If the Sandy Hook incident does not bring on changes due to the NRA NO

[asterism]

Not only was is watered down by teh gun lobby, they also saw to it that statistical evidence of gun violence was suppressed. Data collected by the DoJ, the BATF, the CDC and the NIH was forbidden to be released tot eh public by locking up any funding for their release.

And I negged you for the ignorance crack. If assault weapons were designed to throw as much lead as quickly as possible, why were they designed with semi-automatic firing systems and large capacity magazines? Calling me ignorant and ignoring these facts is more than ironic. It demonstrates a lack of capacity to reason on your part.

You're the one repeating statements that are not true.

The M-16 was designed to be lightweight, field serviceable, and suitable for combat operations in medium range environments. Plenty of other weapons fire more deadly bullets at higher rates of speed.

If you don't want to be called ignorant, do some research before you post on a topic of which you are not educated.

Where did you get the idea that the M-16 was designed "to kill as many people as possible?" Since you object to being called ignorant, where did you receive your education on the M-16 and firearms in general?

Something private citizens should have? If it was designed for combat operations, why do they belong on the streets?

And the fully automatic function is rarely used and troops are discouraged from engaging it. The weapon, like most fully automatic weapons, tends to drift upward when the fully automatic function is engaged, wasting ammunition and making the weapon far less accurate..

Because they are excellent for personal defense.

Where did you receive your education on firearms?

 

[asterism]

But don't penalties only address the crime after the fact? Wouldn't it be prudent to check out those crazy enough to want the weapons in the first place? I mean just yearning after such weapons ought to be a tip off as to the sanity of the purchaser.

There's the Progressive stance - thoughtcrimes.

 

[Nosmo King]

But don't penalties only address the crime after the fact? Wouldn't it be prudent to check out those crazy enough to want the weapons in the first place? I mean just yearning after such weapons ought to be a tip off as to the sanity of the purchaser.

Not the right kind of consistent penalty.

So if I want an AR15 im crazy.....and judged insane.

Should I be locked up for wanting one ?

I would look deeper into your mental health records for sure. No sense letting the insane buy assault weapons! Unless you work for the maker of an assault weapon., then the profit motive wipes away any and all sins. It disinfects blood stains with cold hard cash.

 

[Nosmo King]

But don't penalties only address the crime after the fact? Wouldn't it be prudent to check out those crazy enough to want the weapons in the first place? I mean just yearning after such weapons ought to be a tip off as to the sanity of the purchaser.

There's the Progressive stance - thoughtcrimes.

So you have no problem with the insane buying assault weapons? Why? Should we absolve ourselves of all responsibility?

 

[Nosmo King]

You're the one repeating statements that are not true.

The M-16 was designed to be lightweight, field serviceable, and suitable for combat operations in medium range environments. Plenty of other weapons fire more deadly bullets at higher rates of speed.

If you don't want to be called ignorant, do some research before you post on a topic of which you are not educated.

Where did you get the idea that the M-16 was designed "to kill as many people as possible?" Since you object to being called ignorant, where did you receive your education on the M-16 and firearms in general?

Something private citizens should have? If it was designed for combat operations, why do they belong on the streets?

And the fully automatic function is rarely used and troops are discouraged from engaging it. The weapon, like most fully automatic weapons, tends to drift upward when the fully automatic function is engaged, wasting ammunition and making the weapon far less accurate..

Because they are excellent for personal defense.

Where did you receive your education on firearms?

Are there alternatives to the assault weapon? Do conceal carry holders carry AR-15s? Can a shot gun be just as effective a weapon for personal defense? Or do you just think they're cool?

 

[asterism]

But don't penalties only address the crime after the fact? Wouldn't it be prudent to check out those crazy enough to want the weapons in the first place? I mean just yearning after such weapons ought to be a tip off as to the sanity of the purchaser.

There's the Progressive stance - thoughtcrimes.

So you have no problem with the insane buying assault weapons? Why? Should we absolve ourselves of all responsibility?

That's not what I said. However, you said "just yearning after such weapons ought to be a tip off as to the sanity of the purchaser."

It appears you're ignorant about Psychology also.

 

[bripat9643]

But don't penalties only address the crime after the fact? Wouldn't it be prudent to check out those crazy enough to want the weapons in the first place? I mean just yearning after such weapons ought to be a tip off as to the sanity of the purchaser.

Not the right kind of consistent penalty.

So if I want an AR15 im crazy.....and judged insane.

Should I be locked up for wanting one ?

Under the regime of the fascist gun controllers, you would be locked up for getting a prescription for Zoloft

 

[asterism]

Something private citizens should have? If it was designed for combat operations, why do they belong on the streets?

And the fully automatic function is rarely used and troops are discouraged from engaging it. The weapon, like most fully automatic weapons, tends to drift upward when the fully automatic function is engaged, wasting ammunition and making the weapon far less accurate..

Because they are excellent for personal defense.

Where did you receive your education on firearms?

Are there alternatives to the assault weapon? Do conceal carry holders carry AR-15s? Can a shot gun be just as effective a weapon for personal defense? Or do you just think they're cool?

I do think they are cool, that's true. A shot gun is not "just as effective a weapon" for personal defense. It's more effective in some situations and less effective in others. It's best to have both in my opinion.

 

[Missourian]

How about this; stricter background checks. No access to firearms of any kind to those convicted of violent crimes, a history of mental illness or minors. A National Database for the sale of semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines. Close the gun show loophole whereby any private sales do not include a background check. The end of the manufacture, sale importation and distribution of high capacity magazines and a national tax on ammunition to fund these efforts.

Stricter background check? What does that even mean?

Were any of these mentally unstable shooter convicted of misdemeanor violent crime? Then this has nothing to do with Sandy Hook, Aurora or Virginia Tech...just another line item on the gun grabber agenda.

While using a history of mental illness SEEMS like a good idea, I suspect it will only discourage folks will depression, PTSD and other mental disorders to forgo treatment. That solves nothing and may actually exacerbate the situation.

Close the private sale loophole? Why? Did Cho, Loughner, Lanza or Holmes purchase their guns from private parties? NO. They purchased them legally and submitted to background check, with the exception of Lanza, who STOLE the weapon. Just another agenda item, it has nothing whatsoever to do with solving the problem at hand.

Ban this, ban that, ban, ban, ban...and when the next guy simply brings 6 guns? Then what?

What about the straw man buyer issue? Should someone be permitted to buy dozens of guns at once? Should they then be permitted to sell them to folks who do not submit to a background check? What solutions, real solutions can be asked for without the abject rejection by the NRA or other gun lovers? Can we agree that there is a problem and obstinence provides no solution?

Every time you come up with something, I explain why it either doesn't apply or won't work an instead of commenting on my reply, you just bounce off the ANOTHER set of unworkable solutions.

So, here we go again...If they plan on selling them illegally, what difference does it make whether someone buys 10 at once, or one at a time?

So, it takes longer to buy them or sell them.

Even if you close the private seller exception, criminals will find a way to get them...they'll buy them over time, and then report them stolen.

Now what? Incarcerate everyone who has guns stolen?

 

[Nosmo King]

Because they are excellent for personal defense.

Where did you receive your education on firearms?

Are there alternatives to the assault weapon? Do conceal carry holders carry AR-15s? Can a shot gun be just as effective a weapon for personal defense? Or do you just think they're cool?

I do think they are cool, that's true. A shot gun is not "just as effective a weapon" for personal defense. It's more effective in some situations and less effective in others. It's best to have both in my opinion.

Are you plagued with crime in your home? Suffer a lot of home invasions? Get mugged in your bathroom often? I ask because you seem perfectly fine with anyone and everyone getting their hands on assault weapons and therefore extremely fearful that your access to them will be cut off.

I own a shot gun for personal defense and I have yet to actually need one, let alone any other weapon.

And, though I do not share your personal sense of aesthetics concerning guns (I grew up, you see), I don't think just believing them to be cool can justify riddling our streets withy them. Corvairs were "cool" but they were also unsafe at any speed and posed an unnecessary threat to public safety, just as assault weapons do.

 

[Misty]

I saw a couple being interviewed by anderson Cooper, and they didn't even seem upset that their little daughter had died.

When my cat died I was inconsolable for years.

I guess people grieve in their own ways but there is no way I'd be able to do interviews this soon after such a horrible incident.

 

[Nosmo King]

Stricter background check? What does that even mean?

Were any of these mentally unstable shooter convicted of misdemeanor violent crime? Then this has nothing to do with Sandy Hook, Aurora or Virginia Tech...just another line item on the gun grabber agenda.

While using a history of mental illness SEEMS like a good idea, I suspect it will only discourage folks will depression, PTSD and other mental disorders to forgo treatment. That solves nothing and may actually exacerbate the situation.

Close the private sale loophole? Why? Did Cho, Loughner, Lanza or Holmes purchase their guns from private parties? NO. They purchased them legally and submitted to background check, with the exception of Lanza, who STOLE the weapon. Just another agenda item, it has nothing whatsoever to do with solving the problem at hand.

Ban this, ban that, ban, ban, ban...and when the next guy simply brings 6 guns? Then what?

What about the straw man buyer issue? Should someone be permitted to buy dozens of guns at once? Should they then be permitted to sell them to folks who do not submit to a background check? What solutions, real solutions can be asked for without the abject rejection by the NRA or other gun lovers? Can we agree that there is a problem and obstinence provides no solution?

Every time you come up with something, I explain why it either doesn't apply or won't work an instead of commenting on my reply, you just bounce off the ANOTHER set of unworkable solutions.

So, here we go again...If they plan on selling them illegally, what difference does it make whether someone buys 10 at once, or one at a time?

So, it takes longer to buy them or sell them.

Even if you close the private seller exception, criminals will find a way to get them...they'll buy them over time, and then report them stolen.

Now what? Incarcerate everyone who has guns stolen?

If their guns were stolen, they were not secured, were they? Does some responsibility fall to those who opt to own weapons? Should they be kept secure?

and if slowing down is the only option, I'll take it! So far NO is the only response from gun lovers and the NRA.

 

[asterism]

Are there alternatives to the assault weapon? Do conceal carry holders carry AR-15s? Can a shot gun be just as effective a weapon for personal defense? Or do you just think they're cool?

I do think they are cool, that's true. A shot gun is not "just as effective a weapon" for personal defense. It's more effective in some situations and less effective in others. It's best to have both in my opinion.

Are you plagued with crime in your home? Suffer a lot of home invasions? Get mugged in your bathroom often? I ask because you seem perfectly fine with anyone and everyone getting their hands on assault weapons and therefore extremely fearful that your access to them will be cut off.

I own a shot gun for personal defense and I have yet to actually need one, let alone any other weapon.

And, though I do not share your personal sense of aesthetics concerning guns (I grew up, you see), I don't think just believing them to be cool can justify riddling our streets withy them. Corvairs were "cool" but they were also unsafe at any speed and posed an unnecessary threat to public safety, just as assault weapons do.

Now people who like certain guns are immature?

The 2nd Amendment is justification enough, thank you. I'd have no problem with workable solutions that would actually work. The problem I have with banning semiautomatics is that they would not solve any problem. Mass murderers would simply choose different ways to be mass murderers.

I gotta say that your smug attitude is going a long way towards influencing my opinion. Too bad for you it's having an effect opposite of what you're trying to accomplish.

 

[Missourian]

What about the straw man buyer issue? Should someone be permitted to buy dozens of guns at once? Should they then be permitted to sell them to folks who do not submit to a background check? What solutions, real solutions can be asked for without the abject rejection by the NRA or other gun lovers? Can we agree that there is a problem and obstinence provides no solution?

Every time you come up with something, I explain why it either doesn't apply or won't work an instead of commenting on my reply, you just bounce off the ANOTHER set of unworkable solutions.

So, here we go again...If they plan on selling them illegally, what difference does it make whether someone buys 10 at once, or one at a time?

So, it takes longer to buy them or sell them.

Even if you close the private seller exception, criminals will find a way to get them...they'll buy them over time, and then report them stolen.

Now what? Incarcerate everyone who has guns stolen?

If their guns were stolen, they were not secured, were they? Does some responsibility fall to those who opt to own weapons? Should they be kept secure?

and if slowing down is the only option, I'll take it! So far NO is the only response from gun lovers and the NRA.

I had a car stolen, it was locked and the keys were 1100 miles away.

Locks only deter the honest or the lazy.

 

[bripat9643]

Are you plagued with crime in your home? Suffer a lot of home invasions? Get mugged in your bathroom often? I ask because you seem perfectly fine with anyone and everyone getting their hands on assault weapons and therefore extremely fearful that your access to them will be cut off.

I own a shot gun for personal defense and I have yet to actually need one, let alone any other weapon.

And, though I do not share your personal sense of aesthetics concerning guns (I grew up, you see), I don't think just believing them to be cool can justify riddling our streets withy them. Corvairs were "cool" but they were also unsafe at any speed and posed an unnecessary threat to public safety, just as assault weapons do.

So you think we should outlaw anything that you deem to be "unnecessary?" My, what a wonderful world we would live in if you ever became dictator.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm not opposed to a responsible debate Nosmo.

I'm not even opposed to tweaks in the law that will actually accomplish something.

What I am opposed to is gun grabbers using a tragedy to advance their predetermined agenda.

What I am opposed to is knee jerk reactions that only do something for the sake of doing something, things that have NO EFFECT whatsoever.

How is extending background checks going to stop anything?

Cho, Loughner, and Holmes all purchased there guns legally, passed background checks and all...Lanza stole a gun that was legally purchased in a state with a assault weapons ban.

So how does that solve any problems?

IT DOESN'T! Just an agenda to be advanced.

OK, let's ignore that Lanza had a legally owned gun in a state with an assault weapons ban in place. Cho killed more with two pistols. Loughner had a pistol.

So how is an AWB going to help stop these shootings?

IT DOESN'T!

So, what's the solution?

Let's ignore the 2nd Amendment for a minute and say we ban all guns everywhere in the U.S.

How has banning stuff worked out in the past in the U.S.?

We banned alcohol, that went swimmingly...war in the streets, alcohol everywhere, gang violence, and in the end, the cure was worse than the disease and we ammended the Constitution to bring it back.

Drugs? We're winning the war on illegal drugs, right?
Able to keep drugs out of the hands of the gangs, keep it from being smuggled into the country by the ton?

No?

How about illegal aliens? surely we can keep people from entering the country illegally? Right?

Laws only restrict the lawful.

Criminals are going to do what they always do, break the law.

And the only people whose rights will be infringed are law abiding citizens.

"The idea that no solution exists never occurs to them and in this lies their strength."

A gun, any gun, makes the taking of a human life easy. True or false?

False, the decision to kill makes taking a human life easy...the weapon is distantly secondary to the will.

The gun is less personal then the knife, strangulation or a club. It is easy, a small amount of pressure by thei index finger and the deed is done.

All criminals were not criminals until they committed a criminal act. True or false?

True, which is why background checks will continue to fail.

If a license were required to obtain a firearm, and the penalty for furnishing a firearm to an unlicensed person was stiff - 10 years in state or federal prison seems appropriate. We won't know if such a law will be effective until we test it.

A person in possession of a gun acts differently than a person without a gun in his/her possession. True or false?

True, I am much more conscious of the unintended consequences of my actions.

You may, and you're more reasonable than many of the gun huggers who post here.

I don't flip off the asshole that cut me off in traffic or the guy who perceives ME as the asshole who cut him off in traffic.

Nor do I.

In my minds eye I can visualize a scenario where that situation could escalate...I never want to ever, ever use my firearm against another human being unless it is absolutely necessary to defend my life or the lives of others...

Therefore, I am more likely to keep any aggressive tendencies in check.

Yet many persons become more aggressive when armed.

Gun control means the total ban on firearms in civilian hands. True or false?

True, that's the end goal for most gun grabbers. They don't want a gun, and they don't trust you with that power.

False, many gun owners understand gun control does not mean the banning of guns from all civilians

The Second Amendment is sacrosanct. True or false?

True, it is as equally in sacrosanctness to the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Wrong. There are limits on the provisions in each element of the First Amendment and others as well.

And all of this is deflection from my original post, that the "remedies" proposed have no chance of reducing mass shootings, which the gun grabbers claim is their goal.

Reducing gun violence is the goal: Murder, accident and suicide. I can only speak for myself and these are the things I would like to see:

I want to see everyone who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a license to do so. Yes, it will include a background check and notification to local law enforcement; said license to be suspended or revoked for cause;

I want arms trafficers to go to prison for long terms with lifetime parole and license revocation;

I want to require gun owners to have liability insurance on each gun they own. And allow the insurance company to establish the liability of the types of weapons - let them determine the risk and hence the cost each year to own an AR 15 with large capacity magazines vis a vis a .22 Rimfire revolver.

 

[Pogo]

Stricter background check? What does that even mean?

Were any of these mentally unstable shooter convicted of misdemeanor violent crime? Then this has nothing to do with Sandy Hook, Aurora or Virginia Tech...just another line item on the gun grabber agenda.

While using a history of mental illness SEEMS like a good idea, I suspect it will only discourage folks will depression, PTSD and other mental disorders to forgo treatment. That solves nothing and may actually exacerbate the situation.

Close the private sale loophole? Why? Did Cho, Loughner, Lanza or Holmes purchase their guns from private parties? NO. They purchased them legally and submitted to background check, with the exception of Lanza, who STOLE the weapon. Just another agenda item, it has nothing whatsoever to do with solving the problem at hand.

Ban this, ban that, ban, ban, ban...and when the next guy simply brings 6 guns? Then what?

What about the straw man buyer issue? Should someone be permitted to buy dozens of guns at once? Should they then be permitted to sell them to folks who do not submit to a background check? What solutions, real solutions can be asked for without the abject rejection by the NRA or other gun lovers? Can we agree that there is a problem and obstinence provides no solution?

Every time you come up with something, I explain why it either doesn't apply or won't work an instead of commenting on my reply, you just bounce off the ANOTHER set of unworkable solutions.

So, here we go again...If they plan on selling them illegally, what difference does it make whether someone buys 10 at once, or one at a time?

So, it takes longer to buy them or sell them.

Even if you close the private seller exception, criminals will find a way to get them...they'll buy them over time, and then report them stolen.

Now what? Incarcerate everyone who has guns stolen?

Missourian makes solid, rational points. Rationality seems elusive for so many on this issue. Kudos for your levelheadedness.

It's true, any gun bans or restrictions don't make them go away. If God Herself came down tomorrow morning and said, "awright, I've had it with this here shit, no more gun sales, e-vah!", would that stop or slow down gun violence? Of course not, because we're already swimming in them. We've got way more than enough supply, on the books and off, to go around for several generations. That genie's way out of the bottle.

I don't worry about whether this or that gun restriction law will be effective or not. I'm far more concerned with what comes immediately after that: well-meaning legislators and their supporters stand up and go, "There, look, we fixed that problem" and walk away with a false sense of security. Because the fact is, no you didn't fix that problem; you just put a band-aid on the symptom. The disease is not the gun but the mentality that obsesses over it. Bob Costas and Jason Whitlock nailed it six weeks ago and they're still right.

But we can't fix that with legislation. That's looking in the wrong direction for a solution. What we have is a shortcoming not of legislation, but of cultural values.

 

[Nosmo King]

Are you plagued with crime in your home? Suffer a lot of home invasions? Get mugged in your bathroom often? I ask because you seem perfectly fine with anyone and everyone getting their hands on assault weapons and therefore extremely fearful that your access to them will be cut off.

I own a shot gun for personal defense and I have yet to actually need one, let alone any other weapon.

And, though I do not share your personal sense of aesthetics concerning guns (I grew up, you see), I don't think just believing them to be cool can justify riddling our streets withy them. Corvairs were "cool" but they were also unsafe at any speed and posed an unnecessary threat to public safety, just as assault weapons do.

So you think we should outlaw anything that you deem to be "unnecessary?" My, what a wonderful world we would live in if you ever became dictator.

unnecessary risk. The risk posed by assault weapons in the hands of hundreds of thousand without proper background checks for criminal pasts, mental illness and incompetence is completely unnecessary. The 2nd amendment is not a death sentence. Those who can't read it, particularly the clause that starts it off are using their peculiar attitude to perpetuate gun violence. And that's also an unnecessary risk. Public safety and the rights of the victims to live, grow and prosper are being repressed by the gun culture that cavalierly believes that guns are cool and make them big men so they should have them no matter what the consequences.

 

[Nosmo King]

I do think they are cool, that's true. A shot gun is not "just as effective a weapon" for personal defense. It's more effective in some situations and less effective in others. It's best to have both in my opinion.

Are you plagued with crime in your home? Suffer a lot of home invasions? Get mugged in your bathroom often? I ask because you seem perfectly fine with anyone and everyone getting their hands on assault weapons and therefore extremely fearful that your access to them will be cut off.

I own a shot gun for personal defense and I have yet to actually need one, let alone any other weapon.

And, though I do not share your personal sense of aesthetics concerning guns (I grew up, you see), I don't think just believing them to be cool can justify riddling our streets withy them. Corvairs were "cool" but they were also unsafe at any speed and posed an unnecessary threat to public safety, just as assault weapons do.

Now people who like certain guns are immature?

The 2nd Amendment is justification enough, thank you. I'd have no problem with workable solutions that would actually work. The problem I have with banning semiautomatics is that they would not solve any problem. Mass murderers would simply choose different ways to be mass murderers.

I gotta say that your smug attitude is going a long way towards influencing my opinion. Too bad for you it's having an effect opposite of what you're trying to accomplish.

I could not give a damn what you think about my attitude when you carry that 'guns are cool' attitude around. Guns are the tools that make mass shootings possible. They pose a real and present danger to the public safety and no wannabe Rambo has a say in keeping them around just because his warped view of culture says they are too cool to rid ourselves of.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Are you plagued with crime in your home? Suffer a lot of home invasions? Get mugged in your bathroom often? I ask because you seem perfectly fine with anyone and everyone getting their hands on assault weapons and therefore extremely fearful that your access to them will be cut off.

I own a shot gun for personal defense and I have yet to actually need one, let alone any other weapon.

And, though I do not share your personal sense of aesthetics concerning guns (I grew up, you see), I don't think just believing them to be cool can justify riddling our streets withy them. Corvairs were "cool" but they were also unsafe at any speed and posed an unnecessary threat to public safety, just as assault weapons do.

Now people who like certain guns are immature?

The 2nd Amendment is justification enough, thank you. I'd have no problem with workable solutions that would actually work. The problem I have with banning semiautomatics is that they would not solve any problem. Mass murderers would simply choose different ways to be mass murderers.

I gotta say that your smug attitude is going a long way towards influencing my opinion. Too bad for you it's having an effect opposite of what you're trying to accomplish.

I could not give a damn what you think about my attitude when you carry that 'guns are cool' attitude around. Guns are the tools that make mass shootings possible. They pose a real and present danger to the public safety and no wannabe Rambo has a say in keeping them around just because his warped view of culture says they are too cool to rid ourselves of.

You have yet to sugest anything that could possibly improve the situation. All your BS boils down to the demand everyone else should cater to your paranoia and make things easier for those who commit violent crime. YOU are the menace to public safety and your continued whining is getting really old. Feel fee to try to grow a pair.