"Robert Green" wrote in message
...
"Rifleman" wrote in message
...
" wrote:
You're missing my point.
No I'm not. Your point is that somehow taking threads off
a gun or changing the stock, is going to prevent the next guy
intent of committing mass murder.
I'm looking at what happens (or doesn't happen) at the point-of-sale.
Are there people that are buying "assault" or "military" rifles for the
look, the thrill factor, and if you impose a ban on the sale /
manufacture of those rifles then those people will just walk away from
the gun store AND NOT instead buy some other ordinary, "plain-looking"
(but legal) rifle?
There's clearly an attraction to the assault rifle format for some of the
Rambo wannabes that go on killing sprees with them.
So how many of those killing sprees took place in the last few years with
"assault rifle format" rifles by "Rambo wannabes"
Don't forget to give us a percentage compared to ALL such sprees..
It'sd just that we want to make sure what numbers we are really talking
about, instead of just some fictino by the gun-control nuts.
I am not sure that
banning them, though, will dissuade any truly psychotic gunman from his
mission of killing a lot of people. Mass murderers have been able to
inflict some phenomenal damage with even semi-automatic pistols since
Howard
Unruh mowed down 13 people with his Luger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Unruh
The Luger was designed in 1898 so it's clear even old weapons can do a lot
of damage.
Yup
One of the reasons so much damage takes place is because with only one
exception. the Gaby Gifford shooting, ALL the other sprees took place in
"Gun Free Zones", with an assortment of arms, of which most were NOT
"assault rifle format"
snip silly nonsense about trying to disassemble gun during an attack
Banning assault rifles is pointless because it's easier for a killer to
enter deep into a mass of people armed with pistols than with assault
rifles
or other long guns and the rate of fire can be just as high or higher.
Just
from simple inspection, an assault rifle should be harder to take away
from
the shooter because it's compact and usually has an extra grip. But
again,
that advantage doesn't seem terribly important when you acknowledge how
many
mass killings were perpetrated without assault rifles. The compelling
issue
concerning successful neutralization of mass killers *in progress* seems
to
be magazine capacity, not gun type.
Why not just have armed citizens shoot these "Rambo wannabe"
After all armed citizens shoot more than double the number of bad guys
police do.
And they don't seem to need very specialized training a la Secret Service,
to get their thumbs behind the hammer to do it.
It's just that your *point* makes no sense.
I'm asking a question that nobody seems to want to answer.
The question raises the point about why some people might want to buy
certain types of rifles.
I recently had this discussion with a retired bird colonel and lifelong
marksman from the Army the other day and surprisingly he was of the
opinion
that the shape of the gun and its glorification in all sorts of media
*does*
attract precisely the wrong person. He said "if you feel you just have to
have an assault rifle, you probably shouldn't be allowed to own one." (-:
I personally don't believe any mass murderer will just give up if he can't
get an AR-15. He'll settle for less. I'm guessing your average crazed
mass
murderer would prefer to have two semi-automatic pistols than one assault
rifle.
Amazing the nimber of people who while ignorant are quite willing to ascribe
all kinds of complex reasons to other people's motivations, when much
simpler ones are available.
I believe Feinstein is screwing up royally trying to get the assault ban
passed (the loud thud you heard was Trader fainting and hitting the
floor).
It's just more divisive partisan crap that won't solve the problem but
will
further polarize America. O read through NY new law and it seems to be
not
much more than a "pile on" law to enable prosecutors to add charges to any
gun incident. Someone with ingenuity could make a flash suppressor with a
hose clamp and a paper towel tube if they had to.
Yup
Brings back the simple point that someone with intent will IGNORE any laws
on the books
While I am not convinced banning "megamags" would make a difference, I'm
certainly willing to try.
You are more than free to do so for YOURSELF
But who gave you the right to make that decision for others ?
Particularly when there is NO EVIDENCE to justify or support such a decision
as being workable or effective
Even a mediocre marksman should be able to neutralize a burglar with 7
rounds.
LOL
Then you need to realize some simple truths
1) Under stress, even good marksmen can miss.
And can do so repeatedly
2) Data shows us that police, even with all their alleged professional
training, tend to go into "spray and pray" mode far more often than
justified.
3) Data shows us that even though citizens shoot more than twice as many
crimianls as police do, nonetheless, police shoot almost SIX TIMES as many
innocent bystanders as police do.
Maybe it's the police that need to go into Barney Fife loading
rules.
People who feel they can't live without 30+ rounds per magazine
are pretty clearly intent on killing a lot of people very quickly.
TOTAL IGNORANT CROCK based on a lie
1) It's NOT about "people who FEEL they CAN'T LIVE without 30+
rounds per magazine...
IT's NOT about "can't live
It's about CHOOSE NOT TO
2) The claim that they are "intent on killing a lot of people" is also
COMPLETE BULL****
With all the large capacity magazines out there, according to your
stupid presumption, there are a LOT "of people intent on killing a lot of
people" out there
If your BULL**** had even an IOTA of truth, there would be mass
killings on a daily basis.
3) Cops are also equipped with large magazines for BOTH their handguns
and rifles.
Are they also "intent on killing a lot of people" ?
4) Magazine size, does not speed you up that much either way.
With practice you can fire about as many shots using 3 10-rounders
as 1 30-rounder
The above stupid commentary Just makes you come across as a compete fool
\
They're the ones society needs to worry about.
They're already pretty anti-socially oriented.
Not really.
I believe that ignorant idiots like you, ascribing all kinds of stupdi
motivations to others, to justify your bigoted ignorance, are FAR MORE
dangerous to society
Particularly when a whole bunch of like minded-idiots like you try to make
your bigoted ignorance into laws..
It doesn't take much to push at least some of them way over the line.
Too bad, ignorant bigots like you are even harder to push toward intellgent
thought.
The problem being is that you imagine ****e like the above to actually be
true,
If you examine gun laws and public opinion neutrally (and it's very hard
to
do because both sides have invented their own irrefutable yet very dubious
"statistics") you'll find the restrictions almost always come about after
a
public massacre takes place. The willingness of Americans to accept the
draconian gun laws came about from incidents like this:
On July 28, 1931, it was alleged that Coll unsuccessfully attempted to
kidnap Joey Rao, a Schultz underling. A shootout ensued, and a crowd of
children were caught in the crossfire. A five-year-old child, Michael
Vengalli,[3] died after being shot in the abdomen; several other children
were wounded. After this atrocity, New York City Mayor Jimmy Walker dubbed
Coll "Mad Dog".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Dog_Coll#Aftermath
There's a reason why Chicago and NYC have (had?) some of the toughest gun
laws in the country. During the '30s when Col. Thompson's "gun to end all
crime" - the Tommy Gun - became widely adopted by cops and crooks alike,
drive by shootings were killing dozens of innocent bystanders. Citizens
got
very tired of it and the laws limiting ownership of such weapons arose.
That process could be happening again, only this time the focus is on
high-capacity, high rate of fire weapons that rival the Tommy gun's
lethality.
Just goes to show that stupid laws are passed because stupid people beat the
drum and spout ignorant cant
And the politicians, will then pass stupid laws in the heat of the moment
Just look at the ban/confiscation of handguns in the UK following Dumblane.
The situation got worse NOT better as an result.
You'd have to be totally nuts to think that changing a
cosmetic feature on guns is going to do anything to
dissuade criminals.
There's a difference between a criminal and a murderer.
Indeed
ALL murderers are criminals
But NOT all criminals are murderes
I'd say there's a difference between a criminal and a madman. The gun
lobby
is right in saying that a very particular type of *person* not *weapon* is
the real issue, at least when it comes to mass murderers like Adam Lanza.
Some hope that universal health care could help identify guys like Lanza
before they act, but sadly many mass shooters had plenty of contact with
mental health authorities prior to their rampages to no avail. These
shooters are often quite loony (a precise medical term g) but cunning.
They are not likely to be prevented from killing by psychiatry because we
don't yet (much) punish people for what they might do.
If someone is locked up for making threats, they often go after whomever
they felt turned them in as soon as they are released from protective
custody. Plenty of women have died with a newly issued protective order
in
their purse. Something like that may have happened with Adam Lanza - some
news reports say his mother might have been trying to commit him and he
killed her and quite a few more because of it. I am not sure if we'll
ever
know what really went on - the only witnesses are dead.
All it's going to do is **** off the 99.99% of legal gun owners.
So called legal or "law abiding" gun owners are going to have to realize
that society is reaching the point where they will not tolerate the
abuse, murder, injury and death being performed upon them by guns so
that others can "enjoy" the right to possess these same guns.
Funny how the same people who make such claims completely ignore cars which
cause FAR MORE CARNAGE on a daily basis on our roads
It's really not about guns, but about controlling people with guns WHO HAVE
DONE NOTHING WRONG simply because the wannabe controllers fear them for no
justified reason.
My issue with the 2nd Amendment absolutists is their refusal to admit that
a
smaller magazine capacity might just reduce future body counts. I've yet
to
hear justifications for 30 round magazines that don't resolve into three
fairly unconvincing groups:
There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE To support the silly notion that smaller
magazines would have ANY effect
It's PURE UNFOUNDED SUPPOSITION
I have yet to hear A SINGLE argument for reduced magazine capacity that is
based on anything close to reality
It's the old "It MAY work, so let's just do it and hope for the best" crap.
1 - "Because I wanna"
Indeed
And it seems to **** people like you off that others feel that way
2 - "Because I might have to kill a LOT of people"
NOPE
That's YOUR strawman argument
And by the way, how do you think a 7-round restriction would have worked in
this circumstance ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuhKCiY-lu0
Funny how people like you ignore FACTS when they don't line up with your
prejudices.
3 - "It's the first step in total confiscation"
And history has repeatedly shown us that gun-controllers are more than happy
to use incrementalism over time to lead to confiscation
England did it recently with handguns
Funny how people like you ignore history when it doesn't suit your purpose.
None of those reasons strikes me as anything to set national policy on.
Yet your only argument is some vague unfounded hope that it may work..
That's REALLY not an excuse to set national policy on..
More importantly, the fact that Jarod Loughner, who shot Rep. Giffords and
the LIRR shooter, Colin Ferguson were both tackled and disarmed during a
magazine change tells me there could be a significant payback by reducing
magazine capacity to WWII infantry levels. Lots of police chiefs quietly
support limits on capacity because it's their people who often end up
facing
madmen with high capacity firearms.
All SUPPOSTION wrapped in hope.
NO DATA to hold your position
How long do you think Loughner would have lasted if there actually had been
someone armed in that crowd, willing to shoot Loughner to stop him
The same is true for ALL "Gun Free Zones"
We have examples such as Pearl High School, Appalachian Law School, and
other tlo support the notion, that spree shooters can be and are stopped bu
armed citizens
The constitution, above all else, enshrines democracy. Democracy is the
rule of the majority. If the majority feel that some, many, most or all
personal firearms are more of a liability to society than a benefit,
then there will be change.
FALSE
The US is a Constitutional Republic SPECIFICALY because the Framers knew
that "democracy" easily descents into mob rule of the majority.
I wouldn't count on the majority swinging to an outright assault rifle ban
unless there are several more elementary school massacres. Instead,
states
will draw lines like they did before the Civil War. This time it will be
gun ownership and not slave ownership that divides them, but the process
is
well underway and following many of the old geographical boundaries.
LOL
People are already voting with their feet for such places as Chicago,
Washington D.C., NYC and now NYS.
What really bothers me is out-of-state groups like the NRA coming into
local
elections to try to affect the outcome. State elections should be limited
to state residents, not outside pressure groups.
When the anti-gunners hew to such a rule you might have a leg to stand on.
Oddly enough, the only people I know that believe the Feds could actually
confiscate all firearms are the very far over "absolutists" who also seem
to
be afraid of mostly everything - Muslims, welfare cheats, the Federal
government, fluoridation, commies, mandatory vaccinations, CFL bulbs, etc.
Why else would they need so much firepower and 100 round drum magazines?
In
their minds, their enemies are many, massive, always poised to attack and
very well armed.
Stupid projections and fantasies ascribed to those who oppose you are just
that stupid projections and fantasies.
They are simply your attempt to claim a superiority, that you can NOT claim
otherwise.
A loser tactic.
And it tells far more about such as you than those you denigrate in such
fashion.
Gun advocates need to start paying attention to the problem and need to
come up with a solution to keeping guns out of the hands of crazy,
insane, angry, autistic or suicidal people. ESPECIALLY people young
people.
That's a tall order barring total confiscation from civilians. I just
don't
see that *ever* happening in America. The question for the next decade
will
be one of just exactly *where* people are allowed to bring their guns and
whether the "stand you ground" state-level initiatives get pushed back.
Eventually guns will be made much safer and perhaps will only work in the
hands of someone with an RF activating ring. If you've ever seen the
devices they attach to the cars of people convicted for DUI's you'll know
that there's plenty of technology that can be applied to the problem.
Most
people could adequately defend themselves with a Taser when you get down
to
looking at actual cases concerning gun uses for self-defense.
LOL
Good luck with that pipe dream...
If the irresponsible people can't be stopped from getting their hands on
guns, and if gun activists, enthusiasts and hobbiests don't want to play
a constructive role, then *everybody* pays a price.
Funny how we can say EXACTLY that about cars
When will you bozos start addressing that issue
After all for the same number of cars and guns in the country.
Cars are used to cause 43,000+ accidental deaths vs 600+ with guns
That's an interesting point because very few people are paying the price.
The pain is not shared. Newtown is in a sad way just like the AfRaq wars.
Only a very few families actually make any kind of sacrifice. It's very
hard to stop a juggernaut that's not affecting everyone equally. There's
declining human empathy in the world, IMHO, so the parents of those 20
kids
are really on their own. It may be the natural result of an ever-more
complex and overwhelming world where it's almost impossible to look out
for
your own interests. That impersonal world could very easily be the
incubator for the seemingly endless crop of mass killers we have reaped
recently. Obviously more research is needed. Maybe the NRA will get
brave
enough to let that happen.
That's because the blood-dancing gun controllers are trying to make a big
stink about a one-off event, all the while ignoring the fact that the same
kind of carnage occurs nearly every two weeks in Chicago.
This is really NOT about addressing the problem.
It's about using a massacre to justify more gun-control.
When children can't play nice with the toys they have, responsible
parents step in and take the toys away.
Maybe we should take away your intenet access
After all dancing in the blood of innocents to push your gun-control agenda
can not be considered "playing nice" by ANY means...
Most gun owners *do* play nice. That's why they're so up in arms (groan).
They don't want to be punished for the misdeeds of a very, very small
number
of shi+ stomping crazies. Who would? Punishing the wrong people (or the
easy to punish people) never works in the long run, at least not with a
free
society.
Too bad that gun-controllers don't seem to grasp that concept
And it's why people who are pro 2nd Amendment are not going to take it
anymore
They have tried to play nice over the last 80 years
And what did it get them ?
Incremental infringement on their rights
Denigration'
Lies
False promises of this is the last restriction
And other bull****.
They have been playing "nice", while the gun-controllers have been lying,
denigrating and dancing in the blood of innocent victims..
My own personal philosophy is that these events are tragedies like
tornadoes
or traffic accidents. They are rare enough that it's foolish to devote
endless resources to prevent them. We can work to lessen their impact
when
they do occur, but we're apparently going to have to learn to live with
them. America is a gun nation full of angry people, some of whom, for
whatever reason, cross the line and get so angry that they kill their
fellow
citizens by the dozens. That won't change until we know a lot more about
the reasons for people's behavior and how to modify that behavior than we
do
know.
It seems to take casualty levels like we saw during the Vietnam War
affecting people across the nation to mobilize real social action. I
don't
want to think about how many elementary school massacres it might take to
get people to support an assault rifle ban.
The best we can hope for is a reduction in gun deaths the way we've
reduced
automobile fatalities considerably over the years.
LOL
What an ignorant crock
If car fatalities had decreased at the same rate that accidental gun deaths
have decreased over the last decades, we would be at 22,000 or so car
accident deaths instead of 43,000+
Gun fatalities should be equally reducible as well.
They have been decreasing, while the opposite is true for car fatalities..
This is another on of those lies by gun-controllers and their sycophants.
Unfortunately I'm afraid that with the NRA
working to weaken existing carry laws across the nation, the gun fatality
rate will climb rather than decline in the short run. More guns mean more
firearm accidents and fistfights that end in homicide.
TOo bad for your FALSE prediction that the opposite is true
Gun ownership has INCREASED and gun accidents have DECREASED
Too bad you can't say the same for car fatalities
The thing that really bothers me about the current gun control crisis is
that we essentially let the actions of madmen dictate the course of
history.
From John Wilkes Booth to Lee Harvey Oswald. It was the St. Valentine's
Day
Massacre that prompted the National Firearms Act. Look at how the
suicidal
mass murderers of 9/11 changed American history. That's just not right.
We
really ought to restrain ourselves from setting national policy based on
the
acts of the criminally insane, Muslim martyrs or any other class of mass
murderer.
You forgot to mention ignoramuses like yourself, who pontificate out of
sheer ignorance and fantasy that has NOTHING to do with the facts
Guns are nothing more than toys for big boys.
Anyone who's been the victim of a crime, particularly a violent one, would
disagree. It's why gun control legislation is almost certainly doomed to
fail, except perhaps for a mega-magazine ban. NY's 7 round limit isn't
realistic but it will give us a chance to see if in 20 years it had any
measurable effect on mass killings.
It won't
They have been restricted in California for quite a while with NO MEASURABLE
effect
And only fools keep doing the same thing over and over while hoping that
THIS TIME, it will give better resutls
I, for one, doubt it unless they build a 30' concrete wall around the
state.
As Mexico shows, tough gun laws mean
nothing if guns can be easily smuggled in to criminals from a place like
the
US where the Mexican-banned weapon types are readily available.
Most guns in Mexico come from elsewhere than the US
Another fact that you can't get straight
The Sullivan law in NYC was passed in 1911 one year after the Mayor
William
Gaynor was shot and later died. Some new laws will be passed at the state
level because of Newtown, but I don't see Feinstein making much progress
on
an assault weapons ban.
I would suggest that if any laws are passed, it will be because ignorant
people such as you will continue the hopey-changey strategy that has been
the hallmark of gun-controllers for decades
Fortunately there is now ample data to show that that all the hopey-changey
mindset, which gun-controllers exhibit can be easily shot down.
If you want to improve your knowledge and stop doing the hopey-changey
thing, I would suggest you start educating yourself
Here's a good place to start.
http://gunfacts.info/