• You must now select Courier Delivery if you wish to receive items before Christmas.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > US Gun laws are "License to murder"

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...1314151617...44
FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:
Non-Https Image Link


[ed]I am going to update this OP as ppl who have not followed the discussion (in the past 2 years it is running now) cannot be bothered to go through all 50+ pages only to inform themselves about all the arguments brought forward. I hope it's allright with everybody.

Please patiently note that this is going to be a massive post that sum up all significant arguments that have been brought forward by both sides so far.

Thus: If you're bothered to read all the post, just scroll down to the bottom of it to get to the links and arguments - NEWEST information at the end of each section

Reading this post will keep you up-to-date with the current level of arguments brought forward - and you might not have to read all the 700+ posts.

If you have any new arguments that you find important to get included in this OP, please feel free to PM me at any time. Please note that I will only honor those arguments that you can back up with verifiable sources (quote your sources). I will *not* honor personal opinions as in 'I feel more comfy with a gun at my side' or in 'I feel horrified with guns present'. Feel free to post your opinions as you like *at the end of this thread*.

As this is a highly political issue, it will be almost impossible to keep this 'objective' and I will honor arguments of both sides, those who are pro and those who are against guns, regardless whether they directly come from the NRA or the Brady campaign.

The entire thread started like this:

Taken from: New York Times on August 7th

Originally Posted By: NYT
In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.

Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. She was not charged.
Supporters call them stand your ground laws.

Opponents call them shoot first laws.

The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.

In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the laws words, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force. The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said the Florida law had sent a needed message to law-abiding citizens. If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being attacked, the law is on their side, Mr. LaPierre said. Good people make good decisions. Thats why theyre good people. If youre going to empower someone, empower the crime victim.

The N.R.A. said it would lobby for versions of the law in eight more states in 2007.

In the case of the West Palm Beach cabdriver, Mr. Smiley, then 56, killed Jimmie Morningstar, 43. A sports bar had paid Mr. Smiley $10 to drive Mr. Morningstar home in the early morning of Nov. 6, 2004. Mr. Morningstar was apparently reluctant to leave the cab once it reached its destination, and Mr. Smiley used a stun gun to hasten his exit. Once outside the cab, Mr. Morningstar flashed a knife, Mr. Smiley testified at his first trial, though one was never found. Mr. Smiley, who had gotten out of his cab, reacted by shooting at his passengers feet and then into his body, killing him.

Cliff Morningstar, the dead mans uncle, said he was baffled by the killing. He had a radio, Mr. Morningstar said of Mr. Smiley. He could have gotten in his car and left. He could have shot him in his knee.

Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. However, Ms. Haughwout said, there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.

Prior to the legislative enactment, a person was required to retreat to the wall before using his or her right of self-defense by exercising deadly force, Judge Martha C. Warner wrote. The new law, Judge Warner said, abolished that duty.

Jason M. Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. Had it been a year and a half ago, he could have been arrested for attempted murder, Mr. Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen.

I was in T-shirt and shorts, Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allens door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.

I was no threat, Mr. Rosenbloom said. I had no weapon.

The men exchanged heated words. He closed the door and then opened the door, Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didnt even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest.

Mr. Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Mr. Rosenbloom had had his foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Mr. Rosenbloom denied.

I have a right, Mr. Allen said, to keep my house safe.


Taken from sbcoalition

Originally Posted By: sbcoalition

In Colorado, another state where this law has already passed, when Gary Lee Hill stood on the porch with a loaded rifle, he was afraid the people outside his home would attack him. That was what the jury heard in his murder trial. The jury foreman said that left them no choice but to find Hill not guilty of murder under Colorados Make My Day Law. Although Mr. Knott was in his vehicle, there was no credible evidence that Mr. Knott was leaving, the foreman wrote, adding that testimony showed some of the people were still outside in a car yelling at Hill.

Gary Hill, 24, was found not guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting death, in the back, of John David Knott, 19, while he was sitting in a car outside Hills home.

Chief Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Kirkman stated, However, the way the Make My Day Law is worded, it allows for deadly force if the shooter reasonably believes the other person might use physical force against the home dweller. She said her office supports the Make My Day Law and respects the jurys decision. She also said, At the time he was shot, there was no imminent danger to the home dweller.

Trust me, wrote Bill Major of Colorado Springs, this will open the door for assaults and murders by those who will now accept this as an interpretation of the Make My Day Law.

I try this to become a comprehensive list, so please feel free to PM me.

Thanks for participating in this discussion, times and again posts get heated (as it is a highly sensitive AND political topic) please do not take criticism on your opinion personal. Usually it relaxes pretty soon.

You're entitled to your *opinion* - whatever it is - hence quote your sources please if you want your *arguments* get taken serious...

In the past 2 years we have collected data and facts from various sources. Please verify these arguments yourself and get informed at these websites:

Wiki on gun control
The second amendment of the US constitution, on "the right to bear arms"


Pro-guns

National Rifle Association USA
How to obtain a class III license
A 1995 DOJ's study on Guns used in Crimes
Microstamping opposition

(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)

Anti gun

Brady Campaign
Informations on the NRA's board of directors
Website on comments of the NRA leaders
A UC study showing that microstamping is feasible but has flaws
Gun control network

(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)

Scientific Studies on gun ownership and the resulting facts

Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study

Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of homicide
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of suicide
1999 Canadian study: "The rate of f...eightfold"
Utah medical library states that: "...uctivity."
Statistics on Teen homicide, suicide and... in 2004."

Articles in the news about guns, gun laws and accidents

USA Today on the expiry of the assault weapons ban
LA Times on bulletproof parks
CBS reports March 2008 that: "the U...in crimes"
A federal judge has stopped enforcement ...deadly weapons.
Violence Policy Center on CCW permit holders committing violent (armed) crimes
US weaponry spills into neighboring Mexico - across America

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1249974498)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete Topic

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:faith, I think Im starting to understanding what you are saying. I really liked the article Study takes close look at homicides, Agencies come together in effort to reduce killings. It brings the community closer together, and seems to have had a real impact on reducting the number of in homicides.

 Written by:

After analyzing numbers, mapping deaths and collecting data on Milwaukee homicides, law enforcement and social service agencies have found strength in a simple approach: talking.



 Written by:

Killings in Milwaukee are more often than not sparked by an argument. Disagreements that are settled with deadly force account for 40% of the city's homicides, which total more than drug- and gang-related deaths.



Thanks smile


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon, USA

Total posts: 929
Posted:A State of Emergency does not give them the authority to take peoples guns! How many times do I have to say that? I don't support anarchy, nor do I support abuse of power. Apparently you don't see anything wrong with the government doing whatever it wants and trampling the rights of the people as long as it's good for the nation? Does that mean you approve of Guantanamo Bay?

The right to bear arms does not take precedence over all other laws, but in this case yes, it does. Nothing that happened in New Orleans gave just cause to steal these people's property..

 Written by:

I suppose what Im saying is that its time to overcome that program that says everyone needs to have a gun, just like we did with fire. We have been shooting and bombing each other for a longtime now. Somewhere along the line, we need to overcome the gun to move on. As we overcame the fear of fire.



We did? Is that why there is at least several, if not dozens of fire alarms, sprinklers, smoke detectors, flame detectors, fire escapes, and emergency exits in every public building?

And come on Stone, I know you don't want to admit it but you really need to do some fact checking.

 Written by:

Like many early horror stories about ultra-violent New Orleans natives, whether in their home city or in far-flung temporary shelters, the A.P. article turned out to be false. Evacuation from the city of New Orleans was never "halted," according to officials from the Coast Guard, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Louisiana National Guard. The only helicopter airlifts stopped were those by a single private company, Acadian Ambulance, from a single location: the Superdome. And Acadian officials, who had one of the only functional communications systems in all of New Orleans during those first days, were taking every opportunity to lobby for a massive military response.

More important, there has been no official confirmation that a single military helicopter over New Orleans--let alone a National Guard Chinook in the pre-dawn hours of September 1--was fired upon. "I was at the Superdome for eight days, and I don't remember hearing anything about a helicopter getting shot at," says Maj. Ed Bush, public affairs officer for the Louisiana Air National Guard. With hundreds of Guard troops always on duty inside and outside the Superdome before, during, and after Hurricane Katrina, if there had been gunfire, "we would have heard it," Bush maintains. "The instant reaction over the radio would have been overwhelming."

The Air Force, to which the Air National Guard reports, also has zero record of helicopter sniping. "We investigated one incident and it turned out to have been shooting on the ground, not at the helicopter," Air Force Maj. Mike Young told The New York Times on September 29.

Aside from the local National Guard, the other government agency with scores of helicopters over New Orleans was the U.S. Coast Guard, which rescued more than 33,000 people. "Coast Guard helicopters," says spokeswoman Jolie Shifflet, "were not fired on during Hurricane Katrina rescue operations."

How about the Civil Air Patrol (CAP), the all-volunteer, Air Force�assisting network of around 58,000 private Cessna pilots, 68 of whom flew a total of 833 aid missions after the hurricane? "To my knowledge," says CAP Public Affairs Manager Jim Tynan, "none of our pilots on any Katrina-related mission were taking ground fire."




http://www.reason.com/news/show/36327.html

There is a lot that could be discussed about Katrina, but that's for a different thread entirely, my mantra about personal responsibility comes into play a lot. The government shouldn't be here to baby me and feed me when things get hard, or a hurricane puts water in my city that was stupidly built below sea level.


You keep saying that guns are 'enshrined' in our culture, and we're 'brainwashed' or 'programmed' but in reality you don't know the first thing about American gun culture. Other than you feel guns are bad because they can kill people.


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:umm thanks again for an early morning wake up call... You had a good nights sleep? wink



Theft: The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.



Confiscation: from the Latin confiscatio 'joining to the fiscus, i.e. transfer to the treasury' is a legal seizure without compensation by a government or other public authority. The word is also used, popularly, of spoliation under legal forms, or of any seizure of property without adequate compensation.



Search and seizure: a legal procedure used in many common law countries whereby police or other authorities and their agents, who suspect that a crime has been committed, do a search of a person's property and confiscate any relevant evidence to the crime. Certain countries, such as the United States and Canada, have provisions in their constitutions that provide the public with the right against "unreasonable" search and seizure. This right is generally based in the promise that everyone is entitled to a reasonable right to privacy.



In the discussed case, the peoples individual rights do IMO not overrule the rights of the community. Guns have been seized to a) identify ppl who shot others, b) to prevent crimes in a state of emergency, c) to ensure the safety of rescue workers, police and government personell.



The incapability of the federal and national government to act IMO made it necessary for ppl (like the mayor) - who was then next in line of command - to step up necessary actions in order to ensure the safety and well being of his citizens. This is what ppl elect him for.



In case of the Rodney King riots, firefighters got attacked in L.A. Public service and order was discontinued because ppl feared for their lives (and had every reason to).



Lurch, if for one second you could see your self and your country with the eyes of someone looking from the outside - let me tell you: you would speak differently.



and taken from the article you linked to:



 Written by: Matt Welch

(...)That doesn't mean that people weren't shooting at helicopters. As Lt. Comdr. Tim Tobiasz, the Coast Guard's operations officer for New Orleans airspace, told me, "It's tough to hear in a helicopter. You have two turbine engines....I don't know if you could hear a gunshot below." And the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms arrested a 21-year-old man in the Algiers neighborhood of New Orleans on September 6 for firing a handgun out his window while helicopters flew nearby. (...)





Please not that all these are opinions...

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1182588697)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon, USA

Total posts: 929
Posted:Actually no FireTom, I'm working a graveyard shift so I don't get any sleep anymore wink

You're missing the point though. I do NOT want a police state, which is exactly what this set the country up for. For the Nation to go 'uh oh natural disaster, we can do anything we want to now!' is a bad bad BAD thing. The fact is that each and every one of those officers and soldiers broke their oaths as soon as they carried out an order which they knew was unconstitutional, and illegal. How do you guys not see a problem with that? You cannot simply make up new rules.

By your own definitions, what they did would constitute theft, and also illegal search and seizure

 Written by:

In time it became clear that the police superintendent's gun-confiscation order stood on shaky legal ground. The National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation challenged the order in federal court. On September 12 the court issued a restraining order against the New Orleans Police Department. No more guns could be confiscated, but the guns that had already been confiscated would not be returned to their rightful owners. - [url=http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/0506r/


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:I still can't see where the individual right comes before the well being of the community. We're talking in circles and that's why I'm keeping away from this discussion as much as possible.



Q: What triggered the major (and other ppl involved in the decision making process) to issue that order in the first place? Guess not that they finally wanted to get their hands on some nice new guns. However it's always more easy for an organisation to complain and file a law suit, as it is for the chairmen to participate in "search and rescue". Lastly this is what the named organisations are there for: to protect the rights of their members.



But this is basically what a (local/ national/ federal) government is there for, too: To protect it's citizens (rights).



One of THE most basic right is the right for safety and physical inviolability. Just after that comes the right for the safety of ones own property. Thus meaning that the right for ones own property has to stand back behind another ones right for physical inviolability.



Would you or would you not agree on that?



To put it in one sentence: would you (not) agree, that the individual right (for ones own property) has to stand back behind another persons right for physical inviolability?



This is a fundamental ethical question.



And if you read the United States Bill of Rights, they were talking about freedom (of religion, speech, press etc), the right to bear arms, protection from quartering troops, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, private property, trial by jury and other rights of the accused, civil trial by jury, prohibition of excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment, protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights and finally the powers of states and people...



If investigated further, the right of physical inviolability does not appear anywhere... eek and it is dated 1787...



This IMHO makes it evident that the constitution was compiled under circumstances that have changed, should be revised and changed according to the changes of time. So far I have not heard of any country that does not revise it's constitution and does not adjust it, if necessary. >



IMHO the necessity to adapt is undeniable.



"The US will never mess with it's Constitution or Bill of Rights!" Well this is not true and we all know that.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon, USA

Total posts: 929
Posted:Tom: The individuals rights are directly connected to the communal rights. There were many other communities hit just as hard, if not harder, who did not have their guns removed. The chaos and gun violence that was initially reported has been proven false, unless you can come up with some verifiable circumstance where a rescue chopper was shot, or any other 'overwhelming chaos' aside from some looting at I'm afraid I'll have to doom that to the "opinion" pile right along with the stuff of mine you don't agree with. I'm presenting opinions yes, you're attempting to present "facts" by people who admit that their initial reports were wrong.

My government is here to protect my rights, yet it is the one violating my rights. Does that make any sense to you? I should be able to expect that my government will follow its own rules during a crisis should I not? If not, why are there rules in the first place? Why do they expect me to follow them if they cannot or won't?

Those who were carrying guns illegally, by all means, remove them. Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law, but there is absolutely no right or justification for the soldiers and police to violate both the state and national constitution. Your arguments are the same used to make the case for the Japanese internment camps, or Guantanamo Bay, and somehow I don't think you would agree with either of those.


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Lurch, hang on, maybe we should continue another day, when your mood's better or you got some sleep. My mood is far too good to indulge on tit-for-tat arguments (which is the second reason why I am not to present in this discussion like before)... I'd like to detach a bit from that "attack-defence" attitude we had here for quite a few pages - guilty as charged myself.

Certainly I am not merely presenting "facts". I do try my best to back up my claims and opinions as much as possible and refer to "common sense" quite often. Fact of the matter is, that this "common" sense varies from place to place - even within the US already (from - say - Boston to Dallas).

I will write some more on "individual/ communal rights" but hey - I do have a life outside this thread and my mood is far too too too positive to get deeper into this now. wink Will go to the sauna now on an otherwise cloudy and rather chilly summer day. All the best, guy.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:Off topic I know, but.

Good thread guys.

Unfortunately it's that time of year where I have to devote 12 hours a day, 7 days a week to running my business so I won't be able to participate in the way I'd like to. frown

I'll still be looking in every day though.

Cheers.


Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon, USA

Total posts: 929
Posted:heh alright Tom, I apologize if I was a bit snippy up there.

I'm a bit tired of the attack/defense arguments as well,

You should know by now that I'm big on my rights, and I don't like to see them violated. If laws are changed than laws are changed and there isn't much I can do about it, but until then I see it as a massive breach of conduct for any police officer or enlisted man to violate the constitution and knowingly carry out an illegal order. It may not be a big deal to you since you see it as 'for the greater good' the implications go far beyond the present context however. Imagine the consequences you being to encourage that sort of activity. I'm not saying that certain rules can't slide during emergencies, I wouldn't want to see police detaining people for minor traffic violations, I'm even fine with looting provided it is actually needed, and limited to food/water/medicine. They crossed the line though..


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:No worries Lurch smile Thanks for the apology smile

We're looking at the same thing just from different angles and with different perceptions/ priorities. I understand your 'rights' attitude, believe me. And yes, they should have kept the owners names for reference.

I'll be back wink


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Lurch, are you all rested?

Im still not happy.

I was shocked by the Katrina footage I saw live. I dont understand why a sophisticated country like the United States still has such a Neanderthal approach to controlling gun violence. After all, this is the 21-Century. And, why with a few exceptions (like faith has pointed out), has America has gone completely gun crazy!

Apparently, Louisiana statutory law does allow some restrictions on firearms during extraordinary conditions. One statute says that after the Governor proclaims a state of emergency (as Governor Blanco has done), the chief law enforcement officer of the political subdivision affected by the proclamation may...promulgate orders...regulating and controlling the possession, storage, display, sale, transport and use of firearms, other dangerous weapons and ammunition."

As for the Feds, do you really think that Mr Bush and Federal Government were using Katrina to introduce a Police State? I really doubt that the intention of the Second Amendment was to put the right the individual over the community. There is no sense in that; hand guns in the community just increase the incidence of death due to violent behavior. The Medical costs of gun violence are US over $100 billion annually.

The Second Amendment does not say individuals have the right to bear arms in self defense. No, it declares a well regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State". Its about the security of a free State. Though Ill concede its more likely a Federal verse State issue, as you pointed out earlier. Certainly, its not about an individuals right to keep firearms, unless they are part of the States militia. Some would say that the National Guard represents the modern equal of militia as described in the Second Amendment.

Its only in recent years that there has been a change to the handgun laws. This happened when the National Riflemans Association successfully lobbied the States to relax carrying of concealed weapons laws in the mid 1990's.

The NRA argument that ordinary people carrying hidden weapons would actually reduce the nation's soaring crime rates is unfounded. Concealed Weapons, Concealed Risk.

Rumor has it that laws were changed to increase handgun sales in a flat market. A search will reveal that the NRA gets a lot of their support from people who have a vested interest in the sale of guns. Unfortunately, increased guns sales increase violence. The price is $100 billion a year cash, in collateral damage:

Nearly 8 children and teenagers, ages 19 and under, are killed with guns everyday (2004). For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting there are 22 criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related shootings. The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home. The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicie fivefold.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Stone, I am likely to agree - but would you please be kind enough to quote as many sources as possible? hug

Thanks for the Brady Link... if you notice the very bottom right, you will find a button that carries you to every individual states law on guns. Check medium right and Gun laws in Oregon

As second hand sales are not restricted or regulated in many states, the path for a criminal to "legally" obtain a gun is wide open. I do believe that it's not only existing laws that need to get enforced, I do also believe that laws need to be adjusted. When looking at the gun laws in Oregon for example, it appears to me that ppl like Chow would be able to get a gun, without having to stroll the backalleys and get in touch with the tough guys and without background check. It (to me) seems like a very unhealthy mix - certainly because humans are what they are: human, emotional, affective, erroneous - and I wouldn't want them any other way...

Nevertheless, I think that one of the US' problems is that they do have a limited choice to change anything within their country. I come to see that there are loads of Americans who would love to see the second amendment and parts of the constitution changed, but it's hard for them to voice their concerns in a 2 party system. You're either Democrat or Republican, or none of the above and don't vote [/simplification] it reminds me of a washing machine control panel:

(very simplified example, because in the meantime the US has introduced different washing machines too)

US - cold wash, warm wash, hot wash (which is three) Europe -
Non-Https Image Link


I'm not trying to make fun of this - we had three parties only in Germany and when the Greens ran for parliament the first years, nobody took them serious. But over times more and more ppl voted for them. The reaction of the big/ established parties was, that they adapted and introduced environmental issues into their programme - which made Germany one of THE most progressive countries in environmental politics on the globe. I understand that most of the US Americans might be peaceful and nice people, yet they do not have much of a choice. Which is a pity.

But to accomplish this change, it needs ppl who do have and pursue a political interest, which ain't necessarily the majority in the US...


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
Posted:Of course we have a choice. We are not a brainwashed people. The candidates who do run within our party system do have a large variety of views on multiple issues. It's very irritating that there is this continuous "we don't have a choice" about everything be it politics or owning guns.

*rant*
The democrats would love nothing more than to get rid of the 2nd amendment, they would love nothing more than to tear up the constitution. If they had their way, they would get everyone hooked on government handouts, that we would all be complacent and think only of ourselves. Then, they can continue their persecution of the conservative peoples, but no one will say anything because they are scared of being labeled whatever hateful think they are calling us at the time. And don't get me started on the persecution of those willing to practice a faith. Or people who are concerned for the future well-being of individuals in need and try and care for that by teaching them to fish rather than giving them a trout
*end rant*


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Thanks Fire Tom. Now I know Oregon is the place to get me Uzi. I certainly agree with you on the second hand gun sales.

 Written by:

In 1998 alone, licensed firearms dealers sold an estimated 4.4 million guns, 1.7 million of which were handguns. Additionally, it is estimated that 1 to 3 million guns change hands in the secondary market each year, and many of these sales are not regulated (Brady).



The sources, were mostly wiki and the Brady site. I will do better next time, I promise wink

faith, while there is no direct comparisons between American and Australian political parties, we are also locked into a predominantly two party system. I vote Green, a minor party, and my preference are usually distributed to the Labour party who I used to support.

As far a change goes you earlier links to the articles regarding crime and how the city sees fit to combat it, indicate that there is change happening, for the good.

smile


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Please check the Virginia gun laws. Cho could have easily buyed a "second hand gun", guns on a gun show and even assault rifles or an Uzi without proper background check.

And to round up the picture: I don't say that the US can't and wont change and I don't say that you don't have any choice - I said that your choices are limited. I didn't say you've been brainwashed (I referred to a washingmachines control panel) - but IF I did I would not expect you to be aware of it and say: "Yes, you're right, my brain has been washed, dyed in red/ white stripes and tumble dried wink Please don't nitpick on me for all you are not reading, Faith. tongue

However, find me surprised that someone like you signs up to the conservative corner of the political landscape. So far I have only met extremely few ppl who went through similar experiences as you did, lived a similar lifestyle and would vote conservative.

 Written by: dictionary


conservative Pronunciation[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv]
adjective
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4. (often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.
6. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.
7. Mathematics. (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar.
noun
8. a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
9. a supporter of conservative political policies.
10. (initial capital letter) a member of a conservative political party, esp. the Conservative party in Great Britain.
11. a preservative.



Now conservative politicians are no beacons for change by definition already, are they?

Conservative politicians usually do cooperate more with the lobby of industrialists, the upper class and those already in power - whilst "socialists" are trying to favour the workers and lower class. I understand that your "democrats" are some version of our "socialists" - please correct me if I am wrong.

Now - is it the American voters who cast their vote for one of three nominees of each party, to run for president? or is it the members of the respective parties who elect the presidential candidates and therefore try to set a political course for the next four years?

Some of the US - system is like... rolleyes "antique" and no, I'm not referring to "miles", "fractions" and "fluid/ounce"... Even the electoral system has proven itself to be in need for review and adjustment. It's been said one thousand times (also within the US). The whole world had the opportunity to smirk over the last two presidential elections and one of these two has been a (comparatively clear) case of electoral fraud. But business as usual is continued, ppls memories don't last more than 3 years (which is why a term is 4)...

offtopic A two party system IMHO is inadequate, because it doesn't represent the population of today - or are we still divided in two: those who have and who don't have, the aristocracy and the workers, the "knowing" and the "foolish"? But this is completely offtopic - please excuse me.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:Oh now that's interesting....I hadn't even considered what the regulations might me in the "previously enjoyed" gun market might be.

So...in theory..as an out of state resident, an out of country resident even, could I simply answer a newspaper ad and get myself a handgun in some/all states? And if so, would there be any penalties were I found in possession of it?

What might happen if I were found to be carrying a handgun? Not concealed, but suppose I were pulled over by the police for something unrelated like speeding and the gun was sitting on the front seat of my car?

It's my understanding that an uzi is a machine gun ( class 3 ) which, this thread explains as being heavily restricted. Is the Brady campaign off base here by suggesting I can buy one as an assault weapon, is there a semi automatic version that they may be referring to ?

Stone..thanks for the above links ( from a couple of days ago ) One aspect of this discussion I'd like to explore further is...just who, exactly, is getting shot ? I just assumed that, like Canada, most of our gun violence is gangs or criminals using these things on each other, but if Joe Average is using a firearm to settle a dispute, say, with his neighbour, friend, stranger, girlfriend, rather than throwing a punch, then that's a definite demerit for the pro gun side


Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
Posted:It has been said previously that we do not have a choice, that we have been brainwashed.

I do not think that they can get an uzi. I'm glad it that someone noticed. It's nice to see that we are using what we learned here and progressing the discussion. And asking questions when something like that comes up. It's encouraging smile

I have seen all the liberal programs and funding that local governments try to pass. I've seen how the programs do not rehab people back into society but maintain where there are so that they are dependent upon the handouts. With some programs you can't work if you get certain aid. But then you can only afford certain housing because other housing will not allow you to move in with that aid and you live with other people in the same situation and there is this desperate feeling that permeates the air. We have apartment buildings in neighborhoods full of people on Social Security for mental health. It's one thing to have a few people, but we're talking huge buildings. Some of these people are very dangerous if they stop taking their medications. You have whole areas on welfare. I've heard people talking about having more kids so they can get the money from the fathers and the government. Our school district in Milwaukee failed the national standards. Not most of them all of them. Gov. Doyle has hampered the growth of our schools with his policies. No wonder there is all this violence. The city as a whole is furious and frustrated.

For my conservativeness, a short offtopic bio:

As a family, we have shown how hard work and faith can pull you through. My grandparents (even my father and his sisters for awhile) were migrant workers who came to the area and started the first Mexican grocery store. It started as a vegetable stand. They were one of the first to do money wiring in our area so people could send money back home. They also helped start the volunteer firefighters and the main Latino charity group. Other grandparents were farmers who's families lost it all in the Depression. They built airplanes, are mentioned in pioneer aviator books. Grandfather and Great Uncle were too blind to be military pilots but were such fantastic pilots that taught the enlisted. Uncle flew with the transatlantic postal service. Grandmother was one of the first women to get her pilots license. The airport was named after my grandfather and his brother. The planes they built are all over including one with a collection at the smithsonian. They all managed to make a life for themselves.

My parents struggled when I was born. My dad's work laid him off. So he went to school to be a programer. My mother worked over an hour away so we could survive in the meantime. Going to bed hungry was not an uncommon occurence. My mother made my clothes. In the end they managed to buy a house, put me and my brother through private school, have two cars paid off and take vacations.

I did not take a handout until we had no money no food and no gas for a number of days. Ironically, we had no problem getting things we didn't need. Even then I just went to the pantry. I didn't take the food stamps or get welfare. I did go out every day and ask people for help, either money or work. Now, I'm mostly on track, have started to finish paying off debts, bought a car, have a decent job, and overall have turned my life around.

I think the liberals here have shown that they don't do anything constructive. All they do is promote use of programs that do nothing to rehab a person. They throw money around. The desperation that all this causes leads to the situation we have in Milwaukee. I've seen the side that needs help and the liberal programs maintain where they are now. It leads to hopelessness. The ones that conservatives started work to get people off the ground and on their feet-learning to fish


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:hmmm interesting position on conservative politics... shrug But please - and I guess that's where all the nitpicking starts - stop lumping my posts/ that of others together in one pot, stir and then rant into my ears about things I haven't said (this way)... wink

Re: Virginia state laws regarding

 Written by: Brady


ASSAULT WEAPONS

Are there limitations on assault weapons and magazines? No

No state restriction on the sale or possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons like the AK47 and Uzi. Assault weapons are as easy to buy as hunting rifles. No restriction on the sale or possession of rapid-fire ammunition magazines that can fire up to 100 bullets without reloading. Federal law does prevent the sale of some assault weapons and rapid-fire magazines manufactured after 1994, but the federal law will sunset in 2004 unless Congress and President Bush renew it.



shrug

Note that there are semi-automatic assault weapons.

If someone doesn't know what an UZI is:


Non-Https Image Link


And here I am with Stout, questioning Bradies' interpretation of semi-automatic - does he simply refer to "self loading"? A "fully automatic" is a gun that fires - as long as the trigger is pulled - all it's ammo in one burst. A "semi-automatic" usually demands to pull the trigger every time.

Since the AK47 as the UZI each have a "single fire" and a "full-auto fire" setting, but are reloading automatically - they seem to be both: full and semi automatic.

The term "assault weapon" again is confusing. The term was derived and adopted from German and refers to a certain, military style weapon. Well both, the AK47 and the UZI are military style weapons. But (according to Brady) they are available in Virginia, as the Bush administration has not renewed it. Please, Lurch - tell me if I'm wrong on this one.

Instead, the Senate has passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005...
 Written by: Wiki

The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions that they are directly responsible for.



the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
Posted:post was in response to you Tom but not direct at you exclusively.

What's so interesting about my conservativeness? I've seen firsthand the failings of programs touted by liberals. I've talked to people recieving aid, and people who take advantage of those people. It doesn't work and therefore I'm conservative. Dealers figure out who gets aid and then they draw them in. Then, they figure out when they get their checks. They disappear near the end of the cycle and make house calls and drive them to the bank when the check comes. All it does is perpetuate the cycle. Grab your bootstraps and pull.

They said in the study that most shootings happen because of an argument. My question is: because it is an arguement we assume it's not about drugs or drug related. But isn't that a faulty assumption. My life was the hardest when the people around me were trying to score or ran out of money. There can be a rage. What did they qualify as a drug related shooting? Because most often they don't kill you. You can't pay if you're dead.

I would reiterate that gun laws are different in each state too, but thanks for identifying the state and such.


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Fire Tom, while a two party system may seem inadequate and its not perfect, but what is?



In Virginia, NFA34 weapons are allowed, but machine guns must be registered with Virginia State Police. Gun laws in the United States (by state).



In Oregon, No relevant statutes currently exist for Assault Weapons.



The top 10 NRA myths about assault weapons



Stout, good question. Who is getting shot?



Fact sheets, who gets shot



I like Kellermanns research. He concluded:



 Written by:

62% of victims of firearm homicides in their home kept a firearm in their home. After adjusting for other factors (such as a police-report history of violence in the home, a convicted felon in the home, drug or alcohol abuse in the home, race, etc.) there remained an independent 2.7 times increase in risk of homicide, specifically associated with a firearm in the home; this risk was not attributable to any particular "high risk" subgroup(s) identifiable by the above factors but was evident to some degree in all subgroups.





On the other hand, Lott comes out poorly. Concealed handgun fraud: exposing john lott



 Written by:

In the first edition of More Guns, Less Crime, published in May 1998, Lott wrote that "national surveys" suggested that "98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack. Critics challenged the statistic, and in the book's second edition, the phrasing was changed to indicate that the percentage came from a study Lott himself had conducted. Critics then contended that he didn't actually perform the study, and when asked for proof, Lott responded that a bookcase fell on his computer and the documentation of the study was lost





The number of crime victims who successfully use firearms to defend themselves is quite small. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports and the Centers for Disease Control, out of 30,708 Americans who died by gunfire in 1998, only 316 were shot in justifiable homicides by private citizens with firearms" (Brady).



faith thanks for the bio. Its an amazing family story.



We have welfare traps in Australia. Thankfully the government has stopped putting people into ghettos.







.

EDITED_BY: Stone (1183007511)


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
Posted:Thanks I appreciate it.
And thanks for sorting out the gun laws in re; to assault weapons. I look at it all later. If we have all those laws in Wisconsin, it doesn't seem to help much.
Those darn bookcases...


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon, USA

Total posts: 929
Posted:Alright guys, lets see if I can catch up here... Sorry I have been offline for awhile, I'm just finishing up moving to a new place, so bear with me for awhile and deal with the numerous quotes in an attempt to catch up.

 Written by: Stone

I was shocked by the Katrina footage I saw live. I dont understand why a sophisticated country like the United States still has such a Neanderthal approach to controlling gun violence. After all, this is the 21-Century. And, why with a few exceptions (like faith has pointed out), has America has gone completely gun crazy!



Neanderthal approach to controlling gun violence? I would say the mass collection and destruction of all arms in a community would indeed be a Neanderthal approach. We have already established that guns *can* indeed be useful in saving life and stopping crime. And also that those legal guns that the police had documented were by in large *not* the weapons being used for whatever gun violence was occurring around the city.

The Governor does have the authority to declare a state of emergency, there was no order for the gun confiscation however, or if there was, it is denied now. Remember the courts have repeatedly agreed that these confiscations were against both the federal, and state constitutions, along with the local laws. THAT is what I'm upset about. If they followed the proper procedure that was voted into place for that area, than by all means do whatever they want, but they broke the law to get "guns off the street" based on the false assumption and reports by the media of all this chaos and violence, that has been proven after the fact to be false.

 Written by:


The Second Amendment does not say individuals have the right to bear arms in self defense. No, it declares a well regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State". Its about the security of a free State.



You're right, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It does not say the right of the militia to bear arms, it says the right of the people. It's about the security of the free state, don't you think that mass illegal confiscations is a violation of that free state? Would you agree with it if it was anything besides guns? I doubt it.

You guys need to be very careful citing the Brady Campaign as your primary source, I would hardly call them unbiased. I've even refrained from citing the NRA in my posts, but I'll go with it for now.

 Written by:


The NRA argument that ordinary people carrying hidden weapons would actually reduce the nation's soaring crime rates is unfounded.



The claims that banning "assault weapons" would reduce gun violence was also proven to be wrong, the results of the Clinton ban were useless and expensive. Do you actually have anything that says increased gun sales increase violence?

 Written by:

As second hand sales are not restricted or regulated in many states, the path for a criminal to "legally" obtain a gun is wide open. I do believe that it's not only existing laws that need to get enforced, I do also believe that laws need to be adjusted. When looking at the gun laws in Oregon for example, it appears to me that ppl like Chow would be able to get a gun, without having to stroll the backalleys and get in touch with the tough guys and without background check. It (to me) seems like a very unhealthy mix - certainly because humans are what they are: human, emotional, affective, erroneous - and I wouldn't want them any other way...



Secondhand sales are determined by the individual state. It is illegal to sell to anyone you know cannot legally own a weapon. ie you cannot sell to a felon. Do you check the driving record and license status of someone when you sell them a car? Come on, this goes to personal responsibility, private sales have far more discretion on who they sell to and don't than a store. I'll agree that second hand sales can be a bit lax, but the community that buys second hand usually already has a number of weapons.

Tom: Our electoral process doesn't have much to do with our gun policies now does it? There are numerous flaws with it that could go either direction, but that's a discussion for another thread.

 Written by: Stout

So...in theory..as an out of state resident, an out of country resident even, could I simply answer a newspaper ad and get myself a handgun in some/all states? And if so, would there be any penalties were I found in possession of it?

What might happen if I were found to be carrying a handgun? Not concealed, but suppose I were pulled over by the police for something unrelated like speeding and the gun was sitting on the front seat of my car?

It's my understanding that an uzi is a machine gun ( class 3 ) which, this thread explains as being heavily restricted. Is the Brady campaign off base here by suggesting I can buy one as an assault weapon, is there a semi automatic version that they may be referring to ?



You could, but buying a weapon out of state would be a federal crime. Possession and/or transportation of that illegal weapon across state lines would again be a federal crime. So far you're not looking so great.

If you were found to be carrying that gun? It depends how you're carrying it. Open carry laws are dependent on the city/state you are in. In Oregon for example, you cannot drive with a gun in 'access of the driver' including the glove box, without a concealed permit. Some states allow drivers to carry in the glove box, some allow open carry (on the passenger seat for example). Without a carry permit oregon requires the weapon to either be in the trunk, or in a locked container. Some states go so far as to say locked container, in the trunk, and any ammunition in a separate container.

Standard etiquette (and law in some states) is for someone with a CCW to inform the officer when they are pulled over, usually this is done by handing the CCW and drivers license together, and telling the officer where the weapon is, not saying 'I HAVE A GUN!' If they see a gun that they don't expect, or see you reaching for it, chances are the officer is going to yell GUN! and proceed to do everything they can/need to do to separate you from that gun as quickly as possible, including dragging your straight out the window of your car. The fact that you have a concealed permit will come up when the officer runs your plates anyways.

And yes, an 'Uzi' under most peoples knowledge would be a class III weapon, and heavily regulated under federal guidelines (not for civilian sale, they have to be titled and transfered only through licensed dealers, along with a whole bunch of other hoops to jump through.) A semi automatic version has very little different in terms of working parts than any other pistol on the market, in fact it's probably less accurate.

 Written by:

And here I am with Stout, questioning Bradies' interpretation of semi-automatic - does he simply refer to "self loading"? A "fully automatic" is a gun that fires - as long as the trigger is pulled - all it's ammo in one burst. A "semi-automatic" usually demands to pull the trigger every time.

Since the AK47 as the UZI each have a "single fire" and a "full-auto fire" setting, but are reloading automatically - they seem to be both: full and semi automatic.

The term "assault weapon" again is confusing. The term was derived and adopted from German and refers to a certain, military style weapon. Well both, the AK47 and the UZI are military style weapons. But (according to Brady) they are available in Virginia, as the Bush administration has not renewed it. Please, Lurch - tell me if I'm wrong on this one.



There you go sensationalizing again FireTom :P

Not all Uzi's, AK's and whatever other fully automatic weapons you can think of have selectors. In fact most in the US don't. If they have a fully automatic feature they are Class 3. Most simply have a 'Safe/Fire' selection. So to answer your question, *some* of those weapons are fully automatic, but most are not, and the ones that are fall under federal regulations.

The Uzi and Ak's are indeed "military style" weapons, but so is virtually every weapon out there. "Assault weapon" is a kitsch term coined for fear mongering. The Clinton 'Assault Weapons' ban was supposed to address this. The difference between those weapons, and others, is pretty much entirely cosmetic. They work basically the same, and fire the same ammunition. So what exactly was the ban banning? The only things that make that Uzi illegal by the former 'Assault weapon' ban is the collapsible stock, fore grip, and extended magazine.

"Extended magazine" generally being defined as anything that extends past the grip, or holds more than 10 shots. Well most handguns, minus single stack's, hold at least 10. The ban even required at least 2 features to be considered an 'assault weapon' so if you removed the stock, and fore end you would have a perfectly legal pistol there. rolleyes

In fact, what's even more preposterous, is that in many cases you could have a weapon that is identical function wise, and shoots the same ammunition, it's just banned because it looks meaner.

For example, this would be a perfectly legal gun


Non-Https Image Link


You could take that exact shotgun, take out a single bolt and replace the stock with this, and it magically becomes an 'assault weapon' and more deadly?


Non-Https Image Link


People see 'assault weapon' and think machine gun, M-16, fully automatic rifles, but that is simply not the case in terms of the wording that the former, and proposed gun bans use.

In fact, the most recent (and the Clinton Ban) one that was shot down included a barrel shroud.
 Written by:

"The term `barrel shroud' means a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that the shroud protects the user of the firearm from heat generated by the barrel, but does not include a slide that encloses the barrel, and does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or substantially encircle the barrel."



That means that virtually every hunting rifle ever produced, including a very typical 'cowboy' deer hunting/pack gun would be deemed an assault weapon due to its 'barrel shroud'


Non-Https Image Link


Stone: I'm sorry, but I'm not going to get back into the same argument proving and disproving Kellermann and the dozens of other researchers and 'facts' on both sides of the debate. I would just ask that you at least attempt to remain open minded, and possibly go through the NRA's website for the counters to the Brady Campaign. You keep rating guns based solely off death counts, I keep asking you to think of the lives saved, is it so difficult to imagine? People like Sarah Brady (the head spokesman is a woman not a man) and Rosie O'Donnell who are outspoken gun critics are highly hypocritical. O'Donnell herself has an armed bodyguard, and Sarah Brady bought a rifle for her son.

You may also want to read a transcript of a speech from Don Kates
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kates.speech.html


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:So under current US ( federal ) gun laws, I couldn't buy a used gun from "some guy" and go awandering through the country with a pistol on my passenger seat ? ...Sounds reasonable. I may be able to purchase it, but I should expect legal trouble over owning it.

When this thread first came up last fall, I actually went to the gun store to ask about Canadian gun laws and was told we have the same type of assault weapon ban ( on scary looking guns ) but I was freely able to purchase a semi automatic rifle ( Ruger mini-14 ) and I was offered the explanation that the politicians who enacted the ban didn't know anything about guns. The ban was more of a symbolic thing, designed to ease the non gun owning public's fear of guns, nothing more.

I noted the mention of the Uzi...even though the Brady article referred to it as a semi-automatic because I found it curious that they'd use what really amounts to a pistol with a humongous magazine as an example of an assault weapon. When I think Uzi...I think "room broom, or street sweeper" not semi automatic ( but you can empty the 30 round magazine in 5 seconds, from the Brady link ) When I think assault weapon in general, I do think semi automatic though...In my understanding, in most cases,,shooting full auto is not the most effective way of using a weapon. Don't some weapons have a three shot setting ?

I'm still hung up on this " who is getting shot ? " idea...I read the Brady site...and I'm hoping to free up some time to do further research, but I'm still having a hard time equating gun ownership with the desire to use them on fellow human beings. Sure, I may joke and fantasize about killing some people ( like some advertisers, and the worlds wost bagpipe player who tortures me on a daily basis. I may have the means to commit those crimes at my disposal ( like a big stick ) but I have NO INTENTION of actually doing it.

Just how frequently are disputes settled with a gun and might those same disputes be settled with some other type of weapon had a gun not been at hand ? A very tough determination to make...I know.


Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Well, the Clinton ban is no longer in effect now, is it? Would that mean "assault weapons" and full-auto guns can again legally be sold?

But you're basically right, I should keep (more) to topic instead of getting carried away. As a sidenote: I do like the style of discussion we settled upon recently. IMO it's lots more pleasant and informative, less emotionally straining and probably more constructive.

Brady campaign/ hypocrisy: Nobody claimed Brady to be completely biased and I guess one can read from his past and experience where he got his compassion from. But the NRA's arguments and "gun quotes" are far from bias too... wink

Hence I won't be the primary source for my arguments, as it hasn't been so far. Luckily it's not the only campaign (inside the US) that attempts to ban guns (in the US).... A lot to scoop from.

Where do you get the information that Mrs. Brady bought a rifle for her son? See this is one kind of statement I would love to see backed up by verifiable sources... spank wink

BTW Bodyguards would be on my list of "exempted professions" for the access to guns, so is the military and police...

The US constitution is from the end of the 18th century and has largely remained in it's original version - despite the fact that some circumstances have changed in the meantime. For example NOW the US has an army that exceeds the British forces - not much to fear from the old enemy anymore. I would guess that the Chinese army is not held check by American civilians... wink

Adjustment is necessary and the constitution in fact has been adjusted. Unfortunately booze seems to be more important than innocent ppls lives... wink

"The more guns, the more gun related accidents and violence." I guess that's about right to say, won't you agree?

Gun purchase: It would be a federal crime, if I were to buy a gun in another state confused why so? Don't understand. As long as I do not violate the laws of the state I am living in by owning it? Btw who checks upon my place of residence?

However, you stated (and I put MY emphasis in bold):

 Written by: Lurch

It is illegal to sell to anyone you know cannot legally own a weapon. ie you cannot sell to a felon. Do you check the driving record and license status of someone when you sell them a car?



Well, does the law require an individual to do a background check or register the purchase with officials? Just because someone doesn't know, doesn't mean that he won't sell. BTW Chow was not a criminal when he purchased his guns.

But I would legally have to check the drivers license before I let someone drive my car. Not owning a drivers license doesn't prohibit someone from owning a car... just he wouldn't be allowed to drive it.

The argument of the pro gunners is always about "law abiding citizens" vs. "criminals"... Unfortunately most "criminals" are unknown to the police - which was why I stated that a "law abiding citizen" might be a criminal who just has not gotten caught yet... (against popular belief) this was not meant to be an intimidation of all law abiding citizens.

BTW Is every gun required to undergo "gun DNS" registry, in order to be traceable? Guess not.

Where am I "sensationalizing"? I try to keep it as low as possible recently. Didn't you notice? wink

Semi/ Automatic, Class III: So the only thing that turns an UZI into a Class III weapon is the "full auto" switch? Without it, it's just a regular gun/ pistol? As is the AK47? Do I remember you stating that you can easily empty your magazine within a few seconds?

"Full auto mode" - as I see it - is only good for shooting at some moving or covered target to heighten the probability of hitting it, right? Or shooting at a target and heighten the probability to finish it off.

IMO the issue is a large capacity magazine and the gun that comes with it - AK47's are preferred for their handling and availability. To me it doesn't really matter whether they have a "full auto mode" or not. In a killing spree that full auto mode would create the need to reload more frequent, giving the victims more time.

Thanks for your clarification, Lurch. Certainly classifying guns merely for looks is preposterous.

As to close my post, I would like to divert your attention to a study, done by the Harvard school of Public Health (I guess a reputed source, if you resent to Kellermans findings for certain reasons):

 Written by: HSPH

Guns in Homes Strongly Associated with Higher Rates of Suicide

Suicidal Acts Using Firearms Highly Lethal Compared to Other Means

For immediate release: Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Boston, MA -- In the first nationally representative study to examine the relationship between survey measures of household firearm ownership and state level rates of suicide in the U.S., researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) found that suicide rates among children, women and men of all ages are higher in states where more households have guns. The study appears in the April 2007 issue of The Journal of Trauma.

"We found that where there are more guns, there are more suicides," said Matthew Miller, Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Management at HSPH and lead author of the study.

Suicide ranks as one of the 15 leading causes of death in the U.S.; among persons less than 30 years old, it is one of the top three causes of death. In 2004, more than half of the 32,439 Americans who committed suicide used a firearm.



Please find the entire article here

And a second survey:

 Written by: HSPH

States With Higher Levels of Gun Ownership Have Higher Homicide Rates

For immediate release: January 11, 2007

Boston, MA -- Firearms are used to kill two out of every three homicide victims in America. In the first nationally representative study to examine the relationship between survey measures of household firearm ownership and state level rates of homicide, researchers at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that homicide rates among children, and among women and men of all ages, are higher in states where more households have guns. The study appears in the February 2007 issue of Social Science and Medicine. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.09.024

Matthew Miller, Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Injury Prevention at Harvard School of Public Health, and his colleagues David Hemenway and Deborah Azrael, used survey data from the Center for Disease Control and Preventions 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the worlds largest telephone survey with over 200,000 respondents nationwide. Respondents in all 50 states were asked whether any firearms were kept in or around their home. The survey found that approximately one in three American households reported firearm ownership. (...)

Analyses that controlled for several measures of resource deprivation, urbanization, aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, and alcohol consumption found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men. In these analyses, states within the highest quartile of firearm prevalence had firearm homicide rates 114% higher than states within the lowest quartile of firearm prevalence. Overall homicide rates were 60% higher. The association between firearm prevalence and homicide was driven by gun-related homicide rates; non-gun-related homicide rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership.

These results suggest that it is easier for potential homicide perpetrators to obtain a gun in states where guns are more prevalent. Our findings suggest that in the United States, household firearms may be an important source of guns used to kill children, women and men, both on the street and in their homes, said Miller.

This study was supported by the Joyce Foundation.



Source

You might well claim that one has nothing to do with the other, but all the evidence I have dug out by now is reaffirming my thesis:

Gun ownership is contributing to (global) suffering. By reducing the amount of guns, one reduces the amount of suffering of (innocent) people.

I really don't understand why it this so hard to understand.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Lurch, good to see you back.

Moving is a pain, I help you catch up. Let me summarise things for you, while you have been away.

The theory that guns are useful in saving life and stopping crime has been disproved. John Lotts conclusion that 98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack was is incorrect. He fabricated his research to support the NRA. Kellermann has been vindicated.

Check the fact sheets (links above):

Who gets shot?
Gun violence are costs the US over $100 billion annually.
Concealed Weapons, Concealed Risk.

As to your second amendment rights.

 Written by:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



Clearly, its about the right of people, belonging to the militia, to keep arms. Today this would probably be the National Guard. It goes back to 12th century, to a time before they had police forces, when it was the duty of the subjects to keep watch and ward at night. It has nothing to do with personal self-defense; its about the defense of the community.

If there is one thing the pro gun lobby is missing, its a sense of community. Guns are anti social; they just drive people away from each other. Who wants to sit next to some one on a bus carrying a concealed weapon? The person carrying the gun might feel safe, thinking they can take-out anyone on the bus, but what about all the other people? Better still if people talked more on buses and alike; wouldnt need guns, hey!

There is no place in the community for "military style" assault weapons, and few reasons to justify carrying a concealed hand guns. You dont need a gun to rescue anyone. A gun may give someone a sense of bravado, but its not a substitute for courage.

Lurch, you know your guns, and Uzi and AK's are they are anything but kitsch. The differences are more than cosmetic. You know the difference between and auto-loading Kalashnikov assault rifle and a lever action Winchester repeating cowboy gun. So why try to tell me they are the same. Its a falsification.

Top Ten NRA Myths about assault weapons.

There is no control on gun sales in the US, and their availability makes easy for people to obtain them and commit massacres if they want.

 Written by:

Secondhand sales are determined by the individual state. It is illegal to sell to anyone you know cannot legally own a weapon. ie you cannot sell to a felon. Do you check the driving record and license status of someone when you sell them a car? Come on, this goes to personal responsibility, private sales have far more discretion on who they sell to and don't than a store. I'll agree that second hand sales can be a bit lax, but the community that buys second hand usually already has a number of weapons.



Clearly personal responsibility is not working. There is no comparison between carrying a gun and driving a car. With a gun its bang someones dead, and all the regrets in the world wont change that. Most of the time cars do what they are designed to do, and thats get people from A to B.

Whats wrong with Sarah and Rosie?

 Written by:

People like Sarah Brady (the head spokesman is a woman not a man) and Rosie O'Donnell who are outspoken gun critics are highly hypocritical. O'Donnell herself has an armed bodyguard, and Sarah Brady bought a rifle for her son.



They are about sensible gun laws. From the Brady site:

 Written by:

For 25 years, the image of President Ronald Reagan and Jim Brady being shot in Washington has remained etched in the public mind. Jim was shot and grievously injured, but, with his wife Sarah by his side, he courageously survived.

Not long after Jim was gunned down, Sarah was outraged all over again when her then six-year-old son Scott found what he thought was a toy gun in a relative's pickup truck. In fact, it was not a toy. It was a fully-loaded handgun.

She and Jim knew the National Rifle Association bore heavy responsibility for the easy availability of guns like those that shot Jim and threatened their son's life. And they knew they had to fight back to keep the NRA from running roughshod over our nation 's gun laws.

Ever since, Jim and Sarah Brady have led the organization and committed themselves to the fight to end gun violence.



I listen to people like Jim and Sarah Brady, and Arthur Kellerman. What I hear is people warning others about gun violence from their personal experiences. It is not wrong that they are trying to change things for the better.

I read the Sacramento Rally Speech by Don B. Kates. If you are asking me if I think a vocal part of the pro gun lobby is bigoted? Then I would say yes. Just look at the way he marginalises Asians as crazy, and gays as AIDS carriers.







rolleyes


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon, USA

Total posts: 929
Posted:The Clinton ban is no longer effective correct. 'assault weapons' and full auto do not go hand in hand, so be careful on that one, Class III weapons still fall under federal regulations. The Clinton ban didn't do much, it sounded good to the uneducated, it was expensive, it should have worked yeah?

 Written by:

Take the statements made recently on National Public Radio by a representative of the Violence Policy Center. NPR described the VPC as "one of the more aggressive gun groups in Washington." Yet the VPC's representative claimed: "If the existing assault-weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another in terms of our objective, which is reducing death and injury and getting a particularly lethal class of firearms off the streets. So if it doesn't pass, it doesn't pass."


http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200403250907.asp

There hasn't been an upswing in crime since the ban has ended, in fact violent crime has been dropping for over a decade.

 Written by:

Where do you get the information that Mrs. Brady bought a rifle for her son? See this is one kind of statement I would love to see backed up by verifiable sources...



Actually it's in her autobiography where she tells a story about buying her son a .30-06 hunting rifle (something that would be extremely well suited to sniping). By all accounts her purchase of this weapon would in fact be a straw purchase, and illegal.. Which doesn't look good for her at all, so far I haven't found anything countering it. I'll admit that I don't have, and haven't read a copy of the book myself, but there are numerous articles citing the same information, even her wikipedia listing has it wink

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26992
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Brady

 Written by:

BTW Bodyguards would be on my list of "exempted professions" for the access to guns, so is the military and police...



I fully agree, but do you not see a bit of hypocrisy when someone fighting against gun ownership hires armed body guards? They are against guns, why are they endorsing them at the same time?

 Written by:

"The more guns, the more gun related accidents and violence." I guess that's about right to say, won't you agree?



The more uneducated gun owners/users the more gun related accidents. I don't see why there would be an increase in risk based on how many guns I own. Am I more likely to be injured by a weapon because I own one? Probably, am I even more likely because I own more than one? Probably not.

 Written by:

Gun purchase: It would be a federal crime, if I were to buy a gun in another state why so? Don't understand. As long as I do not violate the laws of the state I am living in by owning it? Btw who checks upon my place of residence?



I apologize, I got some things mixed up there. It would be illegal (at least in my state and surrounding ones) for a licensed dealer to sell a gun someone who is not a resident of that state. I'm not entirely sure if that pertains to private sales or not, I would imagine so however.

Agreed, there are some holes in the private sales side, some states require that all gun transfers must be done through FFL dealers, some do not. Cho was not a criminal, you're correct. I would say that is a failure of the justice system however not a failure of the gun laws. Previous charges were dropped against Cho, which stopped further prosecution.

Yes, without full auto on an Uzi it is no different from any other pistol. I would suggest reading this if you want to learn more detailed 'legalese' definitions http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IIF1.html

 Written by:

IMO the issue is a large capacity magazine and the gun that comes with it - AK47's are preferred for their handling and availability. To me it doesn't really matter whether they have a "full auto mode" or not. In a killing spree that full auto mode would create the need to reload more frequent, giving the victims more time.



I wouldn't say that AK's are preferred for their handling and availability. Minus gun shows or Dealers, I could count the number of privately owned AK type weapons I've seen on one hand, and all of them have been semi automatic. Ak's are commonly chambered in 7.62mm, so realistically, once the bullet is out of the gun does it matter what type of weapon fired it? As for the capacity issue, I can tell you from experience it really sucks to spend half your range time reloading your magazines instead of actually doing what you came there to do.

Tom: we could get back into citing studies and quoting stories but I'd really rather not, it's not much of a discussion if half the posts are just 'read this article'..

So on that note... read this article wink http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba324/ba324.html

Stone: Kellermann has been far from vindicated rolleyes

 Written by:

If there is one thing the pro gun lobby is missing, its a sense of community. Guns are anti social; they just drive people away from each other. Who wants to sit next to some one on a bus carrying a concealed weapon? The person carrying the gun might feel safe, thinking they can take-out anyone on the bus, but what about all the other people? Better still if people talked more on buses and alike; wouldnt need guns, hey!



That's a joke, you don't seem to know much about the gun community here do you. You are driven away by your own irrational fears. I have no problem sitting next to someone with a concealed permit. If they were carrying properly I wouldn't even know they had it. Talk about paranoia..

I never said the weapons themselves were kitsch, I said the term 'assault weapon' is and used mainly in fear mongering. Of course there is a difference between an auto-loading weapon and a lever action rifle. There is however very little difference between one semi automatic rifle and another.

 Written by:

Clearly personal responsibility is not working. There is no comparison between carrying a gun and driving a car. With a gun its bang someones dead, and all the regrets in the world wont change that. Most of the time cars do what they are designed to do, and thats get people from A to B.




I think it's perfectly valid to compare selling a gun to selling a car. You don't have to check their license before you sell them a car. You don't need their driving record. It is their responsibility to ensure they are legal, not yours. Most of the time cars do what they're designed to do? True, they also kill many thousands more people every year than guns. There are what, 30,000 gun deaths and over 250,000,000 guns? So in the course of a year my gun has less than a .012% chance of killing someone?

 Written by:

I read the Sacramento Rally Speech by Don B. Kates. If you are asking me if I think a vocal part of the pro gun lobby is bigoted? Then I would say yes. Just look at the way he marginalises Asians as crazy, and gays as AIDS carriers.



Obviously you didn't read it very carefully..


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Lurch, you are correct, the Clinton assault-weapons ban is no longer effective. Why did the NRA spend so much money to stop the assault-weapons ban being renewed? How does people having access to assault weapons make America a safer place?

Lurch, your national review source, John R. Lott falsified his research data. The article Gun-control groups concede the frivolity of the assault-weapons ban (March 25, 2004) is wrong.

Again, in the Texas Concealed Handgun Carriers:Law-abiding Public Benefactors, they quote Lott's fabricated research, and unpublished report by a engineering statistician. John Lotts, More Guns, Less Crime (1998) was fabricated. Made up for the NRA.

Lurch Im sure the gun community is tight, my comments were around the rest of the community.

NRA MYTH #1 (Brady):
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON

Response: Wrong. The guns covered by the Assault Weapons Act are semiautomatic versions of fully automatic guns designed for military use. Whereas an automatic weapon (machine gun) will continue to fire as long as the trigger is depressed (or until the ammunition magazine is emptied), a semiautomatic weapon will fire one round and instantly load the next round with each pull of the trigger. Even semiautomatic assault weapons can be fired with extraordinary speed. When San Jose, California, police test-fired an UZI, a 30-round magazine was emptied in slightly less than two seconds on full automatic, while the same magazine was emptied in just five seconds on semiautomatic.

Playing word games, the NRA often claims that the only true "assault weapons" are guns that can be fired in the fully automatic mode and that fully automatic guns have been strictly controlled since 1934. The NRA's efforts to mislead the public in this regard, however, have been exposed by the gun industry's own experts, who have used the term "assault weapons" to describe military-style semiautomatic firearms. For example, in 1989, Gun Digest, considered by many to be the Bible of the gun industry, published The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons. In the book's introduction, the author stated:

"[T]here will always be a place for what are collectively termed assault weapons. ... Most of them are effective for the type of warfare for which they have been designed: close range assault work. That's where firepower is a necessity either to make the enemy keep his head down so you can maneuver or, more permanently, to remove him from the action. ... There is also an element of the civilian population that is showing an increasing interest in this type of weaponry. The vast majority of these shooters and gunowners purchase assault-type weapons limited to semiautomatic fire."1

The gun industry has also used the term "assault" weapon as a selling point to urge civilians to buy semiautomatic versions of machine guns. For example, Intratec, which made the infamous TEC assault pistols banned by name in the federal statute, advertised its line of semiautomatic pistols in magazines such as Soldier of Fortune, Combat Handguns, and S.W.A.T. this way in 1989: "At two-thirds the weight (and price) of an Uzi, the TEC-9 series clearly stands out among high capacity 9mm assault-type pistols."2

NRA MYTH #2: FIREARMS COVERED BY THE 1994 FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN HAVE ONLY "COSMETIC" DIFFERENCES FROM THOUSANDS OF OTHER SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS

Response: Wrong. Sporting rifles and assault weapons are two distinct classes of firearms. While semiautomatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, the military features of semiautomatic assault weapons are designed to enhance their capacity to shoot multiple targets very rapidly. For example, assault weapons are typically equipped with large-capacity ammunition magazines that allow the shooter to fire 20, 50, or even more than 100 rounds without having to reload. Pistol grips on assault rifles and shotguns help stabilize the weapon during rapid fire and allow the shooter to spray-fire from the hip position. Barrel shrouds on assault pistols protect the shooter's hands from the heat generated by firing many rounds in rapid succession. A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun sacrifice accuracy for concealability and for mobility in close combat. Far from being simply "cosmetic," these features all contribute to the unique function of any assault weapon to deliver extraordinary firepower. They are uniquely military features, with no sporting purpose whatsoever.

As the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ("ATF") has explained:

Assault weapons were designed for rapid fire, close quarter shooting at human beings. That is why they were put together the way they were. You will not find these guns in a duck blind or at the Olympics. They are mass produced mayhem.3

ATF has also described semiautomatic assault weapons as "large capacity, semi-automatic firearms designed and configured for rapid fire, combat use. ... Most are patterned after machine guns used by military forces. They have distinct features which separate them from sporting firearms."4 Accordingly, ATF has concluded that assault weapons "are not generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes" and instead "are attractive to certain criminals."


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon, USA

Total posts: 929
Posted:What was the point of all that stone? rolleyes

How many legally owned Class 3 weapons have been used in violent crimes by civilians in the US? None. Not a single one, yet you're saying they are the problem?

'assault weapons' is a misnomer, even FireTom agreed to that. They are making exaggerated leaps as yet more fear mongering, and saying things they know nothing about. Pistol grips are only for close combat and encourage crime? Bullshit. That's like saying popup headlights on sports cars are designed to improve aerodynamics, and therefore encourage speeding. Sport weapons and 'assault weapons' are not two distinct classes at all, most guns fall into both. They may 'look' like typical military weapons, but they function just the same as any other semi-automatic firearm. How many shootings do you hear of that go through hundreds of rounds? Not too many.. Those like Cho reload their guns anyways, so having a mag cap isn't going to stop that any.


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Lurch, the point was I have to cut and paste because you aint reading the link. All you give me is John Lotts fraud and bigotry as evidence.

No Lurch, and assault weapon is not a misnomer.

I dunno about fear mongering, but why do you and the NRA want to bring assault weapons in the community?

Sports weapons and assault weapons are two distinct classes of guns. If you cant see the difference between AKs and Uzis and sports guns then you are wool blind

 Written by:

How many legally owned Class 3 weapons have been used in violent crimes by civilians in the US? None. Not a single one, yet you're saying they are the problem.



I suspect Im missing the semantics of this one. Assault weapons are used in crimes.

The guns covered by the Assault Weapons Act were semiautomatic versions of fully automatic guns designed for military use. Whereas an automatic weapon (machine gun) will continue to fire as long as the trigger is depressed (or until the ammunition magazine is emptied), a semiautomatic weapon will fire one round and instantly load the next round with each pull of the trigger. Even semiautomatic assault weapons fire with extraordinary speed. When San Jose, California, police test-fired an UZI, a 30-round magazine was emptied in slightly less than two seconds on full automatic, while the same magazine was emptied in just five seconds on semiautomatic.

The military features of semiautomatic assault weapons are designed to enhance their capacity to shoot multiple targets very rapidly. For example, assault weapons are equipped with large-capacity ammunition magazines that allow the shooter to fire 20, 50, or even more than 100 rounds without having to reload. Pistol grips on assault rifles and shotguns help stabilize the weapon during rapid fire and allow the shooter to spray-fire from the hip position. Barrel shrouds on assault pistols protect the shooter's hands from the heat generated by firing many rounds in rapid succession. Far from being simply "cosmetic," these features all contribute to the unique function of any assault weapon to deliver extraordinary firepower. They are uniquely military features, with no sporting purpose whatever. (Brady)

NRA MYTH #3:
ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE RARELY USED IN CRIME

Response: Not true. Crime gun traces performed by ATF showed that between 1986 and 1992, assault weapons were traced to 1,578 murders, 940 assaults, 224 robberies, and more than 4,500 narcotics arrests.6 Because only a fraction of the guns used in crime are traced by the ATF, these figures understate the criminal use of these guns. The real number of crimes committed with assault weapons may be up to ten times higher.7 Moreover, before the federal ban, assault weapons were used in some of the worst mass murders ever committed in the United States. For example:


The McDonald's shooting - On July 18, 1984, James Huberty killed 21 people and wounded 19 others in a San Ysidro, California, McDonald's using an UZI assault pistol and a shotgun.8
*

The Stockton schoolyard massacre - On January 17, 1989, Patrick Purdy killed 5 small children and wounded 29 others and a teacher at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California, using a semiautomatic AK-47 assault rifle imported from China. That weapon had been purchased from a gun dealer in Oregon and was equipped with a 75-round "drum" magazine. Purdy shot 106 rounds in less than 2 minutes.9
*

The Louisville, Kentucky, workplace massacre - On September 14, 1989, Joseph Wesbecker killed 7 people and wounded 13 others at his former place of work in Louisville, Kentucky, before taking his own life. Mr. Wesbecker was armed with an AK-47 rifle, two MAC-11 assault pistols, and a duffle-bag full of ammunition.10
*

The CIA headquarters shootings - On January 25, 1993, Pakistani national Mir Aimal Kasi killed 2 CIA employees and wounded 3 others outside the entrance to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. Kasi used a Chinese-made semiautomatic AK-47 assault rifle equipped with a 30-round magazine purchased from a Northern Virginia gun store.11
*

The Branch-Davidian standoff in Waco, Texas - On February 28, 1993, while attempting to serve federal search and arrest warrants at the Branch-Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, four ATF special agents were killed and 16 others were wounded with an arsenal of assault weapons. According to a federal affidavit, the cult had accumulated at least the following assault weapons: 123 AR-15s, 44 AK-47s, 2 Barrett .50 calibers, 2 Street Sweepers, an unknown number of MAC-10 and MAC-11s, 20 100-round drum magazines, and 260 large-capacity banana clips. The weapons were bought legally from gun dealers and at gun shows.12
*

The San Francisco Pettit & Martin shootings - On July 1, 1993, Gian Luigi Ferri killed 8 people and wounded 6 others at the San Francisco law offices of Pettit & Martin and other offices at 101 California Street. Ferri used two TEC-DC9 assault pistols with 50-round magazines. These weapons had been purchased from a pawnshop and a gun show in Nevada.13

The firepower of assault weapons makes them especially desired by violent criminals and especially lethal in their hands. Prior to the Act, although assault weapons constituted less than 1% of the guns in circulation,14 they were a far higher percentage of the guns used in crime. ATF's analysis of guns traced to crime showed that assault weapons "are preferred by criminals over law abiding citizens eight to one. ... Access to them shifts the balance of power to the lawless."15

The NRA and its supporters have cited Justice Department studies based on surveys of state and federal prisoners to claim that assault weapons are used in only 2% of crimes nationally. These studies, however, actually confirm the disproportionate use of assault weapons in crime. More than 80% of these prisoners used no firearm in the commission of their crimes. Within the category of inmates who used guns to commit crimes, semiautomatic assault weapons were actually used in 6.8% of state prosecutions and 9.3% of federal prosecutions.16 Both percentages are much higher than the estimated 1% of guns in circulation that are assault weapons.17 They are also far higher than the misleading 2% figure cited continually by the NRA.


What next? The NRA lobbies for rockets, grenade launchers and other military only weapons, under the second amendment.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Sorry that you appear to be the last one standing on the pro gunners side, Lurch.



I called the term "assault weapon" as misleading, but Class III weaponry in fact IS used in violent crimes, if you include these guns and these and certainly these. Rocket launchers, Bazookas and full automatic machine guns might not have been used in violent crimes, but other Class III weapons have.



And (as stated before) if it's just the "full auto mode" that makes the difference... well - it doesn't make that much of a difference if you only need 3 seconds longer to empty your entire magazine.



Yes, I find it hypocrisy if someone rallies against gun ownership and then (illegally) buys a rifle for her son. Interesting though that this "hunting rifle" immediately becomes a "sniper gun" in the eyes of those who wouldn't accept this transformation if applied to their guns. Hence I would ask, why she came forward with it herself in her book and what the context was - I understand she was buying the gun and happened to get appointed in the campaign a year later.



However, people do mistakes in their lives. Einstein did by signing that letter to Roosevelt - that (to me) doesn't discredit the entire approach. Jesus chased the merchants out of the temple - doesn't turn him into a violent savage. A single mistake involving a deadly weapon could make the mistake irreversible, but one mistake doesn't turn a saint into a Satan - how about vice versa? Does a quote, or benefit turn Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini into "good characters"?



My criticism on the NCPA article you quoted is that it's (a) from a non-reliable source and (b) the data processed is significantly older than that of Harvard.



The studies from Harvard Medical School (a renown and credited institution, with a long history of serious scientific efforts and findings) have two conclusions:



- Guns in Homes (are) Strongly Associated with Higher Rates of Suicide

- States With Higher Levels of Gun Ownership (do) Have Higher Homicide Rates



The data processed is of 2001 to 2003. I couldn't find anyone objecting it, nor could I find a more recent study about the topic. Find the Science Direct article (it's very short) here.



Finally I can't get the idea that an AK47 is needed for hunting Bambi, Thumper or Simba... wink



"Sports" and "Hunting" weapons/ rifles do not need to be Class III or of "assault" nature. If you're bothered with having to reload that often - why not investing in a few more magazines or (pardon me) stop shooting 500(+) rounds in a single session?...


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Page: 1...1314151617...44

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [gun law* quot license murder quot] we found the following similar topics.
1. Learn > POI > Partner Poi > Partner Poi Suicides (aka Murder Suicide) *help/resource murder suicide   ...
2. Forums > US Gun laws are "License to murder" [1 reply]
3. Forums > weird laws [8 replies]
4. Forums > the NEW smoking laws [103 replies]
5. Forums > Know the score as regards the law?? [10 replies]

     Show more..