Other than 100% confiscation, proposed gun control laws could not have stopped...

...today's tragedy.

The shooter used a .22 caliber rifle. In most configurations the venerable .22 is not covered by such things as the expired Assault Weapons Ban. It is a small (30-50 grn) bullet with a minimal velocity (just over 1000fps) and is usually the first rifle that kids learn to shoot with due to its low recoil. It is considered good for killing squirrels, rabbits and other small game. It is also the caliber used in the Olympic sports (such as biathlon).

It is however a bullet, and it can be deadly and has often been used to murderous effect.

The reason I am posting this is to try to get a jump on the "BAN DA GUNZ!!" threads that have/will pop(ped) up. Let's not use this to justify a change in law that could not have prevented this. Unless you are one of the folks who believe in a gun free USA where only the police/military have access to ANY form of gun (including muzzleloaders and lever action .22s)

Edit: link to MSNBC story http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31208188/?GT1=43001

any ban the guns thread and shouldn't this be in the Gungion?

...and you hit me with honesty... I salute you (serious).

snarky to those who prove themselves to be assholes, you didn't do that so why should I disrespect you?

And disrespect is the most commonly exchanged currency. Glad to see you don't play that game.

Cheers & good night! (I think I just exceeded my average weekly post count in this one exchange)

I didn't know that. I get accused of being anti-gun here all the time. Truth be known, I own guns, and am against the assault weapon ban. What I do believe is the statistics from the FBI are either wrong are skewed in some way. I really believe more and more rifles are being used in crimes. What I see here and elsewhere are attacks on the reporting parties when firearms are involved.

Blind defense can be very, very dangerous. Gun owners should really want to see safer ownership and stop being blinded by the "NRA" position. The NRA will kill ownership, not people who want to make sure we have the best system in place in gun ownership. When will gun owners see a problem with military-styled guns in the hands of gangs and criminals? How many more will die before they see a need to act in order to save their passion? The NRA and it's blind defense actually hurt gun owners.

I recently posted a quote from a hunting magazine article which basically said, "You can wait until blood runs in the streets to buy a gun, just don't wait until it's your blood." Does that sound like a promotion for responsible ownership or fear-mongering? This was a hunting magazine preying on it's readers fear, blind defense.

There is also a post in the gun forum by a member saying something to the effect, " I have my guns to defend against BushCo 3.0". What is his plan? What was his plan during BushCo 1.0 and 2.0? Did that poster fall for the fear and blind defense? That poster is the person I fear, that is the type of person who walked into a museum and killed an innocent guard. Gun Forum, while calling out FreeRepublic for it's hate speech you should police your own. The "BushCo" poster has no place here.

just only post if I have something to say.

The reason you think the FBI stats are wrong is because we don't tend to hear about the multiple banger a night per city killings in most metro areas of the United States. Banger gun is a pistol, assassins gun is a rifle. But the crime/profit motivated killing is a far more common event and is usually done with a pistol.

Removing a product from the market ("assault weapons") due to a perceived weakness in the spiritual/ideological/mental makeup of the purchasers is a bit extreme. Especially when it is based on a matter of style versus functionality. Frankly, both a traditional bubba-gun and an AR-15 will kill you just as did, and Bubba probably gets you into the morgue with one shot. You can also make a "bubba gun" that functionally is the same as an AR-15 (Ruger Mini 14 for example).

Gangs "will roam the streets" with Romanian/Chinese/Czech AK style rifles whether they are easily available in the US or not - they'll just hit the shores in shipping containers and go through a new retail chain.

Don't do as I do. Do as I say.

I guess we didn't get enough pro gun grabber posts in this one to make the "can stay in GD" quota.

Just so it'll flummox the gun grabbers. No black stock, thumb hole, flash suppressor, bayonet mount, ginormous magazine to cry and snivel over....

I greive for the family and that fearless, selfless doctor, but this killing goes to prove this point:


Any weapon used in the killing of a human being is an assault weapon by any reasonable definition.

Bayonet mounts and flash suppressors are an ignorant reason to ban ugly guns.

:thumbsup:

Guns are easily made with relatively simple, inexpensive tools and extremely cheap, common supplies. Powder and primer might be a little more trouble to make from scratch but not nearly as tough as say, meth.
Any major infringement on 2nd amendment rights would necessitate an infringement on 4th amendment rights in order to enforce it.

that are, predictably, popping up...

the guy is an already convicted felon. All felons must be prevented from owning guns. They've lost that right. If we can take away their vote, we can take away their gun.

Can you figure out why?

that the general population would be confiscated of weapons. Had von Brunn been banned, and his name highly red flagged for gun licensing background checks, he would be denied a gun. The dude is too old and too much a loner to find one.

Or he bought it from a private citizen who can't do a background check.
Or he it was given to him from a fellow neo-nazi my understanding is this guy was a folk hero for nazis.

If that's what it will take--as you say--then that's what it takes. I salute you for having the guts to face up to the uncomfortable fact that all guns, even the small caliber tin can plinkers, are dangerous to public safety.

Those who'd give up a little liberty for a little security will lose both and deserve neither.

Or however the original thing went.

Just rather a ton of other potential crimes it does supress (rather than years of pent of wing-nuttery where planning, money, patience could allow one to eventually obtain a weapon).

Maybe gun control did work by making it tougher for this guy to get anything more deadly than a 22

Further, the number of minors killed accidentally by guns has been on a strong decline (down 40% from 1995 - 2005) and ranks below drowning, electrocution and other common forms of household deaths. (See National Safety Council.) All this occurred during a time when the number of firearms in civilian hands went up 100,000,000.

In most places, "gun control" is an ideological badge which one either wears proudly or tosses in the trash. Beyond NICS, there is really very little substance in the most obvious forms of contemporary "gun control." Even where complete "bans" are enacted, as in Chicago, the murder rate swaggers about unabated.

you were pre converted.

See I got you started.

Should he still have been allowed access to firearms? I think after attempting to kidnap members of the Federal Reserve Board, he would have been cut off.

To answer your questions, yes, it's a violation of federal law for someone with a felony conviction to possess a firearm, and for anyone else to sell or give one to him while aware of his criminal record. Moreover, it's been illegal since 1968.

But what this goes to show is that opinion polls that feature questions like "do you favor stronger gun control laws" are completely worthless because so many respondents (especially ones who don't own guns and therefore don't need to find out) have no clue that many of the things they think should be illegal already are.

disarm them.

being permitted to own weapons are two different things. The only way to prevent access in a free society is to deny his freedom and lock him up. He was denied the right to own a firearm but was able to find one somewhere, possibly classified ads.