Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 06:16 AM Oct 2015

US body count rises inexorably, as we Europeans look on in disbelief and horror once again.

America’s gun culture will outlast this tragedy


Whatever steps are taken in the wake of this most recent tragedy, guns will remain a central part of America’s culture, as will gun violence. That may appear baffling to European eyes, but it is not something that can or will be quickly or easily changed.



The murder of 20 schoolchildren by Adam Lanza is a horrific reminder of the way in which the easy access to firearms in America can maximise one man’s potential for evil. Since 1982, there have been at least 62 mass shootings, and in the vast majority of cases the weapons were acquired legally. After the tragic events in Newtown, there is a growing sense that something has to change.

Sadly, there is a gulf between what is morally right and what is politically feasible. In the past, President Obama has stated that semi-automatic weapons of the variety used at Newtown belong in the hands of soldiers rather than citizens, and also that it should be much harder for people with a history of mental illness to own guns: many multiple person shootings are carried out by people suffering from paranoia or depression, who often show signs of illness prior to their actions.

Yet despite his promise of “meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this”, the president’s record of inaction reflects how reluctant American politicians are to act on such a contentious issue. Gun ownership is constitutionally protected, and a powerful lobby exists to protect that right. During the 2012 election cycle, the wealthy National Rifle Association outspent pro-gun-control groups by 10 to one. Given that President Obama is locked in tortuous budget negotiations with Congressional Republicans, it would be an act of almost reckless courage to spend what little political capital he has testing the militancy of gun owners.

Crucially, opposition to gun control is not limited to ideological lobbies. For many ordinary Americans, gun ownership is synonymous with self-reliance, and they inhabit a culture in which hunting has both mythic and popular appeal. Any effort to curtail significantly access to guns would not only face legal objections but also risk an ugly political war between town and country. Furthermore, the extraordinary saturation of American homes with weapons would limit the impact of any effort to reduce over-the-counter sales. Even if Adam Lanza had been banned from owning any guns on the grounds of mental health (some investigators have described him as suffering from a personality disorder) he could just as easily have taken them from his mother’s private collection. Indeed, a number of her weapons are reported to have been used in the massacre.

http://www.realclearworld.com/2012/12/17/explaining_american_gun_culture_to_a_european_143328.html

_____________________________

This perspicacious piece appeared in the UK's Telegraph at the time of the Sandy Hook massacre. As a European/American, I thought it deserved to be revisited. NOTHING has changed since its original publication, and the bodies continue to pile up.
110 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
US body count rises inexorably, as we Europeans look on in disbelief and horror once again. (Original Post) Surya Gayatri Oct 2015 OP
Message auto-removed Name removed Oct 2015 #1
How do the dead get freedom? Jappleseed Oct 2015 #2
Message auto-removed Name removed Oct 2015 #3
In Germany, they just shake their heads and say, "what, again already?" DFW Oct 2015 #4
As you can well imagine, DFW, my French compatriots are thoroughly Surya Gayatri Oct 2015 #28
Düsseldorf, not Frankfurt DFW Oct 2015 #29
Courage! Of course, now I recall. Düsseldorf. Surya Gayatri Oct 2015 #30
Or, as Napoléon put it: DFW Oct 2015 #31
It really is right in the 'heart' of Europe. Equidistant from just about everywhere. Surya Gayatri Oct 2015 #32
That is one of the reasons I picked it out DFW Oct 2015 #35
"...halfway point between Paris and the Hanseatic League..."--who knew? Surya Gayatri Oct 2015 #37
Ground zero here DFW Oct 2015 #38
So do Americans eom LiberalElite Oct 2015 #63
I know. Not enough of them, unfortunately. DFW Oct 2015 #110
What we need is not less Guns Elmergantry Oct 2015 #5
Wishing away hate isn't a solution.... marmar Oct 2015 #7
Banning firearms isnt going to happen Elmergantry Oct 2015 #9
So there are only a few places in some states Lars39 Oct 2015 #11
We can, have, and WILL ban some firearms -- No 'settled law' there whathehell Oct 2015 #14
There may be some restrictions on particular firearms Elmergantry Oct 2015 #16
That, and perhaps some restriction on the number of guns per owner, is all that's being sought. whathehell Oct 2015 #20
I don't see what a restriction on how many firearms a person owns would stop a mass shooting. Waldorf Oct 2015 #42
The last shooter had numerous guns, as did the Columbine killers. I have no problem with whathehell Oct 2015 #48
Problem is Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #59
The control side has compromised by eliminating gun control from campaigns for the last 20 years, whathehell Oct 2015 #65
Sure, lol Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #67
What? Please try to make sense.. whathehell Oct 2015 #71
Those were semi-automatic. Waldorf Oct 2015 #69
Close enough. whathehell Oct 2015 #74
None of those rifles was full auto Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #77
Close enough....Close enough to slaughter a roomful of six year olds whathehell Oct 2015 #80
Then you must be for a ban and confiscation Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #82
No, honey, I'm not.. whathehell Oct 2015 #84
Sorry but you need to ban by function Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #85
LOL whathehell Oct 2015 #87
So what is your halfway measure Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #88
"firearms owners side has been compromising for the last 80 or so years" awoke_in_2003 Oct 2015 #100
Wow, are we not a civil one Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #102
What war zone do you live in awoke_in_2003 Oct 2015 #103
I don't Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #104
Since there is no limit awoke_in_2003 Oct 2015 #106
You are just plain wrong Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #108
I find that "common sense" gun laws Elmergantry Oct 2015 #62
Yes, well I kind of thought you'd hold that opinion whathehell Oct 2015 #66
See Virginia tech Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #68
Don't need to.. whathehell Oct 2015 #72
Yep he was nuts... Elmergantry Oct 2015 #81
Oh my, you are a tad literal minded, aren't you? whathehell Oct 2015 #83
Yes Large Cap is not the only issue. Elmergantry Oct 2015 #90
And away we gooo!! Elmergantry Oct 2015 #70
Nope whathehell Oct 2015 #73
Insults seem to be all they have Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #89
Very True NT Elmergantry Oct 2015 #91
2/3 of those are suicides Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #79
See post #84. whathehell Oct 2015 #86
wow 2/3rd of gun death are suicide? Elmergantry Oct 2015 #92
Yes they intentionally conflate the numbers Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #94
You take the suicides out of the question Elmergantry Oct 2015 #95
True Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #97
BTW Thumbs up on Savenchenko! NT Elmergantry Oct 2015 #98
Thank you Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #99
For sure. Elmergantry Oct 2015 #101
You could attack 2/3 of the deaths easily and with no resistance from the nra... beevul Oct 2015 #93
Shhh!!!! Elmergantry Oct 2015 #96
GUNZZ facilitate violent acting-out--and discourage giving things a second thought. Surya Gayatri Oct 2015 #40
Please -- I doubt there's more "hate" in the US than other countries in the world whathehell Oct 2015 #12
"That being said, there are FAR fewer mass murders, and that's what actually counts. " Elmergantry Oct 2015 #17
It's what counts with respect to the random mass shooting/gun control issue, yes whathehell Oct 2015 #19
Because it's far easier to control the emotional states of individuals Crunchy Frog Oct 2015 #23
How we must look damnedifIknow Oct 2015 #6
It's all a sign of an endemic social rot and disease. ananda Oct 2015 #10
Many countries could use "a good cleanse", but it's not an urgent issue because whathehell Oct 2015 #15
Exactly! Elmergantry Oct 2015 #18
Many Europeans like America and Americans, but think they're totally insane as regards GUNZZ. Surya Gayatri Oct 2015 #41
That' why many come here to fire weapons Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #51
Cryptic.....But, it's a well-kept secret that millions of Europeans are Surya Gayatri Oct 2015 #52
no, love your sarcasm Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #54
Whatever you say, Duck. If a hunter says so, it MUST be true! Surya Gayatri Oct 2015 #56
I don't hunt Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #57
Perhaps you know 935 people who do? Surya Gayatri Oct 2015 #58
Nope I know about a dozen Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #60
Indeed, I do NOT know you personally, but your 'profile' presents itself with Surya Gayatri Oct 2015 #61
It is from my army air defense background Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #64
+1000 smirkymonkey Oct 2015 #8
There are nearly as many privately sulphurdunn Oct 2015 #13
"I thought it deserved to be revisited." Ok. beevul Oct 2015 #21
Who maintained a massive arsenal accessable to a son she knew was disturbed. Crunchy Frog Oct 2015 #25
How big was tha massive arsenal? Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #27
One can only carry / wield three or max four at a time. Jeezus, how Surya Gayatri Oct 2015 #36
Guns have differing sizes Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #43
No shit, Sherlock. Different sizes and calibers? WHO KNEW? Surya Gayatri Oct 2015 #45
I own dozens of pliers, vice grips, shoes, screwdrivers Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #46
None of which changes the fact that lanza had to murder his own mother to get her guns. beevul Oct 2015 #33
Yes, easy access. First, he simply broke into the 'gun case' in his home. Only then Surya Gayatri Oct 2015 #26
His mother was shot with a 22 bolt action rifle. beevul Oct 2015 #34
According to the sources I read at the time, her murder was NOT Surya Gayatri Oct 2015 #39
We have created a government that doesn't give a fuck about people. Initech Oct 2015 #22
"We need to destroy the NRA and make them irrelevant." Surya Gayatri Oct 2015 #24
Which actually represent Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #44
The out-sized damage they do to the social fabric in proportion Surya Gayatri Oct 2015 #47
Americans are goddam dolts. hifiguy Oct 2015 #49
But, but, the PILGRIM rides on in the imaginations of millions of GUN totin', quick drawin' Surya Gayatri Oct 2015 #50
Speak for yourself, bro..Fact is, only one third of Americans even OWN a gun whathehell Oct 2015 #75
the problem is, many own several Ichigo Kurosaki Oct 2015 #105
Well, yes, that's what I said in my post whathehell Oct 2015 #107
Nothing has changed, nothing will change. Dems to Win Oct 2015 #53
Sadly, I've been forced to the same conclusions as you... Surya Gayatri Oct 2015 #55
Only one third of Americans -- a clear minority -- even OWN a gun. whathehell Oct 2015 #78
America has too many yahoos who need their "man card." Hoyt Oct 2015 #76
Our country is morally afflicted. hay rick Oct 2015 #109

Response to Surya Gayatri (Original post)

 

Jappleseed

(93 posts)
2. How do the dead get freedom?
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 06:59 AM
Oct 2015

Death is the ultimate denial of freedom. There is way too much of it in the US compared to civilized countries.

Response to Jappleseed (Reply #2)

DFW

(54,256 posts)
4. In Germany, they just shake their heads and say, "what, again already?"
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 07:51 AM
Oct 2015

It is difficult to explain to people in other countries how we tolerate this and let it happen again and again and again.

For people who have never been to the States, I have a hard time telling them they'll be safe when the papers and TV news outside of the USA has these same stories every few months/weeks. They ask why nothing is done, and it is the cruelest question of all because I have no answer.

 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
28. As you can well imagine, DFW, my French compatriots are thoroughly
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 02:41 PM
Oct 2015

baffled by America's deranged fetish for gunzz and their bizarre tolerance for gun violence.

I too am at a loss in trying to explain it, let alone excuse it in some way.

The French frequently draw unwelcome parallels between the US and violence-riven, third-world nations--Somalia and Honduras, for starters.

How've you been? Still doing the Frankfurt / Barcelona run?


DFW

(54,256 posts)
29. Düsseldorf, not Frankfurt
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 02:46 PM
Oct 2015

And, yes, I'm still doing it. Next Tuesday, in fact.

There is no rest for the weary.

DFW

(54,256 posts)
31. Or, as Napoléon put it:
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 02:58 PM
Oct 2015

"My little Paris on the Rhein."

It wasn't his for very long, but it is still a pleasant place, and it has great train/air connections to most of Europe, much of North America and some of Asia.

Most of the year, I fly down to Spain after breakfast and am still home the same evening. 100 minutes each way.

DFW

(54,256 posts)
35. That is one of the reasons I picked it out
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 03:07 PM
Oct 2015

Since in the beginning, I didn't live here full time, we needed a place to which I could easily get from nearly anywhere, but still close to Paris, Berlin and Brussels, as well as flight to the USA so my wife could come visit me there. As it is also a great city, Düsseldorf didn't need a hard sell for me, but it was also very expensive. The Japanese took a liking to it, and bought up a lot of the housing, causing prices to soar. We ended up settling on a small medieval town on the outskirts that is now considered a suburb, and is closer to the airport than downtown. This town was THE big place in the area during the middle ages, (a whopping 1250 population), since it was the halfway point between Paris and the Hanseatic League.

 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
37. "...halfway point between Paris and the Hanseatic League..."--who knew?
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 03:14 PM
Oct 2015

Love your historical tidbits!

DFW

(54,256 posts)
38. Ground zero here
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 03:18 PM
Oct 2015

The trade delegations don't come by in mule-drawn carts any more, but the records are still here.

DFW

(54,256 posts)
110. I know. Not enough of them, unfortunately.
Sun Oct 4, 2015, 05:06 AM
Oct 2015

If the children of ten NRA-supported members of Congress were gunned down in some mass shooting, they'd probably all mourn the lack of firepower their children had that would have enabled them to put up a stiffer return fire.

 

Elmergantry

(884 posts)
5. What we need is not less Guns
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 08:09 AM
Oct 2015

But less hate. Hate towards Christians, hate towards gays, hate towards blacks, hate towards whites, etc.


BTW I think I spy my Mosin-Nagant on the far left side of the pic.

marmar

(77,045 posts)
7. Wishing away hate isn't a solution....
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 08:23 AM
Oct 2015

..... I'd rather someone hate me without a gun, n'est-ce pas?


 

Elmergantry

(884 posts)
9. Banning firearms isnt going to happen
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 08:49 AM
Oct 2015

Like abortion both are Constitutionally protected rights per numerous SC rulings and its "settled law"

However attitudes, particularly bad ones, can and have changed. Take for instance gay rights.

So seems to me this country has a people problem, not a gun problem For instance:

UNDOC numbers 2012:

Murders per 100,000
Guatamala: 39.8 per murders 100,000; US 4.7.

Guns per 100 capita:
Guatamala: 13.7
US: 88.8

Certainly to me murder is a people problem, not a gun problem.

opinions may vary.


Lars39

(26,101 posts)
11. So there are only a few places in some states
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 09:08 AM
Oct 2015

where you can legally obtain a gun? Waiting periods where you have to stay in the area for several days before the purchase?
The facilities where the guns and ammo are made and sold are heavily regulated, to the point that they have to close?
And to address hate being taught: is gun ownership and usage demonized at every right wing church 24/7? Gun stores set on fire? Gunsmiths stalked and killed?

These would be the comparisons to legal abortions in this country right now.

whathehell

(29,023 posts)
14. We can, have, and WILL ban some firearms -- No 'settled law' there
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 09:27 AM
Oct 2015

Assault rifles and 100 round magazine clips are NOT needed and not even imagined,

yet alone intended by the Founding Fathers when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

 

Elmergantry

(884 posts)
16. There may be some restrictions on particular firearms
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 10:03 AM
Oct 2015

As there is with abortion. But the right to own them will never be eliminated.

And thus, those with hate will find a way to get them, and use them.

BTW, find it odd that if the Founding Fathers wrote the second amendment to be only pertaining to a limited scope such as a "militia", then why was it never enforced as such from the get go?

whathehell

(29,023 posts)
20. That, and perhaps some restriction on the number of guns per owner, is all that's being sought.
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 02:09 PM
Oct 2015

No one is seeking to overturn of the 2nd amendment by outlawing guns, per se.

That's only been stated and re-stated about a million times.

Waldorf

(654 posts)
42. I don't see what a restriction on how many firearms a person owns would stop a mass shooting.
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 03:37 PM
Oct 2015

If a person is a gun enthusiast/hunter/collector and since there are 4 categories of firearms (handgun, rifle, shotgun, blackpowder) and the first three have many different operating mechanisms (revolver, semi-automatic, single shot, bolt action, pump) you can acquire quite a bit easily. And when they are maintained properly will last many generations and get passed down thru the family.

Most mass shootings involve a single firearm and extra magazines. As a firearm owner I know its a lot easier to carry a handgun/rifle and several magazines than several handguns/rifles.

As far as overturn the 2nd, for the past couple days I have seen dozens of comments suggesting that very thing.

whathehell

(29,023 posts)
48. The last shooter had numerous guns, as did the Columbine killers. I have no problem with
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 05:06 PM
Oct 2015

Last edited Sat Oct 3, 2015, 07:11 PM - Edit history (2)

true "collectors" but they should be licensed. As for the comments suggesting the overturn of the 2nd Amendment, I understand why it's happening. When a problem becomes extreme, like the killings brought on by our present lack of commonsense gun laws, suggested remedies often become extreme as well. ..... .

What the Second Amendment Absolutists don:t realize is that they are encouraging 2nd Amendmrnt abolitionists by refusing all compromise.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
59. Problem is
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 05:55 PM
Oct 2015

The firearms owners side has been compromising for the last 80 or so years from 1934, 1968, 1986 and so on. What has the controller side compromised on during that time. PLEASE name at least one.

whathehell

(29,023 posts)
65. The control side has compromised by eliminating gun control from campaigns for the last 20 years,
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 07:20 PM
Oct 2015

for starters.

Where was the "compromise" when scores of first graders were slaughtered by a madman with an automatic rifle?

Where was it when ANOTHER nut in Colorado gunned down scores of movie goers with the automatic assault

rifles, the one the Pro-Gun crowed REFUSED to ban?


 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
67. Sure, lol
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 07:37 PM
Oct 2015

That is why it is always the "first step" or the "beginning" or "this time" or "start with". What is the end result?

whathehell

(29,023 posts)
71. What? Please try to make sense..
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 07:47 PM
Oct 2015

but if you're trying to play the "slippery slope" card, don't even bother.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
77. None of those rifles was full auto
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 08:21 PM
Oct 2015

The one used in Newtown was AWB compliant. Full auto rifles are for military or police use only and no new ones have been produced for civilians since 1986, part of the last compromise. You can still own one for tens of thousands of dollars and the federal tax and background checks. Please get your facts right.

whathehell

(29,023 posts)
80. Close enough....Close enough to slaughter a roomful of six year olds
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 08:26 PM
Oct 2015

and a group of movie goers in Colorado, so who cares?.

Please get your VALUES right.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
82. Then you must be for a ban and confiscation
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 08:31 PM
Oct 2015

Of all semi automatic long guns even though they are used the least in crimes. Good for you, to bad it will never happen. See mad minute and the Texas tower sniper. Stop publicizing these assholes and they will not copycat for the notoriety.

whathehell

(29,023 posts)
84. No, honey, I'm not..
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 08:37 PM
Oct 2015

Lots of room in between.

See "Ignore List". It's where I'm placing all the DU gun nuts so as to avoid stale arguments.

Buh bye.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
85. Sorry but you need to ban by function
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 08:40 PM
Oct 2015

Not cosmetic features. That is the problem, I understand weapons and sorry to say you do not. But you will not see this as sadly you can not take the truth. Have a great night.

whathehell

(29,023 posts)
87. LOL
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 08:47 PM
Oct 2015

I understand that their indiscriminate proliferation here results in 30,00O American deaths a year,

FAR more than any other developed country in the world -- My value system hold that to be a

tad more important than "understanding" the particular mechanics,

I also understand that you and other insecure men love them more than

you love the lives of your neighbor's children.

Goodbye and good luck.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
88. So what is your halfway measure
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 08:53 PM
Oct 2015

You will not answer because you do not have one like you stated above when you said you were not for bans on all semi automatic long guns. All you seem to have now is insults to us having a legitimate polite discussion. That shows why your side keeps losing on getting any reasonable legislation.

 

awoke_in_2003

(34,582 posts)
100. "firearms owners side has been compromising for the last 80 or so years"
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 10:04 PM
Oct 2015

Compromised on what? That you aren't allowed to publicly masturbate to your gun? Oh my god, you have a 24 hour waiting period, IF you buy from a gun dealer. It must be rough.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
102. Wow, are we not a civil one
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 10:12 PM
Oct 2015

1934 NFA

Categories of firearms regulated
Main article: Title II weapons

The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) defines a number of categories of regulated firearms. These weapons are collectively known as NFA firearms and include the following:

Machine guns—this includes any firearm which can fire more than 1 cartridge per trigger pull. Both continuous fully automatic fire and "burst fire" (e.g., firearms with a 3-round burst feature) are considered machine gun features. The weapon's receiver is by itself considered to be a regulated firearm. A non-machinegun that may be converted to fire more than one shot per trigger pull by ordinary mechanical skills is determined to be "readily convertible", and classed as a machinegun, such as a KG-9 pistol (pre-ban ones are "grandfathered&quot .

Short-barreled rifles (SBRs)—this category includes any firearm with a buttstock and either a rifled barrel less than 16" long or an overall length under 26". The overall length is measured with any folding or collapsing stocks in the extended position. The category also includes firearms which came from the factory with a buttstock that was later removed by a third party.

Short barreled shotguns (SBSs)—this category is defined similarly to SBRs, but with either a smoothbore barrel less than 18" long or a minimum overall length under 26".

Suppressors —this includes any portable device designed to muffle or disguise the report of a portable firearm. This category does not include non-portable devices, such as sound traps used by gunsmiths in their shops which are large and usually bolted to the floor.

Destructive Devices (DDs)—there are two broad classes of destructive devices:

Devices such as grenades, bombs, explosive missiles, poison gas weapons, etc.

Any firearm with a bore over 0.50 inch except for shotguns or shotgun shells which have been found to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes. (Many firearms with bores over 0.50" inch, such as 20-gauge or 12-gauge shotguns, are exempted from the law because they have been determined to have a "legitimate sporting use".)

Any other weapon (AOW)

Firearms meeting the definition of "any other weapon" or AOW are weapons or devices capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive. Many AOWs are disguised devices such as pens, cigarette lighters, knives, cane guns and umbrella guns. AOWs can be pistols and revolvers having smooth bore barrels (e.g., H&R Handy-Gun, Serbu Super-Shorty) designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell. While the above weapons are similar in appearance to weapons made from shotguns, they were originally manufactured in the illustrated configuration and are not modified from existing shotguns. As a result, these weapons do not fit within the definition of shotgun or weapons made from a shotgun.

The AOW definition includes specifically described weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more but less than 18 inches in length from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading.

The BATFE Firearms Technology Branch has issued opinions that when a pistol (such as an AR-type pistol) is fitted with a vertical fore-grip, it is no longer "designed, made and intended to fire ... when held in one hand," and therefore no longer meets the definition of a pistol. Such a firearm then falls only within the definition of "any other weapon" under the NFA.[8]

In 1938 Congress recognized that the Marble Game Getter, a short .22/.410 sporting firearm, had "legitimate use" and did not deserve the stigma of a "gangster weapon" and reduced the $200 tax to one dollar for the Game Getter. In 1960 Congress changed the transfer tax for all AOW category firearms to $5. The transfer tax for machine guns, silencers, SBR and SBS remained at $200.[9]
Parts associated with NFA items

In general, certain components that make up an NFA item are considered regulated. For example, the components of a suppressor are considered as "suppressors" by themselves and the replacement parts are regulated. However, the repair of original parts without replacement can be done by the original manufacturer, FFL gunsmith, or by registered owner without subjected to new registration as long as the serial number and the dimension (caliber) are maintained.[10] The length may be reduced in repair, but cannot be increased. Increasing the length is considered as making a new suppressor. Suppressor is the term used within the trade/industry literature while the term 'silencer' is the term used in the actual wording of the NFA. The terms are often used interchangeably depending on the source quoted.

Suppressors and machine guns are the most heavily regulated. For example, in Ruling 81-4, BATFE declared that any AR-15 Drop-in Auto-Sear (DIAS) made after November 1, 1981 is itself a machine gun, and is therefore subject to regulation.[11] While this might seem to mean that pre-1981 sears are legal to possess without registration, BATFE closes this loophole in other publications, stating, "Regardless of the date of manufacture of a drop in auto sear, possession of such a sear and certain M-16 fire control parts is possession of a machinegun as defined by the NFA. Specifically, these parts are listed as &quot a) combination(s) of parts" designed "Solely and exclusively" for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun and are a machinegun as defined in the NFA." ATF machinegun technology letters written between 1980 and 1996 by Edward M. Owen – the then-chief of the ATF technology division defined "solely and exclusively" in all of his published and unpublished machinegun rulings with specific non-ambiguous language.[12]

Owning the parts needed to assemble other NFA firearms is generally restricted. One individual cannot own or manufacture certain machine gun sear (fire-control) components unless he owns a registered machine gun. The M2 carbine trigger pack is such an example of a "combination of parts" that is a machinegun in and of itself. Most of these have been registered as they were pulled from stores of surplus rifles in the early 1960s. In some special cases, exceptions have been determined to these by the BATFE. A string or shoelace that could be looped around the cocking handle of a semiautomatic firearm and then behind and in front of the trigger in such a way as to allow the firearm to be fired automatically is no longer considered a machinegun unless it is attached in this manner.[13]

Most current fully automatic trigger groups will not fit their semi-automatic firearm look-alike counterparts – the semi-automatic version is specifically constructed to reject the fully automatic trigger group by adding metal in critical places. This addition is required by the ATF to prevent easy conversion of Title I firearms into machine guns.

For civilian possession, all machineguns must have been manufactured and registered with the ATF prior to May 19, 1986 to be transferable between citizens.[14] These machinegun prices have drastically escalated in value, especially items like registered sears and conversion-kits. Only a Class-II manufacturer (a FFL holder licensed to manufacture firearms or Type-07 license that has paid a Special Occupational Tax Stamp or SOT) could manufacture machineguns after that date, and they can only be sold to government, law-enforcement, and military entities. Transfer can only be done to other SOT FFL-holders, and such FFL-holders must have a "demonstration letter" from a respective government agency to receive such machineguns.[15] Falsification and/or misuse of the "demo-letter" process can and has resulted in long jail sentences and felony convictions for violators.

Owning both a short barrel and a legal-length rifle could be construed as intent to build an illegal, unregistered SBR. This possibility was contested and won in the U.S. Supreme Court case of United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company. BATFE lost the case, and was unable to prove that possession of a short barrel for the specific pistol configuration of a Thompson Contender is illegal. The BATFE later released ruling 2011-4[16] to clarify the legal status of owning such conversion kits.[17]

Removal of a weapon from classification as an NFA firearm, such as the reclassification of the original Broomhandle Mauser with shoulder stock from "short barrel rifle" (SBR) to a curio or relic handgun, changed its status as a Title II NFA firearm but did not change its status as a Title I Gun Control Act firearm.[18]

Muzzle-loading firearms are exempt from the Act (as they are defined as 'antique firearms' and are not considered 'Firearms' under either the GCA or the NFA). Thus, though common muzzle-loading hunting rifles are available in calibers over 0.50", they are not regulated as destructive devices. Muzzle-loading cannons are similarly exempt since the law draws no distinction between the size of the muzzle-loading weapons; thus it is legal for a civilian to build muzzle-loading rifles, pistols, cannon and mortars with no paperwork, however, ammunition for these weapons can still be classified as destructive devices themselves, such as explosive shells. While an 'antique firearm' is not considered a 'firearm' under the NFA, some states (such as Oregon) have laws that specifically prohibit anyone from owning/obtaining an 'antique firearm' that could not otherwise own/obtain an GCA or NFA defined 'firearm' (i.e., felons, recipients of dishonorable discharge from military service, the mentally adjudicated, etc.).[19]

Individuals or companies seeking to market large-bore firearms may apply to the ATF for a "sporting clause exception". If granted, the ATF acknowledges that the firearm has a legitimate sporting use and is therefore not a destructive device. Certain large safari rifle calibers, such as .585 Nyati and .577 Tyrannosaur, have such exceptions.

The phrase "all NFA rules apply" is commonplace. This disclaimer is usually posted in bold print from firearm dealers holding an FFL license.
Registration, purchases, taxes and transfers

It is a common misconception[20] that an individual must have a "Class 3 " in order to own NFA. An FFL is required as a prerequisite to become a Special Occupation Taxpayer (SOT): Class 1 importer, Class 2 manufacturer-dealer or Class 3 dealer in NFA, not an individual owner. Legal possession of an NFA firearm by an individual requires transfer of registration within the NFA registry. An individual owner does not need to be an NFA dealer to buy Title II. The sale and purchase of NFA is, however, taxed and regulated, as follows:

All NFA items must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain approval from the ATF, obtain a signature from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) who is the county sheriff or city or town chief of police (not necessarily permission), pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and fingerprints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax.[21] The request to transfer ownership of an NFA item is made on an ATF Form 4.[22] Many times law enforcement officers will not sign the NFA documents. There have been several unfavorable lawsuits where plaintiffs have been denied NFA approval for a transfer. These lawsuit include: Lomont v. O'Neill,[23] Westfall v. Miller,[24] and Steele v. National Branch.[25] In response, Tennessee and Alaska have passed state laws which require the CLEO to execute the NFA documents.[26][27]

NFA items may also be transferred to corporations (or other legal entities such as a trust). When the paperwork to request transfer of an NFA item is initiated by an officer of a corporation, a signature from local law enforcement is not required, and fingerprint cards and photographs do not need to be submitted with the transfer request. Therefore, an individual who lives in a location where the chief law enforcement officer will not sign a transfer form can still own an NFA item if he or she owns a corporation. This method has downsides, since it is the corporation (and not the principal) that owns the firearm. Thus, if the corporation ever dissolves, it must transfer its NFA to the owners. This event would be considered a new transfer and would be subject to a new transfer tax.[28]
US National Act Stamp, affixed to transfer forms to indicate tax paid.

The tax for privately manufacturing any NFA firearm (other than machineguns, which are illegal for individuals to manufacture) is $200. Transferring requires a $200 tax for all NFA except AOW's, for which the transfer tax is $5 (although the manufacturing tax remains $200).[28]

All NFA weapons made by individuals must be legal in the State or municipality where the individual lives. The payment of a $200 "making tax" prior to manufacture of the weapon, although a subsequent transfer of AOWs after they are legally "made" is only $5. Only a Class-II manufacturer (a FFL holder licensed as a "Manufacture of Firearms" or Type-07 license that has paid a Special Occupational Tax Stamp or SOT) can manufacture NFA firearms (other than destructive devices) but they pay a larger annual tax which ranges from $500 to $1000 to cover manufacturing.[29]

A Destructive Device manufacturing license or Type-10 FFL holder can manufacture destructive devices making-tax free. However a type-07 license costs $150 for three years –– whereas a Type-10 destructive manufacturing license costs $3000 for three years. Both licenses still require the payment of the $500 (reduced-rate) Special Occupational Tax Stamp or SOT, (or the $1000 full tax) per year to conduct manufacturing of NFA weapons that they are respectively qualified to manufacturer. The SOT "reduced rate" applies to a business whose sales are less than $500,000 per year.[30]

Transferable machine guns made or registered before May 19, 1986 are worth far more than their original, pre-1986 value and items like registered "auto-sears," "lightning-links," trigger-packs, trunnions, and other "combination of parts" registered as machineguns before the aforementioned date are often worth nearly as much as a full registered machine gun. For instance, as of September 2008, a transferable M16 rifle costs approximately $11,000 to $18,000, while a transferable "lightning-link" for the AR-15 can sell for $8,000 to $10,000. New manufacture M-16s sell to law enforcement and the military for around $600 to $1000.

Upon the request of any ATF agent or investigator, or the Attorney General, the registered owner must provide proof of registration of the firearm.[31]

In a number of situations, an NFA item may be transferred without a transfer tax. These include sales to government agencies, temporary transfers of an NFA firearm to a gunsmith for repairs, and transfer of an NFA firearm to a lawful heir after the death of its owner. A permanent transfer, even if tax-free, must be approved by the ATF. The proper form should be submitted to ATF before the transfer occurs. For example, lawful heirs must submit a Form 5 and wait for approval before taking possession of any NFA item willed to them. Temporary transfers, such as those to a gunsmith or to the original manufacturer for repair, are not subject to ATF approval since they are not legally considered transfers. The ATF does, however, recommend filing tax-free transfer paperwork on all such temporary transfers, to confer an extra layer of legal protection on both the owner and the gunsmith.[28]
Criminal conduct


1968
Prohibited persons

The Gun Control Act of 1968 was enhanced in 1993 with the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The Brady Act created a background check system which required licensed sellers to inspect the criminal history background of prospective gun purchasers, and the Brady Act created a list of categories of individuals to whom the sale of firearms is prohibited. As quoted from 18 U.S.C. 922 (d):

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26))); (6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Exceptions as quoted from 18 U.S.C. 921 (a)(33)(B):

(ii) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.

Many states automatically reinstate gun ownership rights upon completion of sentence.[citation needed] Some states reinstate rights depending on the crime convicted of, and others have a petition process. Those convicted of a federal offense must contact the Office of the Pardon Attorney, Department of Justice, to receive a presidential pardon. Under the Department's rules governing petitions for executive clemency, 28 C.F.R. §§ 1.1 et seq., an applicant must satisfy a minimum waiting period of five years before he becomes eligible to apply for a presidential pardon of his federal conviction.

According to a 21 Sep 2011 "Open Letter to All Federal Firearms Licensees" from ATF, holders of state-issued medical marijuana cards are automatically "prohibited persons" under 18 U.S.C 922 (g)(3) and "shipping, transporting, receiving or possessing firearms or ammunition" by a medical marijuana card holder is a violation.[11]

Additionally, 18 U.S.C 922 (x) generally prohibits persons under 18 years of age from possessing handguns or handgun ammunition with certain exceptions for employment, target practice, education, and a handgun possessed while defending the home of the juvenile or a home in which they are an invited guest.[12]

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 created the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to prevent firearms sales to such prohibited persons.
Federal Firearms License (FFL) system
Main article: Federal Firearms License

The Gun Control Act mandated the licensing of individuals and companies engaged in the business of selling firearms. This provision effectively prohibited the direct mail order of firearms (except antique firearms) by consumers and mandated that anyone who wants to buy a gun in an interstate transaction from a source other than a private individual must do so through a federally licensed firearms dealer. The Act also banned unlicensed individuals from acquiring handguns outside their state of residence. The interstate purchase of long guns (rifles and shotguns) was not impeded by the Act so long as the seller is federally licensed and such a sale is allowed by both the state of purchase and the state of residence.

Private sales between residents of two different states are also prohibited without going through a licensed dealer, except for the case of a buyer holding a Curio & Relic license purchasing a firearm that qualifies as a curio or relic.

Private sales between unlicensed individuals who are residents of the same state are allowed under federal law so long as such transfers do not violate the other existing federal and state laws. While current law mandates that a background check be performed if the seller has a federal firearms license, private parties living in the same state are not required to perform such checks under federal law. However, state laws can prohibit such sales.

A person who does not have a Federal Firearms License may not be in the business of buying or selling firearms. Individuals buying and selling firearms without a federal license must be doing so from their own personal collection.

Under the Gun Control Act, a federally licensed importer, manufacturer, dealer or collector shall not sell or deliver any rifle or shotgun or ammunition for rifle or shotgun to any individual less than 18 years of age, nor any handgun or ammunition for a handgun to any individual less than 21 years of age.[13]
Gunsmith and Factory Repair Exception

While the Gun Control Act prohibits the direct mail-ordering of firearms, a person may ship a gun via contract carrier (such as United Parcel Service-UPS, United States Postal Service or FedEx) to a gunsmith (who has an FFL) or the gunmaker's factory for repairs or modification. After the repair work is done, the gunsmith or the factory can ship the gun directly back to the customer.
Import restrictions
ATF Form 4590 ("Factoring Criteria for Weapons&quot

The GCA created what is known as the "sporting purposes" standard for imported firearms, saying that they must "be generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes." GCA sporting purposes includes hunting and organized competitive target shooting, but does not include "plinking" or "practical shooting" (which the ATF says is closer to police/combat-style competition and not comparable to more traditional types of sports), nor does it allow for collection for historical or design interest.[14][15]:16-18
Marking requirements

The law also required that all newly manufactured firearms produced by licensed manufacturers in the United States and imported into the United States bear a serial number. Firearms manufactured prior to the Gun Control Act and firearms manufactured by non-FFLs remain exempt from the serial number requirement. Defacement or removal of the serial number (if present) is a felony offense.


1986
Federal firearms law reform

Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) was given wide latitude on the enforcement of regulations pertaining to Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders.[citation needed] Allegations of abuse by ATF inspectors soon[when?] arose from the National Rifle Association (NRA) and some FFL licensees.[citation needed]

A February 1982 report by a Senate subcommittee that studied the Second Amendment said:

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.[1]:12

The report also said that 75 percent of ATF prosecutions "were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into unknowing technical violations." It suggested that reform of federal firearms law such as proposed in S. 1030 "would be largely self-enforcing" and "would enhance vital protection of constitutional and civil liberties of those Americans who choose to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms."[1]

The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) addressed the abuses noted in the 1982 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee report. Among the reforms intended to loosen restrictions on gun sales were the reopening of interstate sales of long guns on a limited basis, legalization of ammunition shipments through the U.S. Postal Service (a partial repeal of the Gun Control Act), removal of the requirement for record keeping on sales of non-armor-piercing ammunition, and federal protection of transportation of firearms through states where possession of those firearms would otherwise be illegal.[2] However, the Act also contained a provision that banned the sale of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment to civilians, restricting sales of these weapons to the military and law enforcement. Thus, in the ensuing years, the limited supply of these arms available to civilians has caused an enormous increase in their price, with most costing in excess of $10,000. Regarding these fully automatic firearms owned by private citizens in the U.S., political scientist Earl Kruschke said "approximately 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime."[3]:85

The gun rights movement lobbied Congress to pass the FOPA to prevent the abuse of regulatory power — in particular, to address claims that the ATF was repeatedly inspecting FFL holders for the apparent purpose of harassment intended to drive the FFL holders out of business (as the FFL holders would constantly be having to tend to ATF inspections instead of to customers).

The Act mandated that ATF compliance inspections can be done only once per year. An exception to the "once per year" rule exists if multiple record-keeping violations are recorded in an inspection, in which case the ATF may do a follow-up inspection. The main reason for a follow-up inspection would be if guns could not be accounted for.
Ban on machine guns

As debate for FOPA was in its final stages in the House before moving on to the Senate, Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed several amendments including House Amendment 777 to H.R. 4332, which modified the act to ban the civilian ownership of new machine guns, specifically to amend 18 U.S.C. § 922 to add subsection (o):

(o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.

(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to—

(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or

(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.

The ATF, as a representative of the U.S. and with authority from the National Firearms Act, can authorize the transfer of a machine gun to an unlicensed civilian. An unlicensed individual may acquire machine guns, with ATF approval.[4] The transferor must file an ATF application, which must be completed by both parties to the transfer:[4]

executed under penalties of perjury[5]
both parties must reside in the same state as the individual
pay a $200 transfer tax to ATF[6]
the application must include detailed information on the firearm and the parties to the transfer[5][7]
the transferee must certify on the application that he or she is not disqualified from possessing firearms on grounds specified in law
the transferee must submit with the application (1) two photographs taken within the past year; and (2) fingerprints[7]
the transferee must submit with the application (3) a copy of any state or local permit or license required to buy, possess, or acquire machine guns
an appropriate (local) law enforcement official must certify whether he or she has any information indicating that the firearm will be used for other than lawful purposes or that possession would violate state or federal law[7]
the transferee must, as part of the registration process, pass an extensive Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal background investigation.[8]

If ATF denies an application, it must refund the tax.[4] Gun owners must keep approved applications as evidence of registration of the firearms and make them available for inspection by ATF officers.[4]

In the morning hours of April 10, 1986, H.Amdt.777 Amendment passed the House by voice vote, and the House held recorded votes on three amendments to FOPA in Record Vote No's 72, 73, and 74. Recorded Vote 72 was on H.AMDT. 776, an amendment to H.AMDT 770 involving the interstate sale of handguns; while Recorded Vote 74 was on H.AMDT 770, involving primarily the easing of interstate sales and the safe passage provision. Recorded Vote 74 was the Hughes Amendment that called for the banning of machine guns. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), at the time presiding as Chairman over the proceedings, claimed that the "amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to." However, after the voice vote on the Hughes Amendment, Rangel ignored a plea to take a recorded vote and moved on to Recorded Vote 74 where the Hughes Amendment failed.[9][10] The bill, H.R. 4332, as a whole passed in Record Vote No: 75 on a motion to recommit. Despite the controversial amendment, the Senate, in S.B. 49, adopted H.R. 4332 as an amendment to the final bill. The bill was subsequently passed and signed on May 19, 1986 by President Ronald Reagan to become Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act.


Some light reading of the current federal firearms regulations. Yes the states can and do add more.
https://www.atf.gov/file/58686/download
 

awoke_in_2003

(34,582 posts)
103. What war zone do you live in
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 10:43 PM
Oct 2015

that you need machine guns, supressors, grenades, more than 10 round magazines, and rifles and shotguns short enough to conceal under a jacket? I guess not being a walking war zone is a compromise.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
104. I don't
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 10:47 PM
Oct 2015

but those were all compromises over the years from no regulations that went well over 100 years. The only thing I think should come of of the NFA list is sound suppressors as they are indeed a safety item. Would you agree to that compromise? I also think magazines should be capped at 20 rounds.

 

awoke_in_2003

(34,582 posts)
106. Since there is no limit
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 11:08 PM
Oct 2015

on the amount of magazines you can carry, I really wouldn't have a beef with a higher capacity. But suppressors are for one thing- to kill (near) silently.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
108. You are just plain wrong
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 11:17 PM
Oct 2015

They slightly suppress the sound at the weapon. Still quite loud. Quit watching Hollywood. As a matter of fact the crack of the bullet traveling faster than the speed of sound is not affected. As another fact, they are mandated in several European countries as a safety device.

 

Elmergantry

(884 posts)
62. I find that "common sense" gun laws
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 06:41 PM
Oct 2015

Don't have much common sense to them.

Background check: Most of these shooters had no record to prohibit. So that wont do much.

If they fail background check, get them illegally.

Limit # of magazine rounds, # of guns....Again, will do little to stop a lunatic.

Gun free zones? LOL! They should be renamed "target rich zones" if we want to be truthful about it.

No guns for mentally ill? Many of these shooters were not diagnosed/refused treatment? How does this work? So if someone goes on a mental pill they have to give up weapons? Knowing that they would avoid seeking help. Not to mention disclosure of such info is privacy/HIPPA law

We have a sick society.



whathehell

(29,023 posts)
66. Yes, well I kind of thought you'd hold that opinion
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 07:36 PM
Oct 2015

as you sound like a typical gun nut who loves guns more than the right of Americans to continue living

Your comment on magazine limits "doing little to stop a lunatic" is particularly telling. What do you mean "It will do little to stop a lunatic"?
Uh, sorry, but what it WILL do is reduce the number of the lunatic's victims

This isn't about keeping ALL psychos away from guns. It's about keeping guns away from many who shouldn't have one.

If we can cut 20 % from the 30,000 people who are murdered by guns each year, that would be meaningful.



 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
68. See Virginia tech
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 07:43 PM
Oct 2015

All low capacity magazines. New town, many magazines not emptied and still had rounds. And of course there are billions of magazines that hold more than say ten rounds. Grass what unlike what some of our esteemed legislators say, they do not get used up when fired in a weapon. Not to mention, they are essentially a metal of plastic box with a spring. See printing magazines.

 

Elmergantry

(884 posts)
81. Yep he was nuts...
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 08:26 PM
Oct 2015

and a ban on large capacity magazines would have not changed his mental state or the number of his victims since he didn't use them. Common Sense Gun Law? is no more about common sense then the "Patriot Act" was about Patriotism or the "Affordable Care Act" is about affordability.

whathehell

(29,023 posts)
83. Oh my, you are a tad literal minded, aren't you?
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 08:31 PM
Oct 2015

Large capacity magazines aren't the ONLY issue, obviously.

Try to grasp the Big Picture, if you can.

 

Elmergantry

(884 posts)
70. And away we gooo!!
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 07:47 PM
Oct 2015

from an intelligent back in forth debate into name calling....But I'd kind of figured you'd get to that sooner or later.

Carry on!


But anyway,. please refer to duckhunter per Virginia and Newton. You don't need high capacity magazines to kill a lot of people. Banning them only makes one get a warm fuzzy feeling that they "made a difference"

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
79. 2/3 of those are suicides
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 08:24 PM
Oct 2015

One gun and one bullet is all it takes, would anything you proposing going to stop them?

 

Elmergantry

(884 posts)
92. wow 2/3rd of gun death are suicide?
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 09:07 PM
Oct 2015

Didnt know that....only confirms my thought on these so-called "common sense" gun laws..pointless

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
94. Yes they intentionally conflate the numbers
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 09:32 PM
Oct 2015

I have yet to have them say how any of the measures they propose help lower that number. I wish we would have single payer with better mental health coverage.

 

Elmergantry

(884 posts)
95. You take the suicides out of the question
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 09:37 PM
Oct 2015

Then our "real" murder rate is much lower.

Going for guns is about power and control for the politician. Pushing for better mental health coverage, not so much.

 

Elmergantry

(884 posts)
101. For sure.
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 10:06 PM
Oct 2015

Looks like Putin is happy with a stalemate and has decided to take the show somewhere else (Syria)

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
93. You could attack 2/3 of the deaths easily and with no resistance from the nra...
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 09:09 PM
Oct 2015

You could attack 2/3 of the deaths easily and with no resistance from the nra or gun owners simply by focusing on suicides.

 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
40. GUNZZ facilitate violent acting-out--and discourage giving things a second thought.
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 03:26 PM
Oct 2015

'Hair-trigger' isn't just a metaphor, n'est-ce pas ?

whathehell

(29,023 posts)
12. Please -- I doubt there's more "hate" in the US than other countries in the world
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 09:18 AM
Oct 2015

That being said, there are FAR fewer mass murders, and that's what actually counts.

Even in this country, the ability to control access to guns is much greater than that

of controlling human emotions.

As citizens, we are entitled to a basic sense of public safety -- It's called 'civilization"

This country has HUNDREDS of military bases around the world, ostensible to 'keep us safe" ,

but now, I'd guess we stand a higher chance of being killed by a random American

nutcase than we do a foreign terrorist.

Innocent citizens should NOT have to look over their shoulders every time they go

to school, a movie theater, or a shopping center.

This situation has become intolerable and unlivable and if things don't soon change soon, I'm

leaving this country.

 

Elmergantry

(884 posts)
17. "That being said, there are FAR fewer mass murders, and that's what actually counts. "
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 10:06 AM
Oct 2015

So single person murder by gun is irrelevant? Dead is dead. Total killed by guns to me is what really counts.

whathehell

(29,023 posts)
19. It's what counts with respect to the random mass shooting/gun control issue, yes
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 01:58 PM
Oct 2015

Of course "single person murder by gun" isn't irrelevant, but as I believe you yourself said,

we can't ban all firearms.

Some state gun laws do consider "single person murder" in their legislation by outlawing guns

for domestic abusers, so clearly, that situation is not being ignored.

Crunchy Frog

(26,574 posts)
23. Because it's far easier to control the emotional states of individuals
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 02:15 PM
Oct 2015

than it is to regulate the ownership of and commerce in manufacture objects. Good luck with that.

What we really need is to accept and come to terms with the fact that a certain level of violent death and injury is the tradeoff that our society has to make for the unfettered access to firearms that our society insists on.

damnedifIknow

(3,183 posts)
6. How we must look
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 08:13 AM
Oct 2015

Police shooting unarmed citizens and then you have people acquiring guns and going postal. I just don't know.

ananda

(28,828 posts)
10. It's all a sign of an endemic social rot and disease.
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 09:08 AM
Oct 2015

I feel as though the psyche of this country needs a good cleanse.

whathehell

(29,023 posts)
15. Many countries could use "a good cleanse", but it's not an urgent issue because
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 09:32 AM
Oct 2015

they have SENSIBLE gun laws and that is what is needed.

Let's work on that first -- We can try to fix human nature another time.

 

Elmergantry

(884 posts)
18. Exactly!
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 10:09 AM
Oct 2015

Thank you. Our problems here are not rooted in guns, but the people who wield them.

For example, Being they are mostly rural, I will bet most Amish households have a weapon for varmits, hunting, butchering etc. When is the last mass shooting by an Amish person?

 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
41. Many Europeans like America and Americans, but think they're totally insane as regards GUNZZ.
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 03:36 PM
Oct 2015

Europeans chalk this up to a 'young' nation, still in its crazy adolescence, which refuses resolutely to grow up.

 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
52. Cryptic.....But, it's a well-kept secret that millions of Europeans are
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 05:40 PM
Oct 2015

queuing up to get on the next US-bound plane in the sole hope of FINALLY having the God-given right to FIRE a WEAPON à l'américaine.

BWAAHAAAAAAA!

ERMAGERD, I'm dyin' here!!!!

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
60. Nope I know about a dozen
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 05:57 PM
Oct 2015

Like I said you do not know me at all. The 935 is because that duckhunter username is usually taken on most sites. That is a high number that I have used for at least a couple of decades online.

 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
61. Indeed, I do NOT know you personally, but your 'profile' presents itself with
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 06:08 PM
Oct 2015

conspicuous candor in every post.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
64. It is from my army air defense background
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 07:15 PM
Oct 2015

It is our nickname, look up oozlefinch also. So nothing to do with hunting ducks.

Please do not make generalizations about people you have no clue about

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
13. There are nearly as many privately
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 09:26 AM
Oct 2015

owned firearms in this country as there are people. There is no putting that genie back in the bottle. So what would actually work to reduce mass firearm murder? We need to dispense with all the hyperbole and posturing and have that discussion. I would suggest we consider addressing the glorification of gun violence for profit, the state of our mental health system, the corrosive effect of big money in politics, and the inevitable evils of granting corporations civil rights.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
21. "I thought it deserved to be revisited." Ok.
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 02:09 PM
Oct 2015
The murder of 20 schoolchildren by Adam Lanza is a horrific reminder of the way in which the easy access to firearms in America can maximise one man’s potential for evil.


Easy access...how cute.

All he had to do was kill his own mother...

Crunchy Frog

(26,574 posts)
25. Who maintained a massive arsenal accessable to a son she knew was disturbed.
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 02:22 PM
Oct 2015

If she hadn't already reproduced, I would have put her up for a Darwin prize.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
27. How big was tha massive arsenal?
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 02:36 PM
Oct 2015

It was less than 10. Weapons ave different sizes for different uses. That is not very many actually.

One of the great things about the AR platform plug and play parts for differing calibers only one operational type of that platform required for several uses.

 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
36. One can only carry / wield three or max four at a time. Jeezus, how
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 03:11 PM
Oct 2015

many do you need to butcher 20 tiny children and six adults?

How many are required to atomize 10 college kids and gravely wound as many more?

In their present state of evolution, human beings have only two hands. Until they grow a couple more, three or four GUNZZ per killer would seem to be the physical limit.

An 'arsenal' by definition and by my reckoning, could be defined as the number of firearms required to destroy a given number of fellow human beings or other living things.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
43. Guns have differing sizes
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 03:41 PM
Oct 2015

differing sizes and calibers. Just like any other tool. A framing hammer is different than a body hammer is different than a ball peen hammer. I know you do not want to hear it but it is true. Do you wear hiking boots to go running?

 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
45. No shit, Sherlock. Different sizes and calibers? WHO KNEW?
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 04:07 PM
Oct 2015

Your condescending jargon barrage notwithstanding, I can only wear ONE sort of footwear at a time, whether boots or trainers.

How many vice-grips, jacksaws, or even lousy screwdrivers can one carry / wield at one time, fer chrisssakes?

GUNZZ must be really MAGIC, if you can carry / wield them in multiples, as opposed to other 'toolzz'.

No wonder then that gun fetishists are so enamored of their 'precious'.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
46. I own dozens of pliers, vice grips, shoes, screwdrivers
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 04:11 PM
Oct 2015

I OWN dozens, I may only use one or two at a time. Same thing with weapons.

talking about being condescending, please look in the mirror, gee.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
33. None of which changes the fact that lanza had to murder his own mother to get her guns.
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 03:03 PM
Oct 2015

None of which changes the fact that lanza had to murder his own mother to get her guns.

Somehow, that just doesn't scream 'easy access' to me.

 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
26. Yes, easy access. First, he simply broke into the 'gun case' in his home. Only then
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 02:25 PM
Oct 2015

did he blow his mother away.

He was not obliged to shoot her in her bed in order to get to the gunzz. He just wanted to be rid of her. Easy enough with the arsenal he had at hand.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
34. His mother was shot with a 22 bolt action rifle.
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 03:06 PM
Oct 2015

His mother was shot with a 22 bolt action rifle, the kind that would still be allowed by a few strict gun control proponents.

He murdered his mother with it, in order to get her guns, which he used at SH.

Details matter.

 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
39. According to the sources I read at the time, her murder was NOT
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 03:21 PM
Oct 2015

a necessity to get to the better GUNZZ. He wasted her because he reviled her and because he could.

SHE DID NOT SLEEP WITH THE KEY TO THE CUPBOARD UNDER HER PILLOW.

He simply broke the cupboard lock after blowing her head off. That got him in the mood, so to speak, to go on to bigger and better things.

Initech

(100,013 posts)
22. We have created a government that doesn't give a fuck about people.
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 02:15 PM
Oct 2015

They only cater to the interests of the upper 1% and giant corporations. They couldn't give less of a shit about the havoc they wreck or what they do to the population. The lobbyists have taken over, and the NRA has become way too powerful and corrupt. They are a terrorist organization plain and simple. The list that they have of "NRA approved" politicians? Every single member of that list is an enabler of that terrorist organization, every single one needs to be voted out of office immediately. We need to destroy the NRA and make them irrelevant.

 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
24. "We need to destroy the NRA and make them irrelevant."
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 02:19 PM
Oct 2015

Couldn't agree more. In their present day incarnation, they are a cancer on the body politic.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
44. Which actually represent
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 03:45 PM
Oct 2015

very few of the 80-90 million firearms owners. You know the ones that vote and your crowd constantly insults and expects them to support you and your causes.

 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
47. The out-sized damage they do to the social fabric in proportion
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 04:16 PM
Oct 2015

to their dues-paying membership is indeed disquieting.

And still, their disingenuous and duplicitous claim is to represent and defend ALL American gun loverzz.

 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
50. But, but, the PILGRIM rides on in the imaginations of millions of GUN totin', quick drawin'
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 05:21 PM
Oct 2015

wannabe, latterday cowboys and cowgirls.

whathehell

(29,023 posts)
75. Speak for yourself, bro..Fact is, only one third of Americans even OWN a gun
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 08:09 PM
Oct 2015

the problem is, many own several.

"Americans are dolts"?!...Bullshit...93 percent of Americans wanted -- at minimum -- expanded background checks.

The money lubricated NRA said "no".


http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/06/30/study-one-third-of-americans-own-guns-highest-in-areas-of-gun-culture/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/30/us-usa-culture-guns-idUSKCN0PA29M20150630

Ichigo Kurosaki

(167 posts)
105. the problem is, many own several
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 11:05 PM
Oct 2015

and I bet you have more than one type of sharp knife in your kitchen, so what's your point?

 

Dems to Win

(2,161 posts)
53. Nothing has changed, nothing will change.
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 05:42 PM
Oct 2015

Might as well stop looking. Truly.

I was a very active supporter of gun control after SandyHook, and have concluded that it's a hopeless cause. The 2nd amendment prevents any effective action, and hell will freeze over before the majority of Americans will be willing to give it up. As long as there's a USA, it will be awash in guns and gun deaths.

The majority of Americans really do love their guns and gun rights more than they love their neighbors' children. And, of course, gun owners believe that their own children are protected by their own guns, so they won't even recognize the reality that they are acting as if they love their own guns more than their own children, given the stats of safety of children in homes with guns.


 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
55. Sadly, I've been forced to the same conclusions as you...
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 05:47 PM
Oct 2015
"As long as there's a USA, it will be awash in guns and gun deaths.

The majority of Americans really do love their guns and gun rights more than they love their neighbors' children."


I'm just deeply grateful to be living abroad in a society that eschews GUNZZ and their attendant violence.

hay rick

(7,578 posts)
109. Our country is morally afflicted.
Sun Oct 4, 2015, 12:17 AM
Oct 2015

Many Americans consider that comfortable access to guns, which are mostly big-boy toys, is more important than the collateral damage of thousands of pointless, avoidable deaths. A healthy society wouldn't have this problem. Our media reinforces gun culture by fanning the flames of paranoia- never questioning suggestions that there are hordes of brown-skinned domestic terrorists and home invaders that can only be kept at bay by Smith & Wesson. One happy benefit of the never-ending mayhem is that Americans are distracted from their falling standard of living.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»US body count rises inexo...