A common trait concerning most aspects of gun culture.

Why does Nugent come to mind?

. . .which is where such items belong. Not in the general public.

You want to play with an assault weapon, join the Army or the Marines. They'll train you, then send you overseas (sometimes) to use them. Just remember, out there, the "targets" shoot back.

I also would like to point out that, in order to join the Army or Marines and to "play" with assault weapons, you also need to pass a background check.

Thanks!

And that he reloaded freely without even fully emptying all of them. However, his word isn't the final word on that matter. Plenty of police had unofficial opinions on shit that didn't turn out to be true, like the asshole in the aurora theater wearing a bullet proof vest. (It wasn't, it was ballistic nylon, meaning, a nylon vest with a lot of pockets and rip-stop properties)

Not sure why it takes so long for us to learn the full police account of what went down, it's not like the fucking perp is going to use it for his criminal defense in this case.

Am speculating that the police (govt employees) are holding back the full account in an effort to protect the school/school board (more govt employees) from lawsuits.

Why hasn't the surviving school employee given an account of the shooting? Why haven't the subject and details of Lanza's confrontation and conversation with school personnel the day prior to the shooting been released? Or did I miss all that news?

If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. The problem being, in this case, thousands of innocent children getting murdered.

There is no improving legislation that is flawed in its premise.

Banning a few features on rifles will not stop someone from acquiring another firearm with different features and using it to kill people.

The AWB is culture war legislation. It makes anti-gunners think they did something and irritates pro-gun people without saving lives.

If you want to reduce gun violence then legalize recreational drugs, improve. mental health care and insurance, and put violent criminals away in prison for a long time.

I can live with the requirement for background checks with all transfers as long as civilians don't have to keep the records. That may help keep a few firearms put of the hands of the dumb.

And record keeping is necessary to be able to find out where the illegal originate. You don't want gun owners to be responsible, and you don't want the govt to force responsibility on them.

I guess you're one that's "part of the problem".

It's you claim that the AWB failed. Show me where allowing them works.

If it doesn't work, cite an example.

The original AWB certainly worked as far as it went. But to shout "It failed! It failed!" and then go on to show an example of why with a weapon crafted to get around the ban just doesn't wash. What we need to do is fix it and improve it so it's better than it was - and not just give up, give in & surrender to the carnage simply because the GOP Congress & the Bush Regime allowed the AWB to expire.

You can't run away from that.

With the proposed ban, the only change required of Lanza's rifle would be to change the grip and that would change much about the massacre.

"Approved" the sale of the specific model weapon that Lanza used - the Bushmaster XM15 E2S A2.

Frankly, it sounds like one of the standard lies used by the RW extremist NRA to muddy the waters around the overwhelming support for gun control.

Objective: To determine whether Australia’s 1996 major gun law reforms were associated with changes in rates of mass firearm homicides, total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides, and whether there were any apparent method substitution effects for total homicides and suicides.
........
Results: In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm-related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p = 0.04), firearm suicides (p = 0.007) and firearm homicides (p = 0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws.

Conclusions: Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides.

In the United Kingdom, firearms are tightly controlled by law,
.....
The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world. There were 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010, compared to the 3.0 in the United States (over 40 times higher) and 0.21 in Germany (3 times higher).
........
In 2012 the Home Office reported that, "in 2010/11, firearms were involved in 11,227 recorded offences (statistics limited to England and Wales), the seventh consecutive annual fall".

Because that is the law being proposed.

You help me prove my point that it would take much more than an AWB to reduce gun violence and the second amendment stands in the way of any president taking always all the guns or UK/Australia like bans.

Most people who want total or near confiscation don't have the courage to even say it. They pussyfoot around with meaningless bans like the AWB.

Mention of guns, other then a half-assed concession to background checks.

Wayne has taught you well.



You admit the AWB doesn't go far enough, which we all agree. So let's make the ban more reaching so it substantially reduces the numbers of guns...a little gun owner irritation would be worth it.

That along with taking other laws that so many call 'ineffective' and make them more effective, is a good idea.

How else can I put 30 holes in a piece of paper in such a short time? Sure, I could use a hole punch, like a regular person. I could cut the time to one third of that by using a three-hole punch. But my drive, my reason for being, is to put holes in paper at the maximum possible speed! This is very important to me and is an American tradition hallowed by usage and consecrated by time. Holes in paper! What could be more important? Any sacrifice is worth it.

why not the traditional method used by our founding fathers:
muzzle loading black powder firearms.

But that would require actually mastering a difficult skill. No, for my patriotic paper-holing needs, only extremely powerful firearms capable of carrying dozens of rounds at once will do.

Yeah, but an assault rifle julians carrots better than a bow and arrow.

After all, how else could they make Swiss cheese? Or a peg board?

with a friend of mine. He had no other reason to justify the use of clips which hold greater than 10 rounds.

Is all set to limit them. 'cause I can' just won't cut it, but it IS the best they got.

Justification need not be shown by those wishing to own a thing.


Justification does, however, need to be shown, by those wishing to restrict ownership, of a thing.


And when it hits court, a compelling interest has to be shown, and also needing to be shown, is that whatever method of restriction is at issue, is the least restrictive means.

Folks who are busy throwing around the word "selfish" in this thread, and seeing who they can get it to stick to, if they're the intellectually honest sort...might note, that none of those railing against guns in this thread, are interested in exploring many of those "in between measures we touched on in our exchange in that other thread.

Selfishness exists as much on the part of those wishing to skip those measures as it does on anyone else.

It exists plenty. I think It is easier to back more control if one doesn't feel they might be affected all that much. Others of course have to decide for themslves what is worth what.

A few days ago someone explained the compelling interest stuff. Thanks for the explaination on that.
Assumed that is what much of the hearings (in congress, etc) stuff is all about...laying out the Needs & reaons on both sides. It seemed those defending against more control would & did want to present arguments why less retrictions are desired. Numerous witnesses tried to do just that (on both sdes).

I figure passing laws is more about garnering support, mostly via pointing out real (& imagined) justifications for & against..the balancing of perceived needs.

Now I'm off to epicurious.com to seek out a zombie venison chili recipe.

Which is all the window you need, really, into their state of "well-being."

...just to possibly get one hit at the toilet seat hanging from the tree 20 yards away.

Other than that, I can't think of any reason, good or not.

And the hunting argument is bullshit. If you don't have a clean kill, don't pull the trigger. Native Americans had the same attitude with arrows. It only takes one bullet (or arrow) to take down a deer. One. If it takes more than that, you either suck at shooting or you're desperate. Either way, the "hunter" in question is probably on one of those tree stand things with a small heater and a case of beer. That isn't hunting, that's watching golf on TV.

I've known and still know a lot of hunters and they all agree. Don't fire unless it's a clean kill. And what pisses them off is when someone wounds a deer but doesn't kill it and then doesn't bother to track it down and finish it off, just let them suffer and die on their own somewhere. That's cruel. Hunting means taking responsibility for what you kill.

My wife grew up in backwood hunting country and everyone used bolt-action rifles. They laughed at the assholes from Pittsburgh who came up with semi's and still couldn't kill anything. The vagrants DID however wound countless animals and leave beer cans all over the woods. The real hunters hated that.

The hunters who used single-shot rifles ate what they shot, they didn't mount the heads and they didn't leave wounded animals and they didn't leave carcasses to rot. The real hunters hated the people who culled their food for sport.

why does the propose "ban" on them allow gun owners to keep the ones they bought before the ban goes into effect? That leaves tens if not hundreds of millions of them in circulation.

Same for assault weapons - if there are too many of them in civilian hands and they are a danger to public safety, why isn't the AWB retroactive?

in private hands in the US.

A great number of them are more concerned with being reelected than effective legislation.

universal background checks would do more for gun safety then an AWB.