Alabama killer was trained as a cop, had no record, and used two assault weapons.

[TWiley]

A man who killed at least 10 people, including the wife and daughter of a sheriff's deputy who was chasing him, had trained as a police officer and recently quit a job at a meat products distributor.

<snip>

After nearly a full day of investigation by police from 20 separate agencies, officials had pieced together an account of the violence. The killing began just before 3.30pm when McLendon shot his mother, killed her four dogs and set her house on fire in rural Kinston, local officials said.

He travelled about 10 miles to Samson, where he opened fire on relatives gathered on his uncle's porch, killing the uncle, two cousins, the wife and 18-month-old daughter of a sheriff's deputy and his grandmother at a house next door, police said. The deputy's other daughter, a four-month-old, was injured and in a stable condition yesterday.

McLendon drove off in his Mitsubishi car, killed at least three others seemingly at random and injured three police officers who tried to intervene.

The bloodshed ended when McLendon retreated into a metal products plant in Geneva, about 12 miles from Samson. After exchanging gunfire with two police officers, he killed himself.

McLendon was armed with two high-powered assault rifles, a handgun and a shotgun, and police say he fired more than 200 rounds. He had no criminal record.

"I've known Michael all of my life. As a matter of fact, I coached him along with my two sons in T-ball and Little League," Samson's mayor, Clay King, told NBC news. "If you would of asked me two days ago if he was capable of this, I would have said certainly not."

Full Story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/12/alabama-kil...


Evidently, having a criminal record prior to committing a mass murder is incidental, and a weak predictor.

[LaydeeBug]

1. It said he had no criminal record. nt

[tekisui]

6. That is the OP's point.

Lack of a criminal record is not an adequate criteria to prevent mass murder with assault weapons.

[cliffordu]

12. Or just plain murder.

WE LOVE killing each other in this country. The method is incidental.


And....

In Africa folks were killing thousands a day with machetes there for a while......

[Wildewolfe]

2. It says he had no criminal record

So not sure what your last line is about.

In these sudden break from reality mass murder suicide rampages I'm not sure there are any valid predictors that you can realiably catch before the fact.

[tekisui]

8. Exactly.

Which is why assault weapons should be restricted or more strictly regulated.

[Tejas]

10. Bet you have prevention of

drunk driving all worked out too.

While you're at it, what's your plan on preventing rape?




Are you thinking that stricter laws will cure everything?

[tekisui]

11. Gun arguers are so predictable.

It's always the same. Strawman, strawman, strawman. I think it is because the positions are indefensible so they are forced to bring up things like drunk driving and rape. It is always divert, never speak to the real issue.
:eyes: :puke:

[cliffordu]

13. What's the real issue?? besides your own hysteria, that is.

[tekisui]

16. Too easy access to too many unnecessarily deadly weapons.

[cliffordu]

19. Bullshit.

The swiss all have fully automatic weapons in their houses at one point or another in their lives....

As do the Israelis.

Domestic murder like the latest killings by that asshole are EXTREMELY rare.

Ours is a love affair with violent death, a cultural thing, not access to guns.

Jesus.

[benEzra]

29. You've been had if you think .22 centerfires and 7.62x39mm are

at the high end of the lethality spectrum.

You are also talking about outlawing the most popular civilian rifles in America. You'd affect fewer gun owners if you outlawed hunting.

[Tim01]

51. This kind of thing would not have happened in Tibet.

I think there could have been a rifle in every house in Tibet and this would never happen. Tibet did not have the kind of culture we do.
There are lots of fully automatic rifles all over the place in Switzerland. Also in Africa. But the cultures are different.And the results are the opposite.

Access to the rifles in one place gives different results than access to the rifles in another place.

[TheWraith]

55. "Unnecessarily deadly"?

How so? Explain in detail, please. An old Marlin Model 60 will kill you just as dead as an AR-15, and it has a 14 round magazine.

In 2007, the state of New York had 800 homicides using a gun. You know how many killings involved a rifle? Not just scary looking rifles, but all rifles? 12.

This case and those like it are similar to the paranoia about sex offenders kidnapping children. The media highlights a few instances until people feel like it's ubiquitous, while completely forgetting that the actual incidence is next to zero, and kids are at infinitely greater risk from their own parents.

[slackmaster]

66. What's your plan to limit "access" without infringing on the right of people to own firearms?

It seems to me access is binary - either you have it, or you don't.

[cliffordu]

15. Uh, automatic weapons already are.

But that's a moot point.

If he'd killed 20 with a bolt action rifle would you argue for a ban on them??/

[tekisui]

18. I would be shocked if he did that with a rifle.

Also, children don't accidentally or intentionally kill dozens or themselves with bolt action rifles.

[cliffordu]

21. Dozens of children with automatic weapons legally obtained where???

And body counts please....

Fuck me you are tedious.

[cliffordu]

27. Crickets. Hysterical crickets.

[benEzra]

30. Charles Whitman killed 15 or 16 with a bolt-action Remington deer rifle

I would be shocked if he did that with a rifle.

Charles Whitman killed 15 or 16 with a bolt-action Remington deer rifle, some beyond 500 yards.

BTW, an AR-15 is "a rifle", also. A small-caliber one (.22 centerfire), and the most popular centerfire rifle in the nation at that.

Also, children don't accidentally or intentionally kill dozens or themselves with bolt action rifles.

They don't with AR-15's, either. Or any other civilian rifle.

The worst mass shootings in the United States have all used pistols, not rifles, but scaremongering has rarely concerned itself with reality...

[tekisui]

33. I forgot about him.

And, I am shocked. But, wasn't he trained to use it? What did that kid at Virginia Tech use to kill 35?

[cliffordu]

34. 9mm handgun, IIRC

[bossy22]

40. 2 semi-auto pistols

a Walther in .22LR
and a Glock 17 in 9mm Luger

[benEzra]

45. Glock 19 (smaller). (n/t)

[benEzra]

41. Ordinary civilian 9mm pistol (Glock 19) with an ordinary 15-round magazine,

and a civilian .22 pistol (Walther P22) to cover himself while reloading. That one was the worst in U.S. history.

Second-worst was the Luby's Cafeteria shooting, in which a loser killed 23 and wounded another 20. Weapons were again ordinary civilian 9mm pistols (Ruger P89 and Glock 17, the two most common 9mm pistols at the time).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hennard

The Columbine killers only had one rifle among them, a low-capacity (10-round) Hi-Point that was not an "assault weapon" under the 1994 AWB. They also had a futuristic looking 9mm pistol (Intratec DC9), but their most lethal weapons were a pair of sawed-off .729 caliber hunting shotguns.

The shooting that the prohibitionists used to launch the "assault weapon" fraud was the Stocton, California school shooting in 1989, in which a loser who should never have been released from a mental institution killed 5 kids with a non-automatic civilian AK lookalike. Gang Lu killed the same number a year or two later with a .38 revolver, but the media made almost nothing of it because it didn't prop up the meme.

[benEzra]

42. .

Double post.

[TheWraith]

56. No more "trained" than anybody could be.

He had a short stint in the Marines before being kicked out, but he didn't specialize in weapons training, and I doubt the basic course would have included bolt action rifles that were obsolete for military use. You don't need military training to be a good shot, and contrary to popular opinion firing faster does NOT make you more lethal. In fact there's a school of thought that says semi-automatics are a bad influence on marksmanship because they encourage laxness, since you can take another shot quickly.

Whether that is true or not, this certainly is: most major mass-murders with guns are done using slow, deliberate fire. In recent cases it's usually been done with pistols at point blank range. Cho, the VT shooter, was just such a case: he used two pistols, a 9mm and a .22 LR. They had magazines with capacity of 15 and 10 rounds respectively, and he paused to reload four times.

[Iktomiwicasa]

67. Presactly

Competent marksmanship is deadlier than rate of fire.

[AtheistCrusader]

77. Two pistols, which he reloaded many times.

Not seeing the point. He fired over 100 rounds, the pistols he was carrying at most held about 15. Would it have made any different if he'd had to reload 5 more times, because they had been limited to 10 rounds?

[TWiley]

58. Charles Whitman was not a child

[benEzra]

64. Neither was the VT shooter, the Luby's shooter, the Alabama shooter,

the NIU shooter, the Von Maur shooter, etc.

The Jonesboro, Arkansas school shooters were children, and they used deer rifles. The Columbine shooters were not children, but they were minors, and their primary weapons were sawed-off hunting shotguns (they only had one rifle between them, and it was a low-capacity pistol-caliber carbine).

But, you sound as if you're trying to defend this statement:

Also, children don't accidentally or intentionally kill dozens or themselves with bolt action rifles.

Care to show me where U.S. "children" are "accidentally or intentionally killing dozens" with AR-15's and civilian AK lookalikes? Because they are most assuredly not.

[TWiley]

68. Not necessarily defending

I was just pointing out that you were not responding to the authors entire premise, only selecting part of it to comment on.

So, all three of us agree then. Children are not accidentally or intentionally killing dozens with any kind of weapon.

Now let me ask you this, how many people would be dead if the killer used a Daisy Red Rider in his attack?

Obviously some consideration should go into the lethality of the weapon. I believe that more criminals own "assault weapons" than law abiding citizens do. Weapons are a tool in the criminals trade. Look at Capone, or the old West criminals. They were attracted to highly lethal weaponry.

People who need an assault weapon:

Military
Police
Bank Robbers
Drug Smugglers
Kidnapers
Mercinaries
Crack-pots
Lunatics
Duck Hunters

[benEzra]

72. The appropriate comparison would be a traditional looking rifle, not a Daisy Red Ryder,

Now let me ask you this, how many people would be dead if the killer used a Daisy Red Rider in his attack?

Obviously some consideration should go into the lethality of the weapon.

The appropriate comparison would be a traditional looking rifle, not a Daisy Red Ryder, unless you are arguing for a ban on all firearms rather than just a ban on modern-looking rifles.

How many people would be dead if he had used a rifle with a straight wooden stock instead of an angular, modern-looking AR-15? No change, since an AR-15 is functionally no different than any other small-caliber, magazine-fed civilian autoloader, regardless of what it looks like. Lethality is the same as any other self-loading .22 centerfire, and rate of fire is the same.

How many people might he have killed if he had used a lever-action in .357 or .30-30 Winchester (more powerful than the AR)? How about a .729 caliber shotgun? Or a 9mm pistol, like the VT and Luby's shooters used? Who knows; it depends totally on the tactics he chose to employ. But the worst mass shootings in this country have involved pistols, not rifles.

I believe that more criminals own "assault weapons" than law abiding citizens do.

There is where you are completely, totally, and demonstrably wrong.

The number of Americans who own "assault weapons," as defined by H.R.1022 et seq, is in the neighborhood of 16 million to 30 million, depending on how you define them. Even the low end of that range is more than the number who hunt.

The SKS is the single most common centerfire rifle in U.S. homes; I have seen an estimate of 7 million in U.S. civilian hands, and that was several years ago. The AR-15 platform is the top selling centerfire rifle in America and has been for a while, dominates competitive and recreational centerfire target shooting in the United States, from IPSC/IDPA to Camp Perry style, and is even a growing presence in F-class benchrest, and is the most common carbine kept for defensive purposes in U.S. homes.

The "tool of the criminal's trade," if you are speaking of gun-armed criminals, is the handgun, primarily 9mm/.40 pistols and .38/.357 revolvers; only 3% of U.S. murders involve any type of rifle, per the FBI.

People who need an assault weapon:

Military
Police
Bank Robbers
Drug Smugglers
Kidnapers
Mercinaries
Crack-pots
Lunatics
Duck Hunters

No first-line military on this planet uses civilian "assault weapons," BTW; they use NFA Title 2/Class III restricted automatic weapons, which are as tightly controlled in this country as howitzers, missiles, and tank cannons are.

People who commonly use "assault weapons":

Police (non-SWAT)
Competitive target shooters
Recreational target shooters
Small-game hunters
Homeowners
Collectors

[TWiley]

73. I said people who NEED assault weapons

I said people who need assault weapons, and not people who would like to own or use them.

The definition of "assault weapon" seems pretty fluid around here. You use two separate distinctions; (as there are) "civilian assault weapons" and Class III automatic weapons. It is pretty common to see a gunman on this board argue out of both sides of his mouth on this point, so I dint care to go down that path.

I would point out that in a combat situation, it is rare to use a M16 on full auto. The most efficient use of firepower is to aim and squeeze 2 or 3 off at a time. Full auto comes in handy as a last ditch effort to blast your way out of a bad situation; similar to what a determined criminal or radical gangster could be expected to encounter at some time in their career. Now if you were a police officer, would you rather face off against a criminal with an "assault weapon", not knowing if it had full auto capabilities, or the same criminal with a bolt action rifle? The semi-automatic function has formidable firepower. I think the prudent question long-term is how much firepower is really necessary for the average citizen to own.

The killer in our story did have a 12 gage shotgun, and also a handgun, along with two assault weapons. I don't know how many people he killed with each, or the details of why he chose a specific one. People have more time to respond to a bolt action than to a semi-automatic weapon, so I suspect that some may have had a better chance at escape.

When the 2nd Amendment was drafted, the right to bear arms primarily refereed to single shot weapons, like cannons, flint lock rifles and hand guns. Our boy in the story would not have killed quite so many if armed with one, or all, of those.

[benEzra]

74. If the topic is guns readily available to civilians in the USA,

The definition of "assault weapon" seems pretty fluid around here. You use two separate distinctions; (as there are) "civilian assault weapons" and Class III automatic weapons. It is pretty common to see a gunman on this board argue out of both sides of his mouth on this point, so I dint care to go down that path.

If the topic is guns readily available to civilians in the USA, then we are talking exclusively about civilian semiautos, not automatic weapons.

Strictly speaking, "assault weapon" (Title 1 non-automatic rifle, shotgun, or pistol with certain features) would be civilian only and "assault rifle" (Title 2 selective-fire combat rifle using intermediate-power cartridge) would be military/government only, but the MSM has gotten into the habit of using both terms interchangeably, which tends to complicate discussions of Federal gun law.

I would point out that in a combat situation, it is rare to use a M16 on full auto. The most efficient use of firepower is to aim and squeeze 2 or 3 off at a time.

Correct, which is why the M16A2's auto mode is 3-round burst. It helps offset the the 5.56/.223's relatively low per-shot lethality with multiple hits. There are those who prefer full-auto capability for CQB, though, and I believe quite a few police SWAT teams do use full auto M4's (and MP5's, for those who still use them).

It seems to me that full autos are primarily restricted because they shoot indiscriminately at close range. If they were only capable of single shots like a civilian AR-15, they wouldn't be banned.

Now if you were a police officer, would you rather face off against a criminal with an "assault weapon", not knowing if it had full auto capabilities, or the same criminal with a bolt action rifle?

I'd rather face the semiauto, hands down, and hope the shooter learned his gun handling from Hollywood B-movies and shoots fast without aiming, instead of shooting deliberately using the sights.

A shooter with a scoped bolt action isn't going to come in close and try to shoot you at handgun range, he will snipe you before you ever see him (and the bullet will arrive before the sound of the shot does). Also, some bolt actions will shoot through NIJ Level III hard armor, whereas an AR-15 or civilian AK will not.

The semi-automatic function has formidable firepower. I think the prudent question long-term is how much firepower is really necessary for the average citizen to own.

Full auto/over .51/sound suppressed = police/military, unsuppressed semiauto under .51 caliber = civilian is a reasonable compromise that has stood for 75 years now. Given that the majority of civilian guns sold each year are semiauto, that's not going to change.

[AtheistCrusader]

78. The right to bear arms didn't specify any sort of powe limit on the arms.

The first 20 shot rifle preceeded the ratification of the second amendment by 10 years. Girandoni Repeating Rifle. Austria used them against the French. Certain affluent Americans owned them. Meriwhether Lewis used one on the Lewis and Clark expedition.

Your argument could be similarly, and innapropriately leveraged to try and curtail the First Amendment, the ratifiers of which could not have envisioned electronic media, blogs, twitter, or even AM radio. Rush Limbaugh does a lot of damage with his syndicated filth, but the First Amendment does, and SHOULD protect it, even if the medium was unforseen.

At the time the 2nd was ratified, people commonly owned the same weapons the regular army owned. The technology you are so worried about is 100 years old.

[X_Digger]

79. Fortunately, we don't have to justify exercise of rights based on need. n/t

[Redneck Socialist]

84. Duck hunters need semi auto rifles?

Please introduce me to the person who can consistently hit a duck on the wing with a rifle, because I want to shake their hand (and learn how to shoot that well.)

[TWiley]

86. Interesting that you argue that a duck hunter does not NEED a semi automatic rifle.

So why would a duck hunter need a semi-automatic rifle? hmmmmm?

[tanngrisnir3]

88. Huh? Do you know the difference betwen a shotgun and a rifle?

Duck Hunters don't use rifles. As in, at all. Period.

[TWiley]

92. Therefore, a Duck Hunter does not need to own an Assault Rifle right?

At least, that is what your argument says to me .....

[Tejas]

95. You bought it hook/line/sinker

Though you used "assualt WEAPONS" when you posted, in your haste you stepped right in it and let Redneck Socialist steer your thoughts to "assault RIFLES".

:rofl:

Slow down and at least pay attention to your own points/words.

[TWiley]

97. That is fine Tejas, consider this point.

I knew when I wrote it.

Consider the irony that I am pointing to. No less than three gunmen are saying "hey a duck hunter does not need an assault rifle". That was my point and my purpose in adding "duck hunter" to the list.

now, who bought it hook line and sinker?

I think the gunmen are right, duck hunters do not need assault rifles and neither does anyone else.

[Tejas]

99. You just keep on thinking like that, don't come crying when

a chupacabra comes crawling into your blind. They smell fresh ducks on the floor of your blind and it don't take long for them to find YOU.

Last thing that'll do you any good against one is a 3' long shotgun with 3 rounds in it. You better hope ya brought along a .45 semi-auto, 10-15 rounds out've one are about the only thing that'll kill one.

Mark my words.

[benEzra]

90. Duck hunters use SHOTGUNS (often semiautomatic), not rifles.

Of course, the relevance of duck hunting to gun ownership is pretty tenuous, since only about 5% of lawful gun owners hunt birds.

[TWiley]

93. Dont you think it is interesting that the board gunmen say duck hunters DON'T need assault weapons?

hmm?

[Tejas]

96. Duck hunters don't NEED computers either. Do you? n/t

[TWiley]

98. Oh, I see that you finally caught on ..... eh eh eh

So Tejas, you feel that Duck Hunters do not NEED to own assault rifles. Thank you kindly for making my point.

:popcorn:

[Tejas]

100. Crack is a powerful drug n/t

[benEzra]

101. Ummm, the 5% of gun owners who hunt birds do regularly use "assault weapons," just not RIFLES.

You don't hunt birds (other than turkeys) with a rifle, any more than you would play Ping-Pong with a 9-iron, drive a nail with a crescent wrench, or run a Formula 1 race with a NASCAR souped-up taxicab. Rifles are for precise shots; shotguns are for dynamic shots on fast-moving targets. And anyone who suggested that "You don't NEED a titanium driver to play Ping-Pong" would be dismissed as being utterly ignorant of the topic at hand.

Under the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch, plenty of shotguns suitable for bird hunting are "assault weapons," but that doesn't make them rifles. And you would be mistaken if you thought that all of that 5% who hunt birds own only bird guns.

[krispos42]

102. The assumption in your question is that the ONLY reason he has for buying a gun is duck-hunting

Which is an unproven and probably incorrect assumption.

A duck-hunter does not need a 250-gigabyte hard drive, either. However a computer gamer does. And lo and behold, they can be the same person!

If your intention is to hunt ducks, then the proper firearm for such an event is some sort of shotgun. Perhaps even a semi-automatic shotgun. However, the person that has the intention to hunt the ducks has far and away more stuff that is used for things NOT related to duck-hunting than stuff that is used for duck-hunting.


People that own guns generally own more than one. On average, each gun-owner owns about 3 of them. So that duck-hunter owns and uses a shotgun... and when he's no longer a duck-hunter but a deer-hunter he owns and uses a semi-automatic rifle. :shrug: Big whup.

[krispos42]

103. 95% of all murder victims were killed in single-corpse incidents

Aside from the fact that "assault weapon" is an arbitrary and perjorative term, it's simply not a factor to be worried about.

44 people a day are murdered, on average, every single day in America. This guy's rampage is less than 6 hours of an average day in the US.



I didn't buy it when the right went fear-mongering to take away our rights after 9/11 and I'm not going to buy it when the left starts doing it as well.

[gorfle]

53. There are valid predictors.

Read this series of articles. It's a long read, and the guy is definitely anti-teacher and anti-union. But I think his assessment of bullying and its long-term effects is spot-on.

http://www.robertringer.com/bullying.html

[TWiley]

94. So, people who tend to see the world as dangerous ..

So, people who tend to see the world as a dangerous place, and feel safer with a gun under the bed might fit the general profile?

[jody]

3. What if someone with McLendon's view of the world became president? I forgot, that already happened.

[Mugweed]

4. You've started it now!

Odd you would pick The Guardian for an article about something that happened in the US.

[tekisui]

7. Why is that odd?

Did the article in the Guardian say anything that was untrue?

[msongs]

5. there ya go again, picking on a guy's second amendment rights nt

[TWiley]

9. Evidently, gun safety classes dont do jack shit either.

He was trained as a cop. I suspect he spent more than a little time on gun safety.

[tekisui]

14. Mental healthcare,

true assault weapons ban, and enforcement of the gun laws on the books.

But, watch all the gun freaks minimalize mass gun murders. They are willing to trade so many lives for their ideological fascination with weapons.

[cliffordu]

17. Name calling, illogical rants having nothing to do with reality.....

It's all the machine's fault, ban the bad guns and things will be just fine.

pathetic.

[tekisui]

20. We need to treat mental health.

It is more than just the machine. It is a society that doesn't take care of our own people well enough to recognize and treat mental health problems.

But, hand in hand with that, this society has no need for assault weapons to be so easy to acquire and use.

[cliffordu]

22. You mean like the success the ban on Crack cocaine has had???

I'm in!!!!

[tekisui]

23. I guess we should embrace America's proud legacy of gun violence.

:patriot:

[cliffordu]

25. I do. call me when thhe body count hits a thousand a day

[tekisui]

31. I respect you, cliffordu.

Most people in my family own firearms, some of them have lots of guns. I have friends who have semi-automatic handguns and who knows what else. I know that guns alone are not the problem. But, I empathize with people whose lives are destroyed when their loved one dies a senseless death. I empathize when innocent people are gunned down in rage or by accident.

There is a problem in this country. Like so many of our problems, it is multi-faceted and far from a singular issue. I would like to see us work to fix these problems, I think that is ultimately why we come to DU to hash things out. I don't claim to have the answers. But, personally, I feel that until we fix our societies problem of creating people who turn into psychos at the flip of a switch, we should try to protect the innocent people from their actions, the best we can. You seem to feel that it is more important to protect our individual rights to own guns, and understandably want to avoid more regulation. I get that. But, I disagree for the simple reason of an imperfect attempt to prevent as many innocent deaths as possible.

[cliffordu]

37. No - I don't think anyone needs to own AK's or AR-15's....

but my earlier point about the drug war and limiting access to guns is accurate.

If I knew that they were going to ban all semi-auto rifles, I'd get one.

We love killing each other in this country. that's the problem.

Pay attention over the next year to the story about Cheney's death squads. It's a very small step from killing people in foreign lands to killing people right here in the US....


That's the reason the second amendment exists,.....we were almost a dictatorship.

Some would say we WERE.

It could happen again.....

[TWiley]

59. We love killing each other with GUNS

I believe that is what the data shows

[AtheistCrusader]

80. A bit.

Year: 2005
Handgun: 8,478
Other Gun 2,868
Knife 2,147
Blunt Object 671
Other Weapon 2,528


11,346 to some sort of firearm.
6,067 to all other causes.

So, if you're going to be murdered, I guess it's about 50% more likely you'll be killed with a gun than hands and feet or a knife. I'd much rather we spent time addressing issues like mental health that lead to people trying to kill each other in the first place. Especially over banning things that 80+ million Americans own, that are not killing each other.

[cliffordu]

82. Yep.

[benEzra]

38. How about fix mental health care, get the economy on track,

and work toward an empathetic, productive, and tolerant society instead of trying to take away people's guns?

Because they are mutually exclusive. The DLC threw away the House and Senate in 1994 over STUPID restrictions on rifle ergonomics and aesthetics that did nothing to address either criminal or random violence, and Gore would have had the electoral college in 2000 without Florida had he not thrown away WV and his own home state of TN over nonsensical gun bans.

There are those who wish us to try the exact same approach again, and hope the results will be different. Even though an order of magnitude more Americans lawfully own "assault weapons" now than in 1994, and even though support for the fraud is more than ten points lower than in 1994, the prohibitionists still want to outlaw what are now the most popular civilian rifles in America.

Serious question---where would we be on health care, the economy, or Iraq if the DLC had not thrown away Congress over silly restrictions on adjustable rifle stocks, protruding handgrips, and muzzle threads?

[Riktor]

54. Kudos

I was under the impression that when dealing with issues regarding rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the chosen solution must be the least restrictive option on the table.

Guns are a means to an end. Taking guns away because a society is violent is merely treating a symptom, not curing the disease. Violence has very real social precursors, and it is these we need to address, not whether or not our citizens have access to guns with legitimate, legal uses.

[cliffordu]

57. Yep. We just love killing each other....

[TWiley]

60. No, we love killing each other with GUNS

[benEzra]

75. But for the most part, not rifles.

Rifle homicide is a statistically rare event (~3% of U.S. murders involve rifles).

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_20.html

And given that the worst U.S. mass shootings have used ordinary pistols, a ban on civilian rifles with protruding handgrips won't do a thing about mass shootings or gun violence in general.

[cliffordu]

81. The sad truth for the Ugly Gun Nannys.

[TWiley]

61. The US Army is confiscating guns in Iraq to make it safer

Wyatt Earp confiscated guns in Dodge City to make it safer
There is no evidence that gun proliferation makes any society safer

[Callisto32]

83. Argumentum ad antiquitatem

Sorry, those first two are arguments by appeal to tradition, and thus a logical fallacy. If I asked you to prove the last one, you would have to prove a negative. Let me round up some numbers and get back to you on the last one.

[TWiley]

87. It is incidental that the argument is traditional

Therefore it is no fallacy. The argument stands on its own due to fact.

Now, an example of the "appeal to tradition fallacy" would be to argue that the assault weapon is covered under the 2nd Ammendment which was written during a time in history when only single-shot muzzle loading weapons were available.

[benEzra]

32. Nope. We can embrace our legacy of CIVIL LIBERTY while addressing the root causes of violence....

That's not the primary interest of the gun-ban lobby, though.

[tekisui]

36. I will join you in addressing the root causes of violence.

I am not for gun-bans, but I am for a reasonable approach. If there was more conversation and attention to the causes of violence I think that would be a good thing.

But, I am for gun safety laws for sure.

[benEzra]

48. Thank you.

FWIW, I am not opposed to gun safety, think gun safety education is a good thing properly done, and am OK with criminal penalties for letting a child get hold of your gun and using it to harm someone. I took a class and jumped through a lot of legal hoops to obtain an NC CHL, and my wife and I keep our guns in a safe when they are not in our presence.

But in my opinion, banning rifle handgrips that stick out, adjustable stocks, flame dampers, and post-1860's magazine capacities has little to do with gun safety, though, and a whole lot to do with harassing the lawful and responsible gun culture.

[tekisui]

49. We're on the same page.

:hi:

We have problems, and some symptoms are more obvious. And, some political solutions are more problematic than good.

[TWiley]

89. How many of these characteristics were available in 1776?

[benEzra]

91. About as many as there were telegraphs and rotary printing presses...

those things came along in the 1800's.

Want to apply your logic to the 1st and 4th Amendments? A law that restricted the right to an abortion to methods available in 1791, or that restricted free speech and press to methods available in 1791, would immediately be struck down as unconstitutional, and rightly so.

Semiauto civilian firearms meet the "in common use for lawful purposes" test elucidated by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Heller, as they are the most common firearms used for target shooting and civilian defensive purposes. Machineguns and other restricted weapons do not meet the common-use standard, but civilian "assault weapons" certainly do.

[jeepnstein]

69. deleted

Deleted double post.

[jeepnstein]

70. They are inherently unsafe.

That's a design criteria for being a gun. It has to be able to punch a hole in it's intended target.

In my opinion, the reasonable approach is to adopt policies that allow us to drain the swamps in our inner cities. My heard bleeds for the folks in neighborhoods who are held captive by violent street gangs who spend most of their time selling dope and fighting for turf.

A good place to start would be Drug Courts where offenders could be sorted into addicts/victims and sellers. Addicts can be reached with some success with proper support and intervention. Drug Courts can work.

Juvenile Courts need to be able to deal with younger violent offenders. Prisons need to be allowed to disrupt gang activity within the walls.

Local police departments aren't really well-equipped to deal with criminal enterprises that span jurisdictions. The Federal Government should get off it's tail and actually go after the organized drug dealing gangs that spawn most of the violence we see in this country. Until the gangs, and their enablers, are hunted down in much the same manner as was done to some of the larger outlaw motorcycle clubs a few years back the violence will continue.

That is all. I'm going fishing.

[razors edge]

24. There are people

who can shoot a pistol faster than a select fire, reload and do it again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5WJUD-7FFc

We may need to start thinking about laws that address even having thoughts about shooting guns.

Minority Report, or something like that.


:sarcasm:

[benEzra]

47. Replace the lobbyist-created scare term...

with what they actually are---"small- to intermediate-caliber, non-automatic civilian rifles with modern styling" and you might begin to see why (1) they are the most popular civilian rifles in America, and (2) why such bans are resisted by gun owners.

The vast majority (>80%) of U.S. gun owners are nonhunters, and small-caliber "black rifles" are the target rifles and defensive carbines of choice in this country. And media hysteria to the contrary, they account for a very small percentage of gun misuse, with all rifles combined accounting for about 3% of annual U.S. murders.

[DrCory]

46. For Someone Who Hates Strawmen...

Why are you resorting to one?

"They are willing to trade so many lives for their ideological fascination with weapons"

[tekisui]

50. Tell me more.

Seriously, tell me why that is not a strawman. I see it as support of a deadly weapon versus support of safety of innocents.

[DrCory]

76. Ummm...

I said it WAS a strawman.

[Scout]

26. basically, he was a "law-abiding gun owner" right up until he wasn't

is that the gist of it?

[cliffordu]

28. Yep. Right until he went fucking nuts.

[Furyataurus]

35. Wow

I guess its time to start carrying my rifle with me in the truck besides my CCW.

[cliffordu]

39. Ok, try that again. This time try to make sense.

Over here we try to write in complete sentences, sparky.

[Fire1]

43. LOL!

[TWiley]

62. That is one valid way to read it I suppose

Crime converts a law-abiding citizen into a criminal.

[Fire1]

44. How many does that make this week? Not counting the kid in

Germany.

[AtheistCrusader]

85. One I think.

[gorfle]

52. A better indicator.

A better indicator for these kinds of people are social outcasts. People who have been bullied, and view their lot in life as the result of mistreatment by others.

A lot of this stuff starts in school, where it could be identified early and something done about it. It hardly ever is though.

http://www.robertringer.com/bullying.html

[TWiley]

63. Good Post

[jeepnstein]

65. Depends on what kind of mass murder...

A guy who goes out and kills six or eight business competitors on the street corner is one thing. Guys like this are another entirely and I don't know that you can prevent them from going off or predict who's going to do it. Fortunately this kind of thing is rare, horrific, but rare.

I guess we could suspend the Bill of Rights. That would work really well.

He bombed out of his police academy class within a couple of weeks. He never got any specialized firearms training from there. Basic school is more about not shooting someone by accident anyway.

[jmg257]

71. Yep. Many mass murderers typically fit a common description. There was

a thread about it a few weeks back.

[krispos42]

104. Mass-murders seem to have a different mentality from conventional murders

The average murderer kills a single person at a time, for a specific reason, and usually has a crininal, addictive drug abuse, and/or violent behavior history. And that person is probably somebody he knows.

The mass-murderer simply decides that, after years of bottling up emotional problems, to let them all come pouring out and to kill as many people as possible.



Having a criminal record is a good indicator of murder, I think, but not mass murder.