I had it pointed out to me

[PoppingTom]

Ive read that Germany got about 25 million weapons in private hands. Thats even more than Canada (9 m) or Mexico (15 m) got. Compared to that , we got 2 homicides per 1 million people, Canada got 5, and Mexico got 100 (America got 29.8).

To me, it's not a gun owner thing. "Gun control" means "gun accessibility control" to me.

 

[PennLady]

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.

Police in the US use their weapons far less frequently, from everything I've read, than you would think from watching TV shows, etc. I've read that many (most?) will go their entire careers without drawing their weapon, and shooting only at firing ranges to keep in practice. When you read/hear about police using their guns, it's far from the norm.

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.

This is the thing -- people are arguing two somewhat unrelated things. These horrible school shootings and horrible mall shootings -- and those in workplaces, etc. -- are not done by criminals. They were done by people with mental illnesses or mental disorders And the guns were at least mostly to my knowledge obtained legally, if not necessarily by the shooters (such as Lanza's guns belonging to his mother).

Someone like Adam Lanza should never have been in a position to access guns like that. My thought is that his mother should have given up her need to have firearms in light of her son's mental illness. You can't always have everything you want even if you have a "right" to it.

 

[TimothyM]

But why do they use the argument about criminals then ? Am I the only person to feel baffled about this ?

Considering how many people with mental disorders of the introvert, nerdy kid type that we have in the world, very, very few of them kill anybody ever. And very few mothers would think their quiet child capable of such an act - though there was one exception recently (Twilight film related), wasn't there ? I find it very hard to blame the mother - she was no different from any of the many other gun enthusiasts that the US are cursed with.

 

[NekoParks]

I appreciate your reply

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.

NJ Lauren,
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate the time it took to clarify your position. I think that you are right about Nancy Lanza’s lack of judgment concerning her son. Why she would have weapons around her troubled son is misguided at best and criminally negligent at the worst. My niece suffers from an autism spectrum disorder. Some people diagnosed with autism display oppositional behaviors along with suffering from depression too. Often autism spectrum disorders (sometimes known as Asperger’s syndrome on the high functioning end of the spectrum) renders a person incapable of the duplicity needed to plan and carry out a murder against a parent and building full of people. It’s a complex condition that does have to be carefully monitored all of the autistic’s life. Once again, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I am concerned about the media misrepresenting this disorder. Neko

 

[TimothyM]

Police in the US use their weapons far less frequently, from everything I've read, than you would think from watching TV shows, etc. I've read that many (most?) will go their entire careers without drawing their weapon, and shooting only at firing ranges to keep in practice. When you read/hear about police using their guns, it's far from the norm.

But still far more often than here - I've lived in the US for 9 months and just locally (Washington State) there were more examples of police killing people than I've heard off in 10 years in Denmark. And every police shooting (resulting in kills) here makes headlines, cause they are so rare. Maybe 2-5 per year in a 5,1 mill population - though I admit it's a guess not backed by actual statistics.

But our yearly murder rate pr 100,000 inhabitants is about 1 as far as I remember, and only a small propotion of those are with guns. Though I guess the killing of criminals by police will not be counted here

 

[PennLady]

But why do they use the argument about criminals then ? Am I the only person to feel baffled about this ?

Because it is an argument that instills fear, and with a lot of people, a room full of statistics proving otherwise will never overcome fear. And b/c they want their guns.

Considering how many people with mental disorders of the introvert, nerdy kid type that we have in the world, very, very few of them kill anybody ever. And very few mothers would think their quiet child capable of such an act - though there was one exception recently (Twilight film related), wasn't there ? I find it very hard to blame the mother - she was no different from any of the many other gun enthusiasts that the US are cursed with.

We'll have to reserve any kind of judgment on the mother yet, but I have read -- and these things may prove wrong, I realize -- that she was paranoid, never had people in her house, and other things like that. That is different from many gun enthusiasts. She wasn't (just) a collector; she was a person with some issues herself.

 

[Weird Harold]

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.

The problem isn't really with "guns that have magazines" it's with removable magazines. It doesn't really matter how many rounds a removable magazine holds; what matters is how easy it is to change magazines.

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,

A pump action shotgun or lever-action rifle is capable of fire rates as fast as many auto-loaders -- almost any modern firearm is capable of firing once/second. An auto-loading or pump shotgun with a removable magazine is easily capable of the same rate of fire as an assault weapon. (in fact some shotgun models fell under the assault weapons ban until cosmetic changes were made.)

...but with things like ak47's, AR15's and the like you can, limiting the firing rate ...

Limiting the cyclic rate of semi-automatics is doable, if a bit of a technical challenge. Limiting the cyclic rate of double-action revolvers, pump action rifles/shotguns, and lever-action rifles/shotguns is more problematic -- (ever watch The Rifleman on TV?)

Limiting the time it takes to reload is also probably doable, if an even more difficult technical challenge given the wide variety of magazine types.

There are "doable" alternatives to panic-stricken rants to ban anything more modern than flintlocks. With grass-roots support, some are even doable while holding one's breath -- figuratively at least.

 

[Weird Harold]

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. ...

If you want to actually ban anything, you have to craft a law that passes Constitutional muster. Laws have been struck down for being vague, being overly inclusive, and for violating Constitutional protections. Defining what you want to ban in nearly the same terms as the Firearms Act of 1934 -- "anything that fires more than one round between delayed triggering" -- is a waste of your time and the time of any legislator you can get to back your proposal. (The Firearms Act of 1934 already severely restricts anything that fires more than one round per trigger pull.)

 

[Weird Harold]

The assault weapon ban did nothing, really?

An article linked in another forum that explains why I say the Assault Weapons Ban was worthless: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ow-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/

A 2004 University of Pennsylvania study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice explained why. For starters, only 18 firearm models were explicitly banned. But it was easy for gun manufacturers to modify weapons slightly so that they didn’t fall under the ban. One example: the Colt AR-15 that James Holmes used to shoot up a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., last summer would have been outlawed. Yet it would have been perfectly legal for Holmes to have purchased a very similar Colt Match Target rifle, which didn’t fall under the ban.

 

[sr71plt]

Still fascinated with the kill power of all those different types of guns, ain't you, Harold? Can't get beyond your fascination with the toys. Still throwing flak up in the air as well.

But here's some good news. Another key U.S. senator has awakened:

from Associated Press on 17 December (an excerpt):

"Warner: Shooting Alters Guns Stance"

"RICHMOND -- Sen. Mark R. Warner, among the few Senate Democrats to hold favor with the National Rifle Association, said Monday that the Connecticut elementary school massacre has reversed his stand on assault weapons.

"Warner endorsed President Barrack Obama's support for restricting rapid-fire rifles like those a gunman used in the massacre of 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

"'The status quo is not acceptable anymore,' the centrist former Virginia governor said in intereviews Monday at the state Capitol . . .

". . . 'There needs to be appropriate restrictions on these tools of mass-killing,' Warner said, calling for tighter screening of gun buyers and stricter access to powerful, combat-style firearms capable of dispensing numerous shots in a short time. . . ."

 

[Weird Harold]

Still fascinated with the kill power of all those different types of guns, ain't you, Harold? Can't get beyond your fascination with the toys. Still throwing flak up in the air as well.

Wasn't it you who objected to people telling others what they think? Or does that just apply to people using your words to infer attitudes?

 

[sr71plt]

Wasn't it you who objected to people telling others what they think? Or does that just apply to people using your words to infer attitudes?

I didn't tell you what you think. I'm commenting on what you post. Each time I or anyone else wants to talk about getting at the effect, you start rumbling (lovingly) about the capabilities of each killing weapon. The toys just fascinate you so.

I'm looking forward to the next major lawmaker who wakes up. Guess we're already beyond Jack's silly "Obama has a chance now and won't do anything" statement. Two days and a major U.S. senator of a major gun selling/exporting state has been turned to support a stance Obama is taking.

 

[Weird Harold]

I didn't tell you what you think. I'm commenting on what you post. Each time I or anyone else wants to talk about getting at the effect, you start rumbling (lovingly) about the capabilities of each killing weapon. The toys just fascinate you so.

Where have I ever indicated that "toys fascinate me?"

I have simply pointed out that stupid, ineffective, laws don't work. Laws that can't withstand Constitutional tests don't work. Pointing that past attempts have more loopholes than restrictions isn't praising the weapons that fit through the loopholes, it's pointing out how stupid knee-jerk, feel-good legislation is a waste of legislators time and tax dollars.

If you want to ban anything, you need to craft laws that work and will withstand Constitutional tests. Ranting about "doing something" without a recognition of the legal and social obstacles you face does nothing worthwhile.

 

[Stella_Omega]

If you want to ban anything, you need to craft laws that work and will withstand Constitutional tests. Ranting about "doing something" without a recognition of the legal and social obstacles you face does nothing worthwhile.

Don't be naive. If you want to ban anything, you just craft the law and spend more money to get it passed than anyone else can muster to fight you.

Do me a favor and read this article-- http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/

As the tragic shooting in Colorado last week has reignited the debate over guns, one key public policy question — does gun control save lives? — is almost impossible to answer thanks to a dearth of research on the subject. That lack of research is no accident. It’s the product of a concerted campaign by the gun lobby and its allies on Capitol Hill to stymie and even explicitly outlaw scientific research into gun violence in what critics charge is an attempt to deceive the public about the dangers of guns.

Over the past two decades, the NRA has not only been able to stop gun control laws, but even debate on the subject. The Centers for Disease Control funds research into the causes of death in the United States, including firearms — or at least it used to. In 1996, after various studies funded by the agency found that guns can be dangerous, the gun lobby mobilized to punish the agency. First, Republicans tried to eliminate entirely the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the bureau responsible for the research. When that failed, Rep. Jay Dickey, a Republican from Arkansas, successfully pushed through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget (the amount it had spent on gun research in the previous year) and outlawed research on gun control with a provision that reads: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

...Dickey’s clause, which remains in effect today, has had a chilling effect on all scientific research into gun safety, as gun rights advocates view “advocacy” as any research that notices that guns are dangerous. Stephen Teret, who co-directs the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, told Salon: “They sent a message and the message was heard loud and clear. People [at the CDC], then and now, know that if they start going down that road, their budget is going to be vulnerable. And the way public agencies work, they know how this works and they’re not going to stick their necks out.”

In January, the New York Times reported that the CDC goes so far as to “ask researchers it finances to give it a heads-up anytime they are publishing studies that have anything to do with firearms. The agency, in turn, relays this information to the NRA as a courtesy.”

In response to the news, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence sent a letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius expressing concern that the agency was giving the NRA a “preferred position” and allowed to sway research.

Further (I know I'm copy-pasting a lot here, but I've lost my powers of speech over this)

More recently, Republicans have gone after the National Institutes for Health, which has also funded research into the public health issues of guns. “It’s almost as if someone’s been looking for a way to get this study done ever since the Centers for Disease Control was banned from doing it 10 years ago,” Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, said in 2009 of the NIH.

Yeah, that "somebody" includes me, and probably you too, Harold. In other words, the gun lobby is perfectly willing to censor anyone they can, and prevent the kind of discussion that our constitution guarantees us.

“You’d think that after the CDC had their money revoked, we wouldn’t be dealing with this,” Erich Pratt, a spokesman for the Gun Owners Association of America, told the Washington Times at the time.

I WANT my tax dollars to go into that study, despite what the NRA says. But I don't have anything like the lobbying power, so my constitutional right to democracy is devalued.

 

[sr71plt]

I outlined what I think is needed (and it matches much of what is in train) to get at the effect. I didn't just say that nothing had worked--with the inference that then we just can/should do nothing. (Although a poster you haven't responded to disagrees with you on the claim that what was done before didn't work--until it was abandoned). Nor did I brush aside with a lot of gobblygook discussion that if something didn't work before it just means something more effective needs to be done now.

I don't need to differentiate between the technical difference of this or that specific weapon in a discussion revealing how fascinated I am with killing machines to outline what needs to be done to change the effect. Answering discussion trying to get at changing the effect with technical gobblygook on the comparative specs of weapons (thus revealing a fascnation with killing toys) and statements of what hasn't worked before is just heels-planting attempts to maintain the status quo.

And maintaining the status quo means that I sure hope your will is in order each time you plan to go grocery shopping, or to the Mall, or to a school or theater or church.

I've yet to see an acknowledgment from you that private citizens have no business having access to a gun that shoots more than one round at the pull of a delayed-action trigger.

Let's start there, shall we? Let's get at the effect of this problem. Once you've awakened to the limits of what should be in the hands of a private citizen and acknowledged it--and acknowledged that this need for personal weapons is pretty much an historical American society phenonmenon that has no other logic behind it--and stopped throwing "what hasn't worked" blackades in front of the discussion--it's fairly obvious and logical where you start working up to solutions.

 

[TimothyM]

We'll have to reserve any kind of judgment on the mother yet, but I have read -- and these things may prove wrong, I realize -- that she was paranoid, never had people in her house, and other things like that. That is different from many gun enthusiasts. She wasn't (just) a collector; she was a person with some issues herself.

But if she had issues herself, then how could we expect her to be sensible in relation to whether or not to own guns or keeping them away from her son ? Or even realizing that this was necessary ? Somehow I still think that you need to prevent those guns from being available in the first place.

However, I realize that this is never going to happen in the US. All we can hope is that this madness will not spread to Europe (I mean the lax gun laws, we already have the school shootings although much less often).

 

[sr71plt]

But if she had issues herself, then how could we expect her to be sensible in relation to whether or not to own guns or keeping them away from her son ?

True, which means that society has certain obligations to protect the rights of others in the society. The Constitution is as much about obligations and limits of one's rights vis-a-vis the rights of others as it is a protection of individual rights.

One's right to own a firearm does not also give that individual a right to tramp on the rights of others to live. And society has an obligation to protect the right of someone to live just as much (more, says I, considering the comparitive magnitude of the rights involved) as it does to protect anyone's right to own a weapon.

If the courts aren't interpreting the current laws to support that, then it's the laws that need to be beefed up and enforced.

 

[PennLady]

But if she had issues herself, then how could we expect her to be sensible in relation to whether or not to own guns or keeping them away from her son ? Or even realizing that this was necessary ? Somehow I still think that you need to prevent those guns from being available in the first place.

You said, it an earlier post:

I find it very hard to blame the mother - she was no different from any of the many other gun enthusiasts that the US are cursed with.

What I'm saying is that we don't know that yet; information is still coming out about all aspects of this. We may find she herself had mental health problems, or we may find that she was paranoid yet responsible about her guns, although that last doesn't seem to be the case.

And part of the problem is "gun enthusiast." If you are a collector of antique weapons, are you also an enthusiast? If so, it would seem there are different kinds of enthusiast. It's not a good term.

And I think she can be blamed for a few things, such as not having her guns properly stored in a safe or locker, and having them around a person with some kind of mental illness, and providing access to them, even if indirectly. (It's obviously possible, even probable, that even if she'd had them properly stored, Lanza could have found the key to the storage and gotten to them. Just saying she didn't help things.)

However, I realize that this is never going to happen in the US. All we can hope is that this madness will not spread to Europe (I mean the lax gun laws, we already have the school shootings although much less often).

No, all we can hope for -- if we work for it -- is restrictions on the type of guns a person can own. And I'm with sr71plt on this. NO ONE on this thread has provided any kind of answer as to why a civilian (i.e., someone not in the military or law enforcement) should be able to acquire the kind of weapons Lanza's mother had and that he used.

It's a simple equation, that guns that shoot more bullets faster do more damage. Why would you want anyone to have that if they are not in a law enforcement or military situation?

 

[PennLady]

One's right to own a firearm does not also give that individual a right to tramp on the rights of others to live. And society has an obligation to protect the right of someone to live just as much (more, says I, considering the comparitive magnitude of the rights involved) as it does to protect anyone's right to own a weapon.

A friend of mine posted this on Facebook on Friday when the news broke:

Today, I would rather throw myself off a building rather than have to have a conversation with people who think unfettered access to firearms is every American's right.

Me, I'd like the fucking right to send my children to school and have them come home alive. How's that?

I'd say anyone's right to own a gun ends at my right -- and my children's -- to LIFE. You know, the first of the inalienable rights specified in the Preamble.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

Don't be naive. If you want to ban anything, you just craft the law and spend more money to get it passed than anyone else can muster to fight you.

Do me a favor and read this article-- http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/
Further (I know I'm copy-pasting a lot here, but I've lost my powers of speech over this) Yeah, that "somebody" includes me, and probably you too, Harold. In other words, the gun lobby is perfectly willing to censor anyone they can, and prevent the kind of discussion that our constitution guarantees us.
I WANT my tax dollars to go into that study, despite what the NRA says. But I don't have anything like the lobbying power, so my constitutional right to democracy is devalued.

This is the point. The 1994 assault rifle ban was not crafted in a vacuum by incompetent legislators. It was the result of compromise forced by the gun lobby seeking to water down the law so it would do as little as possible. It was allowed to expire because no one had the will or the decency to force bush to extend it. New legislation will require congress to draft a statue with teeth, and it will require Senators and Representatives to grow some balls and stand up to the NRA and GOA and get it passed without diluting it. All these politicians talk about standing up the special interests and doing what's right. Now is the time to stop talking about and start doing it.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

As for the Supreme Court, it is currently an obstacle to meaningful reform. But that doesn't mean that no effort should be made. Precedents change over time. "Separate but equal" was once considered the proper interpretation of the 14th Amendment and held as the law of the land. It has since been struck down and cast aside. Facts change, public attitudes change, and the composition of the Court changes. All of these factors, over time, can result in stark reversals of prior precedents. Why do you think all these states keep passing laws that violate Roe v. Wade? With each challenge they are chipping away at it one inch at a time. That's what needs to be done with McDonald v. City of Chicago--keep challenging it until a new Court overturns it.

 

[TE999]

Where have I ever indicated that "toys fascinate me?"

I have simply pointed out that stupid, ineffective, laws don't work. Laws that can't withstand Constitutional tests don't work. Pointing that past attempts have more loopholes than restrictions isn't praising the weapons that fit through the loopholes, it's pointing out how stupid knee-jerk, feel-good legislation is a waste of legislators time and tax dollars.

If you want to ban anything, you need to craft laws that work and will withstand Constitutional tests. Ranting about "doing something" without a recognition of the legal and social obstacles you face does nothing worthwhile.

Harold, ol' buddy, you're wasting your breath trying to talk sense to these gun grabber types. As it happens every other time there's an incident with guns like this most recent one, the howls go up for more regulations, laws, confiscations, etc. of firearms no matter what the type; not to mention distortions of the facts of the shooting to fit preconceived notions about gun ownership. Let's ignore the Constitution, disarm the law abiding populace and throw the baby out with the bathwater to give an illusion of safety.

These people remind me of a person who is scared of snakes. They'll beat anything to death that slithers without bothering to determine if it's beneficial or harmful.

For every nutjob who somehow gets ahold of a gun and shoots some innocent person, there are millions upon millions of people who own guns (me among them) and do no such thing. They hunt, target shoot, collect and generally enjoy working with guns. They treasure them, respect them and regularly practice gun safety.

This way of thinking is impossible for the gun grabbers to comprehend so they denigrate anyone who owns and respects firearms; usually implying that anyone who owns a gun is somehow a drooling, subhuman, inbred denizen of the Deep South who goes around barefoot, drives a rusty pickup truck and sleeps with his mother and sister.

The NRA (of which I am a proud member) along with advocating for Second Amendment rights, routinely stresses the need for and advocates gun safety. It also offers courses, programs and training nationwide in the proper usage and handling of all types of guns.

Many misconceptions about gun ownership and regulating of same have been promulgated by the anti-gun lobby which fit their template of guns being bad except in the hands of law enforcement or the government. The following study from the 2006 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy Vol. 30 No. 2 pp. 649-694 puts any number of these manufactured and/or distorted misconceptions to rest.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

I sincerely doubt that the reading this study will alter the mindsets of any gun grabbers, but I offer it up anyway in anticipation of the squalls of "Prove it, prove it." Besides, their minds are made up already so facts to the contrary will be (and are) mocked, insulted, denigrated and generally ignored.

Momentary hysteria over an unfortunate incident like this school shooting is not a valid reason to craft, much less implement, immediate public policy.

 

[sr71plt]

You're right, TE999. That expresses the selfish stupidity of the gunslingers quite faithfully. "To hell with the right of you and your children to live; me, I gotta have a gun--or five--that will fire off 60 rounds a minute. Let me tell you about the armor-piercing ammo I got with this baby . . ."

 

[PennLady]

Harold, ol' buddy, you're wasting your breath trying to talk sense to these gun grabber types. As it happens every other time there's an incident with guns like this most recent one, the howls go up for more regulations, laws, confiscations, etc. of firearms no matter what the type; not to mention distortions of the facts of the shooting to fit preconceived notions about gun ownership. Let's ignore the Constitution, disarm the law abiding populace and throw the baby out with the bathwater to give an illusion of safety.

But you still haven't given a reason why people need or should be able to have weapons like an AK-47 or the AR-15. What does a civilian need with a weapon whose only purpose is taking out the maximum number of people as quickly as possible? You know, like if you were in the military.

And most of us here -- if you'd step back a minute -- aren't calling for a ban "of firearms no matter what the type." We're calling for bans, or at least restrictions, on certain types of guns.

No one's ignoring the Constitution. Well, I'm not. I'm trying to figure out how to make it work. And I think that it was written in different times, times which do not resemble our present time. Times in which guns did not fire multiple rounds per second.

I know the Supreme Court says you have a right to your gun. But tell me, why do you need it?

 

[sr71plt]

A single-shot gun isn't sexy enough, PennLady--doesn't make them feel manly enough. Where's the fun in having one of those?