Here's my hope for the gun debate.

[chieftain]

I want to believe that the great majority of people will react with revulsion as assault weapon advocate after advocate explain that we need to have these arsenals for protection against the government. As they speak the truth that the only need for these weapons is to use against the nation's security forces, the radicalism and estrangement from our institutions is plain to see and impossible to support.
We have continue to ask those who fight a ban on assault rifles and high capacity magazines why they want/need this kind of firepower.The answers ought to continue to confirm that we need to make the manufacture and sale of these instruments of mass death illegal.

[upaloopa]

1. I wonder what we should do with those that already exist? What should be done to those already sold

and in people's homes. Confiscation is not practical or constitutional I think.

My way of looking at this issue is that we throw out extreme positions on both sides and see what is practical. Try them on a short term basis and measure the results.

Something inside me says that to focus only on the guns and gun owners is to rule out many other workable ideas.

I am not a gunner but I have empathy for their side. I still think you are nuts to want an assault rifle but I recognizance they are here.

[derby378]

2. But when have I said that's the only use for such firearms?

We have to take emotionalism out of this debate. Yes, we are compassionate beings, but we are also pattern-seeking beings, for better or worse. We see a mentally unstable kid steal a rifle, gun down his mom, and then gun down schoolchildren and teachers, it's easy not to focus on the kid or his insanity or his environment - everyone wants to focus on the gun. And this is the point where we have to step back and take a deep breath before we do something that's going to come back and bite us on the butt down the line.

[Hoyt]

5. The folks that acquire them are also responsible for polluting society.

I'm serious - the fact people want such weapons, especially multiple units, is proof enough they are not fit to own them. Catch-22 for sure.

The problem is not simply the Lanzas, Holmes, Loughner, Zimmermans, etc.

[derby378]

6. There's that emotionalism I was talk about earlier

Passion is not synonymous with reason. And if someone tries to label me as part of the problem, that's only going to steel my resolve.

[Hoyt]

7. Like your support of guns is "reason." All you guys want is to preserve your access

to the dang things. Nothing else matters.

[Recursion]

14. I like them because they're safer

I don't own a gun, but if I inherited my grandfather's ranch I would probably get one (snakes and coyotes). And it would probably be an AR for three reasons:

1. I was in the Marines, so it's a form I'm used to.

2. Pistol grips are safer than traditional grips.

3. It's lower power than a traditional hunting rifle, so I would have more places where I could safely shoot said coyotes and snakes.

Would I need an AR? No, and I could just as easily get a more traditional-looking small-caliber semi-auto carbine, as could anyone else.

It's not a question of rights, it's just kind of a pointless law.

[Hoyt]

15. We need to slow down rate of gun proliferation.

Place to start is the guns that turn yahoos on for no practical reason.

[Recursion]

16. Militaries use it because it's a safer design

I'm troubled by the idea of requiring less-safe designs based on our assumptions of the mental processes of yahoos.

[Hoyt]

17. We are not in a war zone. Jeeeeeeez.

[Recursion]

18. It's not about combat, it's about accident prevention

The military uses rifles shaped like the AR 15 because they are harder to drop and easier to control and enforce shooting from the shoulder rather than the hip.

[Hoyt]

20. And I thought the NRA was full of it.

I guess hi-cap mags are better because accidents occur during reloading.

[Recursion]

21. I support banning hi cap mags

Jerk the knee a little less, ok?

[Taitertots]

22. Why? There are more guns than ever and yet we live in the most peaceful era in human history

Including before guns were even invented.

[chieftain]

8. We are pattern-seeking beings.

And the pattern we have seen at Newtown, Webster and Aurora is use of assault weapons to cause mass and random death. It is not emotional to focus on the instrumentalities of such carnage and ask why they are necessary. The answer to that question ought to give every one pause, even those steeled in their resolve to argue against an assault weapon ban.

[chieftain]

9. My comment was for the NRA types appearing all over TV.

It was not directed at you unless you have been on TV talking about the need to fight the government.

[derby378]

10. Duly noted

[chieftain]

13. We may not be able to keep the emotion out of the debate

but we ought to work to avoid any negative personalization. Semper Fi

[Sherman A1]

3. Agreed

however, I believe that those who wish to own assault weapons simply want them because they want them. They offer excuses as to why and one of them is the need to protect themselves from some type of action by their own government, but I find these to be simply rationalizations on their part.

[chieftain]

4. I agree with much of what you say.

There is no way that it makes sense to confiscate these kind of weapons but there is value in stopping the growth of the arsenal.
The recent incident of the woman shooting an intruder in her home proves not only the value of some kind weapons for home protection but also the fact that you don't need an assault weapon with a high capacity mag to defend your loved ones.
Those of us that believe in gun control ought to make clear that we don't want to take peoples implements of home security or their hunting rifles. But that does not mean that we should allow the instruments of mass and random murder to continue to proliferate.

[billh58]

12. There is no need for

confiscation, but we can make registration mandatory, and transfers of ownership must be subject to background checks. We can also severely tax certain kinds of weapons and ammunition. In conjunction with these measures, we can also ban further manufacture and sale of certain types of weapons (as determined by government). It will be a war of attrition, but it's a start.

In my opinion, those who say that owners of assault-like weapons will flaunt the law about registration and taxation are missing the point. If they don't comply with the laws, then they become criminals and their weapons become subject to confiscation -- when, and if caught. I believe that the majority of Americans are law-abiding citizens, and will not want to become criminals. That would leave us to deal with only the true "cold dead hands" gun nuts.

[Recursion]

11. The basic answer is that an assault weapons ban doesn't do what you think it does

Banning assault weapons isn't unconstitutional or tyrannical, it's just not a very well-thought-through idea. That's why, for example, Lanza's rifle was totally legal under Connecticut's assault weapons ban, since it didn't have a bayonet lug.

"OK, gun nut, that's easy: strengthen the law. Feinstein's working on that."

Well, I suppose the proposed ban is "stronger" in that more guns are under it, but it's still not a ban based on the weapon's capabilities. Just like in 1994, gunmakers can rename their designs and change how they look (in this case, they'll have to give it a more traditional-shaped grip, despite the fact that these grips are more dangerous; that still bugs me).

Inherently, an assault weapons ban regulates what a semi-automatic rifle with detachable magazines can look like. But any semi-automatic rifle with detachable magazines can fire as many bullets as quickly as any other, and detachable magazines at least physically can be of arbitrary size (limiting that arbitrary size legally is probably a very good idea).

But, personally, declaring what the rifle that Lanza used can look like, rather than how quickly it can fire, isn't worth losing a single seat in Congress.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

19. Well, in a free deomcratic society, it's generally the people proposing/advocating the restrictions

that should have provide reasoning for the restrictions and/or removal of rights. Furthermore, there should be a need to defend how the propsed restriction goes about fulfilling such reasoning/requirement in the least obtrusive method available (aka: strict scurinty).

The entire premise of your OP seems to rest on lack of reasoning for people have in DEFENSE of possessing these rifles. That is not how a free society operates. Reasoning for restriction must trump freedom of actions.