News FEinstein: Assault Weapons Ban Bill

[CAC1001]

What? I don't know where you live but where I live people carry all the time. It's not illegal and its socially acceptable. The intent is always hunting or bear protection.

Maybe in certain areas, but in ordinary America, you are asking for trouble if you just go out with a rifle.

 

[MarneMath]

Ever heard of an Alaska carry or Vermont carry? Some states do allow open carry and concealed carry without a license.

 

[CAC1001]

You mean functionally? That isn't really true. Here's the list of features from the original ban. Looks to me like most are regarding functionality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

There is no difference. The list for rifles is the following:

Folding or telescoping stock - certain hunting rifles have these

Pistol grip - certain hunting rifles have these

Bayonet mount - when has a criminal ever fixed a bayonet?

Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one - what difference does the use of one of these make?

Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally) - it was for a WWII grenade launcher, but regardless, one can't buy the grenades for either one anyhow

None of the above has anything to do with the ability of the gun to kill.

That's nonsense and your historical example shows why: hunting rifles used to be the same as military weapons, but they aren't anymore. The military uses different weapons today because the ones they use are better suited for killing people (lots of people) than hunting rifles.

It is not nonsense at all. The term "assault weapon" as we know it now was created by gun control activist Josh Sugarmann. It has nothing to do with the weapon's functionality. And "hunting rifles" are not guns that "used to be the same" as military weapons. They are the same guns that the military used, albeit just with certain features that make them more suited to hunting. Even this gets arbitrary, as many of the same features that make guns ideal for military and police use also make them ideal for hunting use.

Here are some modern hunting rifles:

Remington R15

Smith and Wesson 300 Whisper

http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson2/upload/images/firearms/detail_md/811300_01_md.jpg

Note these look identical to many an AR-15, which is many ways they are, but they have a camouflage pattern for hunting and some extra more hunting-oriented features. But functionally there's not really any difference.

The military does not use different guns today unless you mean machine guns, which are more for suppressive fire purposes. Otherwise, the military's guns have the same functionality as any semi-automatic rifle one can buy. One of the first semi-automatic rifles was the Winchester 1903 (came out in 1903 hence the name). The M1 Garand is a semi-automatic WWII rifle and the Springfield M1A is a 1950s-era weapon. The AR-10 and the AR-15 are late 50s to early 60s.

The military does use 30 round magazines, which as said, one can argue for limiting the magazine size to ten rounds.

And why quibble with a name? It is just a name and it doesn't change the fact that the weapons are military-type weapons. We could just as easily call them "military-type weapons." Would that change your stance?

No, because there is no such thing as a "military-type" weapon in terms of killing ability. A gun is a gun is a gun. It doesn't care if it's being used to shoot people or animals. Here is a sniper rifle used by the military, the M24:

Here is the Remington 700 hunting rifle, which is what the M24 is based off of:

http://www.remington.com/~/media/Images/Firearms/Centerfire/Model-700/Model-700-BDL-Anniversary/700_7mm_50th_BDL_84063_Right.ashx?w=570&bc=black

Neither gun cares whether it's shooting a bear or a person.

No, we most certainly have not forgotten that. In a way, you are looking at this backwards: you don't need a 30 round magazine, folding stock and silencer threads to hunt deer. The descriptions of features exist as much to protect hunting rifles than to identify assault rifles. Otherwise, they could simply ban all semi-automatic rifles.

Remember though that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting. For example, weapons like the AR-15 are also excellent for home defense purposes. That said though, while I can see the arguments about magazine capacity, I do not at all see what the stock has anything to do with the gun's ability to kill something. As for silencers, silencers do not silence a gun shot, that is just Hollywood where that happens.

 

[BobG]

I spent some time in the southern Philippines long ago. It was amazing to me to watch modern weapons being made in such primitive conditions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lLApVGIU8eQ

With 3D printing and low cost CNC machines the underground gun manufacturing market will bloom if it becomes a crime profit center due to the increased value and demand for banned guns. This bill makes current semi-auto weapons on the banned list the same NFA class as real machines guns so the incentive might be to produce full-auto weapons if the penalties for using one are the same. Do you think it's a sane idea to make every AR-15 clone a NFA weapon?

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html#nfa-firearms

If weapons were banned entirely, an underground manufacturing industry would bloom (or be smuggled in from other countries manufacturing weapons legally). If the choices are legal weapons that have a somewhat limited capability or "more capable" replicas made by underground manufacturers, the replicas may not be quite as popular.

http://www.dismalworld.com/black-economy/faithful_replicas_of_guns_and_rifles_produced.php. Primitive weapons made under primitive conditions that at least look like the real thing. It's a little like bootleg whiskey. You find a reliable manufacturer and you're probably okay. On the path to finding a reliable manufacturer, a customer takes their chances.

 

[Pythagorean]

There is no difference. The list for rifles is the following:

Folding or telescoping stock - certain hunting rifles have these

Pistol grip - certain hunting rifles have these

Bayonet mount - when has a criminal ever fixed a bayonet?

Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one - what difference does the use of one of these make?

Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally) - it was for a WWII grenade launcher, but regardless, one can't buy the grenades for either one anyhow

None of the above has anything to do with the ability of the gun to kill.



It is not nonsense at all. The term "assault weapon" as we know it now was created by gun control activist Josh Sugarmann. It has nothing to do with the weapon's functionality. And "hunting rifles" are not guns that "used to be the same" as military weapons. They are the same guns that the military used, albeit just with certain features that make them more suited to hunting. Even this gets arbitrary, as many of the same features that make guns ideal for military and police use also make them ideal for hunting use.

Here are some modern hunting rifles:

Remington R15

Smith and Wesson 300 Whisper

http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson2/upload/images/firearms/detail_md/811300_01_md.jpg

Note these look identical to many an AR-15, which is many ways they are, but they have a camouflage pattern for hunting and some extra more hunting-oriented features. But functionally there's not really any difference.

The military does not use different guns today unless you mean machine guns, which are more for suppressive fire purposes. Otherwise, the military's guns have the same functionality as any semi-automatic rifle one can buy. One of the first semi-automatic rifles was the Winchester 1903 (came out in 1903 hence the name). The M1 Garand is a semi-automatic WWII rifle and the Springfield M1A is a 1950s-era weapon. The AR-10 and the AR-15 are late 50s to early 60s.

The military does use 30 round magazines, which as said, one can argue for limiting the magazine size to ten rounds.



No, because there is no such thing as a "military-type" weapon in terms of killing ability. A gun is a gun is a gun. It doesn't care if it's being used to shoot people or animals. Here is a sniper rifle used by the military, the M24:

Here is the Remington 700 hunting rifle, which is what the M24 is based off of:

http://www.remington.com/~/media/Images/Firearms/Centerfire/Model-700/Model-700-BDL-Anniversary/700_7mm_50th_BDL_84063_Right.ashx?w=570&bc=black

Neither gun cares whether it's shooting a bear or a person.



Remember though that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting. For example, weapons like the AR-15 are also excellent for home defense purposes. That said though, while I can see the arguments about magazine capacity, I do not at all see what the stock has anything to do with the gun's ability to kill something. As for silencers, silencers do not silence a gun shot, that is just Hollywood where that happens.

As far as cosmetics goes, it makes a big difference to the tactical team responding whether the perps are armed with hunting rifles or assault rifles. Some towns (like the one I am in now) wouldn't be able to do much against assault rifles, and the rules of engagement are different. So if a clever team of bank robbers buy each member a hunting rifle that looks like an automatic weapon, they render some response teams inert.

If we can ban all weapons that look like assault rifles, then we remove this complication. We make it more difficult to fool law enforcement and we create more accountability for people masquerading hunting rifles as assault weapons.

 

[Skrew]

Can someone explain the basis of "hunting rifles" being used as the basis of what is or isn't acceptable to own?

I don't hunt and I don't consider hunting the basis of gun ownership, they are two completely separate issues. Hunting is a sport/hobby and as such is nonvital. To associate the two degreades firearms ownership into a hobby and as a hobby it is open to far more regulation.

I suspect that's the intended goal.

 

[CAC1001]

As far as cosmetics goes, it makes a big difference to the tactical team responding whether the perps are armed with hunting rifles or assault rifles. Some towns (like the one I am in now) wouldn't be able to do much against assault rifles, and the rules of engagement are different. So if a clever team of bank robbers buy each member a hunting rifle that looks like an automatic weapon, they render some response teams inert.

If we can ban all weapons that look like assault rifles, then we remove this complication. We make it more difficult to fool law enforcement and we create more accountability for people masquerading hunting rifles as assault weapons.

By that standard, the bank robbers would be smart to just use fake guns that look real is all. Are they going to ban the fake guns too? And not everyone wants a gun for hunting, a lot of people just prefer a gun for self-defense is all. Some people prefer a hand gun, some a rifle, some a shotgun. It's a matter of preference.

 

[Pythagorean]

By that standard, the bank robbers would be smart to just use fake guns that look real is all. Are they going to ban the fake guns too? And not everyone wants a gun for hunting, a lot of people just prefer a gun for self-defense is all. Some people prefer a hand gun, some a rifle, some a shotgun. It's a matter of preference.

Like I said, fake guns must have an orange plug in their barrels. To have a fake gun out without a orange plug is illegal, yes. Kids riding around in cars pointing fake guns at people with the orange cap removed get arrested. Completely illegal. You rob a bank with a fake gun, you get armed robbery. That kind of thing isn't taken lightly.

Also, genuinely curious whether you can show me some (non-anecdotal) proof that guns work for home protection. I remember hearing a statistic that it's more likely there's an accidentals shooting than a home protection, but that statistic was not verified, just stated./

 

[CAC1001]

Like I said, fake guns must have an orange plug in their barrels. To have a fake gun out without a orange plug is illegal, yes. Kids riding around in cars pointing fake guns at people with the orange cap removed get arrested. Completely illegal. You rob a bank with a fake gun, you get armed robbery. That kind of thing isn't taken lightly.

Yes, my point was though that it doesn't make much sense to ban real guns based on how they look if the criminals could use fake guns that look real as well. If the criminals are planning to rob a bank, they obviously won't leave the orange plug in.

Also, genuinely curious whether you can show me some (non-anecdotal) proof that guns work for home protection. I remember hearing a statistic that it's more likely there's an accidentals shooting than a home protection, but that statistic was not verified, just stated./

I do not know the statistics regarding that off the top of my head. But even if in more home invasions, the person wasn't able to access the gun in time, I do not think a person should be denied their right to try to protect themself.

 

[Pythagorean]

Yes, my point was though that it doesn't make much sense to ban real guns based on how they look if the criminals could use fake guns that look real as well. If the criminals are planning to rob a bank, they obviously won't leave the orange plug in.

Why doesn't it make much sense? What's the contradiction you're detecting?

I do not know the statistics regarding that off the top of my head. But even if in more home invasions, the person wasn't able to access the gun in time, I do not think a person should be denied their right to try to protect themself.

Even if home discharges lead to more accidental shootings than home defenses? At some point, I think that's reckless. (if the statistical claim is true).

Nobodies being denied their right to protect themselves in general. People are being denied the right to protect themselves in a particular way that has (or might have been) shown to be ineffective.

 

[CAC1001]

Why doesn't it make much sense? What's the contradiction you're detecting?

Because they could use fake guns in place of the real ones if their plan is to intimidate the police into not doing anything. Such instances are so rare though that I do not think it makes any sense to deny people such weapons just because they could be used to fool the police in something like a bank robbery.

Even if home discharges lead to more accidental shootings than home defenses? At some point, I think that's reckless. (if the statistical claim is true).

If home discharges lead to more accidental shootings than home defenses, then that's a case of irresponsible gun ownership and a call for responsible gun ownership, not banning the weapons.

Nobodies being denied their right to protect themselves in general. People are being denied the right to protect themselves in a particular way that has (or might have been) shown to be ineffective.

I don't think it could ever be shown to be ineffective, just a question of in home invasions where the person has a firearm, in more or in less are they able to get the gun to protect themself in time.

 

[russ_watters]

There is no difference.

Nonsense. You've posted one example of a crossover, but that's it. Most hunting rifles do not look like assault rifles. I'd like to know honestly how many people hunt with an M-16 copy. And in addition, you posted one very badly chosen example:

Sniper rifles. Sniper rifles are intended for one-shot-one-kill use, much like hunting rifles. They are not the same as assault rifles and often aren't even semi-automatic, such as in your example of the Remmington 700. So in this case, you're arguing against your point: Since the rifle is a military-type, but specialized for accuracy and not high firing rate or portability or other infantry type functionality, it is not the type of weapon that needs to be banned for civilian use. Hence the need for another term to describe the type of weapon that is to be banned: assault weapons/rifles.

I'm not an expert, though, so you tell me: why is the Remmington 700 single-shot? Why the lack of a carrying handle on top? Why no flash suppressor? Why a solid stock? Could it be that all of these features affect accuracy? Indeed, if you would like all hunting rifles to be bolt-action like the Remmington 700, I'd definitely be willing to compromise on that!

edit: oh, and the wiki says this:

Remington markets the 700 to military forces and civilian law-enforcement agencies under the Remington Law Enforcement and Remington Military banner, with the military/law enforcement 700s being called the Model 700P ("Police"). The 700P series appears to have been influenced by the designs, features, and success of the M24 Sniper Weapon System and the M40 series, with one feature of the Model 700P series being the heavier and thicker barrel for increased accuracy and reduced recoil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Model_700

Recoil reduces accuracy, which is a good reason for both sniper rifles and hunting rifles to be heavier and more solid than assault rifles.

 

[Evo]

I don't hunt and I don't consider hunting the basis of gun ownership, they are two completely separate issues.

Hunting is the only acceptable reason to own a gun, handguns are for killing people, IMO.

Hunting is a sport/hobby and as such is nonvital. To associate the two degreades firearms ownership into a hobby and as a hobby it is open to far more regulation.

What? Are you trying to say that owning a handgun is a neccessity?

No one "needs" to own a handgun. No one needs to own any type of gun. But owning shotguns and rifles for hunting animals, within the law, is acceptable, there is no need for anything except single shot. As far as I know, animals aren't armed and aren't able to shoot back.

If you live in fear of being gunned down and need guns with a large amount of bullets, and you aren't living in a gang neighborhood, you need therapy, IMO. If you live in a normal neighborhood, fears like this need medical attention. Seriously, your risk of slipping in the bathroom and getting killed are much more likely than getting shot, but I assume you bathe.

While the number of households with guns has decreased the number of guns owned by individuals has increased.

Also, the number of gun related injuries and deaths have gone up, the number of those related to crime have decreased. More guns = more deaths.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html

 

[russ_watters]

Hunting is the only acceptable reason to own a gun, handguns are for killing people, IMO.

What? Are you trying to say that owning a handgun is a neccessity?

No one "needs" to own a handgun. No one needs to own any type of gun. But owning shotguns and rifles for hunting animals, within the law, is acceptable, there is no need for anything except single shot. As far as I know, animals aren't armed and aren't able to shoot back.

If you live in fear of being gunned down and need guns with a large amount of bullets, and you aren't living in a gang neighborhood, you need therapy, IMO. If you live in a normal neighborhood, fears like this need medical attention.

To expand on my position in light of the above (everything to this point has been with respect to assault weapons):

I'm somewhat torn on this. The clear part of my position is on hunting rifles and shotguns. I'm in favor of them.

Less clear is my opinion on personal defense. Personal defense is an iffy proposition on its best day (CAC's post), but as a freedom-lover, I'm generally in favor of it, if a person desires it. Like you said, though -- if you really need a gun for protection, you're probably living in the wrong neighborhood.

If I were inclined to own guns for personal defense, I'd probably buy a pump-action shotgun and a semi-auto handgun like the 9mm Beretta I shot in the navy. But given the significance of the murder problem in the US and the difficulty in having and using a concealed handgun in a public setting*, I don't think I'd shed any tears if they were banned.

Many people view fighting for or against the government to be legitimate reasons for gun ownership. Regardless of if the 2nd Amendment intended either (probably the former, probably not the latter), this is an obsolete idea that should be discarded imo.

*The wiki page on Congresswoman Giffords' shooting says a guy with a concealed carry permit and who was carrying at the time showed up at the shooting as it was ending and was thus not able to contribute. Giffords was shot in a red state in a country where there are more guns than people. The NRA, as is its purpose, supports the idea of a nation where everyone has a gun and no one uses them, but I believe that the idea that more guns = more safety requires a critical mass of guns and gun violence that we have not yet achieved. Thus I believe their theory to be flawed: even with more guns than people, the murder rate would be reduced, not increased by reducing the number of guns.

 

[OCR]

Also, genuinely curious whether you can show me some (non-anecdotal) proof that guns work for home protection. I remember hearing a statistic that it's more likely there's an accidentals shooting than a home protection, but that statistic was not verified, just stated./

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/peer.html



OCR

 

[CAC1001]

Nonsense. You've posted one example of a crossover, but that's it. Most hunting rifles do not look like assault rifles.

Which difference do you mean though? A gun is a gun. There are not special guns that are designed to kill people as opposed to animals. Also, I was talking about military rifles overall, not just assault rifles. Other examples of crossovers can be the German Mauser 8mm, the Lee Enfield .303 British, Springfield Model 1903, M1 Garand, Springfield M1A, SKS rifle, Mosin Nagant, etc...all of which, if one doesn't know what they are looking at, can easily "look" like a "hunting rifle."

I'd like to know honestly how many people hunt with an M-16 copy.

Not sure on this one. Also not sure what difference it really makes. One thing that should be pointed out about the AR-15 is that the reason it was not adopted for hunting initially after the Vietnam War was because the early M-16 rifles were of very poor quality and garnered a bad reputation, and also the war had such a stigma to it, and split the country so much, that a lot of soldiers just wanted to put it behind them when they returned home. The AR-15 was the first rifle to not be adopted in large scale for things like hunting by the soldiers returning home from the war who had used it. It has proven very popular with returning vets from Iraq and Afghanistan however. The modern M-16s are much better quality and the wars did not have the same stigma to them.

And in addition, you posted one very badly chosen example:

Sniper rifles. Sniper rifles are intended for one-shot-one-kill use, much like hunting rifles. They are not the same as assault rifles and often aren't even semi-automatic, such as in your example of the Remmington 700. So in this case, you're arguing against your point: Since the rifle is a military-type, but specialized for accuracy and not high firing rate or portability or other infantry type functionality, it is not the type of weapon that needs to be banned for civilian use. Hence the need for another term to describe the type of weapon that is to be banned: assault weapons/rifles.

If you had someone use a sniper rifle to snipe at people, I think you'd most definitely have people in the media questioning why are "sniper" rifles available to people. Who needs a "sniper" rifle? And so forth. That is why I cited it. The appropriate term for the guns the gun control people want to ban, IMO, would be "scary-looking guns," as that's all they ultimately are. Calling them "assault weapon" makes it sound like they're some official type of gun or something. The gun control proponents know that if they call to ban scary-looking guns, that won't gain much traction.

I'm not an expert, though, so you tell me: why is the Remmington 700 single-shot? Why the lack of a carrying handle on top? Why no flash suppressor? Why a solid stock? Could it be that all of these features affect accuracy? Indeed, if you would like all hunting rifles to be bolt-action like the Remmington 700, I'd definitely be willing to compromise on that!

By "carrying handle," if you mean the "carrying handle" on say the M16 rifle, that actually has to do with being able to aim the gun on target, not as a convenient way to carry it. I am not an expert either though, but regardless of how those features affect accuracy, I do not see why they should be banned. It should be a matter of preference for the owner.

edit: oh, and the wiki says this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Model_700

Recoil reduces accuracy, which is a good reason for both sniper rifles and hunting rifles to be heavier and more solid than assault rifles.

Yes; assault rifles are lower-powered than battle rifles and certain hunting rifles for this reason, because otherwise you wouldn't be able to control the weapon while firing on full-auto.

 

[CAC1001]

Hunting is the only acceptable reason to own a gun, handguns are for killing people, IMO.

Self-protection is also an acceptable reason to own a gun IMO.

What? Are you trying to say that owning a handgun is a neccessity?

I think he just means that arms ownership is a fundamental right and regarding it as merely a hobby opens it up to a lot more regulation.

 

[Evo]

I think he just means that arms ownership is a fundamental right and regarding it as merely a hobby opens it up to a lot more regulation.

And that's why we need to bring the constitution out of the dark ages and face reality. If we had won our freedom prior to the gun age, would you be arguing for swords? Also, it was meant for purposes of a militia, we have an established military/National Guard now, we no longer have the need to call on civilian volunteers. People don't really own guns now planning to be called to protect the country, IMO.

I'll agree that the 2nd ammendment covers guns if we restrict gun ownership to the same guns available at the time. Anything more advanced would require a new law. It's ridiculous what people are trying to claim, that current guns are covered under what the authors of the constitution envisioned.

 

[Skrew]

Hunting is the only acceptable reason to own a gun, handguns are for killing people, IMO.

What? Are you trying to say that owning a handgun is a neccessity?

No one "needs" to own a handgun. No one needs to own any type of gun. But owning shotguns and rifles for hunting animals, within the law, is acceptable, there is no need for anything except single shot. As far as I know, animals aren't armed and aren't able to shoot back.

If you live in fear of being gunned down and need guns with a large amount of bullets, and you aren't living in a gang neighborhood, you need therapy, IMO. If you live in a normal neighborhood, fears like this need medical attention. Seriously, your risk of slipping in the bathroom and getting killed are much more likely than getting shot, but I assume you bathe.

While the number of households with guns has decreased the number of guns owned by individuals has increased.

Also, the number of gun related injuries and deaths have gone up, the number of those related to crime have decreased. More guns = more deaths.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html

I fundementally disagree with you, while handguns are designed to shoot people, shooting people is not inherently wrong depending on the situation.

The rest of your post is a bit contradictory, if getting shot by someone isn't a problem then clearly there is no need for further gun restriction. People who accidently shoot themselves or commit suicide with guns are irrelevant when comes to passing legislation. I don't believe in protecting people from themselves.

If you don't want to own guns, if you want to place all your faith and power in others to protect and provide for you at the cost of significant freedom I don't have a problem with it. I have a problem when you argue I should follow you.

 

[CAC1001]

To expand on my position in light of the above (everything to this point has been with respect to assault weapons):

I'm somewhat torn on this. The clear part of my position is on hunting rifles and shotguns. I'm in favor of them.

How do we define a "hunting rifle" though? Plenty of ex-military rifles are popular hunting rifles, and now the AR-15 has a growing number of users in this.

Less clear is my opinion on personal defense. Personal defense is an iffy proposition on its best day (CAC's post), but as a freedom-lover, I'm generally in favor of it, if a person desires it. Like you said, though -- if you really need a gun for protection, you're probably living in the wrong neighborhood.

I agree that most people, generally, don't need to be armed, but I believe it's one right to be armed to protect themself just in case. If civil order breaks down due to a natural disaster, that also I think is a use.

Many people view fighting for or against the government to be legitimate reasons for gun ownership. Regardless of if the 2nd Amendment intended either (probably the former, probably not the latter), this is an obsolete idea that should be discarded imo.

My understanding is the Founders intended the people to be armed both to protect the nation and to resist a possibly tyrannical government, along with purposes of self-protection and survival (hunting). Regarding whether this resistance-to-government aspect is obsolete, IMO, at this particular moment in time, the idea of the government becoming tyrannical in this nation is really very remote. But, I would also argue that the entire history of this nation is a blip in the timeline of the history of other nations and empires, and that we have no idea what the future holds, what the country will be like 100 years, 150 years, 200 years down-the-line.

Regarding whether citizens could mount a resistance against a modern tyrannical government with a modern military, I think they could. Look at Syria, where Assad has been using battle tanks, attack helicopters, bombs, artillery, infantry, etc...and still can't put down the resistance. Now he has been considering using chemical weapons, which is a real sign of desperation. Or look at China, which watches their citizens closely, and has censored their media and Internet regarding the uprisings in the Middle East over the past few years. The Chinese government knows that if enough of a boiling point is reached, they could end up getting booted from power, and their people are not armed like Americans.

So I wouldn't consider the aspect of the Second Amendment for resistance to a tyrannical government obsolete per se, but I'd right now consider it a very remote thing to be concerned about. Now those who think that the current government is going to form a dictatorship ala Stalin and that they need to be armed to resist it, I think one is being paranoid if they think that.

 

[CAC1001]

And that's why we need to bring the constitution out of the dark ages and face reality. If we had won our freedom prior to the gun age, would you be arguing for swords?

You have a right to own a sword, unless I am mistaken? I just argue for weapons. The country won its freedom with muskets, but I am not arguing for those as the ideal weapon for protection.

Also, it was meant for purposes of a militia, we have an established military/National Guard now, we no longer have the need to call on civilian volunteers. People don't really own guns now planning to be called to protect the country, IMO.

I don't think the Constitution is in the dark ages in this sense. See my post to Russ on my thoughts on the Second Amendment regarding resistance to a tyrannical government. I think that, at this point in history, it's a very minor concern. But I do not think anyone can predict the future, especially long-term. One's right to arms ownership was for personal protection, survival (hunting), along with resistance to a tyrannical government and also resistance to foreign invasion. The latter two are obviously very minor concerns right now.

 

[Skrew]

And that's why we need to bring the constitution out of the dark ages and face reality. If we had won our freedom prior to the gun age, would you be arguing for swords? Also, it was meant for purposes of a militia, we have an established military/National Guard now, we no longer have the need to call on civilian volunteers. People don't really own guns now planning to be called to protect the country, IMO.

I'll agree that the 2nd ammendment covers guns if we restrict gun ownership to the same guns available at the time. Anything more advanced would require a new law. It's ridiculous what people are trying to claim, that current guns are covered under what the authors of the constitution envisioned.

If the second amendment was written with muskets in mind, doesn't that imply the first amendment was written with printing presses and no long range communication in mind?

Your line of reasoning leads to the entire constitution being scrapped.

 

[Evo]

I fundementally disagree with you, while handguns are designed to shoot people, shooting people is not inherently wrong depending on the situation.

The rest of your post is a bit contradictory, if getting shot by someone isn't a problem then clearly there is no need for further gun restriction. People who accidently shoot themselves or commit suicide with guns are irrelevant when comes to passing legislation. I don't believe in protecting people from themselves.

If you don't want to own guns, if you want to place all your faith and power in others to protect and provide for you at the cost of significant freedom I don't have a problem with it. I have a problem when you argue I should follow you.

Read what I posted about fewer people owning guns, but those fewer people own more guns and while deaths due to crime have decreased, deaths by guns have increased. What does that tell you? More guns = more deaths, in the hands of fewer people. That's a fact.

I don't worry about so much about people owning guns that do not own them out of fear, it's the people that own them out of fear that scares me. If you own a gun because you think you need protection in a safe neighborhood, you shouldn't own a gun, IMO. I would like a complete psychological evaluation required before anyone could buy a gun. I think 90% of the people wanting a gun would be denied because they are buying guns for the wrong reason and can't be trusted to be responsible gun owners.

 

[Pythagorean]

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/peer.html
OCR

This doesn't answer my question at all. It looks only at the type of resistance given, it doesn't differentiate the demographics of someone who owns a gun, but couldn't give gun resistance, from someone who doesn't own a gun and didn't choose to give gun resistance. So it automatically excludes the measurement of people who own guns but aren't able to get their guns out in time to defend themselves. Especially people with family who can't sleep with a loaded 9mm under their pillow and need a gun cabinet or other safety device.

I'm talking about comparing how often a home has been successfully defended by a gun owner (including cases where the gun wasn't used, as failure to get your gun out is a count against the effectiveness of home defense with a gun) vs. how often people accidentally shoot themselves, family, or friends.

Since having kids, I have put my guns away and have only a baseball bat under the bed. And of course, I've never needed it (despite being in a place with a crime rate 3x higher than the national average). Most victims of break-ins here are themselves criminals (drug dealers or engaged in a long-term conflict).

That's another thing to consider when doing statistics. How many times was a home break-in prevented by a gun, but the break-in was a result of criminal activity on part of the home-owner?

This is an anecdote, but our last two murders in this town were of fully armed military police. Their guns never even made it out of the holsters, their shotguns were still mounted.

 

[russ_watters]

Which difference do you mean though? A gun is a gun. There are not special guns that are designed to kill people as opposed to animals.

Do you recognize any differences between guns intended for different purposes? You are taking an obviously nonsensical absolutist position that says that all guns are identical when they clearly are not.

If you had someone use a sniper rifle to snipe at people, I think you'd most definitely have people in the media questioning why are "sniper" rifles available to people. Who needs a "sniper" rifle? And so forth. That is why I cited it.

Fair enough, but since none of the mass-murders of the type that happened a couple of weeks ago used either sniper weapons or tactics, that's not an issue I am interested in discussing here. In fact I'd say it is so rare as to be irrelevant (uncommon example: DC Sniper).

The appropriate term for the guns the gun control people want to ban, IMO, would be "scary-looking guns," as that's all they ultimately are. Calling them "assault weapon" makes it sound like they're some official type of gun or something.

The intent is to give them an appropriate name. You've taken a position that the gun type doesn't exist but that clearly is not true. The differences are real and you've even accidentally cited several. Let me be clear:

Do you acknowledge that the guns typically used for hunting and the guns typically used by infantry are different guns?

Again, then name is not really an important issue. The issue is that the guns are a type of gun that civilians should not have. If you want to call them "scary looking guns", fine: we can just ban "scary looking guns". Do you agree or is this all just a word game to you?

My understanding is the Founders intended...

Regardless of what the founders intended, in the modern age it is not possible for a lightly-armed populace to overthrow a the government of a developed nation. Overthrowing such a government requires military-grade weapons like heavy machine guns, mortars and attack helicopters. So we are left with two choices: allow unrestricted access to weapons of all sorts or make restrictions that ignore the issue of fighting against the government.

Look at Syria, where Assad has been using battle tanks, attack helicopters, bombs, artillery, infantry, etc...and still can't put down the resistance.

No.

The Free Syrian Army may have limited resources, but it still has anti-aircraft missiles, artillery and armor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army

And it isn't a coincidence that they better they do, the more military-like their weaponry gets.

I think that, at this point in history, it's a very minor concern. But I do not think anyone can predict the future, especially long-term.

I think the advancement of technology, not the retreat of technology is a relatively safe bet.

 

[CAC1001]

Do you recognize any differences between guns intended for different purposes? You are taking an obviously nonsensical absolutist position that says that all guns are identical when they clearly are not.

Guns are pieces of machinery that are designed to let a person kill something. There is no difference between a "weapon of war" and a "hunting rifle," unless one is talking machine guns. Otherwise, a gun is a gun.

Fair enough, but since none of the mass-murders of the type that happened a couple of weeks ago used either sniper weapons or tactics, that's not an issue I am interested in discussing here. In fact I'd say it is so rare as to be irrelevant (uncommon example: DC Sniper). The intent is to give them an appropriate name. You've taken a position that the gun type doesn't exist but that clearly is not true. The differences are real and you've even accidentally cited several. Let me be clear:

Do you acknowledge that the guns typically used for hunting and the guns typically used by infantry are different guns?

Nope. Guns used for hunting and guns used for infantry are historically the same weapon and in modern times can easily be the same weapon. Manufacturers design certain rifles today that are only intended to be used for hunting, such as certain bolt-action rifles as infantry do not use bolt-actions in modern times except as a sniper rifle, but if you took one of these modern bolt-action hunting rifles back to World War I or before, there is no reason it could not be adopted as a military gun. Just the same, there is no reason why modern infantry rifles cannot be adopted for hunting purposes.

Shotguns, for example, are used across-the-board, in everything from hunting, to home defense, to military, to law enforcement, to sport shooting.

Again, then name is not really an important issue. The issue is that the guns are a type of gun that civilians should not have. If you want to call them "scary looking guns", fine: we can just ban "scary looking guns". Do you agree or is this all just a word game to you?

What specifically is it about them that makes them guns that civilians shouldn't have? Because they are high-powered guns? They aren't. Because they are automatic fire capability? They don't. Because they have some special enhanced ability to kill? They don't. They aren't even a "type" of gun, just a random name given to whatever the gun control proponents think looks menacing enough.

Regardless of what the founders intended, in the modern age it is not possible for a lightly-armed populace to overthrow a the government of a developed nation.Overthrowing such a government requires military-grade weapons like heavy machine guns, mortars and attack helicopters. So we are left with two choices: allow unrestricted access to weapons of all sorts or make restrictions that ignore the issue of fighting against the government.

No.

The Free Syrian Army may have limited resources, but it still has anti-aircraft missiles, artillery and armor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army

And it isn't a coincidence that they better they do, the more military-like their weaponry gets.

As said, I believe a lightly-armed populace could overthrow the government of a modern nation for the reasons I stated (Syrian example, Chinese government watching its people closely). And yes, the better they do, they capture the weapons the military is using. The same would probably happen in this country if such a resistance against such a government ever broke out and the resistance was winning.

But that said, even if we theorize that your opinion is correct and the idea of arms ownership for resistance to a tyrannical government is completely obsolete now, and one just would want guns for self-defense and/or hunting, I still see no reason why one should not be allowed to own these guns. There is nothing special about them in comparison to any other type of gun one can buy.

We do not allow unrestricted access to weapons of all sorts. The guns people can buy are regulated by thousands of laws as is, automatic fire weapons are outlawed for the most part, and other military weapons are flat-out outlawed.

 

[JustaThinker]

Silly Americans. No guns. No gun crime. A punch in the nose every now and then is worth much more then losing your family. Just get rid of the guns. As if anyone is going to attack you with 6 billion nuclear weapons...

 

[MarneMath]

Here is the issue I really don't understand. Why should the gun regulation only be stopped at full automatic? What makes a full auto so much more dangerous than an Ar-15 with 30 round quick release mag, ACOG, with hollow point rounds?

 

[Pythagorean]

because the country's divided nearly in half and little wins are perceived as meaningful for one group.

 

[Evo]

because the country's divided nearly in half and little wins are perceived as meaningful for one group.

and because completely outlawing guns in this country would be impossible at this time, but limiting the types of guns and making it harder to get guns is a realistic goal.

 

[jtbell]

Also known in another context as "bending the curve."

 

[Pythagorean]

...but limiting the types of guns and making it harder to get guns is a realistic goal.

Well, that's what one side of the argument, an example of perceiving a small win was meaningful. The other side of the argument is that it's not a realistic goal.

I think most evidence points to what you've said, but I don't really know so I was trying to remain neutral until some relevant evidence is produced. I remember it (banning guns) went well for Australia.

 

[Evo]

Well, that's what one side of the argument, an example of perceiving a small win was meaningful. The other side of the argument is that it's not a realistic goal.

I think most evidence points to what you've said, but I don't really know so I was trying to remain neutral until some relevant evidence is produced. I remember it (banning guns) went well for Australia.

Australia didn't have the powerful NRA lobby in all of its politicians pockets, pulling their strings.

 

[Pythagorean]

I mean I believe gun crime actually went down (i.e. Australia is a valid example for gun ban working).

 

[CAC1001]

Australia also had a smaller proportion of their population owning guns then the United States, and their overall population is a lot smaller than the U.S.'s (22.6 million versus about 300 million).

Australia didn't have the powerful NRA lobby in all of its politicians pockets, pulling their strings.

One thing to remember about the NRA though is that it gets its influence from all the people that support it. It is not a lobbyist of the gun industry as many think, as gun manufacturing is too small an industry to have the kind of influence in Washington that the NRA has. So I'd say the difference is really that Australia didn't/doesn't have a large number of citizens who care about gun rights the way the U.S. does.

 

[Evo]

Australia also had a smaller proportion of their population owning guns then the United States, and their overall population is a lot smaller than the U.S.'s (22.6 million versus about 300 million).



One thing to remember about the NRA though is that it gets its influence from all the people that support it. It is not a lobbyist of the gun industry as many think, as gun manufacturing is too small an industry to have the kind of influence in Washington that the NRA has. So I'd say the difference is really that Australia didn't/doesn't have a large number of citizens who care about gun rights the way the U.S. does.

But not that many americans actually own guns, gun owners are in the minority opposed to non-gun owners. I have a hard time believing that the majority of Americans are not against guns, as in I believe that the "polls" are not real.

"There is a myth pushed by the gun industry, the NRA and the trade associations for gun makers that gun ownership is up," he said. "[That] there are more gun owners, when the opposite is true, gun ownership is declining."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining/index.html

According to the last gallup poll, only 30% of American adults claimed to own a gun.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx

The support the NRA claims is not there. I believe that if it was left up to the American public, no politicians or gun lobbies involved, we would ban guns.

 

[JustaThinker]

Are you people crazy? No guns at all. Supermarkets provide food. America's army kicks everyones arse. If a criminal comes at you with a knife, just swing a baseball bat. That's what we do in Australia. NRA? When will you Americans wake up and recognise that you are not a democracy. You are a cash-ocracy. The middleclass is so sleepy in the US. The middleclass in Australia runs the country not the rich, we are a democracy. Try and get a free gun law passed in Australia and you go on the terrorist list...

 

[CAC1001]

But not that many americans actually own guns, gun owners are in the minority opposed to non-gun owners. I have a hard time believing that the majority of Americans are not against guns, as in I believe that the "polls" are not real.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining/index.html

According to the last gallup poll, only 30% of American adults claimed to own a gun.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx

IMO, if they were, I think we wouldn't have any problems with passing more restrictive gun laws and the NRA wouldn't have the influence it has (had?). Also according to Gallup, support for a hand gun ban is at an all-time low: http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/record-low-favor-handgun-ban.aspx More are against than for an Assault Weapons Ban, albeit by a small margin: http://www.gallup.com/poll/159569/americans-stricter-gun-laws-oppose-bans.aspx However, a majority support background checks and 62% are for banning magazines of more then ten rounds.

The support the NRA claims is not there. The support the NRA claims is not there. I believe that if it was left up to the American public, no politicians or gun lobbies involved, we would ban guns.

Well a real-world experiment with it is likely going to occur soon when Feinstein introduces her "Assault Weapons Ban." But as far as I can tell, groups like the NRA are the American public. Gun manufacturing is a $12 billion a year industry: http://www.ibisworld.com/industry/default.aspx?indid=662 That's too small to have any kind of real lobbying power. Exxon-Mobil, as one company for example, had revenues in 2011 of about $483 billion. Wal-Mart, one of the top lobbyists in Washington, had around $450 billion. Industries like that, that's real lobbying power.

 

[Evo]

IMO, if they were, I think we wouldn't have any problems with passing more restrictive gun laws and the NRA wouldn't have the influence it has (had?).

Well a real-world experiment with it is likely going to occur soon when Feinstein introduces her "Assault Weapons Ban."

Not really, politicians fear the NRA and gun groups, as was cited in the article I linked. There won't be a popular vote by the people.

 

[CAC1001]

Not really, politicians fear the NRA and gun groups, as was cited in the article I linked. There won't be a popular vote by the people.

One thing to also remember is that even if the popular vote was for banning guns, that still isn't supposed to be allowed as it is considered that the Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms (I know you'd say it should be amended in that sense, but just saying regarding the current way it's written).

 

[Skrew]

Read what I posted about fewer people owning guns, but those fewer people own more guns and while deaths due to crime have decreased, deaths by guns have increased. What does that tell you? More guns = more deaths, in the hands of fewer people. That's a fact.

I don't worry about so much about people owning guns that do not own them out of fear, it's the people that own them out of fear that scares me. If you own a gun because you think you need protection in a safe neighborhood, you shouldn't own a gun, IMO. I would like a complete psychological evaluation required before anyone could buy a gun. I think 90% of the people wanting a gun would be denied because they are buying guns for the wrong reason and can't be trusted to be responsible gun owners.

I'm going to need evidence showing less people own firearms. Not proportions but people total, I suspect the number is steadily riseing. In terms of total deaths, you already wrote it's not an issue statistically. Also you're equateing suicides and accidental discharges with homocides, they aren't. The only gun deaths worth looking at are murders.

I own firearms for the same reason you own home owners insurance and a fire extinguisher.

I don't think you are in a position to say 90% of gun owners shouldn't be able to own guns, I actually think that's a completely absurd statement. I do suspect it reflects the general mindset of the people behind things like this latest AWB legislation(which has no chance of passing in its current form) and shows what their longterm goals are. It's unfortunate many aren't more honest in public debate.

Not really, politicians fear the NRA and gun groups, as was cited in the article I linked. There won't be a popular vote by the people.

They fear the NRA because people consider their gun ownership as important and politicians against it will not be voted for. We place gun ownership as one of our main voteing issues.

This AWB bill has caused a huge number of gun purchases over the last few weeks. Everyone is out of stock, one of the popular gun websites sold out of a years supply of magazines within 2 days. All the manufactuers are working 24/7 now to meet demand.

It will be kind of ironic when this bill fails and millions of additional guns will have entered circulation because of it.

 

[russ_watters]

Guns are pieces of machinery that are designed to let a person kill something. There is no difference between a "weapon of war" and a "hunting rifle," unless one is talking machine guns. Otherwise, a gun is a gun.

Nope. Guns used for hunting and guns used for infantry are historically the same weapon and in modern times can easily be the same weapon. Manufacturers design certain rifles today that are only intended to be used for hunting, such as certain bolt-action rifles as infantry do not use bolt-actions in modern times except as a sniper rifle, but if you took one of these modern bolt-action hunting rifles back to World War I or before, there is no reason it could not be adopted as a military gun. Just the same, there is no reason why modern infantry rifles cannot be adopted for hunting purposes.

Ugh. We're going around in circles and there are three problems here:

1. You've forgotten what you are arguing about. You're arguing against the name "assault weapon" so providing examples of weapons that are military type but aren't assault weapons is actually arguing against your point.

2. You say "a gun is a gun" except when they aren't and provide examples of where they aren't the same! In particular, a sniper rifle, who's feature list includes things that make it better for hunting than for shooting up a room full of kids. Again, you are arguing against your point there, but more importantly the point that "a gun is a gun" is false at face value and you know it because you've provided some of the examples! I linked the wiki article on assault weapons and the article includes a list of distinguishing features. You showed a sniper rifle with different features. These features are real. They exist. You can't make them go away by parroting over and over again that they don't exist.

3. Taken separately, you've accepted all the facts but then disagree when they are all put together. All together: Sniper type rifles are better suited for hunting and assault rifles are better suited for shooting up a room full of kids. That's why the shooters chose them. That's why they should not be allowed to have them.

We do not allow unrestricted access to weapons of all sorts.

Right. Guns are all the same except ones that aren't and ones that are more dangerous are banned and you know all of this and agree that it should be that way.

Except "assault rifles".

 

[Astronuc]

One thing to remember about the NRA though is that it gets its influence from all the people that support it. It is not a lobbyist of the gun industry as many think, as gun manufacturing is too small an industry to have the kind of influence in Washington that the NRA has. So I'd say the difference is really that Australia didn't/doesn't have a large number of citizens who care about gun rights the way the U.S. does.

Apparently the gun manufacturing industry does provide the NRA with financial support.

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/guns-and-dollars/there-are-more-guns-fewer-gun-owners

The Violence Policy Center has estimated that since 2005, gun manufacturers have contributed up to $38.9 million to the NRA. Those numbers, however, are based on publicly listed “sponsorship” levels on NRA fundraising pamphlets. The real figures could be much bigger. Like Crossroads GPS or Americans for Prosperity, or the Sierra Club for that matter, the NRA does not disclose any donor information even though it spends millions on federal elections.

. . .

http://www.thenation.com/blog/171776/does-nra-represent-gun-manufacturers-or-gun-owners#

A perspective from a gun-owner and former NRA member - http://expressmilwaukee.com/article-permalink-4966.html

 

[CAC1001]

Ugh. We're going around in circles and there are three problems here:

1. You've forgotten what you are arguing about. You're arguing against the name "assault weapon" so providing examples of weapons that are military type but aren't assault weapons is actually arguing against your point.

My point is that there is no difference between the guns used for hunting and the guns used for infantry (disregarding machine guns).

2. You say "a gun is a gun" except when they aren't and provide examples of where they aren't the same! In particular, a sniper rifle, who's feature list includes things that make it better for hunting than for shooting up a room full of kids. Again, you are arguing against your point there, but more importantly the point that "a gun is a gun" is false at face value and you know it because you've provided some of the examples! I linked the wiki article on assault weapons and the article includes a list of distinguishing features. You showed a sniper rifle with different features. These features are real. They exist. You can't make them go away by parroting over and over again that they don't exist.

What is false about it? So different guns may be more ideal for different purposes. The point is that any gun can be used for any purpose if it will do the job the person is doing. A bolt-action rifle could be used to shoot up a room full of kids, it would just be slower-going for the shooter, but the children would not be able to stop them. And an AR-15 could be used as a sniper rifle, for example the 2002 D.C. sniper used an AR-15.

I say the term "assault weapon" is wrong because it was made up by people with an agenda. It was not created as an official term for firearms. Just because legislators create the term "assault weapon" and then create a list of features designating what constitutes an "assault weapon" does not mean "assault weapon" is an actual type of gun.

3. Taken separately, you've accepted all the facts but then disagree when they are all put together. All together: Sniper type rifles are better suited for hunting and assault rifles are better suited for shooting up a room full of kids. That's why the shooters chose them. That's why they should not be allowed to have them. Right. Guns are all the same except ones that aren't and ones that are more dangerous are banned and you know all of this and agree that it should be that way.

Except "assault rifles".

Assault rifles are automatic fire weapons and are thus already banned. I stated a few posts back that, "There is no difference between a "weapon of war" and a "hunting rifle," unless one is talking machine guns." The weapons the shooters have used are just semi-automatic rifles, although they look menacing. Semi-automatic is what virtually every gun in the country is and goes back to the beginning of the 20th century. Before that, they had lever-actions, which, while you can't fire them as quickly as a semi-auto, you most definitely can still shoot them quickly enough and they are powerful guns. The Aurora shooter for example opened fire with a pump-action shot gun when his AR-15 jammed. Pump-action is not semi-auto, but most definitely can be used to shoot people with.

So if you are arguing that people should not be allowed to own AR-15s, you are essentially arguing that they should not be allowed to own semi-automatics period, which basically means taking people back to 19th century gun technology for the most part. Of course, a mass shooting could still occur with a lever-action or a pump-action, so then are we going to ban those as well?

 

[CAC1001]

Apparently the gun manufacturing industry does provide the NRA with financial support.

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/guns-and-dollars/there-are-more-guns-fewer-gun-owners

Oh I believe the gun industry definitely gives money to the NRA, but I do not believe that the NRA is a front for the gun industry the way the gun control proponents portray it to be, because gun manufacturing is such a small industry. An industry that, as a whole, has only a fraction of the revenues of the larger companies, such as Wal-Mart and General Dynamics and Bank of America and Exxon-Mobil, etc...is not going to have the kind of lobbying ability the NRA has.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/171776/does-nra-represent-gun-manufacturers-or-gun-owners#

I'd be careful going by what the Violence Policy Center claims. You might as well be citing statistics on why gun ownership is good from the NRA.

A perspective from a gun-owner and former NRA member - http://expressmilwaukee.com/article-permalink-4966.html

I'd say that, on at least one of his main points, the guy is a propagandist. Just look at this quote:

The gun industry and the National Rifle Association (NRA) don't want you to know that gun sales have stagnated for years, and their campaigns to legalize concealed carry and fight restrictions on the sales of highly lethal weapons are part of their strategy to boost stagnant gun sales.

Tom Diaz, senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center, argues that this business strategy does a disservice to the sport shooters and hunters who make up the bulk of the NRA's membership, and has resulted in turning the United States into the "last great market" for cheap and highly lethal weapons. Diaz, the author of Making a Killing and the forthcoming No Borders: Transnational Latino Gangs and American Law Enforcement, spoke to the Shepherd about the true motives of the gun industry, how President George Bush allowed assault-style weapons to be imported into the United States, and what President-elect Barack Obama should do about gun violence.

What is a "highly-lethal weapon?" All guns are "highly-lethal" if fired at a person. They mean guns that look scary, that are otherwise no different than any other gun. The very fact he even uses that description blows a hole into his credibility, IMO. Also, so-called "highly-lethal" weapons are not what are used in the majority of gun violence cases: Here is a link to the VPC itself saying this: http://www.vpc.org/studies/unsafe.htm

Regarding President Bush, President Bush said he'd sign a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban if the Congress would pass it, but the Congress didn't: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/09/politics/09ban.html

 

[Pete Cortez]

But not that many americans actually own guns, gun owners are in the minority opposed to non-gun owners. I have a hard time believing that the majority of Americans are not against guns, as in I believe that the "polls" are not real.http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining/index.html

According to the last gallup poll, only 30% of American adults claimed to own a gun.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx

Out of date. Here's some more up to date. At 47 percent and with that margin of error, could well be that a majority of Americans own or have access to a firearm.

Also, I agree that the polls may not be entirely trustworthy, but could be in the opposite direction. And we have no information on the non-response rate.

The support the NRA claims is not there. I believe that if it was left up to the American public, no politicians or gun lobbies involved, we would ban guns.

That's an interesting belief, but the fact remains that there is a lobby for gun owners, retailer and manufacturers. There are politicians. And there is no chance in hell that further restrictions will pass in Congress.

 

[Pete Cortez]

Apparently the gun manufacturing industry does provide the NRA with financial support.

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/guns-and-dollars/there-are-more-guns-fewer-gun-owners

Confusing the NRA Foundation with NRA proper. NRA-ILA and NRA-PVF, the grassroots and PAC arms respectively, have different funding mechanisms.

 

[Pete Cortez]

I mean I believe gun crime actually went down (i.e. Australia is a valid example for gun ban working).

It did go down, but there is considerable disagreement if the decline followed the Agreement or represents a previous trend.

On the empirical side, there are a number of analyses that raise doubts about the effectiveness of governmental gun buybacks, particularly the large Australian buyback of 1996-1997. The Australian buyback was one of the largest buyback programs in history and ultimately involved the repurchase of some 600,000 firearms. The stated purpose of this buyback was to reduce the stock of circulating firearms by approximately 1/5 th by repurchasing the used guns at the market price. A number of empirical studies have examined the impact of this buyback, with most recent being Lee and Suardi (2010) and Leigh and Neill (June 2010). Lee and Suardi, as well as a number of previous authors, conclude the buyback has had little to no effect on firearms related deaths in Australia. However, Leigh and Neill argue that when panel (cross-sectional and timevarying) data is used, there is a significant drop in firearm suicide rates in Australia due to the buyback (although the relationship between gun homicides rates and buybacks is more ambiguous). Hence, the empirical evidence is somewhat mixed which, of course, begs the theoretical question: why might these buyback programs not be as effective as originally thought?

 

[Pete Cortez]

Are you people crazy? No guns at all. Supermarkets provide food. America's army kicks everyones arse. If a criminal comes at you with a knife, just swing a baseball bat. That's what we do in Australia. NRA? When will you Americans wake up and recognise that you are not a democracy. You are a cash-ocracy. The middleclass is so sleepy in the US. The middleclass in Australia runs the country not the rich, we are a democracy. Try and get a free gun law passed in Australia and you go on the terrorist list...

What if said criminal comes at you with a gun?

 

[Pete Cortez]

I'd be careful going by what the Violence Policy Center claims. You might as well be citing statistics on why gun ownership is good from the NRA.

One of the more egregious cases of VPC dishonesty: http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/07-290/07-290.mer.ami.resp.slf.pdf (pages 19-22).