General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFor those of you who support gun ownership answer me this......
Can you please give me one reason why ANYONE as a private citizen needs to own Assault Weapons. Mind you I realize there are some purpose to these weapons perhaps for those who work in law enforcement or serve in the military. But for a private citizen why would anyone need to own these weapons?
Turbineguy
(37,343 posts)from the NRA?
4 t 4
(2,407 posts)Walk away
(9,494 posts)That's the big fear of the gun nut! They have to protect themselves from the government that wants to take their guns!
SajayHobbs
(21 posts)Why does anyone "need" to speak in public to 1,000 people about some idea they have?
Why does anyone "need" to be free from unreasonable search and seizure?
It has nothing to do with what YOU think anyone may "need" or doesn't "need".
Repealing the entire 2nd Amendment is the only way.
4 t 4
(2,407 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)The more the wing-nuts use the word to push their agenda the more the word makes me retch in disgust.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)More like mumbo-jumbo about "because it's my 2A right", etc.
4 t 4
(2,407 posts)Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)exboyfil
(17,863 posts)You can get a 30 round magazine for the Bushmaster .223 (the gun the killer used).
I agree no conceivable reason for a magazine fed semiautomatic weapon. Here is a video on how fast a Bushmaster can be fired. It is scary.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)exboyfil
(17,863 posts)but I really can't see a conceivable reason for the weapon shown in the video to be in the hands of unregulated militia. Maybe I am beinig naive and missing something important.
Should such a gun be available with a 30 shot magazine off the internet? It seems to go beyond my sensibility.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I can't think of a realistic way to have rifles with removable magazines and then keep somebody from making a magazine larger than size X. If it's any comfort, magazines larger than 10 rounds tend to not work very well; the guy who shot Rep. Giffords and the rest was subdued after his large magazine jammed. Yeah, I know that's not much comfort, but it's something.
Like I said upthread, however you feel about the rifle, it's safer and less powerful than what you might think of as a traditional hunting rifle. For various reasons, a lot of people respond very viscerally to a rifle with a pistol grip like that one, but that grip makes it significantly safer to use.
If it's the rate of fire you think shouldn't be available to civilians then... well, Houston, we have a problem, at least politically, because you're talking about banning about half of the 300 million guns in the US. Maybe we should do that, but I can't think of a way to make it happen.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)On edit - not to say that the determined person will not be able to obtain one, but the laws are pretty stiff if you get caught.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)Especially if they have access to a 3D printer.
4 t 4
(2,407 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)That's why people for the most part don't hunt with them (except people who hunt groundhogs).
mzmolly
(50,996 posts)list.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)mzmolly
(50,996 posts)as well.
DustyJoe
(849 posts)the .223 is almost identical to the 5.56x45 NATO
........................................................................
While the external case dimensions are very similar, the .223 Remington and 5.56x45mm differ in both maximum pressure and chamber shape. The maximum and mean pressures for some varieties of the 5.56 mm (different cartridge designations have different standards) exceed the SAAMI maxima for the .223 Remington, and the methods for measuring pressures differ between NATO and SAAMI.[2] The 5.56 mm chamber specification has also changed over time since its adoption, as the current military loading (NATO SS-109 or US M855) uses longer, heavier bullets than the original loading did. This has resulted in a lengthening of the throat in the 5.56 mm chamber. Thus, while .223 Remington ammunition can be safely fired in a 5.56 mm chambered gun, firing 5.56 mm ammunition in a .223 Remington chamber may produce pressures in excess of even the 5.56 mm specifications due to the shorter throat.
...........................................................................
I think most vets from Vietnam forward can tell you with certainty that this projectile kills humans quite efficiently.
note. the CT shooter had a .223 in his vehicle but, it was not used in the shooting.
.
Untill they change the definition of a sporting semi-auto rifle as being equivelant to a militarized assault weapon, I don't see any regulation for sporting/hunting variants to include much more that a magazine size regulation that is in effect in some states.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Assault weapons are safer and less powerful than hunting rifles.
exboyfil
(17,863 posts)but about the rate of fire and available ammo in the magazine. A bolt action rifle seems alot less threatening and lethal for a mass shooting than the Bushmaster .223. I doubt we could put the genie back in the bottle on magazine fed guns (I may have the wrong term), but to have a 30 round magazine available on the internet?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Unless you're just saying "assault weapon" to mean "semi-automatic weapon". In which case there's literally no way we're going to get rid of all of those.
DustyJoe
(849 posts)My little .22 semi-auto rifle I have for pests around the property. Jackrabbits etc. in that instance would be considered an assault rifle.
In WWII both German (Mauser)and Japanese (type 30) standard infantry bolt action rifles I believe the rate of fire and lethality of these rifles are not disputed by anyone from that conflict.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Assault weapons are smaller caliber (less powerful) and have pistol grips (safer) than traditional hunting rifles.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Berndbrett
(11 posts)this is terrible terrible I hate it hate it very very much this is awesome!
Kingofalldems
(38,458 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)I guess I should say, tell me what you mean by the phrase "assault weapon", and I'll tell you if I think people should be able to own them.
CountAllVotes
(20,876 posts)and yes, I too would like to know why?
I never knew what a "magazine" was until an old veteran I know that was a sharp shooter in the Army told me. OMG was my reaction.
Why does a citizen in this country seem to think they "need" one of these evil guns?
WHY?
& recommend.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That might be a good idea, but I just want to make it clear that's going way way way past what the assault weapons ban ever did. And bans a class of weapons that are almost never used in crimes.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)union_maid
(3,502 posts)I know nothing about guns. Don't want to either. But I'll rephrase the question with apologies to the OP. Why does anyone need a gun that can fire so much ammunition so rapidly that a roomful of people can be mowed down by a single shooter? What legitimate purpose does that have in the general population?
Berndbrett
(11 posts)it is terrible already why more needed guns? why no one say stop stop stop!!!!!!!
union_maid
(3,502 posts)I wish no one had them. I would support any gun control measures that could be passed. Any and all.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)That's part of the pushback on this. Gun homicides are committed with handguns. Pretty much period. In fact, homicides with guns other than handguns are so rare that they get a lot of media attention (case in point).
Walk away
(9,494 posts)Maybe that's why they get so much attention. It's so easy to kill so many children so quickly.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)...but miniscule part of homicides. There's a lot of weird things about mass shootings. Usually it's a shooter who goes from zero to psychopath in 30 seconds (at least in terms of his paper trail). I don't know that there's a way to legislatively prevent it. I know that sounds defeatist, but there we are.
The much more common gun homicide, where somebody shoots somebody he knows with a handgun, we can do things about.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)Just think, if this last mass murderer's mother didn't have a legal assault rifle and he couldn't have bought one in a neighboring state or on line or at a gun show, maybe 28 deaths could be avoided. But maybe you don't think twenty eight lives, 20 little children, are worth it. Maybe you think their deaths are so "miniscule" we should just keep our current gun laws.
We can do something right now about assault weapons. Are you willing to do it?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Walk away
(9,494 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)have stopped 32 killed. Or do you want to ban pistols as well?
Among the many probs with prohibitions is they are a day late and a dollar short.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)And now I have to ignore you as I always ignore gun nuts.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)AlexSatan
(535 posts)or homicides in America.
Non-handgun homicides number about the same as homicide by knife.
thucythucy
(8,069 posts)I tend to think this "case in point" is getting a lot of media attention because someone went into an elementary school and gunned down more twenty little children, and six adults, shooting many of them multiple times.
I think that's why this is getting attention, not because it's one of those "rare" cases where a handgun wasn't used to commit a gun crime.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I was thinking more mass shootings in general, which get a lot more media attention than the much larger number of single shootings that are spread out in time and space.
former-republican
(2,163 posts)That's a fact , 10 just last night alone.
Criminal violent shootings happen almost every night in big cities "with what'? a handgun
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Kolesar
(31,182 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)Walk away
(9,494 posts)then maybe they wouldn't be so easy to get everywhere.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)These crazies have been told again and again for over 20 years that they must defend 'Murica from the Evil UN who is going to impose a Commi-Nazi dictatorship on the US.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Berndbrett
(11 posts)this is why all started likee this and no one safe now! you can even not send your child to school and not get shooted, this is terrible terrible terrible, how can so awesome thing happen in our country??!?!
Kennah
(14,276 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Walk away
(9,494 posts)the military in mind when they cling to their guns. It seems some folks feel the need to protect themselves from our government. When someone types "I keep these guns for my protection" they usually mean to protect themselves from us...the country...the United States.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)Some people live in bad neighborhoods where the police tend not to be responsive, or in rural areas where the police are remote and may not get there in time. A lot of gun owners are like the ones you described but not all.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)So this doesn't explain why people feel the need to own them - that's very individual - but I will attempt to present some arguments why restricting assault rifles would not be an effective means of gun control.
1. The name assault rifle is kind of a canard. It's a rifle. Just any other semi-automatic rifle. It is a military "style" rifle. It looks cool and/or scary.
2. Shotguns with higher capacity magazines can do a lot more close range damage. They are not as cool looking though.
3. More "traditional" looking hunting rifles can do just as much if not more damage. Especially those designed for big game.
4. You can fire just as many rounds per second from a semi-auto pistol. Muzzle velocity is lower and the round will probably not penetrate as deeply or cause as much damage from a pistol. That is not to say pistols are not lethal, but rifles are more effective for self defense.
5. Swat teams, law enforcement departments and armies use them. They are effective weapons. If you are going to have a weapon for self defense why not use what the pro's use. The major difference is that the civilian versions are crippled by not having burst or full auto (selective fire) capability.
But I will reiterate, focusing on restricting or banning these rifles (or any firearm) is probably not going to be effective and will just waste energy and momentum. I would focus on background checks for any and every sale, mental health status requirements, firearm registration, firearm safety, legal responsibility of the owner (ie - you are culpable if your firearm is used in any kind of crime or shooting), training and more training. I think it is absurd to treat firearms like just another off the shelf commodity in this era.
Also, lately the nut bag shooters have been wearing body armor. (Then they shoot themselves - wtf is up with that?) I would suggest that the sale and purchase of body armor be restricted to law enforcement. It's bad enough the crook nutbags are armed nearly as well as law enforcement, might as well try and give the leo's a leg up.
Aristus
(66,388 posts)on why large capacity magazines do not make for an assault weapon. Or why semi-auto capability, where rate of fire is dictated by how fast one can pull the trigger is not considered an assault weapon. How "cosmetic" features on military-grade weaponry mean it is not an assault weapon.
The gun-crazies have a thousand reasons why assault weapons are not really assault weapons. These reasons, if valid, would disqualify everything from the category of "assault weapons" except for tanks, bombers, and nukes.
You're not dealing with rational people here...
Irrational, bad-tempered reply in 3...2...1...
bongbong
(5,436 posts)The Delicate Flowers just LOVE to disparage any post that doesn't worship their Precious and all its "lovely" details just like they do.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The 94 law was such a colossal waste of time and goodwill that I still get really twitchy when I see Democrats talking about it, particularly when it seems like it's people who have fallen for the silent implication that assault weapons are machine guns.
So, when somebody asks "why do people want assault weapons", yes, my response is usually to explain what, legally, that phrase meant in the 94 law (and, in fact, my answer is usually "people don't, and the ban didn't do what you think it did" .
So let's get past the phrase: what characteristics of firearms would you like to see banned?
Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)Or we can just sit around and argue semantics while the body count piles up?
Isn't that really what you are saying? We have failed to do anything good about gun control because of lame ass sophistry?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)So if we're talking about banning things we should be very clear about what we mean.
How about banning guns that allow rapid succession of fire and quick reloading via magazines?
Thank you. Now I know what you're trying to say. Maybe it's a good idea, though I think that's a lot more weapons than you might think it is.
Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)I'd be more than happy to have someone try to lug one of those around through a hallway.
More to the point, as a gun owner myself, it seems that every single time this discussion comes up, instead of helpful cooperation, we spend more time arguing about the minutia instead of real issue.
And really, when it comes down to it, the minutia isn't meant to be helpful, it is meant to bog the conversation down and wear one side down with trivialities.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)We keep bringing them up because that's what we'll end up having to pass. Well, OK, yes, there's some nerd-irritation there when I see people who really don't know anything about firearms coming up with laws about them. What other fields do we do that with? All of them, probably. Education, definitely.
Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)You can surely admit that it seems more often the purpose of the minutia is to muddy the waters to the point where one side gives up in exasperation rather than an attempt to bring clarity and agreement to the discussion.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)... dismissed and used as evidence that the person asking must be a gun nut (how else would they know so much about guns, after all?).
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Clarity is often working against the agenda of the law writers. For example, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.
Your post #40 is an excellent example of clearing the minutia and saying what you mean with clarity:
> How about banning guns that allow rapid succession of fire and quick reloading via magazines?
Unfortunately, too many DUers come into the Gun Forum lacking the vocabulary to talk about what they want, and instead try using the latest buzzwords that they don't understand.
Aristus
(66,388 posts)capability to alter the weapon to full-auto status.
Take up the fucking bow and arrow. I'm much more likely to respect someone who uses that. That's some macho shit.
Sorry if your knee starts jerking. Listen, I only feel safe if I have a tactical nuke ready to go against anybody who fucks with me. Can I have one? And if not, why not? What are the features of a nuke that would cause you to object?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Those "conversion kits" you've heard about are just ways of separating gun owners from $50.
The magazine is separate from the gun. How do you propose to prevent a gun from accepting a magazine longer than a certain length? (Or, we could just say no detachable magazines.) IIRC, California requires that rifles have a button in the magazine well that makes you have to use a screwdriver to change magazines. That doesn't address the magazine size directly, but it does address multiple magazines, and it's a sign there might be a technical solution here.
Listen, I only feel safe if I have a tactical nuke ready to go against anybody who fucks with me. Can I have one? And if not, why not?
Legally, because of our obligations under the CBTB and NPT treaties. That said, if you're rich enough, you could buy up G.E., at which point you would "own" most of the US arsenal (though the Dept of Energy would retain custody of them).
Aristus
(66,388 posts)It had semi-automatic fire capability, the only practical application for which is combat. But it had an integrated, non-detachable magazine that held only eight rounds. A feature like that would reduce the likelihood of large-scale massacres by increasing the need to re-load more often, a time when the user is vulnerable to law-enforcement personnel.
Not to mention the fact that when the M1 fired the last round in the magazine, it would spit out the metal clip that held the eight rounds, a sound that made a distinctive clanging sound. This was a liability in WWII combat, because enemy soldiers, hearing that sound, would know their opponent needed to re-load. This is just the kind of liability school shooters need to be faced with.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That's worth trying
ThoughtCriminal
(14,047 posts)Yeah, I've gotten that same cut-n-paste lecture.
Bolt action hunting rifles are "more deadly" than assault weapons - but they need assault weapons for protection.
So why do soldiers carry M-16s? The difference is not "Cosmetic".
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Also because it's lighter to carry.
The wound-rather-than-kill thing wasn't humanitarian, but because if I kill somebody I've taken just him out, but if I wound him I've taken out him and the guy next to him as he carries him back to the medic.
Rifles are horrible choices for protection, and I personally haven't seen people suggesting that's what they're used for, though the Internet is full of morons without end, so I'm sure it's been said. Most people use handguns, for the same reasons police (and criminals) prefer them.
ThoughtCriminal
(14,047 posts)ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Assault rifles (and their semi-automatic civilian lookalike counterparts) fire comparatively low power ammunition (compared, that is, to most hunting rifles or military battle rifles). Each individual round in a hunting rifle is "more deadly," but an assault rifle holds more rounds. Militaries made the switch to assault rifles as much for logistic reasons (a soldier can carry a lot more of the smaller, lighter ammo and this needn't be resupplied nearly as often) as anything else. In addition, conscript troops (which form the bulk of many armies, although not ours any more) tend to be mediocre shots, so one advantage of the heavier battle rifle ammo (better long-range accuracy) is wasted on them.
retread
(3,762 posts)WooWooWoo
(454 posts)it's about what people want and have a right to own.
Nobody needs an assault rifle. Nobody even needs a gun. People can do all their hunting with a bow and use a baseball bat or a taser for self defense.
But people want guns, because they're more convenient tools to do what they want to do with them. Even if all they want to do is just shoot targets at the range to just test their skills.
People want lots of things that are dangerous. They want fast cars, alcohol, drugs, unsafe sex, cigarettes, and yes, even guns.
Personally, I don't like guns. I've shot plenty and I'm pretty good with one - but that's because its part of my job. When I'm done with this job, I'll be done with guns.
But just because I don't like something doesn't mean I think it should be banned.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... for a gun nut around here, but since I only shoot every month or two not in the gun nut world.
I have zero problem with an assault weapons ban, a high-count magazine ban. Let me be clear, IT WON'T DO ANYTHING TO STOP THIS SORT OF STUFF, but go ahead I really don't care.
Not only that, I think all private sales should be required to go through a dealer with the normal background check.
All that said - guns are like drugs - people who want them will get them and laws are NO DETERRENT AT ALL, NONE.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)I also would have no problem with all private sales requiring a background check. Granted, this also will do nothing to stop these mass killings.
NNN0LHI
(67,190 posts)Critters like raccoons and such. I won't be a bit surprised to find out the killer and others with that mindset enjoy torturing animals.
I have seen hundreds of raccoons here where I live over the years and never had the urge to kill one.
Don
renie408
(9,854 posts)I had a friend who had a raccoon that kept getting into her garbage. Her first response? Her husband went outside and shot it.
I asked her why she didn't just bungee cord the lid down. We live in the country and that's what we do and it works fine without killing the animal. She just stared at me blankly.
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)shoot them with am ar-15 (although it would do the job) but I do shoot them!
NNN0LHI
(67,190 posts)I raised 2 children here over the years here.
And never had a problem with raccoons acting aggressive or attacking either of them. Never had one even act like they were going to attack one of my kids.
As for how to predator proof your chicken coop read this. Doesn't seem all that complicated to me. My sister in-law has chickens and she has never lost one to a raccoon. Just have to use you imagination a little and know how to research on the Internet. That is what she told me she did. Never lost one chicken over a 20 year period or had to shoot any wildlife..
http://smallfarm.about.com/od/chickens/a/How-To-Predator-Proof-Your-Chicken-Coop.html
How to Predator Proof Your Chicken Coop
Don
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)You have bought into the whole terrorism/everyone is the enemy let me protect you thing.
Let's just let those who control drones, kill kids all over the world through wars/sanction/depleted uranium/blood diamonds/etc have everything because they, and only they, are to be trusted and you and me need them to save us all from each other.
All the while you pay taxes to kill people the world over.
Guns are not the problem, though seeing them as such may help folks through the night.
We are, our society, our desires for war and wealth, how we treat the poor, homeless, etc and so on.
No better than the RW and their cries against those evil 'islamic people' - pick an enemy, a cause for problems, and eradicate them or their tools.
All the while the person who did this, their reasons, go ignored so that we can blame a group.
9/11 all over again, except this time it is liberals blaming a group.
renie408
(9,854 posts)Yes, I agree whole heartedly that simply getting rid of or limiting guns is not going to change things much. But we have to start changing the gun culture in this country that glorifies guns.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)How many millions own guns and don't hurt others?
That is too hard though, so let's take the easy route.
renie408
(9,854 posts)instead of what is written.
I thought I said that gun control was PART of the solution. You really have a problem with that? And why is it the minute you say 'gun control' all the gun nuts hear 'ban all guns'?
Actually, I just reread what I wrote and I didn't even say anything about gun control. I said we need to change the culture of gun worship. But it looks like I infringed on your religion there, huh??
Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)Many people are prescribed short-term or even long-term pharmaceuticals to alleviate the symptoms of psychological disorders while working on the cause of the disorder.
While working out the cause of gun violence and mass shootings, which may be a multi-generational effort, what do we do about the symptoms in the meantime?
renie408
(9,854 posts)We have to start somewhere. You are right, we are not going to eliminate the problem over night. But if we don't start because it is hard or because it won't happen with one single fix, then we are NEVER going to get it figured out. And I am just naive and stupid enough to think that if we TRY we have a better chance than if we all just sit around and shrug and whine about how fucking hard it is going to be.
So, we START. Limit magazine size. Tax ammunition. Ban assault weapons. Insist on training for gun owners. Implement storage laws. Start putting out PSA's about keeping guns stored safely. Begin to broaden access to mental health programs and try to figure out a way to reduce the stigma attached to therapy. Begin some real studies by real scientists into our culture of violence and then PAY ATTENTION to what they say. Start passing around petitions to send to news outlets to change the way they report on this stuff.
Pick one. Or three. But just START.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Guns are not causing us to be violent.
We live in a violent culture. Our sports are violent. Our movies are violent. Our video games are violent. Kids are exposed to violence in the schools. Many schools are being overrun by bullies these days. Many kids are living in abusive homes. We have poverty issues, racism, homophobia... I mean I can go on and on and on with why we are so violent.
Our government is also very violent. The only other country that executes more people than we do is China. We execute more people than Saudi Arabia, Iran, and North Korea all put together. And people cheer this. If you are governor of Texas and tell people how many executions you authorized, people will cheer you.
Guns themselves are not our problem. It's our culture that is toxic.
renie408
(9,854 posts)I am going to puke.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)We don't live in a violent society. Its all because of guns. We never had violence in our civilization before guns were invented.
Happy?
renie408
(9,854 posts)Are you really nine? Is it past your bedtime?
Because you would have to have the mental capacity of a second grader to get that straw man BULLSHIT out of what I said.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Guns are a WEAPON! They don't make a person violent. Just because someone owns a gun doesn't mean they are going to out and start mowing people down.
If you get rid of guns, a killer will go to the next weapon of choice.
A guy in China just killed 22 kids with a knife, yesterday! A KNIFE! If we ban guns and the whacko goes into a school and kills 20 kids with a kitchen knife, are you going to come in my house and take my kitchen knives away?
You can't stop killers by taking the weapons away. That's like saying you will stop potheads by passing a law that bans marijuana. Good luck with that! IT WON'T WORK!
renie408
(9,854 posts)Yes, Guns are a WEAPON! They are a quick, easy, handy weapon that 80 million Americans have lying around where they can get to them. If you make it just a wee bit HARDER to live out their violent fantasies, it might work to reduce the number of gun deaths. Drive by KNIFE THROWINGS would probably be a lot less effective.
Now, just because I happen to think that intelligent gun control is a part of reducing the violence in our society does not mean that I do not think that violence in society is a problem. See, I can have more than ONE idea at a time. I am mentally flexible that way.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)And you want people to take you seriously?
The 22 students were injured in China,not killed.
Get your facts straight.
lob1
(3,820 posts)Who would you rather face, a guy with a gun or a guy with a knife? You really think you can do the same damage with a knife? Please! You can't outrun a bullet.
well said. Some guns allow people to kill lots of people very fast. That's a big part of the issue.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Semi automatic pistols from before then. Up until relatively recently we did not have the current level of violence in society. To claim semi automatic firearms are a causal factor is specious. Lets look at root causes, not blame stuff that has been around for 100 years.
Now here is your sick sack...
renie408
(9,854 posts)For a Professor, you seem to be woefully ignorant of these little things called FACTS. There has actually been a DECREASE in homicide rates over the past century.
http://thepublicintellectual.org/2011/05/02/a-crime-puzzle/
And you don't seem all that progressive, either.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)If you really believe that our society less violent than it was previously, then private firearms are not a problem.
I teach firearms mostly to GLBTs. A group more at risk than most. These are not gun nuts but individuals based on personal experience of threat and or injury who are choosing to arm themselves because they want to survive. They are not going in bad places or engaging in questionable activity, they are just being who they are. Police are never there in real time and can be part of the solution. They are also the kind of people you would disarm to face more powerful attackers.
What is progressive about disarming those who need it to face bashing? How is it not progressive to help the weaker and targeted survive?
You done with the sick sack yet?
renie408
(9,854 posts)Cause I am thinking that would just draw attention to them.
The only gun I have ever said should be banned was the assault rifle. I have said that we need intelligent gun control. That's all. You, like all the other gun nuts, have managed to read into that what you want.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)People who think we have gun nuts on DU need to get out and meet some real gun nuts. Their delicate flowers would wilt.
renie408
(9,854 posts)I will put my gun nuts up against your gun nuts any day.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)Just like the NRA you made up shit and assumed buried somewhere in my OP I was probably thinking it.
I mean where the hell did you get BUSH of all things from my post?
I just said that I do not think there is any need for regular folks to have assault weapons.
I mean I'm guessing you also believe the NRA bullshit that progressives just want to take away all the guns too.
Next time a post then try not to embellish your creative imagination into it before replying.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)illegal drugs. It will work for ammo. Buy all the guns you want, but put a barcode on every bullet. Trackable bills of sale...registered with some alphabet soup federal agency. If it is discharged at a legal shooting gallery or in legal self-defense, declare it. If not...prosecute. Lots of highly trained post-military could use a job.
backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)I have two hunting rifles that make that guys .223 look stupid but they arent assault weopens...that is what makes this argument so useless
Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)We get it. There are people who love the study of guns and the opportunity to show off their knowledge.
How about using the knowledge to help rather than hinder?
President Kennedy didn't say he wanted to build a multistage rocket with a environment module and computers with x amount of fuel and oxygen capacity with a flag and lunar dune buggy with a return module of x technical specifications that would carry a man weighing a certain weight and height to a specific location on moon, but somehow, we managed to put a man a moon with the simple statement "before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth" as the starting point.
Let me just put it out there. Is there any form of gun control legislation you think would be helpful to prevent some of these mass shootings?
If you don't, say so simply and plainly. If you do, then use your vast knowledge of weaponry to move the discussion forward. Chiding our ignorance of every iteration of gun ever made doesn't do that.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)1. End the drug war and in fact all vice enforcement efforts and kill black markets and turf battles.
2. Start a relentless effort against poverty.
3. End the war on the middle class and restore and grow wages.
4. Cease and desist with the tearing down of public education in this country.
5. Stop stigmatizing and starving out mental health.
6. Get the "rape is a gift from Gawd", wimmen answer to the man mentality on the run.
7. Provide a meaningful safety net so a women with children doesn't feel trapped to stay with some abusive fuckwit.
8. Restore upward mobility, give people real opportunities for a better life than platitudes and one in a million success stories.
9. De-militarize and de-blue wall the police. Reduce fear from the communities they are supposed to protect and serve.
10: End homelessness, perhaps no segment is at greater risk of dealing with violence than these folks and few near as desperate either.
11. Stop stigmatizing the safety net. Desperate people don't need the conflict in their heads. Turn down the desperation.
12. Reintegrate felons into society, no second real second chance shuts down hope and increases desperation and the easy transition back into dangerous habits.
13. Reinvent our system of incarceration, we have created a crime incubation program. Too many in, conditions that serve to harden hearts and poison spirits with rape and racist gangs for survival in a harsh and hostile environment.
14. End the two Americas legal system. Punish the destroyers too and the deprivation would slow down on the systemic side.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)would have prevented what happened yesterday?
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)where such events are less likely to occur by lowering the "thermostat" in the society.
I have no expectation of eliminating violence, I seek to reduce it fundamentally. I do not pretend it is something new or shocking. I celebrate the overall reductions and prescribe real ways of globally impacting a problem.
What is your argument?
AlexSatan
(535 posts)It's just if there is a problem, I prefer to try things that might actually solve the problem.
BTW, all gun violence is an anomaly.
earthside
(6,960 posts)... certain guys who have sexual self-esteem issues need to own assault weapons in order to create artificial feelings of adequacy for themselves.
This also explains why they need to own many of these weapons and why they have to keep acquiring more and more of them with the decrease in their virility as they get older.
I thought everyone knew this already.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)And close the gun show and other retail loopholes.
Also, we need to improve and modernize the background check database.
These are reasonable things that I believe people can get behind.
But the 2nd amendment absolutists drive me nuts.
Kaleva
(36,312 posts)Put a 5 round magazine on a semi-auto AK-47 and you have a gun that's quite good for white tail deer hunting and as effective as the tried and tru lever action .30-30 and no more dangerous to others then the .30-30
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Any more deadly
Rincewind
(1,203 posts)an assault weapon, by definition, and assault weapon is capable of fully automatic, or burst fire. These have been regulated since the late 1930's. What you and most people call an assault rifle is really just a look-a-like gun. It's not any more dangerous than any regular hunting rifle, that uses the same ammunition.
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)for the weapon, but it is not hard if you have those two things and are not otherwise banned from owning firearms.
Kaleva
(36,312 posts)It only regulates guns capable of auto fire and other destructive devices.
rdking647
(5,113 posts)im jewish. my stepdad fled poland during the holocaust and lost his entire family.
I have an assault rifle in case the whack jobs take over.
Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)They'll be the one's that own the tanks, body armor, fighter jets, grenades, and host of other things.
At what point during the "whack job" takeover do you think it would come in handy?
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)that point doesn't include assault weapons. I also have no problem with background checks and waiting periods.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)How does one differ from an "assault rifle?"
How does one differ from a semi-auto hunting rifle?
If people are going to prohibit something, these are important questions when bills are drawn up.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)And those collectors need to be thoroughly licensed and background checked. And those weapons should not be allowed in urban areas.
I have a rifle and a shotgun for hunting and a pistol for self-defense. I have no need for semi-automatics.
JoDog
(1,353 posts)I am a target shooter who competes with a handgun. There is absolutely no need for assault or fully automatic weapons outside of law enforcement and the military.
They are mostly banned in my state (IL), and I completely support that. All they are good for is hunting humans and sowing terror.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)but I am against assault weapons and those multi-round magazines. As I've said elsewhere, particularly in rural areas, many people hunt for food or need a firearm for protection against predators, but I see no reason for people in cities to build up arsenals. One weapon for protection maybe, but no need for multiple guns.
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)Recreational shooting can be safe and fun and is legal.
I admit, it's more of a "want" than a "need"... but in a (supposedly) free country, there is often no need required to own an item.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Sissyk
(12,665 posts)I will answer from my perspective.
From your title: I am one of those, I support gun ownership. I own three of my own.
From your first question: I do not feel the need to own an assault weapon. I dont own one. I do not know anyone that owns an assault weapon. However, I do know two people that own two weapons that were on the now expired AWB. What is the difference? I am not sure myself. But I do know they own them legally and have never used them for harm. Need? I dont think that is why they have them. I do know they have had them at my house and the neighbors house on days we have target practice.
I was very hesitant to post this, today of all days, because I am sooooo heart broken over the loss of these babies and young adults, including the mother.
But you didn't point fingers, and you seem to honestly be asking so I thought I would answer from my point of view.
To you LynneSin
TRJuan
(27 posts)Seems to me we have a few on here that are a little too protective of their 30 round bullet hoses. I have serious concerns the next school shooter is on this forum. I think the mods need to report some of the above posters to the proper authorities.
At a minimum, their guns need confiscated for spouting such drivel.
bossy22
(3,547 posts)Paladin
(28,264 posts)The deaths of those 20 children and six school employees didn't make anybody God. But how is that No More Gun Control meme working for you today?
renie408
(9,854 posts)That's who.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Festivito
(13,452 posts)The first escalation is to avoid dealing with situations. The next escalation is the cost of avoiding to deal with situations.
We don't pay enough attention to our government, so we worry it will fail us and many people with guns will attack, so we want to escalate. We don't know how to deal with situations in part because we lack practice. So, now we need those guns.
Soon, we'll need rocket launchers.
Ya Basta
(391 posts)That term is just used as propaganda to an uneducated public. Assault rifles have full auto or burst auto capabilities for the purpose of assaulting (rushing) an enemy position.
FYI...
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Glassunion
(10,201 posts)There are so many different definitions so are we talking, CT's, NJ's, NY's, IL's, etc...?