"Taking away our guns:" please help me out here

[grumpyduck]

Okay, seriously, and maybe I missed it big time, but I don't remember seeing anything anywhere about the govt, across the board, wanting to take guns away from people who already have them. Did I miss it? I would think those guns would be grandfathered.

So, when people rant and rave about "taking away our guns," are they referring to an actual "threat" (for lack of another word) by the govt -- or by a political party -- to confiscate the guns they already have, or are they, in reality, reacting to anger and/or propaganda? Or is it something else?

There's a book I've meaning to read for years and years, but it always goes on the back burner: Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds, by Charles MacKay (1841). It's widely available; maybe now's the time to put it on the front burner.

[Aristus]

1. No. The spectre of 'confiscation' is a myth that the NRA exploits to keep gun owners

terrifed, and cowering in their gun dungeons.

The lie about 'confiscation' has become so pervasive, that I can detect through the wording of local gun-related bills and refereda whether it was drafted by the NRA. If a bill or referendum contains the word 'confiscation', however abstruse or arcane the wording of the rest of the text, I know it is essentially a pro-gun bill and vote against it.

[krispos42]

29. Unless you support Australian-style or British-style gun control

Where newly-prohibited guns had to be turned in after they were banned.


Also, what happens if the guns are grandfathered in, but the owner dies? Where does the gun go? Why, to the police! Confiscation upon death of the original owner.

[Aristus]

32. Nobody in this country is proposing something similar, no matter how much it would

decrease the risks of mass school shootings.

For one thing, the real, feral NRA crazies are actually hoping that a general confiscation will be ordered. That would give them justification (in their own defective minds, of course) for taking to the streets with their guns and blasting everything in sight. They actually want that. That shows how crazy they are.

[krispos42]

34. People worry too much about mass school shootings, quite frankly. Social panic.

And I say that as somebody with a kid in 7th grade... and I live less than a half-hour from Sandy Hook. A person is murdered every 35 minutes, on average, in the US, and I worry about that a hell of a lot more than a school shooting. It's not a hardware problem; it's a change in mentally. This is going to keep happening for the foreseeable future simply because what was almost literally unthinkable is now thought of a hell of a lot.

But I digress. The precedent has been set, and people are alert for precursors, such as repealing the 2nd Amendment, universal registration, and the ever-expanding definition of "assault weapon".

I'm sure there is a depressingly large number of people that read the Federalist Papers and The Turner Diaries too much and want to be part of some epic struggle for freedom or some bullshit, but they aren't really the problem either.

The problem is that gun control tends to put Republicans in power! Which means we get screwed on all fronts.

[Angry Dragon]

2. Trump did say he wanted to take away guns from the mentally unstable

[grumpyduck]

3. That's different

I was asking about an across-the-board confiscation. But thanks for pointing that out.

[Angry Dragon]

6. as far as I know, no one with power has said that all guns need to go

[atreides1]

5. Okay

That covers about half of the NRA membership?

[Angry Dragon]

10. be nice

[mercuryblues]

17. If he hadn't

repealed an Obama Exec order that was a step forward to do just that, I might believe it,

[bettyellen]

4. Unless they mean people whove threatened their families or had psychotic breaks, then no.

It’s a hard pill for them to swallow, but they need to admit not everyone should have access to guns. They give it lip service, but it is still a huge fear- that they’d be stripped of their guns for “nothing off” - I.e. credibly threatening people. I think too many of them like that power to intimidate, and it’s a sore spot. It needs to be discussed.

[Lee-Lee]

7. Well, its happening to some people in Illinois right now

Illinois just passed a new law that declares anyone 18, 19, or 20 years old who owns what the state just declared to be “assault weapons” to either turn them over to law enforcement or sell or give them to someone over 21 in the next 90 days.

So if your an adult but under 21 in Illinois that is happening.

You also have Dianne Feinsteins infamous 60 Minutes interview in the 90’s. After the 94 AWB she went on TV and was complaining that she couldn’t get enough votes for the law she wanted to pass, and she said “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, “Mr and Mrs America turn them all in” Inwouldnhave done that.”

That one interview set back any further hopes for gun control back more than most people know. Here was one of the most powerful Democrats in the Senate saying she wanted confiscation. That galvanized a lot of opposition.

And, of course, you have all the people who point at Australia as a model for what to do. Since that model was confiscation every time people say we need to follow that mode it is what gun owner hear.

[mac56]

11. "It is what gun owners hear."

It's not my fault if they hear something that isn't said.

Maybe they need ear protection.

[grumpyduck]

8. Okay, so isn't it about time

that politicians get out there and debunk the idea of an across-the-board confiscation that was never planned or discussed? However they want to word it, the message is very straightforward: we never said anything about confiscating guns from people who already have them. They can get into the exceptions, but the big message -- which is what many gun owners are yelling about -- is that taking away existing guns is just propaganda.

With the midterms coming up, I'd hope that some smart congressperson wanna-be (or wanna-stay) would put this message out there loud and clear. It would help defuse some of the anger that's boiling all over.

Of course, I don't believe for a second it'll happen.

[edit] Sorry, Lee-Lee posted before I hit the Enter button. Thanks for the info.

[Snackshack]

9. If I understand your post correctly...

No, you did not miss “it”. As far as I know because if you did miss it then I missed it as well. I have not heard of any anyone calling for a ban across the board on firearms. A ban on assault styled weapons but not a ban on all firearms. But from what I have seen and heard the NRA and the rest of the right is framing the issue as a total ban on firearms which is very disingenuous but is to be expected.

Just to clarify. In your post are you referring to all firearms or just the assault styled weapons. IMO the assault style weapons should be banned and existing units not grandfathered in. These weapons should be taken out of circulation. Pistols, Shotguns, Bolt action Rifles’s should not be banned.

[NewDem17]

12. 1995

Dianne Feinstein.

I believe she's one of the only one who has one multiple occasions called for an outright ban on all firearms.

In 1995 she did a interview about it, it's easily found.

[sl8]

22. The only occasion I've seen her quoted on this it was taken out of context.

I've seen the 60 Minutes interview and she was referring to assault weapons, not all firearms.

Politifact:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/oct/08/chris-cox/nras-chris-cox-falsely-says-dianne-feinstein-wante/

Youtube clip of 60 minutes interview:

Were you thinking of a different interview?

[NewDem17]

24. Thanks.

Never seen the full video just the clips out there.

[krispos42]

30. Yes, assault weapons

The definition of which is fluid and keeps expanding. The rifle used at the Sandy Hook massacre, for example, was not an "assault weapon" by either current (at the time) Connecticut law or the now-expired Federal ban. However, Connecticut expanded the definition of "assault weapon" to make it one retroactively, and Feinstein proposed re-instating and expanding the Federal ban in a similar manner.



Pistols account for 90% of all murders by firearm. How long until they are considered "assault weapons"?

[Shrike47]

26. It is clear from the context she was talking about assault weapons.

She has stated that she supports continued possession of hunting weapons, etc. The statement in 1995 was during an interview following the 1994 passage of the assault weapons ban.

Politifact has ranked the claim Feinstein called for banning all firearms as untrue.

[grumpyduck]

14. To clarify, my post was referring to all firearms

simply because what I hear most of the time is "they want to take away our guns." I can't think of an instance where I (personally) heard someone say "they want to take away my AR-15."

I didn't want to get into whether assault-style weapons should be confiscated, just to try to keep this thread going in one direction. That would make for a very long thread by itself.

[Buns_of_Fire]

13. I thought Obama had already taken care of that.

Wasn't that the line the nra had been pushing for eight years? Any day now?

And now, they can worry that Comrade Fatass is coming to take all their gunz and give them to Russia. Any day now.

[grumpyduck]

16. But again, why didn't Obama come out and say

that an across-the-board confiscation wasn't in the works? It would have cooled off a lot of people and pissed off the NRA something fierce.

Honestly, I cannot figure out why politicians do or not do some things. It boggles the mind. It's like they live in a different galaxy.

[krispos42]

31. Because nobody would have believed him.

Look, the reputation of the Democratic party on this issue is such that gun owners expect Democrats to try to ban some kinds of guns and make buying, selling, owning, and using guns and ammunition harder and more expensive.

Not to mention it becomes an exercise in parsing... what guns will Obama confiscate, exactly?

[mercuryblues]

39. He did over and over again

they called him a liar. Then the NRA spent 10's of millions of dollars in propaganda against him.

[mercuryblues]

15. That is the NRA bread and butter

For 8 years they convinced many people that Obama was personally going to come to your door and take all your guns. Which prompted people to gun up.

Then people went out and bought large amounts of ammo when the NRA spread the rumor that Obama was going to regulate ammo. People went out and ammo'ed up. Creating a shortage.

You can not speak logic to people like this. The Semi automatic weapon ban in the 90's did grandfather in those already purchased. Many police depts. also did buyback events, where people willingly surrendered them.

Cops did not want these weapons on the streets to be used against them.

Today it is different. Propoganda does that to people.

Gun manufacturers know that a certain % of their weapons end up on the streets. So they over produce to make sure their guns are always stocked on store shelves.

[grumpyduck]

19. Well, the NRA IS a lobby for gun makers

and apparently Obama sounded to them like a good scapegoat (for lack of another word) for their assertions. Which to my old-fashioned, simplistic mind, comes across as racially-motivated propaganda.

But, like Tom Hagen said over and over in The Godfather, maybe it was just "business, not personal" to them.

But I still can't understand why, IF it was bullshit, Obama didn't nip all right in the bud.

[mercuryblues]

23. He did and they called him a liar

Even Feinstein's proposed bill Assault weapon ban of 2013 grandfathered in those already owned. They called her a liar.

[krispos42]

33. Do you deny that Democrats are the party of gun control?

So then, if gun owners "ammo-up" and "gun-up" in response, how is that unreasonable?

It's only unreasonable if the threat of Democrats passing gun-control laws is an illusion.

So, if you think that gun-owners behaved unreasonably by stocking up, then you must then also think that Democrats (federal and state level) weren't going to be able to pass any gun-control laws.

But, if you think that Democrats (federal and state) were going to pass gun-control laws, then stocking up before then is a reasonable course of action.

Since you are mocking them for stocking up, you must think that Democrats weren't going to be able to pass anything. Am I correct?

[mercuryblues]

36. better go out and buy

weapons because Obama is going to take your guns deserve to be mocked. Did Obama miraculously pass some law with a republican congress, that I don't know about? Was there even a slight chance republicans would send him a gun control law? Because if a person believed that they were suckers.

All that propaganda did was make gun manufacturers rich. Same with buying ammo. NRA pushed the talking point that Obama was going to regulate/higher tax on ammo. Many places could not keep it stocked because it would sell out. it was a self fulfilled prophecy. People bought so much ammo it created shortages, which they blamed on Obama.

My husband works with a guy who bragged about out smarting Obama and spent over $5,000 on ammo in a few months. When his car broke down, he complained about much it was going to cost to fix it and how broke he was. My husband suggested he should sell some of his ammo. When I met the guy, I had the impression he would let his kids starve before he sold even 1 of his guns to buy food. BTW this guy is not a hunter.

Do you know that Obama only signed 2 gun control laws? Both expanded gun rights. #1 allowed people to carry guns in national parks instead of being locked in their trunk or glove box. #2 allowed people to carry guns in their checked luggage on a passenger train.

He signed 1 executive order that required the SSA to report recipients of disability for mental health reasons to report them to the database. trump rescinded that last year.


Yes, Obama begged congress to come up with a law that would deter these mass murders, but republicans turned to the NRA with their hands out and bent over. Hundreds of dead school kids later, still the same.

[mercuryblues]

37. When gun sales started lagging

The NRA would put out a new outlandish claim...

Obama is going to give the UN authority to come get your guns

Obama is the most anti-gun president ever

Obama wants revenge on whites and will grab your gun

Obama is going to ban the manufacture, sale and use of guns

Obama is going to make shooting in self defense a crime

If anybody ever believed any of this hooey they derserve to be mocked.

[krispos42]

38. Of course the first couple of years he was President he had a Democratic congress

And, as Chief Executive he could have (potentially) issued executive orders of various kinds to accomplish goals as well.

But all that's silly, right?

You do realize that you're mocking gun owners for taking you seriously, don't you? In other words, gun control is not going forward,
you know it, and because you know it, you denigrate people that take you at your word.

"Why are you buying all those guns? Because we say we're going to ban them? That makes no sense!"

Well, we have Captain Bonespurs in office now, and 2/3rds of the House and Senate, state governors, and state legislative houses are Republican, so that's all well and good, right?

And I'm sorry to tell you but there is no law that will stop these mass murders. This type... is insane. There are some 60 million grade school students spread out over 140,000 public and private school campuses. And somewhere, we don't know where, some person, we don't know who, is going to grab a gun and a bunch of ammo one random day and try to kill as many school kids as they can in the 5 minutes it takes (minimum) for police to arrive. They have no agenda, they are not part of any organization with any sort of political or religious or economic goals (short term or long term), they just decided "hey, today's the day" and go NUTS.

Hundreds of helpless children and teachers and staff trapped in a concrete box with a madman with no goal other than to be a berserker until the cops arrive, then to either suicide by cop or eat a handgun.

This isn't a hardware problem. It's something dark and twisted.

[mercuryblues]

40. having control for 2 years

is simply not true. Obama was the most filibustered president.

The only times Dems had a filibuster proof majority was from 7/7/09 to 8/25/09 and again from 9/25/09 to 2/4/10. 175 days out of almost 2,920.

Seems to me if he and Democrats were as anti-gun as the NRA made them out to be they would have pushed legislation through during those times. they didn't. One reason is the Dem party does not have enough votes within its own caucus to do so. The rest of the 8 years they did not have filibuster proof control or the votes. Yet for 8 years we heard "Obama gonna grab yer gunz." There was absolutely no way that was possible, unless republicans passed legislation. Who here believes that republicans would have passed any gun control legislation?

The 2 pieces of legislation he signed expanded gun rights. Why would he do that if he was allowing the UN to come in to confiscate everyone's guns?

He signed 1 ex order saying that if a person was so mentally unstable that they couldn't work and were on Social Security Disability they should not be able to buy a gun. The NRA talking point was Obama is going to take away senior citizens guns. Many people believed it.

All other developed countries have the same mental health problems and do not have mass murders on the scale that we have. Why is that? What are they doing that the US is not?

Of course we will never be able to completely eliminate mass murders. What can be done is to reduce the carnage and body count.

[krispos42]

44. You do realize you keep saying that there is zero chance of gun-control passing, right?

I don't comprehend how you can continue to be surprised people took the Democrats' stances and stated goals on the issue of guns seriously, and mock those people.

Gun owners took the potential threat seriously, and kept Democrats from passing legislation. A couple of years later, they took away the Democratic majority. One can argue, therefore, that taking Democrats at their word and acting accordingly did in fact do much to prevent Democrats from passing legislation.

Yes, I'm well aware of the shameful record of filibustering that the Republicans did. Probably the most egregious was blocking Obama's third SCOTUS vacancy after Fat Tony died. 11 months... incredible.

All other developed countries also have a much better health-care system than we do and take better care of their people in general. They may have similar rates of mental illness (although, given the way we poison our water and air, maybe we're worse) but the difference is they take better care of them and get them treatment. They don't have an analogue problem with crazy homicidal maniacs attacking random school kids with hatchets or hammers or carving knives, or running down pedestrians with vehicles, or whatever.

And since I know the stats pretty well, I'll continue to worry far more about the "background" murder rate than the high-profile but relatively rare mass shooting. We're about 50% less than 25 years ago (homicide rate) and that's a difference of well over ten thousand lives a year.

Put it this way: a person is murdered with a handgun about every hour, and with a rifle every 24 hours. I know where the problem lies.

[mercuryblues]

59. they deserve to be mocked

Even those 175 days that the Dems had filibuster proof majority they did not pass any gun laws. The Dems don't have enough members in their own party to pass any gun laws. But somehow Obama was gonna grab their guns after the republicans gained control? How? Really how was he going to do that? How was Obama going to get republicans to write and pass a law that allowed him to grab their guns? They took that propaganda seriously, yes. for 8 years they believed Obama was going to grab their guns. So they stocked up on them.

So what did they do? They ran to the store and spent thousands arming up. Even though there was no way he could take them away. The NRA led them by the nose. They bought their weapons based on emothions, not facts.

Even if the R's passed a law to allow guns to be confiscated, the Supreme court wouldn't allow it. Even if the SC allowed it, what sense does it make to spend big bucks on something just to have it confiscated?

[krispos42]

62. It's not a binary option

It's not either "nothing will happen" or "complete confiscation", you realize this, right?

It was the constant specter of a new, expanded assault-weapons ban, which materialized almost immediately after the Sandy Hook massacre and only a few months after the Aurora theater shooting. I believe Senator Feinstein was the main person behind it. It was gun-purchase limits, or magazine-capacity limits, or a bunch of other stuff. And you forget as well that, during the multiple shutdowns and almost-shutdowns of the period, as well as the chronic inability of Congress pass anything NOT in a last-minute rush, that gun-control legislation could be slipped into a bill in the reconciliation process or into must-pass legislation in the wee hours of the morning.

Now, obviously, some of it was rumor and bullshit. "Obama is buying up all the ammo for the federal government!" and such.

But you keep insisting there was no chance anything was going to happen and the gun owners should just... what, do nothing? Not get politically involved? Look at the apparent political momentum the gun-control movement is gathering after the Florida school massacre. Are gun-owners stupid and duped to get involved to counter this?

This is the fundamental problem with Democrats being the way they are on gun control: what they want to do will not noticeably decrease crime or turn out Democratic voters, but it will keep Republicans motivated and voting. Again, the White House, both houses of Congress, and 2/3rds of state governorships and state legislatures are REPUBLICAN.

Obama gave an interview with Marc Maron in 2016, and one of the things he expressed frustration about was being unable to pass a new assault-weapons ban and other gun-control laws during his presidency, despite advocating for them in the wake of the several high-profile massacres that occurred during his term.

[ProfessorGAC]

42. Conflation

Gun control and gun confiscation are two wildly different ideas. There are a million light years apart.

[krispos42]

45. Not so far about when it's Democrats talking about them.

Democrats want bans, which means that even guns that are grandfathered in will be confiscated by the State upon the death of the owner. It's long-term confiscation.

It also doesn't make much sense to ban sales of NEW banned guns when the existing guns are still out there and legally held. After all, if a certain type of gun is deemed problem enough to be worth banning sales of, it stands to reason the existing ones should be rounded up, right?

There are a lot of people here that, seemingly having been mired in too many sad headlines and soaking up a lot feeling via empathy, would have zero problem with confiscation of anything not a bolt-action rifle or pump-action shotgun. Others argue about the meaning of the Second Amendment, or simply desire to abolish it so "real" gun-control laws can be passed.

I made what I think it a pretty complete list of what at least some here on DU would like to see passed in terms of guns.

• Reinstating the Federal AWB
  
• Expanding the Federal AWB
  
• Repealing the Second Amendment
  
• Turning gun ownership from a right into a privilege
  
• Banning all semi-automatic rifles
  
• Banning all semi-automatic handguns
  
• Banning all handguns
  
• Banning all repeating long guns (lever, bolt, pump)
  
• Requiring universal registration of all guns
  
• Requiring all privately owned guns to be stored under lock and key at the police station
  
• Requiring all privately owned guns to be stored under lock and key at a licensed shooting club
  
• Requiring extensive background checks that include interviewing friends, family, neighbors, and coworkers to determine if an applicant will be allowed to own a gun
  
• Requiring an applicant to demonstrate "good cause" to own a gun (and usually "self defense/personal protection" is not good cause)
  
• Registering ammunition and cartridge components (may include outlawing handloading of ammunition)
  
• Limiting sales of ammunition
  
• Limiting amounts of ammunition allowed to be possessed by a gun owner
  
• Limiting number of guns owned by a gun owner
  
• Requiring ammunition to be stored with the gun at the police station or licensed shooting club
  
• Requiring microstamping technology to stamp the gun's serial number on each cartridge as it is being fired (see: universal gun registration)
  
• Requiring bullets to have lot numbers stamped on them (on the base) so recovered bullets could be traced to the owner (see: ammunition registration)
  
• Mandating smart-gun technology so the gun only fired for its registered owner
  
• Raising the age to buy a long gun to 21 (it's already 21 for handguns)
  
• Waiting periods (generally, 3 to 14 days)
  
• Registration of detachable magazines
  
• Limiting ownership of detachable magazines
  
• Magazine-capacity limits (typically at 10 rounds)
  
• Banning detachable magazines entirely
  
• Banning guns that accept detachable magazines
  
• Outlawing concealed carry
  
• Outlawing open carry

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=206583

[NCTraveler]

18. I'm guilty.

I want mass gun confiscation.

[grumpyduck]

20. That's fine, and I respect your opinion

but please, I'd like to keep this thread going in one direction.

[NCTraveler]

21. Then I'm hear to help.

There is no threat of confiscation and I am a big-time outsider on this. <- Not being sarcastic. I know where I stand.

They will call us gun grabbers no matter what. The number of guns increased during Obamas term. They labeled him as a gun grabber.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

25. Do you mean here or in your real life?

Because I've seen a lot of calls for total confiscation here.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

27. I keep on suggesting total confiscation would be good.

But I have no way of making that happen, and plenty of people disagree with me.

So other than some nutcases like me, there isn't anyone actually suggesting this.

[Stinky The Clown]

49. I'm a nutcase like you.

Melt every damned one of them.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

60. Yeah, there actually are a decent number of us nutcases,

although I know we're a distinct minority.

[aikoaiko]

28. Taking away access to certain guns is taking away guns.

I understand the distinction between confiscation and preventing future possession.

But if the government said that you could not write any more books but you could keep all the books that you already owned, you would probably feel that your first amendment write to speech was taken away.

[USALiberal]

53. LOL! nt

[aikoaiko]

54. That's enough internet for you. Be happy with all your past posts.

[NutmegYankee]

35. Based on the legal rulings of the last 100 years, it's propaganda.

Handguns, bolt/lever/pump rifles, and equivalent shotguns have been ruled as not "unusually dangerous" and therefore cannot be legally considered assault weapons. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit specifically overturned the ban on a pump action and bolt action version of the AR-15 introduced after Sandy Hook. So the legal rulings uphold civilian ownership of bolt action and pump action rifles. These are also the most commonly used rifles in hunting.

Semiautomatic Rifles on the other hand may be classified as unusually dangerous and banned. Connecticut just banned the sale and required registration of existing assault rifles, since buying them back would have cost $200 Million, 1/5th of the state budget at the time. And while some go on about not being required to buy them back, there is again a long case law that makes it a legal necessity.

My own opinion is we should buy every assault rifle back and impose a permit to buy requirement nationwide on all gun sales. It weeds out those who wouldn't take gun ownership seriously and removes a particularly deadly weapon for mass shootings.

[oneshooter]

41. But, as there is not one single definition of an "assault weapon"

There can be no viable law passed.

[NutmegYankee]

43. It's easy to make a viable law. Ban any semi-automatic rifle that can take a removable magazine.

Sure, the M1 Garand and other clip fed rifles would sneak under, as would an AR-15 modified to have a fixed magazine, but both would be less of interest to a mass shooter.

[oneshooter]

47. So you would outlaw these, built over 100 years ago?

[NutmegYankee]

48. Who cares about age? The Maxim machinegun has been in use since 1886.

Not available for sale at a gun store near you.

[aikoaiko]

55. But then you'll be going after traditional hunting guns and lose support for an AWB

The premise of an AWB is that it targets evil black rifles but not hunting rifles.

When you lose the Fudds, the NRA doesn't even have to lift a finger to defeat the legislation.

[NutmegYankee]

58. Most hunting rifles are still bolt/lever action or shotgun.

Hell, in most state lands in the Northeast, it's shotgun only. And if an exception has to be made to permit older rifles, like .22LR, or to allow collectables to be retained, then that's fine too.

If someone is using a mini-14, it sucks, but there are plenty of capable hunting rifles out there. Use a Garand if you need 8 chances to hit your mark. I have yet to see a mass shooter use an older semi-auto rifle, like the M1 Garand, which takes some skill to reload and will ensure you understand the concept of "tight to the shoulder". But having seen some of these scrawny shooters of late, I'm sure a .30-06 wasn't of much interest to them.

[krispos42]

46. And the effect on the homicide rate would be neglibible

Probably not even statistically detectable.

Whether you counted single-victim cases or multi-victim ones.

The numbers are pretty straightforward:

A person is murdered in the US about every 35 mintues.

A person is murdered with a gun known to be a handgun about every hour.

A person is murdered with a gun known to be a rifle about every 28 hours.


Rifles that are "assault weapons" (remember, an assault weapon can be a rifle, shotgun, or handgun) are a subset of rifles. So a person is murdered with an AR-15... once a week?

Same goes for other tactical rifles like the AK-47. Despite their numbers, and despite high-profile shootings, they are very rarely used to murder.




As you can see, about 95% of all homicide victims are killed in single-victim incidents, a number that's been pretty consistent even as the homicide rate dropped in half.

Now obviously the numbers cut off at 2005; when I made the graph those are the numbers I had. The increase in mass shootings over the last 6 years or so can be reasonably expected to make the orange line bump up a little.

Hysteria aside, where the we can do the most good is pretty obvious, and "assault weapons" is not it.

[NutmegYankee]

50. 17,000 murders per year, no one concerned. Fundies fly planes into buildings, kill just under 3000

And people are freaked out! 34,000 dead, 2.5 million injured from car crashes, most don't give it much thought. Planes crashes, kills just 100-300 at one time, and then people are terrified of flying. It's the same with mass shootings.

People would feel safer if mass shootings slowed down or stopped. Even if the risk didn't change much.

[krispos42]

51. We're not good at judging threats beyond the immediate

And I count myself among them. I know I eat poorly and it will affect my health one day, but... mmmm, pizza!

People would feel safer if they didn't marinate on topics the way social media and the internet allows you to. The problem is, the next mass shooter is right now marinating in all the media attention the Florida Fuckwad is getting and his diseased brain is thinking thoughts better left alone.

The sibling of Florida Fuckwad wants to set up a fan club for him, I shit you not.

Brother talked about setting up a fan club for Parkland shooter, prosecutors say
By David Smiley [e-mail]

March 20, 2018 06:39 PM
Updated March 21, 2018 07:20 AM

Alarmed by his repeated visits to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and his infatuation with his sibling’s notoriety as a mass murderer, prosecutors and police moved Tuesday to keep the younger brother of Parkland shooter Nikolas Cruz locked up on trespassing charges and to strip him of his ability to own a gun.

In a bond hearing for Zachary Cruz, assistant Broward state attorney Sarahnell Murphy said that the younger of the two brothers has been overheard admiring the elder’s “popularity” during jailhouse visits, and has talked about setting up a fan club for 19-year-old Nikolas. She also said Zachary was ignoring a vice principal’s order to stay away from the school when a Broward Sheriff’s Office deputy arrested him Monday for skateboarding on campus after dismissal.

Cruz, facing only a misdemeanor charge for the trespassing arrest, was slapped with a $500,000 bond by Judge Kim Theresa Mollica and ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation. But so worried is the Broward Sheriff’s Office that it moved Tuesday to have Zachary Cruz involuntarily committed, and petitioned a judge to strip him of his right to own or possess a gun under a new state law passed as a result of Nikolas Cruz’s Feb. 14 rampage.

<more>

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article206105074.html#storylink=cpy

I feel like it would be better if Florida Fuckwad showed up with plenty of bruises and missing teeth during prison visit.

[NutmegYankee]

56. I'd prefer he get psyciatric help rather than be tenderized by his fellow inmates

But I understand the disgust. While the media coverage probably helps increase shootings somewhat, I'm sure the epic cesspool that the internet can be at times does even more damage. Just look at the epic conspiracies that float around. And forget comments on news sites and YouTube.

And while the rational part of me knows that diabetes, heart disease, or cancer is the most likely cause of my eventual demise, you still worry about others you love, and that causes a lot of irrational fear. Despite a natural fear of death, most people are often more at peace with themselves being hurt than those they love. And mass shootings, especially in schools, just strike that chord.

[flibbitygiblets]

52. It's all the rage, haven't you heard!

"Yes, we're commin' fer yer gunnzzz!!"

How come so many people who are heavily armed, are scared shitless?

[hunter]

57. It's not gonna be "The Government."

It's gonna be husbands and wives, parents and children, friends and family saying "I think you have a problem with guns, dear..."

Most people don't care enough about guns to bother owning one. Most gun owners may have one or two guns safely locked up that they rarely think about.

The gun fetishists are a tiny, dangerous minority owning multiple guns and eagerly participating in a gun culture that attracts lunatics and fools.

Smoking and drunk driving are no longer socially acceptable. Gun fetishes will follow. That's what the gun fetishists fear.

[Skittles]

61. they are GUN HUMPING COWARDS

their main motivation is PARANOIA, FEAR AND IGNORANCE