I had it pointed out to me

[JackLuis]

And claiming he won't do anything even though he has a chance to is why you would get called not to bright on this point. Your subsequent explanation might be a reason why much won't get done; it doesn't support your flat claim that he won't take the chance to try to do something. It more correctly explains why he might not have a chance to get something done. Your claim was that he had a chance; your explanation reverses that. So, I stick with my belief that you haven't been too bright on this point.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

There are just too many people not using their brains on this issue.

You also seem to have missed the point that I don't give a rat's ass who puts me on ignore--or claims to.

I see now. I agree that there are a lot of people not using their brains.

I said that Obama wouldn't do anything (that will push the Repubs into power,) but gee you must not be real bright to think that Laws can be made that aren't specific.

A man of your intellect and experience should know that Washington isn't going to DO anything but whine and beg for money.

I didn't miss the point, I was just pointing out that when you get on your high horse you sound like an asshole. Maybe it's the change of media?

 

[sr71plt]

I'll bite. Quote what I posted about "laws can be made that aren't specific."

Ahem, Jack. You were going to back up this claim?

 

[Weird Harold]

But you don't just "outlaw" the guns. You pass a law and you provide lead time -- six months, a year -- as an amnesty period for people to turn their guns in. Give them money for them, whatever. As Australia did. They would only be criminals if they kept their guns after the enforcement date, which would mean they broke the law.

Yes, Australia bought back 700,000 newly banned weapons. There are 300 MILLION firearms in the US. If we can't get congress to fund enforcement of a national background check, where are we going to get the money to buy-back up to 200 million guns?

I prefer to work towards something achievable instead of spouting platitudes and unrealistic plans to disarm America. Banning and possibly even buying-back extended magazines we might be able to do. Requiring plugs in magazines to reduce capacity to five rounds, we might be able to get passed and enforce.

Buying back any significant portion of the 300 MILLION firearms in the US isn't going to be in the federal budget any time soon.

 

[Weird Harold]

Oh, finally someone who cuts through all this shit about whether this or that gun is technically defined as a semi-automatic or not. I'm so fed up with reading this excuse all over.

If you want to ban something, you need to be able to describe it accurately.

Automatic weapons have been severely restricted since 1934. Nobody really has a problem with that ban because the weapons restricted are adequately described (according to function, not according to appearance,) and the description hasn't required updating even though perhaps another hundred fully automatic firearms have been invented and produced since the Firearms Act of 1934.

If it is desired to "ban" semi-automatics as well, then it is necessary to describe semi-automatics clearly -- without leaving loopholes in the description that allows a few cosmetic changes (like those made to the Bushmaster) to make a weapon legal again.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yes, Australia bought back 700,000 newly banned weapons. There are 300 MILLION firearms in the US. If we can't get congress to fund enforcement of a national background check, where are we going to get the money to buy-back up to 200 million guns?

I prefer to work towards something achievable instead of spouting platitudes and unrealistic plans to disarm America. Banning and possibly even buying-back extended magazines we might be able to do. Requiring plugs in magazines to reduce capacity to five rounds, we might be able to get passed and enforce.

Buying back any significant portion of the 300 MILLION firearms in the US isn't going to be in the federal budget any time soon.

We should create a special levy on the companies that made and sold them in the first place. A superfund for environmental cleanup.

Like the one that BP Amoco is trying to weasel out of.

But that's just me, being peevish.

 

[Weird Harold]

We should create a special levy on the companies that made and sold them in the first place. A superfund for environmental cleanup.

You could try to get that kind of law passed, but I wouldn't hold my breath -- unless you're very fond of being blue.

 

[sr71plt]

If it is desired to "ban" semi-automatics as well, then it is necessary to describe semi-automatics clearly -- without leaving loopholes in the description that allows a few cosmetic changes (like those made to the Bushmaster) to make a weapon legal again.

No it isn't. What's going to get the body count down is to ban anything that fires more than one round between delayed triggering. You don't have to define it further than that. Then you have a buy-back program; and then you go after anything not turned in. And you make it illegal for them to be manufactured and sold to anyone but the federal government, which has them individually identified and handed out only as needed for the government. No, you won't get them all. But every one you get will help.

Anything short of that isn't getting to the goal and is just the slight of hand trick we've been getting for years.

It may take a series of laws to get there, but if you don't take the first step, you aren't headed anywhere but where we now are. And that's working a charm, isn't it?

Neither you nor anyone else here has given a reasonable defense of needing a personal weapon that fires anything more than a single round with each delayed triggering.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You could try to get that kind of law passed, but I wouldn't hold my breath -- unless you're very fond of being blue.

"holding ones breath" is not the way to effect change.

 

[sr71plt]

TV entertainment programs scramble to respond to the Connecticut shootings:

http://my.earthlink.net/article/ent?guid=20121217/1389616d-3087-42db-a83a-e152514dee4b

 

[JackLuis]

I'll bite. Quote what I posted about "laws can be made that aren't specific."

Ahem, Jack. You were going to back up this claim?

I was referring to the point WH brought up. That laws that are not specific can hardly be enforced and until you can specify what you want illegal, it is just blathering. It also helps if it it was legal before your law is passed so that your new law isn't redundant.

Your point about Auto- vs- Semi-auto capability is a little silly, as full automatics have been heavily controlled since 1934. Do try to keep up.

I fully understand you motivation but wonder if you understand the causes of the problem. Not to say that I fully understand this kid's motivations.

 

[sr71plt]

I was referring to the point WH brought up. That laws that are not specific can hardly be enforced and until you can specify what you want illegal, it is just blathering. It also helps if it it was legal before your law is passed so that your new law isn't redundant.

Your point about Auto- vs- Semi-auto capability is a little silly, as full automatics have been heavily controlled since 1934. Do try to keep up.

I fully understand you motivation but wonder if you understand the causes of the problem. Not to say that I fully understand this kid's motivations.

I made no point distinguishing auto from semi at all. Point out where I did. These fake quotes of mine are really piling up Jack. And I have posted specifically what I think needs to be done in the way of enforced law more than anyone else on this thread has, including you.

Let's see you cite those quotes of mine you claim I made.

 

[sr71plt]

Although we, of course, will have to see what pans out, it looks like more is going on in Washington on the gun control issue than you prematurely declared wouldn't happen, Jack:

http://my.earthlink.net/article/pol?guid=20121217/3d3e0b72-01d8-40d0-bf8f-b26e78aa3e3e

 

[mikey2much]

Sr71plt, are you saying single shot bolt action?

If so you are not going to get anybody to agree with that. I don't understand what you mean by 'delayed triggering'

 

[sr71plt]

If so you are not going to get anybody to agree with that. I don't understand what you mean by 'delayed triggering'

I mean you just don't hold the trigger down and it keeps firing more rounds. Again, I'm not the least bit interested in the technical mealymouthing. I'm interested in the effect. It has to be something that gives enough pause between shots that you can't just mow 20 people down in a minute and they have a chance to take you down. Try some common sense and stop the fascination with the different types of gun action. This fascination with the technicals is key to being the problem.

 

[TE999]

There's an old saying to the effect that "Locks are to keep honest people out"; it's the same things with guns. Disarming the law abiding populace because of a few shooting incidents isn't going to do squat to stop gun violence. Then only criminals and cops will have guns and the average homeowner will be defenseless.

Sure, there are going to be accidents with guns, but a lot more people die in car wrecks than are shot accidentally; shall we ban cars?

Any semi-auto weapon can be converted to full auto with a few parts. This is usually done by or for criminals and terrorists. The world is crammed with semi-auto and full auto weapons and criminals in any country can get them if they want them. Laws don't matter to them, it's what they do.

In regards to availability of full auto weapons for instance; over 100 million AK-47's (Assault Kalashnikov-1947) assault rifles and their variants are known to exist in the world and more are being made or modified every day. People who want them, get them. Arms smuggling is a billion dollar business.

Gang bangers in every city and town routinely shoot it out with such auto and semi-auto weapons as MAC-10's, Uzi's, H&K MP-5's, AK-47's and many others. These incidents are rarely reported beyond the local news outlets. They sure as hell didn't buy those babies in any Wal-Mart or gun store. They're against the law, doncha know.

Bolt action or trigger actuated single shot weapons in the hands of a shooter can kill just as effectively as a semi-auto or full auto weapon, it just takes a little longer, seconds in fact. JFK was killed by a bolt action rifle, Garfield and McKinley by revolvers, Lincoln by a derringer.

Short version: Gun control might be a nice dream and it pops up every time there's a tragedy like this most recent one, but it's both impractical and virtually impossible and criminals won't give a shit about it anyway.

 

[njlauren]

If you had read my other posts, you would have realized that I am not a gun owner, and I support gun restrictions. I was commenting on previous post from another contributor. I am hesitant to call anyone a POS when she was shot by her own child. Less anger and more compassion is called for here. Too much judgmentalism has already alienated people from getting the mental health care that they desperately needed. It's very hard to see the people in your own family as dangerously ill. I was raised in a household with guns, but I have never had any desire to own or fire a gun myself. Over 20 years ago, I was a teacher in high school that had a school shooting. So I know first hand what those teachers and students were feeling on Friday. During my first year of teaching, I attended five funerals for students that were killed due to gang related/gun activity. Nothing is more wrenching than burying a child. I left teaching, but I have so much respect for teachers.

Here are some comments from my previous post:

Long Island Train Shooting in 1993

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the points made by the witnesses of the Long Island train shootings in 1993 was the fact that less ammo would have given people time to jump the shooter when he had to reload. Unless a person is trained in the use of deadly force, the use of a gun in time of high stress with adrenaline pumping through your system would be dicey at best. Most people would hesitate to fire into a crowd for fear of hitting a bystander. Unfortunately, the psychological advantage of having a huge magazine clip is what gives some nutcases the confidence to attack a group of people. Most law enforced professionals will tell you that a cell phone and a plan to save yourself are better defense than having a gun. The other things that are always stressed to women are to not let yourself be taken a secondary crime scene.

neko, I wasn't talking about you when I wrote what I did, I was talking wayne la pierre and many of the NRA types, the type who think that anyone should be able to own any gun or ammunition that want. The types I am talking about tried to fight bans on teflon ammunition (whose only use is to penetrate bullet proof vests and was furiously fought for by cops and law enforcement and fought against by the NRA, backed very strongly by what I presume were the 'right wing militias' who I would gather were getting ready to fight the government) and talon bullets whose only purpose is to gut whoever gets shot. There is absolutely no justification for assault weapons to be in the hands of civilians, yet that type insists anyone should be able to own them *sigh*.

If the son had gone out and gotten guns outside the home and killed the mother then killed the kids, I could feel sympathy for the mother, but to do what she did, having weapons available to a kid with issues and worse, making sure the kid knew how to use them, and especially a semi automatic assault weapon like an AR15, is unconscionable. Worse, the kid had hundreds of rounds of ammo and a bullet proof vest, where did he get the money for them? I assume she paid for them, and if so, on what grounds do you buy a kid a bullet proof vest and not wonder what he wanted it for? Yes, it is hard to have a mentally ill or otherwise burdened child, but what she did borders on the level of either criminal stupidity or quite frankly mental illness herself, someone once defined insanity as someone who does something that has happened before and expects different results. How many times have we had people with mental health issues who later went on to go out and kill people, we had aurora not that long ago, and the light didn't go off that having a 20 year old child who can barely function around guns isn't exactly a recipe for a good ending?

Put it this way, there was a boy on the block I live on who is autistic, grew up here, as he got to be teenaged there were problems with him, he became very aggressive , would curse people out, could get out of control, and the parents recognized this and made sure to keep the boy on a short leash, they recognized that as a young kid, when he would tend to wander into people's yards and such, was okay (people kept an eye out for him), that it was okay, but when he grew into a young man who could hurt someone, they were a lot more careful, and that was a house where they don't have guns........it is very hard to accept that a kid is mentally ill, has problems, but this kid was 20 and had a long, long history of having problems, with schools, with relationships, and teaching him to use guns and allowing him access was quite frankly criminally negligent, it would be like letting a 7 year old kid play with matches around gasoline cans and spilled gas.

 

[njlauren]

You obviously haven't read many of my posts on the subject. I'm in favor of EFFECTIVE gun control legislation. (the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 is one such.)

I have no use for Ms Feinstein's worthless assault weapons ban proposal because it is simply a rehash of the ban that expired in 2004 -- which accomplished nothing. I have no use for feel-good eye-wash legislation that simply satisfies the "there oughtta be a law" knee-jerk reaction.

I also don't see any point in banging one's head against Supreme Court precedent or Constitutional amendments either. Effective laws can be crafted without denying the realities of existing restrictions on gun control.

The assault weapon ban did nothing, really? Before that ban was put into place, the streets were flooded with tek10's, AK47's, UZI's, the murder rate in NYC was well over 2500 people a year. When that ban went into effect gang members and the like no longer had as easy access to these weapons and the kill rates went way down. It got so bad that the drug gang members described the kids they killed as 'mushrooms' , that the kids were like mushrooms that popped up in their field of fire. If we banned private ownership of these weapons it would mean the only source of supply would be the black market fed by weapons imported from overseas, since you wouldnt have these weapons being sold by gun shops and the like that feeds prob 70% of the black market..and if you cut down supply, the price goes up. Before the last ban, assault weapons were cheap, you could buy them on the street for 400 bucks..after the ban, their street value rose into the several thousands of dollar range (I got those figures from a tough NYC detective who was a friend of a friend). You kill supply, and the price goes up assuming demand remands at present levels, fact of life...and there is simply no reason for people to own these weapons, they have no value except macho swagger and stupidity.

 

[njlauren]

If one emphasizes the militia clause, the Second Amendment can be construed as only permitting weapons useful as militia weapons -- like a fully functional AK47 or M16 variant.



You're apparently concerned primarily with preventing the 20th or 30th fatality. I'm more concerned with finding a way to prevent the FIRST fatality. Knee-jerk calls for banning "assault weapons" don't address either viewpoint.

You're welcome to try to fight the supreme court precedent(s) and Constitutional law if you want. It's going to be a very long and fruitless fight, but you're welcome to tilt at that windmill if you so desire.

I personally prefer to look for ways to address the problem that don't take on the entrenched and obdurate forces involved in the "gun control" debate. Better mental health care, better information sharing among law-enforcement agencies, better enforcement of existing laws, a federal standard for concealed carry qualifications, etc. Those are things that can be addressed now, without running into the "fixed fortifications" of pro or anti-gun factions.

If we followed the second amendment clause involving militia, then anyone owning an M16 or AK47 would need to be a formal part of the militia (national guard) and Nancy Lanza would not have an AR15 since a 54 year old woman is not exactly prime candidate to be in the guard. Right wing types love to bring up Switzerland, where men between the ages of I believe 17 and 49 are required to be part of the militia and have weapons in their home, and they point to that as 'proof' that the damn liberals lie...what they leave out is that in switzerland, if they mishandled the guns the way a lot of morons in this country do in this country, if they pulled crap like tried selling the guns into the black market, they can't just say "I dunno what happened, I must have done lost it"..the guns are accounted for, and there is no willy nilly gun collections, the guns they have are for a reason. Very different mentality then some beer bellied redneck with a trailerful of guns gonna fight off the black helicopters or refight the civil war.

I think the founders intended the second amendment to be about a civil militia, but I also think the way it is written that it gives people the right to own weapons. But as you point out, that right is not without burdens, despite what the NRA believes, all rights have burdens, and nothing in that amendment says you have the right to own any particular weapon. I would love to go in front of the supreme court and challenge scalia and make him look like a buffoon, he is famous for saying the founders never intended there to be a right to privacy, I would make the argument that people can own guns but only guns that the founders intended, which were muzzle loading muskets and pistols using black powder, if we are going to use literal intent then that is all people should be able to own. I think people have a reasonable right to own weapons under the second amendment, but I think it should be limited to weapons that balance out their right to self defense or sporting use against public safety, semi automatic assault weapons are over that line.

 

[njlauren]

This is a multi-pronged problem and it will require multi-pronged solutions at all levels.

I have been long pondering the Constitution -- is it static or not? Should it change or not? Some people think it must; it has twenty-odd amendments, after all, and I don't think most people are too anxious to have any of them repealed (Prohibition being the obvious exception). And the Second Amendment and its phrasing pose a conundrum, certainly. I think it should be considered in its historical context, and I don't think it guarantees the individual right to have a gun.

Yes, I know, the Supreme Court disagrees with me, but that decision (as others have noted) was hardly a landslide, and those decisions can be changed. Perhaps this one will.

Mental health care must be seen as just as legitimate as physical health care. I've wondered if part of the problem is that physical ailments and illnesses and injuries are more tangible and visible. You can see a cut; a rash; a broken bone. You cannot see mental problems in that same way, at least not yet. And there is still a stigma -- people are ashamed to admit they have them, or scared to, and some people think you just need to "get yourself together." It's not that simple.

I've looked at a lot of stats over the last few days and one thing stands out, a simple equation. Stricter gun laws = fewer guns = fewer shootings. Australia (again, I think others have noted this) has not a mass shooting since tightening their gun control laws in 1996 (I think). And I don't think the Australians fear the government coming in their door at night.

It's cultural too. Guns are, for various reasons, embedded in our national history and identity. Who is the American icon? The Cowboy. What does he carry? A gun. How does he settle things? A shoot out at high noon. I have a Canadian friend, and things like this are just beyond him, he says. No Canadian (except a few) would feel or understand the American need to own a gun.

I get it -- when America was developing, guns were needed for food and protection (as much from animals as people, I'd imagine). But the country is different now. Crime is down nearly every where, we are enjoying a better standard of living than at any other time in history, yet people still feel their are under siege. But we are not.

You do not need a semi-automatic rifle to hunt deer, nor to protect your home. Weapons like that are made for one purpose: to fire many projectiles as quickly as possible, thereby doing as much damage as possible as quickly as possible. These are not for target shooting.

Guns are tools, I get that. But they are tools made especially for inflicting injury and death.

If other countries can restrict access -- and lower deaths -- without a general uproar, why can't we?

I think part of the gun debate is being played out over an old, old issue. The images we talk about, the wild west where samuel Colt's .44 tamed the west, the image of the self reliant settler with his gun at his side and so forth, were also images of America's rural past and the availability of guns, the whole debate about having them, tends to be a a rural versus city debate that is playing out in national politics as well, the whole red state/blue state stuff. Most people in the city areas and in the burbs favor strong gun control laws, especially on the coasts, whereas rabid gun ownership types tend to be from the rural areas, listen to the arguments and it is the anti government, self reliant, wild west mentality.

 

[njlauren]

You used the term "assault weapons." Currently the only definition of that term is in the expired assault weapons ban or Ms Feinstein's proposed renewal of that ban. Outside of that legal definition, the term is meaningless.

I've recently seen the .223 Bushmaster described as "the most popular long gun in the US." How do you plan to "broaden the ban" without running into the prohibition against ex post facto laws and/or the second amendment?

Banning extended magazines is both possible and has several precedents in hunting regulations that limit magazine capacity in hunting rifles and shotguns (five rounds and three rounds respectively)

Banning or restricting "semi-automatic" actions runs into the problem of the large base of hunting rifles, varmint guns, and shotguns for hunting and target shooting that are auto-loaders. Many of those "justifiable" guns use the same functional design as the "assault weapons" you want to ban.

It would be relatively easy to define it (and yes, 'assault weapons' as a term is junk, it is like those in the financial industry who want to ban 'speculation', it is a meaningless term).

For example, an effective set of laws would be to ban guns that have magazines more then let's say 10 bullets, and also can't fire more then x rounds a minute. Auto loading shotguns or 'varming guns' or the like would not fall under this ban, you don't spray 60 rounds a minute with them, but with things like ak47's, AR15's and the like you can, limiting the firing rate would keep legal weapons used legitimately for hunting because unless you are some drunken turd that couldn't hit the side of a barn, hunting with a weapon capable of that is idiotic.

 

[njlauren]

But if I remember correctly the ones that they are selling as 'assault rifles' don't have the selector switch to place them on full automatic. So what you get is an automatic rifle in the way that your dad's 22 was an automatic. Each round fired requires a separate pull of the trigger.

There is a small piece, called the 'indent pin' that stops the gun from firing as it reloads itself. At one time you could buy a kit to overhaul your street version and make it into a military version. Or at least I have been told this by people that I thought would know something like that.

As far as I have heard this kid as well as all the other shootings have been by semi-automatic fire.

Someone posted that these AR15's (same gun but the military version was called the M16) were not a good gun on full automatic. That is not true. Full automatic is not built for long range targets. But I could put all twenty rounds through the bottom of a coffee can on full auto. on the forty meter range when I was serving in the army. That was a long time ago, I didn't wear glasses and had hair, well sorta, back then.

The thing you are talking about is the seers I believe, and it could be filed to turn a semi automatic into full automatic mode.

The m16 as a weapon was a piece of shit, I knew a lot of guys who served in vietnam and later who hated it (funny story? Mattel, the toy company, made M16's.....). Wasn't so much its shooting, it was that it jammed regularly, and was fragile.........I remember in David Hackworth's memoir of Vietnam when he told the story of finding a burial site of some VC that had been killed, and buried with them was an ak47, and he pulled it out of the dirt, and without clearing it was able to fire it, it was that rugged.

The kind of gun we are talking about isn't simply an automatic rifle, because unlike an automatic rifle it can shot a lot of rounds quickly, basically as quickly as you can squeeze the trigger, and they hold a lot of bullets, you can fire those weapons and get off 60 shots a minute. In the connecticut shooting 26 people were killed in a matter of minutes, and each of them had multiple gunshot wounds, which means he got off close to 100 rounds before the cops showed up and he killed himself..plus the actual killings happened in a couple of minutes, then he was frustrated when he tried to find the other kids who had been hidden.

 

[njlauren]

Oh, finally someone who cuts through all this shit about whether this or that gun is technically defined as a semi-automatic or not. I'm so fed up with reading this excuse all over.

Classical, proper rifles and shotguns used for hunting (which are the only ones I have personal experience with) have one or two bullets/shots. Handguns used by real men or even women for self defense have a limited number of bullets that can be fired right after each other (traditionally 6 I guess).

Anything else and especially weapons that can kill 20 children with multiple shots within few minutes, are just senseless. Only meant for one thing: killing humans as fast as possible without much skill or thought. Which is fine in war but noone has been able to say what use such weapons are in normal, civilian life.

People who need to own them (or cannot live with the idea that they should not be available) probably have such massive minority complexes and lack of self worth that you almost have to feel sorry for them. Yeah, I know that's cheap, but I simply cannot think of it as anything but a kind of security blanket. Jeez, the mind boogles at the thought of a whole country with millions of sad people who cannot feel safe or happy without the means to kill fellow human beings.

And I've yet to hear of any case where a civilian with a gun prevented or stopped a maniac on a killing spree. I'm sure examples exist, but it's so strange that they are not put forward whenever we hear the argument 'if only more people could carry guns, this could have been prevented'. You don't expect me to believe that there are never people present with an illegal gun (e.g. all those criminals that are always mentioned) or maybe even with a licenced weapon. I'm certain the police would be forgiving if such a person shot 'the psycho killer with the rifle'. I mean they sure didn't mind the private guard who shot the black teenager in a hood because he looked threathening....

When Gabby Giffords was shot in Arizona, a local hero type carrying a gun was coming out of a convenience store, and by self admission he came close to shooting the genuine hero who tackled the shooter, because he thought he was the bad guy. I would love to see statistics of the number of people shot or killed by mistake by someone with guns in a given year,because they thought they were in danger or whatever. One of the things that bothers me about the NRA promoting people carrying as a deterrence to crime is that even as much as they are trained, cops mistakenly shoot people all the time, so how is having all these ill trained people out there packing heat going to do better then cops do..or will they?

 

[njlauren]

There's an old saying to the effect that "Locks are to keep honest people out"; it's the same things with guns. Disarming the law abiding populace because of a few shooting incidents isn't going to do squat to stop gun violence. Then only criminals and cops will have guns and the average homeowner will be defenseless.

Sure, there are going to be accidents with guns, but a lot more people die in car wrecks than are shot accidentally; shall we ban cars?

Any semi-auto weapon can be converted to full auto with a few parts. This is usually done by or for criminals and terrorists. The world is crammed with semi-auto and full auto weapons and criminals in any country can get them if they want them. Laws don't matter to them, it's what they do.

In regards to availability of full auto weapons for instance; over 100 million AK-47's (Assault Kalashnikov-1947) assault rifles and their variants are known to exist in the world and more are being made or modified every day. People who want them, get them. Arms smuggling is a billion dollar business.

Gang bangers in every city and town routinely shoot it out with such auto and semi-auto weapons as MAC-10's, Uzi's, H&K MP-5's, AK-47's and many others. These incidents are rarely reported beyond the local news outlets. They sure as hell didn't buy those babies in any Wal-Mart or gun store. They're against the law, doncha know.

Bolt action or trigger actuated single shot weapons in the hands of a shooter can kill just as effectively as a semi-auto or full auto weapon, it just takes a little longer, seconds in fact. JFK was killed by a bolt action rifle, Garfield and McKinley by revolvers, Lincoln by a derringer.

Short version: Gun control might be a nice dream and it pops up every time there's a tragedy like this most recent one, but it's both impractical and virtually impossible and criminals won't give a shit about it anyway.

The NRA party line, example of the lie told enough it becomes truth, if you ban guns, only criminals will have them, etc and it is a crock of crap. Sure, if you ban weapons (and for the record, I am not for banning guns, I am in favor of banning high capacity/rapid shot semi automatic weapons like the AR15 and also in rational laws for background checks and registration) it is likely the only people with guns would be criminals, but there is a catch to all this.

Right now, thanks to the expiry of the so called assault weapons ban, all kinds of semi automatic weapons are available for legal purchase, with large capacity magazines. The shooter in aurora used perfectly legal weapons as did the mutant up in connecticut, all kinds of weapons, including semi automatic versions of the AK47, can be bought legally at any gun store.

The reality is that many of the guns used in crimes were not illegal guns imported into the US, but started life as legal purchases, but thanks to the NRA, there is no responsibility with gun ownership. The guns the gang bangers and such get (with the exception of Uzi's and the like, which are fully automatic as far as I know from the factory) are often bought legally, sold into the black market and modified to full automatic operation. Most of the handguns they pull off the street likewise were purchased legally at one point, roughly 75% of the guns pulled off city streets were originally of legal origin.

Right now, in many states joe billy bob can walk into a gun store, fill out a form, get a cursory background check, and fill up his trunk with guns, and go away..right up 95 to DC or NYC, where they can sell them at a profit in the black market. If the gun gets traced back to them, they can simply say "I lost it" or "It was stolen", because the laws are a joke. And if that happens, guess what? Joe Billy Bob can go right on buying guns, no penalties, no anything. You try that in NJ, if you own guns, they are registered *gasp*, and if you lose the gun or it gets stolen, and you don't report it, you are in deep shit. Problem is, the redneck states have this predominant myth that somehow registering guns or requiring gun ownership to actually have responsibility is communism.

Likewise you can buy guns at gun shows, no background check, and sell them into the black market,no problem.

Here is where the NRA line is full of it..if you cut off these legal sources of supply to the black market, you won't totally get rid of guns in the hands of criminals, but you will put a crimp on it. Why? if you cut down the source of supply of let's say even 50% of illegal guns, i.e the legal purchase, the price will go through the roof, it is simple supply and demand. Trying to import guns is expensive and time consuming and likely as not to be costly and fail to bring in numbers; right now the legal method of getting guns into the black market is so easy that 3 or 4 states account for those 75% I am talking about.

 

[TimothyM]

When Gabby Giffords was shot in Arizona, a local hero type carrying a gun was coming out of a convenience store, and by self admission he came close to shooting the genuine hero who tackled the shooter, because he thought he was the bad guy.

Wow, I didn't know that. Would have been absurd if that had happened.

cops mistakenly shoot people all the time, so how is having all these ill trained people out there packing heat going to do better then cops do

Yeah I thought about that too. Even here, where policeman quite rarely use their guns, we have examples of people being shot where there are discussions about the necessity afterwards.

 

[TimothyM]

Short version: Gun control might be a nice dream and it pops up every time there's a tragedy like this most recent one, but it's both impractical and virtually impossible and criminals won't give a shit about it anyway.

OK give me an example of a criminal guy who did a school shooting ?

And I'm talking about a person who was engaged in other kinds of felonies that would cause him to have a gun, e.g. drugs, exhortion, murders (of e.g. rivals i.e. with specific motives not just mowing innocent kids down), gang wars, robberies, whatever.