Us Assault Weapon Ban **read First**


Che'_Moderator
 Share

Assault Weapons Ban  

68 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Sorry, I meant to say "assault" weapons. You don't have to explain to me that what makes them "assault" is their cosmetics.

When it comes to crimes... I would bet the shot gun is the most dangerous and even perhaps most frequent weapon used. I remember reading their use went up after the 94' AWB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shall we look across the most recent spate of mass shootings?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map?page=2

See how many of those involve either a semiautomatic rifle or pistol. I don't care what the AWB says or how it was constructed. The sheer deadliness of most of these is directly correlated to disturbed individuals getting their hands on semiautomatic weapons and attacking innocent bystanders.

Houston we have a problem. Quit telling me the fucking guns are not a problem. They are part of the problem. The fact that psychologically disturbed individuals can get their hands on a gun, especially a semiautomatic one is a problem. Anyone who trots out the hoary old chestnut that guns don't kill people, people kill people is complicit in the mass killings that happen because we as a nation are unwilling to accept that there is a problem.

So in your minds is what happened in all of these places listed in the article linked just a cost of living in the USA? Is the loss in life acceptable to you. To bad so sad those poor souls just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Sucks to be them?

Or should we be constructively figuring out how to avoid those problems?

Because the Fucking Association for Protecting Weapons of Mass Destruction (NRA) doesn't give a shit about your Second Amendment rights. What they care about is their ability to sell more guns each year to keep their sponsors the gun manufacturers of America in business. We have a problem when no government agency is able to track the types of shootings that are happening and the weapons that were used because the NRA lobbyists have finagled the laws to prevent any agency from properly studying this data or compiling any form of database that would properly allow for researching this problem. That might be part of the reason Lucas why you can't answer a simple question like what weapons were used in what types of violence annually.

A semiautomatic pistol or rifle has one purpose, to send lethal shards of metal and plastic as fast as possible and make holes in paper or flesh. But they are marketed with one purpose, to be able to threaten to put holes in people. So don't give me the bullshit that these weapons when used properly are anything but a threat to human lives.

Figure out how to separate the problem from the cause and maybe this returns to a reasonable dialogue. Until, then this is just lunacy. I'm done with this joke of a thread as it is little more than mental masturbation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I meant to say "assault" weapons. You don't have to explain to me that what makes them "assault" is their cosmetics.

When it comes to crimes... I would bet the shot gun is the most dangerous and even perhaps most frequent weapon used. I remember reading their use went up after the 94' AWB.

The vast majority of shootings are done with a small, cheap handgun. Not even an "assault" weapon because it's too small to have an evil >10 round magazine and is very often a revolver. They're called saturday night specials for a reason.

Because the Fucking Association for Protecting Weapons of Mass Destruction (NRA) doesn't give a shit about your Second Amendment rights. What they care about is their ability to sell more guns each year to keep their sponsors the gun manufacturers of America in business. We have a problem when no government agency is able to track the types of shootings that are happening and the weapons that were used because the NRA lobbyists have finagled the laws to prevent any agency from properly studying this data or compiling any form of database that would properly allow for researching this problem. That might be part of the reason Lucas why you can't answer a simple question like what weapons were used in what types of violence annually.

A semiautomatic pistol or rifle has one purpose, to send lethal shards of metal and plastic as fast as possible and make holes in paper or flesh. But they are marketed with one purpose, to be able to threaten to put holes in people. So don't give me the bullshit that these weapons when used properly are anything but a threat to human lives.

Love how you link motherjones like it's a source of news, that's just cute. You whine about the NRA "finagling laws" when the lawmakers on your side have willfully broken their oaths to uphold the constitution and used the taxation power illegitimately impose a de facto ban on weapons protected by the second amendment. Some state legislatures have essentially committed acts of treason by turning entire cities and states 'Second Amendment free zones' for the general population, only issuing special permission slips to their friends and bodyguards. Anti-gun nutjobs frequently violate not only the 2nd but also the 1st, 4th, 5th, 11th and 14th amendments in addition to the articles themselves. That's the real travesty.

Here's a newsflash for you. You're totally right about one thing. Guns are intended to "be able to threaten to put holes in people", that is their purpose, that is why they're an effective deterrent and the right to keep them is protected. Criminals are much less likely to commit a crime if they know they have a good chance of being killed. This is why you see home invasion frequency inversely proportional to gun control, it's basically unheard of in free states because nearly every home is armed. The second amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep weapons "to be able to threaten to put holes in people".

It specifically applies to the small arms used by infantrymen. This is why the AR15 and M16 are completely protected by the 2nd amendment but sawed off shotguns are not. As long as infantry use semi-automatic and automatic weapons, they can not and will not be banned in the United States and any legislator attempting to do so is willfully breaking the oath of office they took to uphold the constitution.

Why don't you read something for a legitimate news source for once? The Washington Post, a rather liberal publication, admits they were wrong to accept MJ's manipulated numbers and that real research leads to different conclusions. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/graph-of-the-day-perhaps-mass-shootings-arent-becoming-more-common/

And yes, 0.031 deaths per 100k population per year is a small price to pay for our constitutional rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I tend to agree with you technically Deimos... please know that sometimes a message can be lost in it's delivery. Being condescending doesn't often lend that you are trying to share a point of something with someone... but just comes across as wanting to put them down for their different views, which doesn't achieve anything.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howard you obviously are ignorant on my background so let me lay down a little education for you.

I read more extensively than you could possibly contemplate. I linked to Mother Jones because it was convenient but I regularly read all sides of any particular issue that interests me. I did not link to the "mass shootings are becoming more frequent" instead I linked to a list of all the mass shootings during a certain period of time. Their findings on this particular question are a matter of fact since each and every one of those incidents happened.

Here's a newsflash, journalism has extensively changed in the digital era and as a result respectable blogs which do serious investigation actually are often equally if not more legitimate than so-called news sites like MSNBC, FOX, and CNN. If you go back and read through this thread you will find that I offer an extraordinarily balanced attitude in my insights, my recommendations, and the sources of analysis / news to which I link. You'll find articles by the NYTimes, The Financial Times, the Washington Post, Rolling Stone, and a number of research journals and blogs.

I do analysis of markets for a full time professional job and I have done extensive research projects spending time out in the field exploring very specific questions with a wide variety of people across a diverse socio-economic background. I spend time in their homes, talking with them on the streets, and in their places of employment seeking to understand their attitudes and drivers for behavior. I run focus groups and push people to really explain their attitudes and their preferences. I perform and evaluate statistical analyses so I know good data collecting and bad data collecting and reasonable analyses of that data when I see it. I know good journalism and analysis because I do what journalists do only I get paid directly by clients to provide deep insights rather than publish them publicly.

I grew up in a highly conservative home and have voted both sides of the aisle though I generally lean conservative. These days I am a FIRM independent when it comes to my approach to political mindset. I actually have been an NRA member or at least was back when they weren't coopted by the American gun manufacturing industry. Don't even attempt to argue that point because it is impossible to argue otherwise given the clear evidence with how they are operating over the last decade. I actually own guns (a 12 gauge single shot shotgun, an M1 Garand from my grandfather and a couple of .22 rifles I use to teach my daughters how to shoot) and because I live in Illinois I have a FOID card. When I had more time to spend shooting I guarantee I would have schooled your ass on the target range.

So when I make a statement like I made above, it's not because I saw a Fox News report or read an article on HotAir and decided that dammit I'm going to let my voice heard because those doods have really thought it through. No, I'm mad as hell because I'm frustrated with how the attitude on this thread echos what I see and hear across the nation in ignorant attitudes on both sides of the aisle.

There is a very simple solution here: figure out how to keep guns out of the hands of mentally deranged individuals. Decreasing access of these weapons to such people will decrease the probability of mass killings either in public or in the home.

See, like every jackass "you'll take my guns out of my cold dead hands 2nd amendment enthusiast" you jump right past the real question of how to make the world a safer place by keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people and look at it as a direct threat on your ability to own a gun. There is a balanced answer only both sides are unwilling to consider how to achieve that compromise that would increase the safety of school children and movie goers, mall shoppers, and postal workers everywhere.

So I suggest you do what you claim I haven't done and think about both sides of the issue and think about why your particular position might be wrong and where the right compromises might be in order to increase safety.

And for the record, what you're linking to is a difference in opinion on how to structure the data and what data set to consider. Brad Plummer did lazy journalism in his original article and even in his follow-up by simply restating what others explored. He didn't really add any clarity to the question. However, Mother Jones did come back just this last month and more deeply analyzed the question - based on research by the highly respected Harvard School of Medicine - and explained the difference between the two approaches and why they felt it was appropriate to set apart two separate data sets between public and private mass killings. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/mass-shootings-rising-harvard

What's their conclusion? That if we want to better understand a problem then it makes sense to actually study the phenomenon and gather data to understand what might be the underlying causes and how to prevent them. Which, if you're paying attention, is exactly what I advocated in my rant.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alain is actually a really really smart guy. Also one of the nicest members I've met personally on this forum. He has different views perhaps then I do on issues... but I didn't see him being aggressive.

But my point is... there are obviously different schools of thought on this issue... and like all the political mess in this country... just digging in and attacking someone else for those different views has become a national pastime. Fuck you baseball... move over... get out of the way for our new greatest legacy... "hating the other guy." Just in case you aren't aware, it does nothing in the way of convincing a different viewed person from taking on a different perspective if even for a minute. Admittedly, I've probably been too hard on Mike because I get riled up too, I get it.

While I do not share it, people often have pride for the areas in which they live. It must be extremely frustrating to be a fan of Chicago when the city, like others, has a dark side to it. It just so happens that they tried the "ban guns" route generally speaking, we see that as evidence that gun bans, like almost all prohibition (war on drugs, I'm looking at you...) simply doesn't work. However, that doesn't mean all parts of Chicago are terrible. I've been to some really nice places... like Lee's, Alain's, Tommy's, Justus/Joe's JJFAB shop, etc. Hell, I was totally digging on a little town just due north of Chicago... it was awesome there.

Don't like guns? Don't own one.

Like guns? Cool. Don't be a dick about it and carry it around at chucky cheese's screamin' about the constitution.

Just my two cents... which at the current rate the dollar is devaluing... blah blah blah

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, like every jackass "you'll take my guns out of my cold dead hands 2nd amendment enthusiast" you jump right past the real question of how to make the world a safer place by keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people and look at it as a direct threat on your ability to own a gun. There is a balanced answer only both sides are unwilling to consider how to achieve that compromise that would increase the safety of school children and movie goers, mall shoppers, and postal workers everywhere.

Ok, let's focus on that then. How do you propose we "make the world a safer place by keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people" without taking them away from everyone?

If they've got a criminal record, they're already prohibited and if they've got a mental health record, they're already prohibited. But a good number of the perpetrators had neither of those prior to their incident, they just snapped one day. Short of having psychics who predict that, it's impossible to entirely prevent those people from having access to a gun before they snap without banning them entirely.

A better idea is to abolish the "gun free zones" that these dangerous people always go to when they want to get their 15 minutes of fame.

AuWhlTx.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you really this simplistic? What you're talking about is if someone has been adjudicated mentally unfit (meaning in a court of law) and it's not easy to make that declaration. In fact, it's quite difficult to access that data even though State Police are supposed to know.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx

Let's see, take James Eagan. He was under medical supervision due to dysphoric mania and yet he still was able to purchase the weapons he used in Aurora.

Every police force out there will tell you that it's clear we don't do a good job of managing knowledge of whether or not an individual should be allowed to buy a gun. And with the way gun sales are managed, especially at gun shows and pawn shops, those checks simply are not happening. What I would advocate is a national database of the mentally unfit and that it be easier to place someone on that list than it currently is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Houston we have a problem. Quit telling me the fucking guns are not a problem. They are part of the problem. The fact that psychologically disturbed individuals can get their hands on a gun, especially a semiautomatic one is a problem.

We have a problem when no government agency is able to track the types of shootings that are happening and the weapons that were used because the NRA lobbyists have finagled the laws to prevent any agency from properly studying this data or compiling any form of database that would properly allow for researching this problem.

So are you against all gun ownership? Or for gun ownership (of all types) but more careful restriction on who can have one? If you're for restricting those with a history of mental illness, who defines and classifies? I'm for that in the way I'm for getting rid of all guns if it were possible. But I'm not sure either could be done reliably.

I wasn't aware of the restriction on data gathering. Is that related to "tracking" efforts? Or just strictly to gathering already known info? I can see the motivation to keep it quiet, because the data could be easily misunderstood, but I think that's just a risk that needs to be handled.

You whine about the NRA "finagling laws" when the lawmakers on your side have willfully broken their oaths to uphold the constitution and used the taxation power illegitimately impose a de facto ban on weapons protected by the second amendment.

What if we made an amendment to adjust the 2nd? I'm not sure what that would be, but what if it gave some constitutionally granted ability to restrict? So for the purposes of the debate, can you assume that any solution would include an amendment permitting it?

Howard you obviously are ignorant on my background so let me lay down a little education for you.

I read more extensively than you could possibly contemplate. I linked to Mother Jones because it was convenient but I regularly read all sides of any particular issue that interests me. (and the rest of this post)

If only there was a way to high-five through the internet. I don't see how he was unaware of your constant, fair unbiased analysis to the point where you probably conduct a comparison chart on breakfast choices. It's almost as if it was selective memory, or operating on the assumption that all opposed are ignorant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For your reading Alden:

Gun study restrictions put in place by NRA lobbying:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-13/gun-lobby-helps-block-data-collection-by-crimefighters.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.html

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/

Indeed, gun violence is the second leading cause of death for young people after car accidents, but the federal agency responsible for researching ways to stop it has had its hands tied. No other research topic has been singled out in this way. “We’ve got a huge social problem that causes a very substantial amount of premature mortality and by and large, we have invested scant resources studying it. And the reason is politics,” Teret said.

And just a refresher on why the Fucking Association for Protecting Weapons of Mass Destruction is evil and only cares about your Second Amendment rights in so far as they increase profits to gun manufacturers:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-nra-vs-america-20130131

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you really this simplistic? What you're talking about is if someone has been adjudicated mentally unfit (meaning in a court of law) and it's not easy to make that declaration. In fact, it's quite difficult to access that data even though State Police are supposed to know.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx

Let's see, take James Eagan. He was under medical supervision due to dysphoric mania and yet he still was able to purchase the weapons he used in Aurora.

Every police force out there will tell you that it's clear we don't do a good job of managing knowledge of whether or not an individual should be allowed to buy a gun. And with the way gun sales are managed, especially at gun shows and pawn shops, those checks simply are not happening. What I would advocate is a national database of the mentally unfit and that it be easier to place someone on that list than it currently is.

In the specific case of James Eagan, since he was under medical supervision, it was a failure of those medical professionals to report him as a danger. They certainly could have reported him and quite possibly could have had him held for at least a 72 hour evaluation and possibly committed after that.

Pawn shops and gun shows follow the same rules as any other dealer sales, including a NICS search. We don't really need a new database, there just needs to be more mental health records integrated into NICS. The problem is that every proposal to do either one or something like that on a state level has been a horrendously written proposal that lumps all mental illness together (and you can diagnose everyone with something if you wanted to disenfranchise them) that lack due process requirements.

I'm also all for some reasonable secure storage requirements, but again, most proposals are a ridiculous overreach and have to be opposed entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share