last 50 years?

Big Goose Egg - and it's not because everybody stood in line and walked in an orderly fashion with arms folded.

Why is the public education system ignoring the possibility of other dangers in the schools? Things that actually happen, for example?

It's just odd. I also think Gun Safety should be taught in schools. In my expert opinion, more students will own a gun than progress to be a drama industry major. So many classes that have been in EVERY school for decades that are just fun little "easy A's" for the kids. And hey, wood shop is cool, welding is cool, and even though those are strong skills to have for their industry, many of those students will never stand in front of a bandsaw again.

Why is Gun Control and Gun Safety so obviously ignored in the schools? Will it just go away?

[Don]

I think it would be irresponsible to own weapons and not have a safe (if you have children in the home)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Seems pretty clear that an assault rifle ban isn't going to change anything. And considering that Connecticut already has an assault rifle ban, it wouldn't (clearly didn't) stop this tragedy.
So what do you think about mandatory training, mandatory registration, and mandatory safes. Particularly with handguns and assault rifles; no sales without training, registration, and proof of a safe. (Of course I'm already thinking certain professions, like cops and soldiers, should probably get a waiver on the training portion).
Also, what are your thoughts about private sales? I've bought and sold on KSL and love the convenience, but maybe we should think about ending that easy accessibility in order in implement the training, registration, and security that I already mentioned.
What are your thoughts?

[Iceaxe]

So what do you think about mandatory training, mandatory registration, and mandatory safes. Particularly with handguns and assault rifles; no sales without training, registration, and proof of a safe. (Of course I'm already thinking certain professions, like cops and soldiers, should probably get a waiver on the training portion).

The safe part would be impossible to police. I don't believe in passing laws that you can not enforce.

As for the rest... You do realize your suggestion would make no difference in 90% of the shootings don't you? as the shooter is already using an illegally acquired weapon.

As I bought my new handgun today I was reminded of a little tid-bit.... registration is much easier for anyone with a concealed carry permit. The dealer just has to verify and call in your permit number and the background check is complete.

If you are going to require some type of class before being able to purchase a gun I'd say make your military ID, hunters safety card or a CCP the must have item.

But again, the only ones paying a price and getting training would be the law abiding citizens, criminals don't give a crap.

[BruteForce]

Seems pretty clear that an assault rifle ban isn't going to change anything. And considering that Connecticut already has an assault rifle ban, it wouldn't (clearly didn't) stop this tragedy.
So what do you think about mandatory training, mandatory registration, and mandatory safes. Particularly with handguns and assault rifles; no sales without training, registration, and proof of a safe. (Of course I'm already thinking certain professions, like cops and soldiers, should probably get a waiver on the training portion).
Also, what are your thoughts about private sales? I've bought and sold on KSL and love the convenience, but maybe we should think about ending that easy accessibility in order in implement the training, registration, and security that I already mentioned.
What are your thoughts?

I definitely believe the process needs revamping.. no doubt about it. The private sale and gun show loop holes should probably be closed. I also think (at least in Utah), the CCW process is just stupid silly, where those that now can get a CCW without knowing how to properly handle a firearm. It's harder to buy a car or animal than it is to procure a weapon.

I wouldn't agree with further legislation, however (mandating a safe, registration, etc).

[BruteForce]

came with two high capacity clips.

Clips? Clips? CLIPS!?!?!

http://www.thegunzone.com/clips-mags.html :naughty:

[Brian in SLC]

Clips...yeah, clips. I read magazines and have a few magazine subscriptions.

Detachable box magazine?

This "magazine" thing is new. 20 to 30 years ago and before they were called "clips".

Magazine for the Winchester model 97 30-30? That ain't a clip.

Let's take back the word, "clip"!

[Iceaxe]

Clips? Clips? CLIPS!?!?!

http://www.thegunzone.com/clips-mags.html :naughty:

I disagree... that is one persons opinion... a large number of gun stores have their clips cataloged under "magazine".... MidwayUSA is where I normally buy extra mags and they are listed under "magazines" on their website.

http://www.midwayusa.com/find?newcategorydimensionid=14658

And to top it off, from Websters

Magazine - a holder in or on a gun for cartridges to be fed into the gun chamber.

:cool2:

[BruteForce]

Clips...yeah, clips. I read magazines and have a few magazine subscriptions.

Detachable box magazine?

This "magazine" thing is new. 20 to 30 years ago and before they were called "clips".

Magazine for the Winchester model 97 30-30? That ain't a clip.

Let's take back the word, "clip"!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clip_(ammunition)

Not to be confused with Magazine (firearms) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_(firearms)).
A clip is a device that is used to store multiple rounds of ammunition together as a unit, ready for insertion into the magazine or cylinder of a firearm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm). This speeds up the process of loading and reloading the firearm as several rounds can be loaded at once, rather than one round being loaded at a time. Several different types of clips exist, most of which are made of inexpensive metal stampings that are designed to be disposable, though they are often re-used.
The term clip is commonly used to describe a firearm magazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_(firearms)), especially in newspapers, movies, and on television. Because of this usage, the Merriam-Webster dictionary now defines a clip as "a device to hold cartridges for charging the magazines of some rifles; also :a magazine from which ammunition is fed into the chamber of a firearm". However, this usage is technically incorrect. In the correct usage, a clip is used to feed a magazine or revolving cylinder, while a magazine or a belt is used to load cartridges into the chamber of a firearm. In essence, the clip stores the rounds of ammunition before being inserted into the magazine, which houses the clip inside for use by the firearm. Most weapons that use clips, such as the M1 Garand as seen above, utilize the clip by loading it directly into the firearm.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clip_(ammunition)#cite_note-1)


Okay, I digress. Back to the regular debate

[Iceaxe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clip_(ammunition)

You are quoting Wiki... :roflol: :roflol: :roflol:

You do realize any 12 year old kid with a computer can chage those diffenitions don't you?

Personally I'm good with folks using either term, I know exactly what they are talking about. But I have to go now because I have to drive my mother to the pet store to get her poodle "clipped".

[Iceaxe]

http://i.somethingawful.com/u/garbageday/2012/comedy_goldmine/nra_cards/Turboooooo_01.jpg

[accadacca]

Good ole Ted...

Ted Nugent on gun control


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCHtw6WbbnM&sns=em

[rockgremlin]

Discovery channel cancels shows about guns. "Connecticut's incident not the reason why." Ya right. :roll:

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/12/17/discovery-hit-american-guns-canceled-as-hollywood-wrestles-with-links-to-gun/

[Iceaxe]

Discovery channel cancels shows about guns. "Connecticut's incident not the reason why." Ya right. :roll:

This one had nothing to do with Connecticut as the decision not to renew came long before Connecticut. The show was not renewed after it's season 2 ratings fell in the toilet.


The second season of American Guns got off to a strong start in April with 1.15 HH rating, 0.87 in adults 25-54 and 0.79 in adults 18-49, up 50% from last year’s series premiere. But the ratings subsequently dropped off and, in the end, Season 2 finished down double-digits from Season 1. I hear Discovery brass also felt there was no story left to tell, contributing to the cancellation decision. American Guns joins two veteran Discovery series that have been recently cancelled: Dirty Jobs and American Chopper.

As a show 'American Guns" sucked... Paige Wyatt was the only thing that even made the show tolerable to watch...

http://pics.wikifeet.com/Paige-Wyatt-Feet-708793.jpg

http://l.yimg.com/ck/image/A2390/2390734/300_2390734.jpg

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/paige-wyatt-pictures5.jpg



http://img1.bdbphotos.com/images/orig/h/2/h2zcd4tr9sckrtsc.jpg


Alright.... the mom was also pretty hot...

http://img004.lazygirls.info/people/renee_wyatt/renee_wyatt_paige_wyatts_mom_VEtLexI.sized.jpg

Right now the family is too busy selling legal firearms to be bothered with filming a lame ass reality show.

:popcorn:

[rockgremlin]

NO WAY!! Dirty Jobs was cancelled?!?! That show was one of their staples, and one of my favorites.

They better not cancel Mythbusters or there's gonna be rioting in the streets...

[oldno7]

No hypocrisy here



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1EObqM9Z0s

[BruteForce]

That woman (Feinstein), Harry Reid, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi need to all be in the same aircraft as it plunges into an active volcano; nut-jobs and hypocrites, all of them!

[Iceaxe]

That woman (Feinstein), Harry Reid, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi need to all be in the same aircraft as it plunges into an active volcano; nut-jobs and hypocrites, all of them!

^^^THIS^^^

[Eric Holden]

That woman (Feinstein), Harry Reid, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi need to all be in the same aircraft as it plunges into an active volcano; nut-jobs and hypocrites, all of them!

Feinstein is our hero in Cali!:stud:

[BruteForce]

Feinstein is our hero in Cali!:stud:

Good.. Keep her (in California) where she can continue to screw up that State. I'm positive that she and Pelosi are lesbian lovers! :naughty:

[Eric Holden]

I'm positive that she and Pelosi are lesbian lovers! :naughty:

I word to that..............




:spankme:HOT!:giveit:

[oldno7]

Heres another democrat from the house explaining why she banned barrel shrouds.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9rGpykAX1fo

[oldno7]

A well written article on "assault weapons" ban:

The writer is a democrat and a gun owner, do not read if your a wordsmith as they are mentioned.

"As we have seen, the battles of gun control have been fought, won and lost with definitions. Categories are created, connotations ascribed with the stroke of a pen."

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

[Iceaxe]

Heres another democrat from the house explaining why she banned barrel shrouds.

:roll:

Sad that our elected representatives doesn't even know what it is they want to ban.

62152

[oldno7]

And yet their hell bent on writing laws to restrict gun ownership.

I know you read the article from the image you posted:haha:

[Iceaxe]

I know you read the article from the image you posted:haha:

It's actually a really good article and answers most of the questions Hank was asking on gun control a few pages back.

:popcorn:

[Iceaxe]

Interesting.... what the American people really want... and not what the media says they want...

According to a Gallup poll conducted on Tuesday, Americans want better mental health care, more police in school and a reduction in violent media more than they want a weapons ban to prevent school shootings. A majority did not think a weapons ban would be very effective in stopping shootings.

To Stop Shootings, Americans Focus on Police, Mental Health (http://www.gallup.com/poll/159422/stop-shootings-americans-focus-police-mental-health.aspx)

(http://www.gallup.com/poll/159422/stop-shootings-americans-focus-police-mental-health.aspx)

[BruteForce]

:roll:

Sad that our elected representatives doesn't even know what it is they want to ban.

62152

That graphic was funny, YO! :haha:

[accadacca]

A well written article on "assault weapons" ban:

The writer is a democrat and a gun owner, do not read if your a wordsmith as they are mentioned.

"As we have seen, the battles of gun control have been fought, won and lost with definitions. Categories are created, connotations ascribed with the stroke of a pen."

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

Good read. :2thumbs:

[accadacca]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/393077_404919362923634_412617173_n.jpg

[Sandstone Addiction]

Well, I finally had the time to read this entire thread, good stuff. :2thumbs:

Now, for my 2 cents on Acca's question...the term "Assault Weapon" pisses me off to no end. Let's face it, every single gun we shoot today, including muzzle loaders, shotguns, lever actions, bolt actions, single action revolvers, double action revolvers, semi-auto handguns and rifles, etc, etc, etc were at one time the latest technology and weapons of war. And since they were all used on the battlefield, they must all be classified as assault weapons.

A gun is a gun. Plain and simple. Just because one looks different or one loads faster or one is pretty and one is ugly makes no difference. They all do the exact same thing.

The media loves to use the term because it has a negative (evil?) sound to it, just like them using the term "automatic weapon" to describe a semi-auto. Sensationalizing is the name of the game. The media infuriates me too.

On a positive note...it is wonderful to see all the passionate law abiding gun aficionados standing up and letting their voices be heard. :nod: Keep up the good work.

[2065toyota]

I just hope my job isn't the person who has to come take somebodies gun away from them

[Iceaxe]

Hahaha.... you're welcome to come and try confincating my guns any time you want.... but I'll warn you right now.... you had better bring a sack lunch because its going to be a long day :-)

Sent using Tapatalk

[Iceaxe]

8000 a day are joining the NRA.

I'm looking forward to their press conferance tomorrow, which will be today in a few minutes.

Sent using Tapatalk

[oldno7]

I just hope my job isn't the person who has to come take somebodies gun away from them

I've talked with several who are in law enforcement here in Southern Utah, including a police chief. Without hesitation, they all say there is no way in hell they would even consider this an option and ALL have stated they also have black rifles they would plan on keeping. Although law enforcement might have an easier route for keeping black guns, still no one willing to knock on doors to do such.

[oldno7]

http://www.worldtribune.com/2012/12/19/congress-out-of-the-loop-as-administration-advances-f-16-deal-with-egypt/

[oldno7]

And since we all are now well versed on what an assault weapon is

[2065toyota]

The ironic thing is that if I ever was forced to flee my house I would take a handgun and one of my scoped rifles before my "assault" rifle. Maybe that's just me, but long range rifle would be more useful for protecting and hunting

[Iceaxe]

Two views of how to protect children from maniacs. Which of the two would you prefer for your children?

62160

[Sandstone Addiction]

Just finished watching the NRA Press Conference.

Nice to see someone stepping up with some ideas that have merit.

I loved how my President, Wayne LaPierre, blasted the media that were sitting in front of him. But of course, that will never make the news, just the freaks that tried to interrupt him.

[Iceaxe]

Two views of how to protect children from maniacs. Which of the two would you prefer for your children?

62160

Hahaha.... I posted the above while waiting for the NRA press conference to start.... nice to see great minds think alike ;-)


Sent using Tapatalk

[mattandersao]

The ironic thing is that if I ever was forced to flee my house I would take a handgun and one of my scoped rifles before my "assault" rifle. Maybe that's just me, but long range rifle would be more useful for protecting and hunting

In "A Zombie Survival Guide" an AR is one of the lowest ranked weapons!

[oldno7]

He offered a plan that is to be implemented with NRA dollars.

That's substantially more than any politician can offer.

Ohh---except the ban barrel shrouds group, they have a plan:roll:

[mattandersao]

I am a little torn on this issue so can someone shed some light on the success of the Australian ban? Seems like it has worked but honestly IDK




As the US once again struggles with the issue of gun control, the success of John Howard's 1996 laws banning semi-automatic weapons in Australia has been raised in the American debate.
The New York Times has referred to Australia's gun laws as a "road map" for the US, saying that "in the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings - but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-17/us-urged-to-consider-australia-gun-laws-example/4431262

[mattandersao]

As for NRA response I didnt watch it but did he say who would pay for an officer in every classroom? That would add millions and millions of dollars in salary+ benefits (I think this is the best idea but I dont want to hear ya'll whining about paying for it with taxes!) at a time most states are cutting back.

[oldno7]

I am a little torn on this issue so can someone shed some light on the success of the Australian ban? Seems like it has worked but honestly IDK





http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-17/us-urged-to-consider-australia-gun-laws-example/4431262

I know your not torn but I'll go there anyway.

First and foremost--you have to tell me HOW your going to confiscate 300million guns from citizens who have committed no crime.

Or--you could focus on how to make YOUR school a safer place. Put your energy where you see fit.....

Theres something you can do about one of these today....

[oldno7]

As for NRA response I didnt watch it but did he say who would pay for an officer in every classroom? That would add millions and millions of dollars in salary+ benefits (I think this is the best idea but I dont want to hear ya'll whining about paying for it with taxes!) at a time most states are cutting back.

After implementation, the NRA will PAY to train those with military and police backgrounds.

These are volunteer positions...

The NRA currently has training available for police officers and are highly qualified for this task.

Finding law abiding volunteers will not be a problem.

[oldno7]

Never a mention of an officer in every classroom.

[oldno7]

The NRA also offered, above and beyond training officers, to help any school who wants it, to implement further security as needed.


-nothing more critical than our children's well being
-parents need to have confidence in their safety
-most up to date template for every school to tweak and tailor
-armed security will be A component - but not the only
-decisions on armed security made at the local level
-does not require any large outlays of money from state/local/federal


-not taking questions but starting Monday they'll be willing to have one on one conversations

[Sombeech]

As for NRA response I didnt watch it but did he say who would pay for an officer in every classroom?
This is a great example of where you might have wanted to watch it before you made such an assumption of the cost :wink:

Just one in every building. A lot of the secondary schools already have a police officer on duty here in Weber School District, so that is a good chunk taken care of. And then the Elementary schools have part time officers that service multiple schools.

He had an outstanding point in that we have armed guards for our:

Banks
Power Plants
Federal Office Buildings
State Buildings
Sports Stadiums
Concert Events


But everyday, so many of our children go to these "proud gun free zones" which I think is absolute bullshit.

[oldno7]

Personally I would have made another proposal it would have went like this......

Since this country is DEEPLY divided at the 50/50 mark, we will be offering free help in regards to training and implementing further security measures to exactly 50% of US schools. We will hope that all schools remain safe while closely monitoring to see if there is any benefit that the 50% of schools enjoys. Further, after doing this study for 5 years, we suggest implementing whichever plan has worked the best at keeping students safe.

And in the interest of not forcing children from unwilling homes to participate, there will be a school in each community set up, we'll call these--liberal schools(gun free zones) and conservative schools(security personnel and school security systems upgraded).:lol8:

What school you want to teach in Matt?

[oldno7]

I'm sure many will feel much more secure with the shoulder thing that goes up, ban crowd.:facepalm1:

What a positive difference they've already made

[Sandstone Addiction]

I saw this posted on USSC.

Very generous indeed.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


Let our educators defend themselves and their students- Free classes to be offered
In the wake of the nation’s 16th school weapon incident since August. Clark Aposhian through FairWarning Firearm Training is re-affirming the offer of no-charge Utah concealed carry instruction to all public school employees. This now will also be available for staff and faculty of Utah Higher Education entities.

Those interested may contact FairWarning at 801-560-4836 or by e-mail at Clark@fairwarning.biz (Clark@fairwarnming.biz)
For those public schools employees who wish to be able to lawfully carry and defend themselves while at work A Utah concealed carry permit is required.
Utah is one of only 2 states, which allow for those with a clean background to apply for and obtain a permit to discretely carry a firearm for self-defense within a public school.


FairWarning promotes the option of carrying discrete but accessible firearms for self-defense. We do not ever recommend engaging into a hostile environment or situation. However, the ability to carry a firearm may in fact mitigate such situations and will at the very least afford individual protection for the carriers themselves. If those carriers have control or responsibility over a classroom full of children that same protection will tend to encompass them as well.
We strongly insist that the weapon be under the carriers control at all times, that it be maintained quietly and discreetly. We encourage an effective and consistent terrorist management plan be practiced within your schools.
We have taught many public schools employees in the past 11 years. We recommend that if an employee is in their classroom or other securable location and becomes aware of a violent situation that they immediately close and lock their classroom door after gathering all adjacent students into the classroom. This will be their shelter in-place. If that employee has access to a firearm they should only engage the intruder if their classroom shelter is breeched.
For those that think their children are safe in school and are far removed from the situations encouraging or allowing such attacks. With the current policies and procedures in place there is nothing to stop that same type of attacks from occurring here in Utah
“We will never know if the presence of a firearm in an employee’s hands would have saved the life of students or staff at these schools. However we may state, with absolute certainly, how many people lost their lives when staff were not carrying a firearm for self-defense.” W. Clark Aposhian“The only reason to allow teachers to be armed is if we are committed to protecting our children.”
W. Clark Aposhian
Sincerely,
W. Clark Aposhian
Chairman - Utah CCW Review Board
Chairman - Utah Shooting Sports Council
Chairman - Utah Self-Defense Instructors’ Network
Member – Salt Lake County Gun Injury Prevention Board
Owner - FairWarning Firearm Training Institute
FOR QUESTIONS OR TO ARRANGE INTERVIEWS:
Contact Clark Aposhian, FairWarning at 801-560-4836 or by e-mail at Clark@fairwarning.biz

(Clark@fairwarnming.biz)


http://utahshootingsports.com/



Not sure about other districts, but I was told that in the Alpine School District, you have the right to carry concealed, but if you choose exercise your right, you will be fired immediately...

[mattandersao]

Sorry, I didnt mean classroom I meant a police officer in every school but the question remains how will this be paid for salary+benefits adds up. I would guess that many states do not currently have a resource officer in their school.

In Utah this program thankfully already exists in many schools, and districts. I think you would have to do full time at elementary schools from now on after the latest shooting.


These are volunteer positions... So they are Law Enforcement Volunteers, or just trained volunteers as there is a difference! If it is just some random volunteer I see that being a problem.


And in the interest of not forcing children from unwilling homes to participate, there will be a school in each community set up, we'll call these--liberal schools(gun free zones) and conservative schools(security personnel and school security systems upgraded).:lol8:

I dont think this would be feasible. Building the new schools in the liberal zone, hiring new principals and teachers and paying their salary/benefits for the liberal zone, heating and cooling the new schools, etc. I see this adding lots of new demand on a stressed out system. :bootyshake:


He had an outstanding point in that we have armed guards for our:


Banks
Power Plants
Federal Office Buildings
State Buildings
Sports Stadiums
Concert Events



Once again who is going to pay for this? Are these state employees? Are you going to give them retirement? etc?


know your not torn but I'll go there anyway.

You dont know me and I dont appreciate the characterization. Other than environmental topics I am quite libertarian. A little background on myself. My grandpa was a huge hunter, veteran, etc. He took me coyote shooting, bunny shooting, etc...been around guns most of my life, I dont own a gun because I realize my own inadequacies (I lose things, am a klutz and would end up in an accidental shooting sometime if I owned a gun). Some day I would like to own a rifle (mostly for the Zombiepocolype). Where I am torn is on owning basically anything more than say a rifle, shotgun etc....Some comments in this thread have been pretty thought provoking (modern rifles were cutting edge technology/military weapons at one time or another for example)

As for Australia the reason it wouldnt work in the USA is because it involved a confiscation (actually a buy back I believe and I understand a forced buy back is probably considered a confiscation) of firearms? Am I correct?


"in the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings - but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect."

I know there are three types of lies (lies, damned lies, statistics) but it seems as if this has worked for Australia, at least in preventing mass shootings. Am I wrong?

EDIT-
I meant to add I see a trained Law Enforcement Officer in every school to be the best solution. I think that having several teachers with concealed firearms could be even better if they were extremely well trained, and I dont just mean at the firing range trained, I mean they are trained to deal with a school shooter, with guns going off around them, smoke in the air, frantic kids running style.... but unless we could ensure they had as much mandatory training as a cop I dont think they should be carrying.

[oldno7]

Hang on....

Working on your Australia Problem

[oldno7]

Heres a Chart from the Australian Gov.
While it shows no statistic on mass murder, it does include records from the time they instituted a gun ban(that actually wasn't a ban)

In the time since the ban--Homocide has indeed decreased by 27%(+/-)

Assault has risen 67%

Sexual Assault has risen 82%

Robbery has gone down--11% (apparently nobody falls for the ol' finger in the pocket anymore):mrgreen:

Kidnapping and abductions have gone up--79%

lots of conclusions can be drawn, I have mine, I'll let you decide on yours.

Above the Australian chart, is one from Switzerland, where most males possess firearms, due in fact to a military requirement.

They keep these firearms and more, their entire life. Military automatic rifles owned by those serving, are made SEMI-AUTOMATIC after retirement and returned.

So you could conclude, Switzerland is heavily armed.




Year
Total Convictions
Homicide
(Art. 111,112,113,116 StGB)
Serious Bodily Injury
(Art. 122 StGB)
Minor Bodily Injury
(Art. 123 StGB)
Sexual Contact with Children
(Art. 187 StGB)
Rape
(Art. 190 StGB)
Theft
(Art. 139 StGB)
Robbery
(Art. 140 StGB)
Receiving Stolen Goods
(Art. 160 StGB)
Embezzlement
(Art. 138 StGB)
Fraud
(Art. 146 StGB)
Narcotics Possession
Major Violation of Traffic Laws
(Art. 90 SVG)
Drunk Driving
(Art. 91 Abs. 1 Satz 2 SVG)


2005
85,605
93
94
2,459
413
109
6,557
489
1,262
910
1,484
2,846
22,163
15,776


2006
90,592
95
105
2,523
382
131
6,569
553
1,196
880
1,521
2,616
21,599
18,439


2007
84,665
93
88
2,248
380
135
5,979
522
922
807
1,607
2,462
21,431
17,355


2008
93,024
95
133
2,635
415
133
6,345
522
905
848
1,665
2,606
25,339
17,836


2009
94,574
84
118
2,578
366
108
6,947
514
924
820
1,506
2,708
25,434
16,708



Us population--311,591,917ish
Australian Population--22,620,600
Swiss Population--7,907,000

So the Us population is around 14X larger than Australia
Australian Population App. 2.7X larger than Australia.

So, while it's easy and convenient to pick out one form of crime and try to make a point, it can be very misleading.
If you multiply any of the Swiss crime statistics by 2.7, none will come close to approaching the Australian numbers.

Therefore, if you want an answer to what really reduces crime, I suggest the model from Switzerland might be better than Australia's.

[Iceaxe]

I am a little torn on this issue so can someone shed some light on the success of the Australian ban? Seems like it has worked but honestly IDK


If you want to do a little reasearch I believe you will discover Australia's gun ban is seen as a monomental failure. If you are really interested in what happened in OZ you can start here

http://www.calnews.com/archives/metcalf13.htm

I'm not saying it's the best article out there, its just a place to start so you will have an understanding of what has happened. Much of the info in the article was provided by Inspector John McCoomb, Queensland's foremost police weapons expert.

[mattandersao]

http://i.imgur.com/p8IWx.jpg

An armed volunteer?

[mattandersao]

Thanks... comparison of Australia and Switzerland interesting...still on mass killings it looks like what Australia did has worked to stop them correct? Maybe they have just had 14 lucky years idk...

[oldno7]

http://i.imgur.com/p8IWx.jpg

An armed volunteer?

Nice troll.....
Guess my characterization has merit.
Any intelligent conversation?
Or do you need to turn around and get back to your students?

[oldno7]

Thanks... comparison of Australia and Switzerland interesting...still on mass killings it looks like what Australia did has worked to stop them correct?

Can't find the gov. statistic, maybe in your spare time teaching, you can provide one.

[Iceaxe]

Sorry, I didnt mean classroom I meant a police officer in every school but the question remains how will this be paid for salary+benefits adds up. I would guess that many states do not currently have a resource officer in their school.

The NRA's suggestion was "Security Personal" in every school, not necessarily a uniformed police officer. Mention was made to train and arm security personal similar to those at a rock concerts or sporting event.

Anyhoo… my first thought was "great idea" but how do we pay for it? My second thought was allow teachers who wanted to become trained security officers handle the job. Those teachers who become certified get a small bump in pay. Sounds simple enough to me.

I really believe the threat of encountering armed and trained security will go a long ways in eliminating these copy-cat school shootings.

[mattandersao]

I think my point was valid. I have seen concealed permit carriers acting similar to this idiot. I would rather not have guns in the school compared to people like this guy.

I have to give my district test to my classes today thus the time I have had to post (nice fallacy though!:2thumbs:). PS Students are kickin a$$ on the test I would say average score has to be in the 80-90 %! Bring on performance based pay!

Iceaxe- You win! As mentioned earlier though I would want some real life situation training available for those carrying, not just read this article, sign this paper and go to the shooting range a handful of times. They need real scenario training based on past school shootings.

[BruteForce]

allow teachers who wanted to become trained security officers handle the job. Those teachers who become certified get a small bump in pay. Sounds simple enough to me. I really believe the threat of encountering armed and trained security will go a long ways in eliminating these copy-cat school shootings.

Nope. I wouldn't support this. There are just as many nut-job teachers as not. Having run a physical security team (armed), I was paying (Utah wages) on average $14/hour for a person that was required to weapons qualify every 90 days. Most were former military or police officers working a 2nd job.

Or, just follow what Utah's been doing for years: Place a local police officer in every school. We do this already, with the exception of elementary school.

[oldno7]

I think my point was valid. I have seen concealed permit carriers acting similar to this idiot. I would rather not have guns in the school compared to people like this guy.

I have to give my district test to my classes today thus the time I have had to post (nice fallacy though!:2thumbs:). PS Students are kickin a$$ on the test I would say average score has to be in the 80-90 %! Bring on performance based pay!

.

So while you have some spare time, could you run over to the Purgatory shooting range and see if you can find me some .223 brass?:haha:

[Sombeech]

That would add millions and millions of dollars in salary+ benefits (I think this is the best idea but I dont want to hear ya'll whining about paying for it with taxes!) at a time most states are cutting back.

Let's talk about the cost of putting some kind of guard in place. You are thinking this now must mean one additional employee to be hired in the school (once we've established not every classroom).

For some it is. If they've got that funding in their budget, great.

Some currently pay a portion to an existing Sheriff Dept officer for their precinct to service the school, thus a trustworthy certified trained officer, who does NOT just sit on a stool all day but they are doing their office work that could be done at the Sheriff's office. This is paid for, in some ways, a teacher can add a student to their classrooms, or a partial student in simple terms. This is somewhat how my position is paid for as a school computer tech.

Some could have an existing designated teacher(s) with a CCP go through the correct training for a bonus in pay.

And some of course would have the freedom to say we won't have guns in schools because that approach is keeping everybody safe.

The concept is freedom to choose. I don't think the Federal Government, nor the Federal Department of Education (nearly useless Dept anyways) should mandate any rules, but they should allow the schools to practice protecting their children in the ways they know best. It's about freedom to choose.

And when schools will say all they need is a bigger "Gun Free Zone" sign, and make some kind of name badge rule for the building (who could bypass this fortress of security?), and the parents think this is ridiculous, I believe the parents and community should have the right with the board of directors to change that rule.

And if parents don't want an armed guard in the school, they should have the right to change that as well. Hopefully it wouldn't take a tragedy to change their minds though about the bigger and brighter "Gun Free Zones".

Now, getting the payment and choice out of the way, here's what I find interesting. That some would complain about the added cost (if any) of having some sort of armed security in the building, while not a peep would occur from other Federal programs like free school lunch, AND free school breakfast DAILY. Neither would they complain about additional costs that school sports may rack up. Do you know how much is spent on sports? I'm not talking about jerseys and pads, I'm talking about gymnasiums, stadiums, track and field, swimming pools.... for a portion of the students that will actually use them.

And one of the major obstacles of adding a security measure for our kids is the cost?

Those very same people screaming to spend money "for the children" are somehow choosing to object this sole security measure.

:ne_nau:

[oldno7]

http://i.imgur.com/p8IWx.jpg

An armed volunteer?

I gotta tell ya Matt, you need to drop a few lbs. but your tan is looking good.:mrgreen:

p.s.--don't point them things at ya, bro. Bad things could happen--yo..

I'm done here for a bit, I gotta go find some of dem assault bullets

[mattandersao]

Nope. I wouldn't support this. There are just as many nut-job teachers as not. Having run a physical security team (armed), I was paying (Utah wages) on average $14/hour for a person that was required to weapons qualify every 90 days. Most were former military or police officers working a 2nd job.

Or, just follow what Utah's been doing for years: Place a local police officer in every school. We do this already, with the exception of elementary school.

Thank you!!! Thats what I was trying to say I dont trust many of my peers! Which raises the question how do we pay for a full time PROFESSIONAL (whether it be a police officer or a well trained employee of yours). When the state has a hard time paying to keep up with growth in the school systems I dont see how they will add many new police officers without gnashing of teeth and such from the Utah taxpayer. Fortunately for Utah as has been mentioned most middle schools (where I work) and high schools have a resource officer paid 1/2 by the school system, and 1/2 by police departments.

[Iceaxe]

For the record... I'm also not in favor of just arming anyone to protect our schools. I assumed we were using the NRA's standard of "trained", whatever that turns out to be in the end.... and I don't believe a hunters safety card and a CCP is going to make the grade.

:2gun:

[oldno7]

For the record... I'm also not in favor of just arming anyone to protect our schools. I assumed we were using the NRA's standard of "trained", whatever that turns out to be in the end.... and I don't believe a hunters safety card and a CCP is going to make the grade.

:2gun:
EXACTLY^^^^

[accadacca]

Just wanted to chime in and say that I am thoroughly enjoying the conversation and have learned a great deal. :2thumbs:

[Iceaxe]

The NRA comes through with a plan!

62176

[MY T PIMP]

Okay, finally back. I've stayed away from this discussion on purpose, having a kindergarten aged child has made this I tough on me. Why? Because I'm completely convinced no matter what I, or anybody else says will ever change any persons opinion. This country suffers an addiction to pride, and not the good kind. I'm a firm believer of the second amendment. I own many firearms, some are considered assault weapons. ever since the shooting at Columbine, I have believed that schools should have totally overhauled their security policies. I think America did not want to admit, that our culture is has become such, to warrant this. people often contest what a teacher or guard can do against someone like these crazed gunman. But it doesn't take a lot of common sense, to see that these people target places where they will have no or limited opposition, I don't know about you, but if these people think they can't commit their act of infamy successfully, it seems the mass majority of them won't try it in the first place. mentally ill or not these gunman still are smart enough to target gun free zones. and those gun free zones created by our own culture, have become an invitation for infamy. there is so much more at the route of this problem, the lack of and the culturally vilifying of discipline, the vilifying of God, and much more can share the blame in this and other incidents. there are so many who champion humankind to evolving to something greater than relying on a higher power, but not too long ago the belief in that higher power and more so fear of that higher power, contributed to the prevention of these type of incidences. after 911 so many quickly and blindly supported the Patriot Act, and now the same is happening with the second Amendment, in so much that they are willing to take the most powerful tool that gave this nation its freedom and simply rape it. George Washington believed that this nation's civilian population, should have the right to arm itself with comparable weapons to it's own military. it is my believe that the second Amendment is the last vestige of power Americans have that give them the power over government, taking it away or raping it is an insult to those fought using that same power to give us our freedom. it is my God given right to defend myself, no matter how lawful or unlawful that statement is or becomes, that is what I will always believe, and how I will conduct myself. As for assault weapons, of fraction of 1 percent are ever used criminally, but alcohol on the other hand has a much higher margin of abuse, and murder. But because it is so widely used, and economically important you won't see banning it, even fractionally as much as you would with a gun discussion. I apologize for the punctuation I did this from my phone.

[oldno7]

Welcome to the discussion.
Keep a close eye on your shoulder thing that goes up--they want these banned......



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9rGpykAX1fo

[oldno7]

You can have my shoulder thing that goes up when they remove it from my cold, hairy shoulder!!!

Thing kinda hurts anyway

[Byron]

Hey guys...I know this is serious business, but I've been laughing my ass off and really enjoying the conversation. This site is awesome, I love it.

MTP, nice to see you chime in too.

[accadacca]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZb8EXUrQTo&sns=em

[Byron]

Oh well....in the event of the zombie apocalypse, these sissy freaks will be the first on the dinner table. Then we wouldn't have to put up with them any longer.

[MY T PIMP]

I wonder if codepink and other gun control advocates are so ignorant that they think when and if gun control measures are passed, gun owners will quietly and peacefully abide. The military has in itself a large population of NRA membership. And I have to give it to Clinton, the man successfully passed gun control measures, but he also was able to maintain a decent level of partisanship, unlike Obama who has polarized and devided this country to the likes it hasn't known since the civil war. The fiscal cliff is a perfect example, as conservatives offer concessions, he has yet to bring any of his own. if these anti gun groups want to continue down this road of ignorance, they'll be sorely surprised of where it leads. But maybe they only care really care about the blood shed of the ones that believe the way they do, perhaps a dead to them the only good conservative is a dead one, and the quicker the better and decrease the surplus population. Then again if they kill all of us who will pay for their free health care?
I said it before, and I'll say it again, this nation is going to see it's second Browns Ferry, we're way to devided. It would be terribly ironic if those who sought to make this country safer through their own ignorance, ended up with the complete opposite effect. We are not as stupid as the media has brainwashed you to believe, we know the killing them softly tactic, and it will not work in America as it did in Canada and Australia.
Do I really believe all this could happen, I hope and pray not, but I have seen some concerning things as of late, pro second amendment and civilian malitia folks are closing their Facebook accounts to get off the grid. And on tip of that I have an uneasy feeling that doesn't seam to go away. That same feeling has always been fooled by negative events of some sort. I've always had an uncanny intuition about things, and for once hope that I am wrong.

[Iceaxe]

As I have have watched guns and ammunition sale at record rates this past week I understood what was happening... these people are stock piling so they have the ability to defend the freedoms granted to them in the bill of rights. They are not going to surrender or compromise those rights without a fight.

Sent using Tapatalk

[Byron]

I've been surfing around looking specifically at liberal sites, reading the comments posted. Forget the freaks in the media, I want to know what real people think about this...

I'm surprised to see, even among the most liberal articles, the comments are mostly pro ownership. I'm trying to find someone with a reasonable reason to back their anti gun ideas....and I really can't find one. I really think there must be a psychological definition for fear of guns...like fear of the dark, or spiders, etc...I've always considered that these people who scream the loudest about this, have this affliction...they get physically ill at the sight of a gun.

Things like "Our schools shouldn't have guards because it will intimidate and distract the kids". What? It seems to me that it would "intimidate and distract" anyone bent on ill intent. C'mon...can't they do better than that?

It seems that we're all in agreement around here. I'd really love to hear some anti gun advocate really bring something with some meat on it...I can't find it. If anyone can post something they propose that makes one go "Hmmm..." then put it up and let's examine it.

Too bad all these knuckleheads give us is criticism about alien shoulder mounted cannons. Obviously, that woman actually believes those things exist! And she's a member of Congress...yikes.

[Brian in SLC]

I'm surprised to see, even among the most liberal articles, the comments are mostly pro ownership. I'm trying to find someone with a reasonable reason to back their anti gun ideas....and I really can't find one. I really think there must be a psychological definition for fear of guns...like fear of the dark, or spiders, etc...I've always considered that these people who scream the loudest about this, have this affliction...they get physically ill at the sight of a gun.

Folks on the ends of the "gun" bellcurve will often have a fair amount ignorance about each other. Its an interesting thing. I'm a fairly liberal gun owner, and, have friends on the extreme ends of this debate. Some can't even have a rational discussion about it at all before it boils up into an emotional name calling deal.

I think most of the folks I know who are very anti gun, will use this to further their cause. Yeah, they're hugely ignorant about firearms (heck, some even refer to "magazines" as "clips"...har har). They hate the gun culture and the embracement of violence and see adding more people with guns in schools as a really bad idea. I did get a kick out of the "put teachers in gun stores" response.

[Iceaxe]

Brownells sells 3.5 years’ worth of magazines in 72 hours.

http://www.guns.com/2012/12/20/brownells-sells-3-5-years-worth-of-magazines-in-36-hours/

Interesting article on what is happening in retale. Last Wednesday I tried to find some S&W magazines for some of the custom pistols my dad builds and sells. There were none to be had anywhere in the country. Brownell's is one of our usual suppliers.

[Brian in SLC]

Crazy stuff. Legislation should take months, and, even years, if the will for it is sustainable at all (and it may not be, given the timing of the election cycle). Law of supply and demand.

After the 1994 ban expired, there was a brief rush, and, after the last couple election cycles, a bit of a rush, then, the supply outstripped the demand. Prior to a couple weeks ago, there was a glut and the prices especially for an AR or mags, which were both plentiful, were at a fairly low level and you could get just about anything.

Be interesting to watch. Amazing economics in play for sure.

Some interesting stuff:

JG Shipping Info - Thursday December 20, 2012
We want to wish all of you a Merry Christmas. We hope you have a wonderful time with friends and family and are richly blessed this season.

Due to very high order volume we have sold out of many items. Additionally answers to your emails are several days behind, and you will have trouble getting through on the phone. If you placed an order please wait, shipping delays are currently a week or two. Please refrain from emailing or calling us to check if your order is proceeding. If there is a problem we will contact you. We are working through the orders and email questions as fast as we can. We will try to fill all orders that have been received, but certain items are oversold and many orders will be cancelled. We will notify you if your order is cancelled or the items sell out.

You will notice items being removed from our website as they sell out. They will be added again to the website when more become available. Please keep checking back to see availability of previously sold out items. We are unsure of how many of these items we will be able to restock, and prices to replenish from manufacturers and suppliers are starting to rise as demand increases prices. Thank you for your patience and understanding

Again we wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Sincerely,
The JG Team

Cheaper than dirt = out of stock, out of stock, out of stock...


http://cdn1.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/mdprod/2-MGASC223-20RD-AL-G.jpg (http://www.bogley.com/product/2-MGASC223-20RD-AL-G)
2-MGASC223-20RD-AL-G
ASC AR-15 Magazine .223/5.56 20 Rounds Aluminum Gr... (http://www.bogley.com/product/2-MGASC223-20RD-AL-G)
$11.69
http://www.bogley.com/forum/images/pgfunc/outofStockBtn.jpg (http://www.bogley.com/product/2-MGASC223-20RD-AL-G)

http://cdn1.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/mdprod/2-MGASC223-20RD-SS.jpg (http://www.bogley.com/product/2-MGASC223-20RD-SS)
2-MGASC223-20RD-SS
ASC AR-15 Magazine .223/5.56 20 Round Stainless Bl... (http://www.bogley.com/product/2-MGASC223-20RD-SS)
$14.63
http://www.bogley.com/forum/images/pgfunc/outofStockBtn.jpg (http://www.bogley.com/product/2-MGASC223-20RD-SS)

http://cdn1.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/mdprod/2-MGASC223-30RD-AL-G.jpg (http://www.bogley.com/product/2-MGASC223-30RD-AL-G)
2-MGASC223-30RD-AL-G
ASC AR-15 Magazine 5.56 NATO 30 Round Anti-Tilt ... (http://www.bogley.com/product/2-MGASC223-30RD-AL-G)
$12.43
http://www.bogley.com/forum/images/pgfunc/outofStockBtn.jpg (http://www.bogley.com/product/2-MGASC223-30RD-AL-G)

http://cdn1.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/mdprod/2-MGASC223-30RD-SS.jpg (http://www.bogley.com/product/2-MGASC223-30RD-SS)
2-MGASC223-30RD-SS
ASC AR-15 Magazine .223/5.56 NATO 30 Round Stainle... (http://www.bogley.com/product/2-MGASC223-30RD-SS)
$15.03
http://www.bogley.com/forum/images/pgfunc/outofStockBtn.jpg (http://www.bogley.com/product/2-MGASC223-30RD-SS)

PK Firearms is suspending all online and telephone orders until Further Notice. We will update as we know more. It will definitely be after Christmas and most likely after the New Year. Please don't bother to call the Shop unless it pertains to an FFL License or Warranty Issues. Thanks for your business, and we appreciate your understanding. Merry Christmas

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY
DUE TO A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN SALES VOLUME, WE HAVE BEEN FORCED TO TEMPORARILY SUSPEND ONLINE ORDERS. ORDERS ALREADY PLACED MAY TAKE 5-8 DAYS TO PROCESS. MAGAZINE QUANTITIES ARE VERY LIMITED & PRICES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANY TIME!
Unfortunately there will be some orders that cannot be fulfilled due to inventory shortages. We Sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and are doing our best to fill all orders that we can. YOU MAY CALL 800-588-9500 TO PLACE AN ORDER. OUR PHONES HAVE BEEN OVERWHELMED AS WELL AND YOU MAY EXPERIENCE DELAYS IN GETTING THROUGH!
All employees are coming in early and staying late to process orders as fast as we can. CDNN Appreciates Your Patience and Continued Business!

[oldno7]

And yet--even he who screams the loudest and willing to fund a ban, personally,STILL has no clue.:facepalm1:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=w8es6M_9HKk

[2065toyota]

I just got done cleaning and fully loading every gun and clip I have. Not really sure why, but mostly just because I can and wanted to. Also came to wonder if the Ruger 10/22's aren't the gun of choice?

[oldno7]

So, when you are arguing for the reason to ban 30 rd magazines, maybe your argument might hold more weight if you held up a magazine and YOU weren't breaking the law!!!! 30 rd magazines are BANNED in Washington DC. The ban seems to be working well.

[COLOR=#333333][FONT=Arial]

[2065toyota]

I own a high powered pellet gun that has a side load plastic 12 load clip. Guess I better go bury that one also

[Byron]

And yet--even he who screams the loudest and willing to fund a ban, personally,STILL has no clue.:facepalm1:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=w8es6M_9HKkWhat a fu**ing moron. Like I said earlier, I keep waiting for one of these people to say something reasonable...and they say WE'RE the ones with our heads in the clouds?

[oldno7]

cnn is on it!!!!

looks like obama will go to any length to get his message out. Now it appears he has adopted biden


President Obama Sets January Deadline For Gun Proposals(CNN) -- The nation will have a set of recommendations to address widespread gun violence within weeks, President Obama announced Wednesday.

Vice President Joe Obama will lead an inter-agency group to come up with "concrete proposals no later than January -- proposals that I then intend to push without delay," the president said.

[oldno7]

So, when you are arguing for the reason to ban 30 rd magazines, maybe your argument might hold more weight if you held up a magazine and YOU weren't breaking the law!!!! 30 rd magazines are BANNED in Washington DC. The ban seems to be working well.

“No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. A ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’ means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition,” D.C.code states (http://mpdc.dc.gov/page/firearm-registration-general-requirements-study-guide). Violations may include a $1,000 fine or imprisonment for up to a year.




Washington D.C. police investigating whether NBC moderator violated law (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/25/washington-d-c-police-investigating-whether-nbc-moderator-violated-law/)
Posted by
CNN producer Larry Lazo (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/tag/cnn-producer-larry-lazo/)Washington (CNN) – Washington Metropolitan Police Department is investigating whether NBC’s David Gregory violated D.C. gun laws when he displayed what he described as a 30 round magazine as part of an interview during Sunday’s “Meet the Press.”
“So here’s a magazine for ammunition that carries 30 bullets. Now isn’t it possible that if we got rid of these, if we replaced them and said well, you can only have a magazine that carries five bullets or ten bullets, isn’t it just possible that we could reduce the carnage in a situation like Newtown?” show moderator Gregory asked Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.

It’s not known whether the magazine Gregory had in his hand was authentic or a prop. D.C. police spokeswoman Gwen Crump told CNN the department is investigating the matter and would have no further comment at this time.
Possessing a large capacity ammunition device, such as a magazine, isillegal (http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/default.aspx?cite=UUID%28N57E577C030-1B11DEA7CD8-1F2617D4421%29&db=1000869&findtype=VQ&fn=_top&pbc=DA010192&rlt=CLID_FQRLT28310926132512&rp=%2FSearch%2Fdefault.wl&rs=WEBL12.10&service=Find&spa=DCC-1000&sr=TC&vr=2.0) in the District of Columbia if the device holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The code also specifies the large devices are illegal regardless of whether or not they're attached to a firearm. Gregory showed the magazine Sunday without a firearm attached.
NBC’s studios, from which “Meet the Press” is broadcast, are located within city limits. The network did not respond to CNN’s requests for comment.
In the wake of the school shooting in Newtown, gun control advocates have been pushing for a limit on high capacity magazines. Such a restriction is one of the items President Barack Obama mentioned last week when he announced an administration effort to curb violence.
“I don’t believe that’s going to make one difference,” LaPierre told Gregory during the show.
Several conservative commentators first raised the issue of whether Gregory had broken D.C. law by using the magazine.

[Iceaxe]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/71775_10151254727502740_251406953_n.jpg

[2065toyota]

But if the guns are illegal the bad guys wont have them either so we'll all be happy

[rockgremlin]

But if the guns are illegal the bad guys wont have them either so we'll all be happy


:roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::r oflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::rof lol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflo l::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol: :roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::r oflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::rof lol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflo l::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol: :roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::r oflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::rof lol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflo l::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol: :roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::r oflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::rof lol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflo l::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol: :roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::r oflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::rof lol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflo l::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol: :roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::r oflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::rof lol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflo l::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol: :roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::r oflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::rof lol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflo l:


Good one. I think that was the funniest thing I've seen on this forum all year....aside from that "Cat Hijack" thread.

[hank moon]

Seems pretty clear that an assault rifle ban isn't going to change anything.


If we as a society decide to ban these weapons ONCE AND FOR ALL because it is a good idea for the future, then 100 yrs from now (if we are still here), it will have had a positive effect. I think a lot of folks using the argument that gun control measures "won't do anything" are working from a short term view.

[rockgremlin]

If we as a society decide to ban these weapons ONCE AND FOR ALL because it is a good idea for the future, then 100 yrs from now (if we are still here), it will have had a positive effect. I think a lot of folks using the argument that gun control measures "won't do anything" are working from a short term view.


Still seems like squinting at an ideal situation that is almost never going to happen.

Banning assault rifles in the U.S. -- OK, I'm on board. I can see how that could happen. Hell, I almost agree with it.

Banning assault rifles in every nation of the world -- IMPOSSIBLE.

How are you going to enforce your ban on North Korea, China, Israel, Russia, etc, etc, etc? Good luck with that.

[oldno7]

If we as a society decide to ban these weapons ONCE AND FOR ALL because it is a good idea for the future, then 100 yrs from now (if we are still here), it will have had a positive effect. I think a lot of folks using the argument that gun control measures "won't do anything" are working from a short term view.

Short term??
Ever hear of the Bill of Rights??
Went into affect in 1791!!
Seems it has worked rather well for 221years....
The Bill of Rights are Amendments to the Constitution, to protect the rights of the "people".

Would love to see your documentation showing the ban of any particular weapon will have a "positive effect"

Once again--I would be glad to attach links if you are un familiar with the Bill of Rights.

[hank moon]

How are you going to enforce your ban on North Korea, China, Israel, Russia, etc, etc, etc? Good luck with that.

clarification: my post refers only to a U.S. ban.

[oldno7]

Heres the 2nd Amendment:

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.

[Iceaxe]

clarification: my post refers only to a U.S. ban.

The only way I'm giving up my guns is bullets first. If you want them, come and get them.

At some point in time with any ban that actually removes guns from the street you will have to find someone willing to physically enter homes and confiscate them... good luck with that.

Sent using Tapatalk

[rockgremlin]

clarification: my post refers only to a U.S. ban.


Ah. Still....bad guys are very adept at smuggling. In my opinion they would all have to go the way of the Dodo in order to be completely banned. And that's a tall order.

And just to throw in a little moderation...I wonder if when the constitution was written there existed assault rifles (I know, I know - asenine scenario), that the founding fathers would still have granted the general populace access to them?

Discuss.

[rockgremlin]

At some point in time with any ban that actually removes guns from the street you will have to find someone willing to physically enter homes and confiscate them... good luck with that.


That's been my stance all along. They can ban them, but it's going to take a door-to-door campaign to completely eradicate them all. And that will never happen.

And then there's that issue about AW getting smuggled in over borders, yada yada yada....I'd sooner believe in Santa Claus as believe in a complete AW ban.

[oldno7]

And just to throw in a little moderation...I wonder if when the constitution was written there existed assault rifles (I know, I know - asenine scenario), that the founding fathers would still have granted the general populace access to them?

Discuss.

So, to go there--lets go here.
First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Certainly at the time of the BOR, when long distance communication was via horseback and a "press" was a mechanical device one inserted block letters into, they knew of landlines, cell phones, ipads, computers, etc, Right?

That argument has never held.

[Iceaxe]

And just to throw in a little moderation...I wonder if when the constitution was written there existed assault rifles (I know, I know - asenine scenario), that the founding fathers would still have granted the general populace access to them?

Assault rifles were in existence when the Constitution was written, but at the time they were called muskets. But just to be clear, they were the same type of firearm used by every modern army on the planet at the time.

[hank moon]

That's been my stance all along. They can ban them, but it's going to take a door-to-door campaign to completely eradicate them all. And that will never happen.

And then there's that issue about AW getting smuggled in over borders, yada yada yada....I'd sooner believe in Santa Claus as believe in a complete AW ban.

Some things take time...and the goal of moderate gun control is not to "completely eradicate" anything. That is impossible. Nor is the goal to "take away" anything (as previously discussed). It would be helpful if we didn't have to rehash the same points every couple of days. Progress is made by agreeing on certain fundamentals and moving from there. Can we agree that we don't need to talk about:

1) The gov't physically "taking away" guns from existing owners (i.e. 'pry from cold dead fingers'). There is no rational basis for such belief. I think some use it to avoid and/or end discussion. A kind of strawman variant.
2) Gun control that attempts to immediately solve some problem that clearly has no quick solution. Some things take time.
3) Impossible absolutes such as complete eradication of some type of gun. We still have black powder weapons and enthusiasts. Always will*.

What say you?

[hank moon]

Assault rifles were in existence when the Constitution was written, but at the time they were called muskets. But just to be clear, they were the same type of firearm used by every modern army on the planet at the time.

Yes, things were then a bit more equal, then. But...weapons technology aside, one of the biggest changes that might influence a "we the people armed with AR-15s" vs. "them the gov't armed with drones, tanks, and nukes" is a world that holds different expectations from those of 200-odd years ago. In a purely physical contest between "organized militia" and Uncle Sam, the latter would clearly prevail. It is only the more civilized expectations of the civilized world that would save the poor freedom fighters from rapid extinction. That, and Twitter.

[rockgremlin]

Some things take time...and the goal of moderate gun control is not to "completely eradicate" anything. That is impossible. Nor is the goal to "take away" anything (as previously discussed). It would be helpful if we didn't have to rehash the same points every couple of days. Progress is made by agreeing on certain fundamentals and moving from there. Can we agree that we don't need to talk about:

1) The gov't physically "taking away" guns from existing owners (i.e. 'pry from cold dead fingers'). There is no rational basis for such belief. I think some use it to avoid and/or end discussion. A kind of strawman variant.
2) Gun control that attempts to immediately solve some problem that clearly has no quick solution. Some things take time.
3) Impossible absolutes such as complete eradication of some type of gun. We still have black powder weapons and enthusiasts. Always will*.

What say you?


I think this is a reasonable stance. I can agree with those points.

My apologies for rehashing some above points. I fell out of the discussion for a little while and just rejoined the discussion today,

[Iceaxe]

Some things take time...and the goal of moderate gun control is not to "completely eradicate" anything. That is impossible. Nor is the goal to "take away" anything

I disagree.... gun control as being discussed by Congress takes away part of my rights given to me under the 2nd amendment. I don't intend to give away any of those rights, or the rights of future generations without a fight... and I'm not alone.

And I disagree with your version of extinction of the freedom fighter.... it doesn't matter how many tanks and planes you have... so long as the citizens of the US are armed they can never be defeated if they chose to fight. As I mentioned before. The most feared weapon on the battlefield is still the lone soldier with a high powered rifle.



Sent using Tapatalk

[Byron]

I keep waiting for the "rational discussion" to begin. On one side, you have folks like me...champions of the 2nd, and on the other, you have folks that want to "do SOMETHING". O.K., do what?

Limit mags? Ban any gun that goes "rat, tat tat?" Those two things are all I'm hearing, and neither is going to happen. Even if no one owned a gun that could fire no more that 6 rounds at a time before reloading, those ate up dudes will still take people out. Some guy with two revolvers corners 10 people...the result is a mass shooting.

The best solution is obvious to me...arm yourself. That's it, end of discussion. It's like this:

"Byron, we need to have a discussion about gun control"
"No, we don't"
"But you're being unreasonable"
"No, I'm not"

They may as well have a debate with a brick wall. You wanna talk? O.K., come up with a way to head guys like Lanza off at the pass and you'll get my attention.

[Iceaxe]

^^^THIS^^^

Tell me a way to stop criminals for using guns illegally and I'm all ears.

:cool2:

You are never going to be able to put the gun genie back in the bottle.

[oldno7]

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!!!!

The Amendments to the constitution GUARANTEE RIGHTS of the people!!!

[oldno7]

No where does it say these amendments are good ideas--It states they are RIGHTS of the people.

[oldno7]

Lets make this easy--

I suggest we round up ALL gays/muslims/mentally ill, and send them to Guantanamo--Then in 100 years, this country will be better.

[Brian in SLC]

Ahhh..but for those first three words in the 2nd Amendment...

"A well regulated..."

Better access to better mental health care would help.

One does wonder about "regulating" though. I'm not afraid of my government. I wouldn't hunt with an "assault weapon".

Be interesting to see with the folks come up with. After all, its a "government of the people, by the people, for the people."

Power to the people!

[Iceaxe]

Ahhh..but for those first three words in the 2nd Amendment...

"A well regulated..."

That is an old issue used by the anti-gun crowd in an attempt to regulate firearms. That isssue has now been resolved.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia.



In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

[oldno7]

First I've seen this....And it's from nbc



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wcF3X0zJe5s

[oldno7]

hmmm--can't find any further documentation of the video.

Was it a voice over?

I would think breaking news of that caliber would be everywhere.

[Glockguy]

There have been some strange instances with this event. I am not willing to put on the tin foil yet, but wish they could release more facts.

There is a video of LE at night taking what is clearly a Saiga 12 gauge shotgun out of the trunk. The LEO removes the fat magazine and ejects a red 12 gauge shell. These shotguns look a lot like an AK-47. I have not heard any mention of the Saiga.

[Iceaxe]

I Agree.... I would not put away the tin foil hat for a long time.

From the Sandy Hooks Thread (http://www.bogley.com/forum/showthread.php?66820).


A couple other things I learned after reading the book Columbine.... don't believe one word that comes out of any cops mouth, the cops lied about what really happened at Columbine for several years, even going as far as destroying evidence that made them look bad.... and the reporters were even worse.

Here is the book if anyone is interested, its a good read:
http://www.amazon.com/Columbine-Dave-Cullen/dp/0446546925

[oldno7]

Lets make this easy--

I suggest we round up ALL gays/muslims/mentally ill, and send them to Guantanamo--Then in 100 years, this country will be better.

Of course this could not and should not happen. My point is that all citizens in the US are protected from this by a combination of the 1st,7th,9th, 14th amendments.
So if it's important to protect these peoples RIGHTS, why is it not equally important to protect the freedom of law abiding gun owners? Who's RIGHTS are guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment.
I've said it before--the BOR's is not an al-lacarte menu. It's an ALL encompassing framework that has and does protect all citizens. When it becomes inconvenient to back an Amendment that does not affect you,think how inconvenient it will be when your cause is under attack.

[accadacca]

Early gun buy back in L.A.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqsnV_kdWIM&sns=em

[Iceaxe]

My take all along is if you believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights you must defend them all, not just the ones that you like.

:cool2:

[oldno7]

Heres the cliff notes on feinsteins gun BAN

Pretty much all inclusive of ANY semi automatic, by stating banning any semi automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun that "CAN" accept larger mags.

ANY semiautomatic firearm is capable of being used with clips in excess of 10 rds. But hey, it's only words.

And of course continuing to own a firearm requires registration and fingerprinting along with a note from local law enforcement that they think it's o.k. for you to own a firearm.


[COLOR=#000000][FONT=tahoma]Summary of 2013 Feinstein Assault Weapons Legislation

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:

 120 specifically-named firearms

 Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a
detachable magazine and have one military characteristic

 Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept
more than 10 rounds

Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:

 Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test

 Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from
the characteristics test

 Banning firearms with

[rockgremlin]

Los Angeles mayor looks like an underground mob boss thug. Kinda smells like one too.

[Eric Holden]

Los Angeles mayor looks like an underground mob boss thug. Kinda smells like one too.

Ah I see you met Tony Villar... He is a local hero around these parts. Him and Schwarzenegger.

[rockgremlin]

Ah I see you met Tony Villar... He is a local hero around these parts. Him and Schwarzenegger.


Kinda looks like he made it into office the Latin America way....nepotism, connections, and blood money.

[hank moon]

You are never going to be able to put the gun genie back in the bottle.

Rockgremlin, it is this kind of statement that i was talking about before ("rehash"). Ice, why do you say this? No-one is discussing anything like the points you keep making. Can we have a discussion here or will you keep tossing out strawmen? This is an honest question to you. Maybe we can't have a discussion, and that's cool. LMK.

[hank moon]

My take all along is if you believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights you must defend them all, not just the ones that you like.

:cool2:

Can you explain precisely how the 2nd amendment (individual right to own and bear arms) is under threat? It should be obvious that this right does not include the right to own and bear any kind of weapon whatsoever. If you choose to draw the line at semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines, can you explain why? I do not accept "slippery slope" arguments as they are based in supposition.

IF you seriously think you can't live w/o an AR-15, I am totally open to hearing that viewpoint, 'cuz I honestly don't understand it

[rockgremlin]

Rockgremlin, it is this kind of statement that i was talking about before ("rehash"). Ice, why do you say this? No-one is discussing anything like the points you keep making. Can we have a discussion here or will you keep tossing out strawmen? This is an honest question to you. Maybe we can't have a discussion, and that's cool. LMK.


Yeah I see your frustration Hank, and I share in it to an extent. I am somewhat divided on the issue. I refuse to agree with either extreme -- IOW, I reject an outright ban, but I also believe that current gun laws may be improved. There has to be a reasonable middle-ground. To bury your head in the sand on either side of the fence is not forward progress.

[hank moon]

Yeah I see your frustration Hank, and I share in it to an extent. I am somewhat divided on the issue. I refuse to agree with either extreme -- IOW, I reject an outright ban, but I also believe that current gun laws may be improved. There has to be a reasonable middle-ground. To bury your head in the sand on either side of the fence is not forward progress.

Yes, there is some middle ground. Lemme see if I can dig it up here...must be under this pile of moldy strawmen. :haha: WHat do you mean by "outright ban"?

[Iceaxe]

IF you seriously think you can't live w/o an AR-15, I am totally open to hearing that viewpoint, 'cuz I honestly don't understand it


I get it that you are honestly trying to understand the problem and I really appriciate that.


First off you really need to read this as it will save me hours of trying to explain the sutle differences in firearms:
http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

My problem is basically this.... there is absolutely no difference between a nasty looking AR-15

62274


And the cute pink gun I gave my daughter for her birthday.

http://www.bogley.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=62175&d=1356137420


Unless you are going to outlaw guns painted black, there is absolutely no method of legislating one out of existence and not outlawing the other.

For the record... The picture below is the exact same rifle (Ruger 10-22) that Sierra is holding in the picture above. It just has a different stock and is painted black instead of pink

62275

The pink gun looks cute and fun to shoot, the black gun looks evil and scary. But they are the same gun, both just as deadly, or fun.... Does that help you understand the problem?

FWIW: That Ruger 10-22 Sierra is holding is one of the most popular sporting rifles on the planet. I would be hard to find a gun owning family in Utah that doesn't have at least one in the family. Last time I looked thay had sold over 5 million of them.

[Byron]

Ice...that is outstanding. Hank, I'm eagerly awaiting your reply.

[Sandstone Addiction]

http://www.americanhunter.org/Webcontent/images/2009-9/2009915-remington_m.jpg

http://www.mossyoak.com/absolutenm/articlefiles/2048-R%2025.jpg

http://www.oa2.org/Ar15Hunter/images/stories/travis_buck.jpg



http://www.grousecreek.com/Images/Hunting/2004%20Chuck-BridgerKimber-2.JPG


:phew: Good thing finestine doesn't want to take away my hunting rifles. [sarcasm]{

[Sandstone Addiction]

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/27312_324734904307250_1873390119_n.jpg

[Bluff-Canyoneer]

So, for you "gun toters" is there ANY acceptable limit on what type of arms a private citizen can own? RPGs, claymore mines, nuclear bombs?
It seems we have to draw a line somewhere. If so, the question becomes where.

No right is without limits. Try yelling "fire" in a crowed theater then arguing with the judge that you were just exercising your first amendment right. If the right to free speech, perhaps our most cherished, has limits, why is the second amendment without limits?

[Iceaxe]

There is nothing wrong with the current line. Just enforce the laws already on the books.

Currently you can't own automatic weapons, claymores, tanks etc without a lot of paperwork, money, background checks etc.... they are not within reach of the average citizen....

Sent using Tapatalk

[2065toyota]

At some point somebody in pro ban arena needs to provide compelling evidence of how changing the current gun laws will improve the safety of the citizens. Nothing based on an emotional decision or a hope that it can become better. There is plenty of evidence that correlates strict gun laws with high crime rates. I'm here to listen if something intellectual can be said.

[Iceaxe]

At some point somebody in pro ban arena needs to provide compelling evidence of how changing the current gun laws will improve the safety of the citizens.

There is none. The UK and Australia are the two models held up by the anti gun crowd. And both have had major increases in violent crimes since their gun bans.

The assault weapons ban being proposed to congress is the same one we had 10 years ago... and every study to date says that ban had no measurable effect.

The gun genie is out of the bottle. Its not something you can magically put back in the bottle.

Every proposal I have seen to date only takes rights away from law abiding citizens and does nothing to stop crime or criminals.

The only new gun law I can think of that might have some effect is to require gun owners to store weapons in a secure place (gun safe). And hold those that don't accountable.


Sent using Tapatalk

[oldno7]

At some point somebody in pro ban arena needs to provide compelling evidence of how changing the current gun laws will improve the safety of the citizens. Nothing based on an emotional decision or a hope that it can become better. There is plenty of evidence that correlates strict gun laws with high crime rates. I'm here to listen if something intellectual can be said.

But ya gotta love it when someone considers the 2nd Amendment a strawman.

And BC, respectfully, just as Shane mentioned, the laws are already in place for what you see as a problem.

Look at Chicago's murder rate for 2012 thus far and they have the strictest gun laws!

Lots of EVIDENCE showing compelling reasons why taking something away from law abiding citizens, is bad policy.

[Brian in SLC]

The UK and Australia are the two models held up by the anti gun crowd. And both have had major increases in violent crimes since their gun bans.

Increase in violent crimes involving guns? My bet is no way.

"Major increases"? Lets see your data and source. No way.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Yeah, I'm gonna toss wiki into it:

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

http://world.time.com/2012/12/17/when-massacres-force-change-lessons-from-the-u-k-and-australia/

If you got one gun death in a town of 1 million people, and, the next year there was 2, is that were your huge increase is coming from? Let's see some "rate per 100k of people" type data. Apples to apples.

Common sense would dictate that if there weren't any guns at all, none, then, there wouldn't be any gun violence. Duh.

Does less mean more? "Lies, damn lies, and statistics."

And, really, Ice, no difference between a 10-22 and an AR15 (and/or clone) in 5.56 and/or .223? You're silly. Wanna buy a bridge? Maybe you'd like to trade for some airsoft items...ha ha.

Crazy stuff.

Unfortunately, folks on the extreme ends of the issue will seem to have more say in the goings on of any legislation rather than the seemingly more rational folks in the middle. Which is how it goes, I suppose...whacky system we got. Oh well...

[Bluff-Canyoneer]

And BC, respectfully, just as Shane mentioned, the laws are already in place for what you see as a problem.

Look at Chicago's murder rate for 2012 thus far and they have the strictest gun laws!

Lots of EVIDENCE showing compelling reasons why taking something away from law abiding citizens, is bad policy.

Let's be clear: I am a gun owner, though it is way down on my list of most prized possessions. I was just trying to promote "discussion" as opposed to "taking sides" in a dispute. I agree that taking guns away from law abiding citizens is a bad idea, but still struggle with where the line is for what types of guns we want in our hands.

[oldno7]

Increase in violent crimes involving guns? My bet is no way.

"Major increases"? Lets see your data and source. No way.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Yeah, I'm gonna toss wiki into it:

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

http://world.time.com/2012/12/17/when-massacres-force-change-lessons-from-the-u-k-and-australia/

If you got one gun death in a town of 1 million people, and, the next year there was 2, is that were your huge increase is coming from? Let's see some "rate per 100k of people" type data. Apples to apples.

Common sense would dictate that if there weren't any guns at all, none, then, there wouldn't be any gun violence. Duh.

Does less mean more? "Lies, damn lies, and statistics."

And, really, Ice, no difference between a 10-22 and an AR15 (and/or clone) in 5.56 and/or .223? You're silly. Wanna buy a bridge? Maybe you'd like to trade for some airsoft items...ha ha.

Crazy stuff.

Unfortunately, folks on the extreme ends of the issue will seem to have more say in the goings on of any legislation rather than the seemingly more rational folks in the middle. Which is how it goes, I suppose...whacky system we got. Oh well...

Brian
Go to post # 157, some statistics there

[oldno7]

Let's be clear: I am a gun owner, though it is way down on my list of most prized possessions. I was just trying to promote "discussion" as opposed to "taking sides" in a dispute. I agree that taking guns away from law abiding citizens is a bad idea, but still struggle with where the line is for what types of guns we want in our hands.

This article has some good points:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/12/28/gun-control-tramples-on-the-certain-virtues-of-a-heavily-armed-citizenry/

If someone is to draw the line at "guns with military characteristics", that would be most every gun in the United States, almost all are a military derivative.

[Brian in SLC]

Brian
Go to post # 157, some statistics there

Ahh, dimly remember you posted that.

From the same source:

"Over the past two decades, an average of 19 people per year have been killed by offenders using firearms."

In a country of 22 million people...19 per year. That's flat amazing. Wonder why?

[SIZE=2]"The number of homicide victims killed by offenders using firearms decreased from 14 percent in 2008

[Brian in SLC]

So, homicide rate by firearm in Australia is what, .086 per 100,000 people (someone check my math!). I see another source that has it at .09. Combined with suicide its 1.05.

Switzerlands is reported as .52 per 100,000. Does that make sense as they have more firearms? When you include suicides they jump up to 3.5.

I'm not seeing a strong correlation between the Swiss being armed and being more "polite" than the Aussies.

US is 3.7 for homicide, 10.2 combined.

Damn, folks kill themselves with guns.

Its interesting. I'd probably see more kinship with Australia, socially, than Switzerland.

Interesting...

[Iceaxe]

Brian, my point (which you obviously missed) with the AR 15 and Ruger 10-22 is how do you ban one without banning the other? One is considered the ultimate killing firearm and the other recognized as one of the finest recreational firearms around.

I'm still waiting for a reasonable answer on that from anyone. The only difference is really the cartridge, and even that begins to blur when you consider the Ruger also came cambered in 22 mag and 17 HMR.

So... feel free to answer the question above at any time.

As for OZ, I'm not where I can look it up for the next few days as I'm typing this from my phone. But there is a white paper by Queensland's leading government weapons expert available on line.

The deal with OZ is by banning firearms they have basically solved one problem and created a bunch of new ones. One of the static's I do remember is strong arm crimes was way up. The experts conclusion was... if you look at just crimes committed with a firearm, then yes, the OZ ban appears to be working, but if you look at crime as a whole since the ban it was up something like 50% and the ban was a failure.

Anyhoo... you seem to have plenty of time at the moment and I know you can Google so you should be able to find it.

Sent using Tapatalk

[Iceaxe]

FWIW: anther example of trading one problem for anther... in Australia the rate of suicide by firearm has fallen since the ban. This figure is always mentioned by anti-gun groups as part of the "successful" ban.... but... the rate of suicide by hanging has increased by the same percentage, which is never mentioned by anti-gun groups.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12882416

And notice the referencs is not Wiki.... while I appriciate Wiki as a referance resource, please don't present it to support an argument. Unless I can pull "facts" from the NRA website to support my arguments. :haha:

Sent using Tapatalk

[Iceaxe]

Not the white paper I was looking for.... but....

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

April 13, 2009

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:


In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.


Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:


Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.


While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.

Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," D.C. Examiner, April 8, 2009.

[oldno7]

At least jesse jackson gets it:crazy::crazy::crazy:

about halfway down is his interview by CNN


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/scattered-shower-of-journalism-cnn-confronts-jesse-jackson-over-chicagos-high-gun-violence-despite-draconian-gun-laws/