***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Was I the only one that was when I heard the Orange bowl was making donations for Sandy

and then when they completed that to say "Sandy Hook"?

WTF do they need money?

Are you seriously asking why the community of Sandy Hook might need donations? Did I read that correctly?

 

[sporthenry]

According to CNN 94% of Americans are in favor of a background check for ALL gun sales. I also believe that Giffords will be the most powerful advocate for these measures: not only because she was shot by a guy who was using a high capacity magazine and did not have to reload, but because she and her husband have been gun-owners all their lives and continue to use guns for protection and pleasure.

94% of Americans would like free gold bars

See we live in t his thing called a democracy. So if 94% of the people want it, they'll probably get it. And I won't even go into your ridiculous comparison.

 

[Cookiemonster]

According to CNN 94% of Americans are in favor of a background check for ALL gun sales.

I also believe that Giffords will be the most powerful advocate for these measures: not only because she was shot by a guy who was using a high capacity magazine and did not have to reload, but because she and her husband have been gun-owners all their lives and continue to use guns for protection and pleasure.

And CNN is sooooo unbiased. Tim, you live in Kalifornia. Orange Co no less. Do you think living in one of, if not the strictest gun control state in the union has really limited the supply of guns to the gang bangers down there? Granted, gang task forces were created in the early '90s when street gangs were at their pinnacle and every suburban white kid could recite every line from the movie Colors, and gang activity as been subdued a little but do you think they really have a problem getting guns? There have been no private sales here for a long time. All guns are registered. Magazine capacity restrictions have been in place. "Assault Weapons" have been restricted. I have seen in the last two years, a two page, single spaced, typed list of illegal guns for sale at good prices on everything from stolen police and military rifles to shotguns to pistols and revolvers. There is no short supply here in Kalifornia of legal or illegal guns. So why should the rest of the country fall in line with our liberal-left-wing-zealot politicians? Because all the prima-donnas in Hollywood endorse it?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Stop and Frisk occurrences go down 34% in NYC, guess what happens to major crime stats?

Manhattan Federal Court ordered Police to stop the practice:

http://www.nydailynews.com/nypd-controversial-stop-frisk-policy-ruled-unconstitutional-article-1.1235578#bmb=1

NYC has very strict handgun laws which appear to be largely ignored by criminals, can't say I am not surprised.

Residents of New York City who wish to obtain a pistol license must apply through the New York Police Department License Bureau at One Police Plaza in lower Manhattan. The choice of licenses are: Unrestricted Concealed Carry License (for personal self-defense, generally considered off-limits to an average citizen), Restricted Business Carry License, Restricted Target License and Restricted Premises-only License.

NYC Unrestricted Concealed Carry Licenses are valid throughout the rest of the state. Security Guards and business people who regularly carry valuables may be issued a Restricted Business Carry License which is valid only while conducting the business specifically as it was described, in great detail, on the application for the license. NYC target or premises-only licenses are the licenses issued to average citizens who cannot show a need for self-defense greater than any another average citizen. They are clearly marked: RESTRICTED - NOT FOR CARRY and require the licensee to obtain special permission from the NYPD License Bureau to leave the city with the handgun. Most licenses issued in New York City are for on-premises possession only, for self-defense within the home or business. Transporting the handgun (via a locked-box) to and from a target range must be done according to a strictly limited schedule pre-approved by the NYPD Licensing Bureau. NYC target licenses allow carrying to and from the range within a "locked-box" at any time at the discretion of the licensee, but prohibit the possession of the licensed handgun in a loaded condition within the home, thereby prohibiting use for self-defense within the home or business. Applicants for, and holders of, a NYC target license must be members of an NYPD License Bureau-approved target range within NYC at the time of application for the license. Traveling through New York City with a license issued from another jurisdiction within New York State must be done carefully (locked box, in vehicle's trunk, no unnecessary stops).

 

[Cookiemonster]

According to CNN 94% of Americans are in favor of a background check for ALL gun sales. I also believe that Giffords will be the most powerful advocate for these measures: not only because she was shot by a guy who was using a high capacity magazine and did not have to reload, but because she and her husband have been gun-owners all their lives and continue to use guns for protection and pleasure.

94% of Americans would like free gold bars

See we live in t his thing called a democracy. So if 94% of the people want it, they'll probably get it. And I won't even go into your ridiculous comparison.

And if you took the same poll on Fox it would say something dramatically different. According to Americans, 94% of democrats watch CNN.

 

[sporthenry]

According to CNN 94% of Americans are in favor of a background check for ALL gun sales. I also believe that Giffords will be the most powerful advocate for these measures: not only because she was shot by a guy who was using a high capacity magazine and did not have to reload, but because she and her husband have been gun-owners all their lives and continue to use guns for protection and pleasure.

94% of Americans would like free gold bars

See we live in t his thing called a democracy. So if 94% of the people want it, they'll probably get it. And I won't even go into your ridiculous comparison.

And if you took the same poll on Fox it would say something dramatically different. According to Americans, 94% of democrats watch CNN.

That isn't what he argued. I doubt it is as high as 94% but he just completely dismissed the will of the people yet he supposedly stands behind the Constitution.

 

[Slingblade]

According to CNN 94% of Americans are in favor of a background check for ALL gun sales. I also believe that Giffords will be the most powerful advocate for these measures: not only because she was shot by a guy who was using a high capacity magazine and did not have to reload, but because she and her husband have been gun-owners all their lives and continue to use guns for protection and pleasure.

94% of Americans would like free gold bars

See we live in t his thing called a democracy. So if 94% of the people want it, they'll probably get it. And I won't even go into your ridiculous comparison.

Except we don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic. A democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat for dinner. A republic is the rule of law.It protects the minority.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Stop and Frisk occurrences go down 34% in NYC, guess what happens to major crime stats?

Manhattan Federal Court ordered Police to stop the practice:

http://www.nydailynews.com/nypd-controversial-stop-frisk-policy-ruled-unconstitutional-article-1.1235578#bmb=1

NYC has very strict handgun laws which appear to be largely ignored by criminals, can't say I am not surprised.

Residents of New York City who wish to obtain a pistol license must apply through the New York Police Department License Bureau at One Police Plaza in lower Manhattan. The choice of licenses are: Unrestricted Concealed Carry License (for personal self-defense, generally considered off-limits to an average citizen), Restricted Business Carry License, Restricted Target License and Restricted Premises-only License.

NYC Unrestricted Concealed Carry Licenses are valid throughout the rest of the state. Security Guards and business people who regularly carry valuables may be issued a Restricted Business Carry License which is valid only while conducting the business specifically as it was described, in great detail, on the application for the license. NYC target or premises-only licenses are the licenses issued to average citizens who cannot show a need for self-defense greater than any another average citizen. They are clearly marked: RESTRICTED - NOT FOR CARRY and require the licensee to obtain special permission from the NYPD License Bureau to leave the city with the handgun. Most licenses issued in New York City are for on-premises possession only, for self-defense within the home or business. Transporting the handgun (via a locked-box) to and from a target range must be done according to a strictly limited schedule pre-approved by the NYPD Licensing Bureau. NYC target licenses allow carrying to and from the range within a "locked-box" at any time at the discretion of the licensee, but prohibit the possession of the licensed handgun in a loaded condition within the home, thereby prohibiting use for self-defense within the home or business. Applicants for, and holders of, a NYC target license must be members of an NYPD License Bureau-approved target range within NYC at the time of application for the license. Traveling through New York City with a license issued from another jurisdiction within New York State must be done carefully (locked box, in vehicle's trunk, no unnecessary stops).

Yep. That's how I want to live. Pay out the ### so I can be allowed to own a gun I can't carry, and have to ask Big Brother's permission to go target practice and I may or may not be allowed to defend myself with it. I sure hope my machete can deflect the bullets coming my way! Or is there a restriction on blade length there too? Baseball bat then. Does it have to be hickory, or can I own an aluminum one?

 

[Dvorak]

According to CNN 94% of Americans are in favor of a background check for ALL gun sales.

I also believe that Giffords will be the most powerful advocate for these measures: not only because she was shot by a guy who was using a high capacity magazine and did not have to reload, but because she and her husband have been gun-owners all their lives and continue to use guns for protection and pleasure.

94% of Americans would like free gold bars

See we live in t his thing called a democracy. So if 94% of the people want it, they'll probably get it. And I won't even go into your ridiculous comparison.

Bzzzt, wrong. Back to Freshman civics with you."Constitutional Republic" is the term you are looking for.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Was I the only one that was when I heard the Orange bowl was making donations for Sandy

and then when they completed that to say "Sandy Hook"?

WTF do they need money?

Are you seriously asking why the community of Sandy Hook might need donations? Did I read that correctly?

Do they need it more than "Superstorm" Sandy victims?30,000 teddy bears, think about it Tim, really?

http://news.yahoo.com/newtown-sets-task-force-handle-donations-162903063.html

NEWTOWN, Conn. (AP) — Chris Kelsey is the tax assessor in Newtown, but for the better part of three weeks, his job has been setting up and organizing a warehouse to hold the toys, school supplies and other gifts donated in the wake of the massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary school.

Despite the town's pleas to stop sending gifts, Kelsey said trucks have been arriving daily with tokens of support from across the world, some for the families of those killed, others for the children of Sandy Hook, still others for the town.

"A lot of the town's normal business is still on pause," he said. "I have a couple of people still doing assessor's business, and then if they can, open mail a couple hours too. We're all kind of doing what we can to get this done."

A task force has been set up to coordinate the more than 800 volunteers who have been working to sort the gifts, open mail and answer the thousands of emails and phone calls offering assistance.

The volunteers have begun making a dent in the pile of tens of thousands of teddy bears that stretched to the warehouse ceiling. By last week, they had sorted 30,000 of them into small, medium and large sizes, catalogued them and put them in boxes. They are also separating and boxing piles of crayons, pencils, books and much more.

"It's a ton of stuff, and we have an operation just as big for mail as well," Kelsey said.

There are also 26 large moving boxes in the warehouse, each labeled with a victim's name. When a gift comes in specifically addressed to those families, it goes in those boxes. The families have been coming in periodically to empty them.

A toy giveaway was held for all Newtown children before Christmas and some of the remaining toys and stuffed animals have been taken to children's hospitals. The rest will be stored until the town decides where they should go, Kelsey said. He said letters have been sent to each of the victim's families asking for their input. His cellphone is filled with emails from charities across the country.

"Everybody has a hand out," he said. "We're just beginning that process now. The charities suggested by the families will get the top priority."

The work organizing the warehouse is being done by volunteers from Adventist Community Services, a faith-based group that has done similar work after hurricanes and other natural disasters.

"Our thing is warehouses," said the Rev. William Warcholik, a pastor from Rhode Island. "Our specialty is collecting, organizing and distributing donated goods."

The group was paired with Kelsey after contacting the town's volunteer task force. Kevin and Robin Fitzgerald started the group last year to organize neighborhood cleanups following two storms that brought down trees all over town.

"We referred to it as friends with chain saws," Robin Fitzgerald said.

Immediately after the school massacre, which left 26 people dead, people started calling the Fitzgeralds looking for a way to help in the grief-stricken town. Local churches and businesses began getting similar calls.

After meeting with town officials, the Red Cross and other stakeholders, the Fitzgeralds were put in charge of coordinating the volunteer effort.

They started working in their living room with a couple of cellphones and their own laptop computers. Local businessman Peter D'Amico gave them office space. Companies donated computers, Wi-Fi, phones and other equipment and set up a call center. The Newtown Volunteer Task Force now has a website, a Facebook page, a Twitter account and a toll-free telephone number, (855) 364-6600, with eight lines coming in.

"Our mission here is to ease the burden on the town resources, matching people who feel the need to do something with a task that needed to be done," Kevin Fitzgerald said. "This is work FEMA or someone in government would do after a natural disaster, but there is no such thing for this kind of disaster."

The group has been deploying about 800 volunteers to open the town's mail, work at the warehouse and connect potential donations with the correct fund or organization.

Liz Eaton, 70, who lives in the village of Sandy Hook, was sent to the warehouse to help box bears.

"People at church have said they needed some help," she said. "And I just wanted to help out."

Others are tasked with returning every phone call that has come into the town offering help.

"We had someone offer 26 granite benches for any memorial," Robin Fitzgerald said. "That's put into a list of what we call escalated offers, so we mark that down and when they decide on a memorial they will know about that offer."

The town originally expected it would take the task force about two weeks to complete its work. The Fitzgeralds said the task force now expects to be working for about three months, possibly longer.

"What we're telling people on the phone now is that if you are holding a fundraiser in your local community, we appreciate it, but direct those resources to your local community, that's what the families want," Robin Fitzgerald said. "About 99½ percent of the time that works. But the other half says, 'We're coming anyway.' And then we just give them the address of the warehouse or here."

 

[Dvorak]

According to CNN 94% of Americans are in favor of a background check for ALL gun sales. I also believe that Giffords will be the most powerful advocate for these measures: not only because she was shot by a guy who was using a high capacity magazine and did not have to reload, but because she and her husband have been gun-owners all their lives and continue to use guns for protection and pleasure.

94% of Americans would like free gold bars

See we live in t his thing called a democracy. So if 94% of the people want it, they'll probably get it. And I won't even go into your ridiculous comparison.

And if you took the same poll on Fox it would say something dramatically different. According to Americans, 94% of democrats watch CNN.

First, the CNN poll asks, "Do you favor or oppose background checks on potential gun buyers?" Nothing about private sales.Nothing about registration.The emphasis on "ALL gun sales" was entirely a fabrication by someone who admits none of these laws will do anything to stop "gun violence" and doesn't know a damn thing about firearms.The poll was from February 2011.It also had the question, "Do you favor or oppose a ban on extended ammunition clips?" And that question has so many problems with it, I don't know where to begin.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Jimmy Fallon 50% more cash!

 

[timschochet]

According to CNN 94% of Americans are in favor of a background check for ALL gun sales. I also believe that Giffords will be the most powerful advocate for these measures: not only because she was shot by a guy who was using a high capacity magazine and did not have to reload, but because she and her husband have been gun-owners all their lives and continue to use guns for protection and pleasure.

94% of Americans would like free gold bars

See we live in t his thing called a democracy. So if 94% of the people want it, they'll probably get it. And I won't even go into your ridiculous comparison.

And if you took the same poll on Fox it would say something dramatically different. According to Americans, 94% of democrats watch CNN.

First, the CNN poll asks, "Do you favor or oppose background checks on potential gun buyers?" Nothing about private sales.Nothing about registration.The emphasis on "ALL gun sales" was entirely a fabrication by someone who admits none of these laws will do anything to stop "gun violence" and doesn't know a damn thing about firearms.The poll was from February 2011.It also had the question, "Do you favor or oppose a ban on extended ammunition clips?" And that question has so many problems with it, I don't know where to begin.

Do you really believe a majority of the public believes an exception should be made for private sales? I'll bet you that when the 2011 poll was taken, a majority of Americans weren't even aware that such a loophole existed. And now that they are aware, believe me they don't want it. As far as the the question about ammunition clips, it seems pretty simple to me. I've read elsewhere that up to 60% of the public is in favor of a ban over 10 or 15 rounds. I think if the question was made clear the percentage would be much higher.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

According to CNN 94% of Americans are in favor of a background check for ALL gun sales. I also believe that Giffords will be the most powerful advocate for these measures: not only because she was shot by a guy who was using a high capacity magazine and did not have to reload, but because she and her husband have been gun-owners all their lives and continue to use guns for protection and pleasure.

94% of Americans would like free gold bars

See we live in t his thing called a democracy. So if 94% of the people want it, they'll probably get it. And I won't even go into your ridiculous comparison.

And if you took the same poll on Fox it would say something dramatically different. According to Americans, 94% of democrats watch CNN.

First, the CNN poll asks, "Do you favor or oppose background checks on potential gun buyers?" Nothing about private sales.Nothing about registration.The emphasis on "ALL gun sales" was entirely a fabrication by someone who admits none of these laws will do anything to stop "gun violence" and doesn't know a damn thing about firearms.The poll was from February 2011.It also had the question, "Do you favor or oppose a ban on extended ammunition clips?" And that question has so many problems with it, I don't know where to begin.

Do you really believe a majority of the public believes an exception should be made for private sales? I'll bet you that when the 2011 poll was taken, a majority of Americans weren't even aware that such a loophole existed. And now that they are aware, believe me they don't want it. As far as the the question about ammunition clips, it seems pretty simple to me. I've read elsewhere that up to 60% of the public is in favor of a ban over 10 or 15 rounds. I think if the question was made clear the percentage would be much higher.

What percentage of the population want a ban on 50 and 100-round magazines, maybe we should go with that instead, higher percentage will make more people happy.

 

[timschochet]

As far as democracy vs. constitutional republic, Slingblade is absolutely right. However, I need to emphasize for the umpteenth time that the questions of removing the private sales loophole and limiting high capacity magazines are not constitutional. They do not infringe on anyone's rights- both questions have already been put to the Supreme Court- background checks when they were first introduced, and limiting the magazines when they were part of the original AWB bill. Therefore, these issues will be decided using our democratic process, in which the majority will, if motivated, is typically decisive. Slingblade's ultimate argument about how the minority is protected is therefore a non-sequiter with regard to this discussion.

 

[timschochet]

What percentage of the population want a ban on 50 and 100-round magazines, maybe we should go with that instead, higher percentage will make more people happy.

If the NRA were smart, they would make this exact proposal, along with agreeing to the background checks for private sales. However, I think they are pretty stupid and obstinate and will go along with Slingblade's insistence of "not a ####### inch." Which means they will be ultimately defeated, I suspect.

 

[sporthenry]

According to CNN 94% of Americans are in favor of a background check for ALL gun sales. I also believe that Giffords will be the most powerful advocate for these measures: not only because she was shot by a guy who was using a high capacity magazine and did not have to reload, but because she and her husband have been gun-owners all their lives and continue to use guns for protection and pleasure.

94% of Americans would like free gold bars

See we live in t his thing called a democracy. So if 94% of the people want it, they'll probably get it. And I won't even go into your ridiculous comparison.

Except we don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic. A democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat for dinner. A republic is the rule of law.It protects the minority.

I'm not really trying to get into a battle of semantics. We often just simplify it and call it a democracy b/c we don't want to get into the nuances of it all. But you can argue it is a representative democracy and that the two overlap or a democratic republic. These terms aren't really mutually exclusive. But I digress, I understand the safeguards to protect the minorities but I don't think they are really applicable here as the Constitution already addresses this issue of guns. So if background checks or anything else is illegal, take it up with the SC.

 

[Slingblade]

What percentage of the population want a ban on 50 and 100-round magazines, maybe we should go with that instead, higher percentage will make more people happy.

If the NRA were smart, they would make this exact proposal, along with agreeing to the background checks for private sales. However, I think they are pretty stupid and obstinate and will go along with Slingblade's insistence of "not a ####### inch." Which means they will be ultimately defeated, I suspect.

I honestly think it will not get past the House.

 

[timschochet]

What percentage of the population want a ban on 50 and 100-round magazines, maybe we should go with that instead, higher percentage will make more people happy.

If the NRA were smart, they would make this exact proposal, along with agreeing to the background checks for private sales. However, I think they are pretty stupid and obstinate and will go along with Slingblade's insistence of "not a ####### inch." Which means they will be ultimately defeated, I suspect.

I honestly think it will not get past the House.

You may be right. It depends on the bill. We will see.

 

[Slingblade]

According to CNN 94% of Americans are in favor of a background check for ALL gun sales. I also believe that Giffords will be the most powerful advocate for these measures: not only because she was shot by a guy who was using a high capacity magazine and did not have to reload, but because she and her husband have been gun-owners all their lives and continue to use guns for protection and pleasure.

94% of Americans would like free gold bars

See we live in t his thing called a democracy. So if 94% of the people want it, they'll probably get it. And I won't even go into your ridiculous comparison.

Except we don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic. A democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat for dinner. A republic is the rule of law.It protects the minority.

I'm not really trying to get into a battle of semantics. We often just simplify it and call it a democracy b/c we don't want to get into the nuances of it all. But you can argue it is a representative democracy and that the two overlap or a democratic republic. These terms aren't really mutually exclusive. But I digress, I understand the safeguards to protect the minorities but I don't think they are really applicable here as the Constitution already addresses this issue of guns. So if background checks or anything else is illegal, take it up with the SC.

The word democracy does not appear in the Dec. of Ind., the constitution, or any of the 50 state constitutions. This is not semantics.We live in a constitutional republic. Democracy has no part in it.

 

[Dvorak]

As far as democracy vs. constitutional republic, Slingblade is absolutely right. However, I need to emphasize for the umpteenth time that the questions of removing the private sales loophole and limiting high capacity magazines are not constitutional. They do not infringe on anyone's rights- both questions have already been put to the Supreme Court- background checks when they were first introduced, and limiting the magazines when they were part of the original AWB bill. Therefore, these issues will be decided using our democratic process, in which the majority will, if motivated, is typically decisive. Slingblade's ultimate argument about how the minority is protected is therefore a non-sequiter with regard to this discussion.

Heller II has not come before the Supreme Court yet. Stop making #### up.

 

[timschochet]

As far as democracy vs. constitutional republic, Slingblade is absolutely right. However, I need to emphasize for the umpteenth time that the questions of removing the private sales loophole and limiting high capacity magazines are not constitutional. They do not infringe on anyone's rights- both questions have already been put to the Supreme Court- background checks when they were first introduced, and limiting the magazines when they were part of the original AWB bill. Therefore, these issues will be decided using our democratic process, in which the majority will, if motivated, is typically decisive. Slingblade's ultimate argument about how the minority is protected is therefore a non-sequiter with regard to this discussion.

Heller II has not come before the Supreme Court yet. Stop making #### up.

I wasn't making it up. From what I read about it, I doubt it ever will. The court has declined in the past to take up challenges regarding background checks or to the AWB. These issues do not infringe upon the Second Amendment. By implying that they do, YOU are the one making #### up.

 

[Dvorak]

As far as democracy vs. constitutional republic, Slingblade is absolutely right. However, I need to emphasize for the umpteenth time that the questions of removing the private sales loophole and limiting high capacity magazines are not constitutional. They do not infringe on anyone's rights- both questions have already been put to the Supreme Court- background checks when they were first introduced, and limiting the magazines when they were part of the original AWB bill. Therefore, these issues will be decided using our democratic process, in which the majority will, if motivated, is typically decisive. Slingblade's ultimate argument about how the minority is protected is therefore a non-sequiter with regard to this discussion.

Heller II has not come before the Supreme Court yet. Stop making #### up.

I wasn't making it up. From what I read about it, I doubt it ever will. The court has declined in the past to take up challenges regarding background checks or to the AWB. These issues do not infringe upon the Second Amendment. By implying that they do, YOU are the one making #### up.

I will give you this--when it comes to utilizing logical fallacies in an debate, you are world class.

 

[Blick]

Stop and Frisk occurrences go down 34% in NYC, guess what happens to major crime stats?

Manhattan Federal Court ordered Police to stop the practice:

http://www.nydailynews.com/nypd-controversial-stop-frisk-policy-ruled-unconstitutional-article-1.1235578#bmb=1

NYC has very strict handgun laws which appear to be largely ignored by criminals, can't say I am not surprised.

Residents of New York City who wish to obtain a pistol license must apply through the New York Police Department License Bureau at One Police Plaza in lower Manhattan. The choice of licenses are: Unrestricted Concealed Carry License (for personal self-defense, generally considered off-limits to an average citizen), Restricted Business Carry License, Restricted Target License and Restricted Premises-only License.

NYC Unrestricted Concealed Carry Licenses are valid throughout the rest of the state. Security Guards and business people who regularly carry valuables may be issued a Restricted Business Carry License which is valid only while conducting the business specifically as it was described, in great detail, on the application for the license. NYC target or premises-only licenses are the licenses issued to average citizens who cannot show a need for self-defense greater than any another average citizen. They are clearly marked: RESTRICTED - NOT FOR CARRY and require the licensee to obtain special permission from the NYPD License Bureau to leave the city with the handgun. Most licenses issued in New York City are for on-premises possession only, for self-defense within the home or business. Transporting the handgun (via a locked-box) to and from a target range must be done according to a strictly limited schedule pre-approved by the NYPD Licensing Bureau. NYC target licenses allow carrying to and from the range within a "locked-box" at any time at the discretion of the licensee, but prohibit the possession of the licensed handgun in a loaded condition within the home, thereby prohibiting use for self-defense within the home or business. Applicants for, and holders of, a NYC target license must be members of an NYPD License Bureau-approved target range within NYC at the time of application for the license. Traveling through New York City with a license issued from another jurisdiction within New York State must be done carefully (locked box, in vehicle's trunk, no unnecessary stops).

Ridiculous. Aren't these restrictions basically the same as a "gun ban"? While I think that there may be some room for comprise on this issue, I think these requirements are far too restrictive and certainly hope this is not used as the model going forward.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Things that make you go hmmm...

I'd just like to point out that gun control in general is a right-wing authoritarian position. To be a self-described "liberal" and yet call for gun control is cognitive dissonance.A place with high gun freedom is described as having liberal gun laws for a reason. A liberal calling for gun control is like a self-described free-marketeer calling for the minimum wage: their viewpoints go against their self-description.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

 

[the moops]

You would think gun lovers could find people less insane than Alex Jones or Ted Nugent to be their spokespersons.

 

[Cookiemonster]

You would think gun lovers haters could find people less insane than Alex Jones or Ted Nugent to be their pro gun spokespersons.

Fixed that for ya. Think that was intentional? I do. Nugent actually makes plenty of sense. He can be fairly colorful with his language and that turns some people off, but his message is right on. Even Alex Jones makes an OK argument against gun control but is so far out there with the conspiracy schtik that his messages are tuned out by 95% of us.

 

[timschochet]

Along with Gabby Giffords, some very powerful voices are now coming out in favor of reasonable gun control measures. It would be hard for anyone to paint THIS guy as a member of the "liberal elite" or "Hollywood left":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/stanley-mcchrystal-gun-control_n_2431063.html

Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal came out in favor of gun control restrictions in a Tuesday morning appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

"I spent a career carrying typically either a M16, and later a M4 carbine," he said. "And a M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It's designed to do that. That's what our soldiers ought to carry."

Said McChrystal, "I personally don't think there's any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we've got to take a serious look -- I understand everybody's desire to have whatever they want -- but we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that."

McChrystal, though he resigned in disgrace in 2010 after a Rolling Stone article, is still revered by many as a top general, and his comments are significant for a former member of the military. If he does continue to advocate for gun control, he could be a significant voice in a movement whose opposition appeals to machismo.

"I think serious action is necessary. Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges, and I just don't think that's enough," he said.

Asked what his message was to the National Rifle Association and the House Judiciary Committee, he said, "I think we have to look at the situation in America. The number of people killed by firearms is extraordinary compared to other nations. I don't think we're a bloodthirsty culture, and we need to look at everything we can do to safeguard our people."

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a co-founder and backer of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, praised McChrystal later in the program. "Stanley McChrystal is a guy who has more crediblity than I ever will have in terms of guns and the damage that guns can do," he said. "He's devoted his life to public service. But Stanley McChrystal can be as good a spokesman as can the five of us."

 

[Joe T]

You would think gun lovers could find people less insane than Alex Jones or Ted Nugent to be their spokespersons.

I think you've got it the wrong way around. Talk shows don't want rational spokespersons to come on their shows. They call the crazies in. It helps ratings.HTH

 

[smotherhook]

Tim, I see you are still beating the magazine capacity dead horse.

 

[Mello]

Along with Gabby Giffords, some very powerful voices are now coming out in favor of reasonable gun control measures. It would be hard for anyone to paint THIS guy as a member of the "liberal elite" or "Hollywood left":http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/stanley-mcchrystal-gun-control_n_2431063.htmlRetired Gen. Stanley McChrystal came out in favor of gun control restrictions in a Tuesday morning appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe.""I spent a career carrying typically either a M16, and later a M4 carbine," he said. "And a M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It's designed to do that. That's what our soldiers ought to carry."Said McChrystal, "I personally don't think there's any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we've got to take a serious look -- I understand everybody's desire to have whatever they want -- but we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that."McChrystal, though he resigned in disgrace in 2010 after a Rolling Stone article, is still revered by many as a top general, and his comments are significant for a former member of the military. If he does continue to advocate for gun control, he could be a significant voice in a movement whose opposition appeals to machismo."I think serious action is necessary. Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges, and I just don't think that's enough," he said.Asked what his message was to the National Rifle Association and the House Judiciary Committee, he said, "I think we have to look at the situation in America. The number of people killed by firearms is extraordinary compared to other nations. I don't think we're a bloodthirsty culture, and we need to look at everything we can do to safeguard our people."New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a co-founder and backer of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, praised McChrystal later in the program. "Stanley McChrystal is a guy who has more crediblity than I ever will have in terms of guns and the damage that guns can do," he said. "He's devoted his life to public service. But Stanley McChrystal can be as good a spokesman as can the five of us."

He's just as wrong, regardless of his political leaning and being in the military doesn't make his opinion any more qualified. I agree we need to look at the situation in America. The vast majority of homicides are by handguns. If you do nothing to them, nothing will change at a national level. If they want to stop gun violence at that level, you will have to basically ban all guns. And if people want to try to get an amendment passed to overturn the second, they are more than free too. It would cause a whole bunch of other problems, akin to our drug war, but it's the only thing that will have a meaningful effect. I'll fight them though because I believe peoples' freedom to purchase guns doesn't hurt enough people to justify this restriction in individual rights. And I'm certainly not going to go along with these "assault rifle" bans. That's just doing something so people can feel like they've done something.

 

[tom22406]

I still feel as though this discussion needs to be focused more on where the real problems are and not where only a small percentage of these crimes take place.My feeling is that the mass shootings are completely random and are so few that they are taking away from where the real problems persist and nobody seems to want to do anything about it.The easy place to start is the inner-cities where the highest volume of crime and murder take place but the problem is a few of these places have already tried the handgun ban(and failed really bad at stopping anything)so are we giving up in these areas and don't care what happens to those people?I have no real solution for any of that but I think a good start would be to try and clean those areas up as best we can and watch the crime rate drop even further.Another thing is our judicial system and a clear need to clamp down on the criminals we do catch and punish them to the fullest.We have laws already in place but time and time again we see and hear of these criminals either getting released back into society early to only go right back in after commiting another violent crime or getting a plea bargain deal to a much lesser sentence.Seems to me that this is the easiest to fix but nobody is really even bringing it up.Simply getting rid of the AR-15 and other guns that look mean will solve nothing.With the media pushing this blitz as hard as they can I just wish they would tell the whole story and not only a small part of the real problem and if we look at the numbers these "assault weapons" are a very small percentage of that.

 

[Cookiemonster]

"I spent a career carrying typically either a M16, and later a M4 carbine," he said. "And a M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It's designed to do that. That's what our soldiers ought to carry."Said McChrystal, "I personally don't think there's any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we've got to take a serious look -- I understand everybody's desire to have whatever they want -- but we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that."

More fear mongering here. He is either leading the fearful or doesn't understand ballistics. Here is a ballistics chart of common rifle rounds. The 5.56x45mm NATO M-16 round (under .22 caliber) and 223 (civilian equivalent) as well as the 7.62x39 AK-47 round are actually way down the list of power (muzzle energy in ft.lbs.) in comparison to Billy Bob's hunting rifles. The 30-30 lever action, considered low power by hunting standards has a muzzle energy of 1902 ft. lbs. compared to the 5.56 at 1196 and the 7.62 at 1508 ft. lbs. I'm thinking there is an agenda here.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I still feel as though this discussion needs to be focused more on where the real problems are and not where only a small percentage of these crimes take place.My feeling is that the mass shootings are completely random and are so few that they are taking away from where the real problems persist and nobody seems to want to do anything about it.The easy place to start is the inner-cities where the highest volume of crime and murder take place but the problem is a few of these places have already tried the handgun ban(and failed really bad at stopping anything)so are we giving up in these areas and don't care what happens to those people?I have no real solution for any of that but I think a good start would be to try and clean those areas up as best we can and watch the crime rate drop even further.

What does "clean those areas up" mean exactly? Legalizing drugs might go a long way towards reducing violent crime.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, I see you are still beating the magazine capacity dead horse.

We'll see how dead a horse it is. I think it's about to come very alive very shortly.

 

[timschochet]

Along with Gabby Giffords, some very powerful voices are now coming out in favor of reasonable gun control measures. It would be hard for anyone to paint THIS guy as a member of the "liberal elite" or "Hollywood left":

http://www.huffingto..._n_2431063.html

Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal came out in favor of gun control restrictions in a Tuesday morning appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

"I spent a career carrying typically either a M16, and later a M4 carbine," he said. "And a M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It's designed to do that. That's what our soldiers ought to carry."

Said McChrystal, "I personally don't think there's any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we've got to take a serious look -- I understand everybody's desire to have whatever they want -- but we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that."

McChrystal, though he resigned in disgrace in 2010 after a Rolling Stone article, is still revered by many as a top general, and his comments are significant for a former member of the military. If he does continue to advocate for gun control, he could be a significant voice in a movement whose opposition appeals to machismo.

"I think serious action is necessary. Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges, and I just don't think that's enough," he said.

Asked what his message was to the National Rifle Association and the House Judiciary Committee, he said, "I think we have to look at the situation in America. The number of people killed by firearms is extraordinary compared to other nations. I don't think we're a bloodthirsty culture, and we need to look at everything we can do to safeguard our people."

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a co-founder and backer of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, praised McChrystal later in the program. "Stanley McChrystal is a guy who has more crediblity than I ever will have in terms of guns and the damage that guns can do," he said. "He's devoted his life to public service. But Stanley McChrystal can be as good a spokesman as can the five of us."

He's just as wrong, regardless of his political leaning and being in the military doesn't make his opinion any more qualified. I agree we need to look at the situation in America. The vast majority of homicides are by handguns. If you do nothing to them, nothing will change at a national level. If they want to stop gun violence at that level, you will have to basically ban all guns. And if people want to try to get an amendment passed to overturn the second, they are more than free too. It would cause a whole bunch of other problems, akin to our drug war, but it's the only thing that will have a meaningful effect. I'll fight them though because I believe peoples' freedom to purchase guns doesn't hurt enough people to justify this restriction in individual rights. And I'm certainly not going to go along with these "assault rifle" bans. That's just doing something so people can feel like they've done something.

Personally, I don't believe in banning assault rifles either. But your refusal to accept ANY reasonable gun restrictions, such as removing the private sales loophole or banning high capacity magazines, and your continual insistence on bringing up the Second Amendment every chance you get, represent to me your extremist position on this issue. So in response to the bolded, I have to say that some of this stuff will hopefully happen whether you go along with it or not. If we get a bill that removes the loophole and bans the magazines, then I think we should do it even if it bans some semi automatic weapons as well.

 

[smotherhook]

Tim, I see you are still beating the magazine capacity dead horse.

We'll see how dead a horse it is. I think it's about to come very alive very shortly.

but it solves nothing. just a political tool.

 

[timschochet]

"I spent a career carrying typically either a M16, and later a M4 carbine," he said. "And a M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It's designed to do that. That's what our soldiers ought to carry."Said McChrystal, "I personally don't think there's any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we've got to take a serious look -- I understand everybody's desire to have whatever they want -- but we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that."

More fear mongering here. He is either leading the fearful or doesn't understand ballistics. Here is a ballistics chart of common rifle rounds. The 5.56x45mm NATO M-16 round (under .22 caliber) and 223 (civilian equivalent) as well as the 7.62x39 AK-47 round are actually way down the list of power (muzzle energy in ft.lbs.) in comparison to Billy Bob's hunting rifles. The 30-30 lever action, considered low power by hunting standards has a muzzle energy of 1902 ft. lbs. compared to the 5.56 at 1196 and the 7.62 at 1508 ft. lbs. I'm thinking there is an agenda here.

I don't think we need to look at ballistics. Simply put, his argument is flawed in this instance, IMO, because the distinguishing factors between semi-automatic weapons are too small to come up with a logical argument for banning some and not banning others. At least that's my understanding. I also disagree with McChrystal about his "along the edges" comment; sometimes in our nuanced society, doing things along the edges makes the most sense, and I think it does in this case.But the larger point, and the reason I posted his comments even if I disagree with some of them, is that he presents, like Giffords, another powerful voice in favor of some gun restrictions which I think will be difficult to dismiss.

 

[Dvorak]

Personally, I don't believe in banning assault rifles either. But your refusal to accept ANY reasonable gun restrictions, such as removing the private sales loophole or banning high capacity magazines, and your continual insistence on bringing up the Second Amendment every chance you get, represent to me your extremist position on this issue. So in response to the bolded, I have to say that some of this stuff will hopefully happen whether you go along with it or not. If we get a bill that removes the loophole and bans the magazines, then I think we should do it even if it bans some semi automatic weapons as well.

The Constitution of the United States of America represents the extremist position!?I'm glad you are not ashamed of hiding your real beliefs.

 

[tom22406]

I still feel as though this discussion needs to be focused more on where the real problems are and not where only a small percentage of these crimes take place.My feeling is that the mass shootings are completely random and are so few that they are taking away from where the real problems persist and nobody seems to want to do anything about it.The easy place to start is the inner-cities where the highest volume of crime and murder take place but the problem is a few of these places have already tried the handgun ban(and failed really bad at stopping anything)so are we giving up in these areas and don't care what happens to those people?I have no real solution for any of that but I think a good start would be to try and clean those areas up as best we can and watch the crime rate drop even further.

What does "clean those areas up" mean exactly? Legalizing drugs might go a long way towards reducing violent crime.

Totally agree on the drugs part.I also would start with the kids in those areas as well and give them a better education and learning environment.Start programs to reward them and give them some hope for the future.The list can go on and on and I have no quick fix or answer but I also am not willing to just give up on them.Just feels to me if this country wants to make a real change in this gun violence that would be a great place to start.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, I see you are still beating the magazine capacity dead horse.

We'll see how dead a horse it is. I think it's about to come very alive very shortly.

but it solves nothing. just a political tool.

I don't agree. Lawrence O'Donnell, whom I rarely agree with, made the comment, regarding Jared Loughner: "I blame Loughner for the first 10 bullets he fired. I blame the gun manufacturers for every bullet he fired after that." Now that is an extreme comment, and once again I do NOT agree with O'Donnell- I don't blame the gun manufacturers, or anyone except Loughner. But still O'Donnell makes an important point anyhow. If high capacity magazines were illegal, then PERHAPS Loughner would have had to reload after 10 bullets. And PERHAPS when he attempted to reload, he would have been brought down, and PERHAPS lives would have been saved. There is no way for me to prove this, obviously,. but I don't think it's an unreasonable set of "PERHAPS". And therefore I think it's worth making these magazines illegal. That's my reasoning, and I've yet to hear a persuasive argument to the contrary.

 

[timschochet]

Personally, I don't believe in banning assault rifles either. But your refusal to accept ANY reasonable gun restrictions, such as removing the private sales loophole or banning high capacity magazines, and your continual insistence on bringing up the Second Amendment every chance you get, represent to me your extremist position on this issue. So in response to the bolded, I have to say that some of this stuff will hopefully happen whether you go along with it or not. If we get a bill that removes the loophole and bans the magazines, then I think we should do it even if it bans some semi automatic weapons as well.

The Constitution of the United States of America represents the extremist position!?I'm glad you are not ashamed of hiding your real beliefs.

The Constitution does not represent the extremist position. Believing that removing private sales loopholes and banning high capacity magazines are violations of the Constitution, THAT represents the extremist position.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I still feel as though this discussion needs to be focused more on where the real problems are and not where only a small percentage of these crimes take place.My feeling is that the mass shootings are completely random and are so few that they are taking away from where the real problems persist and nobody seems to want to do anything about it.The easy place to start is the inner-cities where the highest volume of crime and murder take place but the problem is a few of these places have already tried the handgun ban(and failed really bad at stopping anything)so are we giving up in these areas and don't care what happens to those people?I have no real solution for any of that but I think a good start would be to try and clean those areas up as best we can and watch the crime rate drop even further.

What does "clean those areas up" mean exactly? Legalizing drugs might go a long way towards reducing violent crime.

Totally agree on the drugs part.I also would start with the kids in those areas as well and give them a better education and learning environment.Start programs to reward them and give them some hope for the future.The list can go on and on and I have no quick fix or answer but I also am not willing to just give up on them.Just feels to me if this country wants to make a real change in this gun violence that would be a great place to start.

Yeah, but trying to fix the problems of the inner cities can be incredibly expensive and any improvement is likely to be slow and arduous. The public doesn't have the patience for it.

 

[tom22406]

I still feel as though this discussion needs to be focused more on where the real problems are and not where only a small percentage of these crimes take place.My feeling is that the mass shootings are completely random and are so few that they are taking away from where the real problems persist and nobody seems to want to do anything about it.The easy place to start is the inner-cities where the highest volume of crime and murder take place but the problem is a few of these places have already tried the handgun ban(and failed really bad at stopping anything)so are we giving up in these areas and don't care what happens to those people?I have no real solution for any of that but I think a good start would be to try and clean those areas up as best we can and watch the crime rate drop even further.

What does "clean those areas up" mean exactly? Legalizing drugs might go a long way towards reducing violent crime.

Totally agree on the drugs part.I also would start with the kids in those areas as well and give them a better education and learning environment.Start programs to reward them and give them some hope for the future.The list can go on and on and I have no quick fix or answer but I also am not willing to just give up on them.Just feels to me if this country wants to make a real change in this gun violence that would be a great place to start.

Yeah, but trying to fix the problems of the inner cities can be incredibly expensive and any improvement is likely to be slow and arduous. The public doesn't have the patience for it.

And the media is not pushing it either for some reason,Why is that?Is it so far gone that we've given up trying?

 

[Guest]

I still feel as though this discussion needs to be focused more on where the real problems are and not where only a small percentage of these crimes take place.My feeling is that the mass shootings are completely random and are so few that they are taking away from where the real problems persist and nobody seems to want to do anything about it.The easy place to start is the inner-cities where the highest volume of crime and murder take place but the problem is a few of these places have already tried the handgun ban(and failed really bad at stopping anything)so are we giving up in these areas and don't care what happens to those people?I have no real solution for any of that but I think a good start would be to try and clean those areas up as best we can and watch the crime rate drop even further.

What does "clean those areas up" mean exactly? Legalizing drugs might go a long way towards reducing violent crime.

Totally agree on the drugs part.I also would start with the kids in those areas as well and give them a better education and learning environment.Start programs to reward them and give them some hope for the future.The list can go on and on and I have no quick fix or answer but I also am not willing to just give up on them.Just feels to me if this country wants to make a real change in this gun violence that would be a great place to start.

Yeah, but trying to fix the problems of the inner cities can be incredibly expensive and any improvement is likely to be slow and arduous. The public doesn't have the patience for it.

And to be brutually honest about things, the public doesn't care that much if one drug dealer shoots and kills another drug dealer in the ghetto. What they do care about is the idea that someone who should be on their meds gets loopy, grabs a few guns, and shoots up their spouse/son/daughter in a public place.That's why the, "Oh, only 3.5% of murders in the US are from rifles. This is so stooooopid!!!" misses the boat. People aren't trying to prevent all gun murders. They're trying to prevent a very specific type of gun murder. They're trying to prevent mass casualties at places where people they know may be hanging out.

 

[Abraham]

Yeah, but trying to fix the problems of the inner cities can be incredibly expensive and any improvement is likely to be slow and arduous. The public doesn't have the patience for it.

That doesn't mean it's not worth doing. There are lots of things that are incredibly expensive and improvement is likely to be slow and arduous...like the war in Afghanistan, for example. Didn't stop that from happening.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Yeah, but trying to fix the problems of the inner cities can be incredibly expensive and any improvement is likely to be slow and arduous. The public doesn't have the patience for it.

That doesn't mean it's not worth doing. There are lots of things that are incredibly expensive and improvement is likely to be slow and arduous...like the war in Afghanistan, for example. Didn't stop that from happening.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do it. I'm just trying to explain why a lot of focus is on gun control rather than other policies that might reduce violence. The other policies are really expensive.Also, what Matthias said.

 

[Dvorak]

Personally, I don't believe in banning assault rifles either. But your refusal to accept ANY reasonable gun restrictions, such as removing the private sales loophole or banning high capacity magazines, and your continual insistence on bringing up the Second Amendment every chance you get, represent to me your extremist position on this issue. So in response to the bolded, I have to say that some of this stuff will hopefully happen whether you go along with it or not. If we get a bill that removes the loophole and bans the magazines, then I think we should do it even if it bans some semi automatic weapons as well.

The Constitution of the United States of America represents the extremist position!?I'm glad you are not ashamed of hiding your real beliefs.

The Constitution does not represent the extremist position. Believing that removing private sales loopholes and banning high capacity magazines are violations of the Constitution, THAT represents the extremist position.

So it is your position that the second amendment DOES NOT protect magazines holding more than say, 10 rounds, correct?From the Heller Decision (this was the actual US Supreme Court):

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.

Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights

interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not

limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather

limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by

the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

Now answer me this, are these 10+ round magazines "used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes"?Because, I gotta tell ya... there are a crap-ton of 10+ round magazines out there right now being used for lawful purposes.

On might even say they were exactly in common use for lawful purposes!

 

[timschochet]

I still feel as though this discussion needs to be focused more on where the real problems are and not where only a small percentage of these crimes take place.My feeling is that the mass shootings are completely random and are so few that they are taking away from where the real problems persist and nobody seems to want to do anything about it.The easy place to start is the inner-cities where the highest volume of crime and murder take place but the problem is a few of these places have already tried the handgun ban(and failed really bad at stopping anything)so are we giving up in these areas and don't care what happens to those people?I have no real solution for any of that but I think a good start would be to try and clean those areas up as best we can and watch the crime rate drop even further.

What does "clean those areas up" mean exactly? Legalizing drugs might go a long way towards reducing violent crime.

Totally agree on the drugs part.I also would start with the kids in those areas as well and give them a better education and learning environment.Start programs to reward them and give them some hope for the future.The list can go on and on and I have no quick fix or answer but I also am not willing to just give up on them.Just feels to me if this country wants to make a real change in this gun violence that would be a great place to start.

Yeah, but trying to fix the problems of the inner cities can be incredibly expensive and any improvement is likely to be slow and arduous. The public doesn't have the patience for it.

And to be brutually honest about things, the public doesn't care that much if one drug dealer shoots and kills another drug dealer in the ghetto. What they do care about is the idea that someone who should be on their meds gets loopy, grabs a few guns, and shoots up their spouse/son/daughter in a public place.That's why the, "Oh, only 3.5% of murders in the US are from rifles. This is so stooooopid!!!" misses the boat. People aren't trying to prevent all gun murders. They're trying to prevent a very specific type of gun murder. They're trying to prevent mass casualties at places where people they know may be hanging out.

Exactly right. However, there are reasonable measures to try to stop both kinds of gun violence. Eliminating high capacity magazines should help with the mass shootings. Closing the private sales loophole should help with gang violence.