***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (4 Viewers)

[cobalt_27]

5 digit's latest piece of "propaganda"the further right you go, the more criminal background checks for gun sales were performed per statethe higher up you go the more intentional homicides recorded per that statethe fatter the bubble, the higher the population densitythe three highest by intentional homicide rate:1) Puerto Rico ranked 51st for background checks, ranked 3rd for population density 2) Washington D.C. ranked 52nd for background checks, ranked 1st for population density3) Louisiana ranked 27th for background checks, ranked 28th for population density

You don't understand statistics. Why do you keep trying to act like you do? You make yourself look more uninformed with every failed attempt at it.

 

[timschochet]

5 digit's latest piece of "propaganda"the further right you go, the more criminal background checks for gun sales were performed per statethe higher up you go the more intentional homicides recorded per that statethe fatter the bubble, the higher the population densitythe three highest by intentional homicide rate:1) Puerto Rico ranked 51st for background checks, ranked 3rd for population density 2) Washington D.C. ranked 52nd for background checks, ranked 1st for population density3) Louisiana ranked 27th for background checks, ranked 28th for population density

You don't understand statistics. Why do you keep trying to act like you do? You make yourself look more uninformed with every failed attempt at it.

And even if he did, his point has no relevancy to the discussion.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Tragically, the Sandy Hook shootings are being saddled for political gain. In an attempt to pass laws that would have had no bearing in the incident.The average American really thinks the proposed ban on assault weapons would have helped..From what I understand, there wasn't qa weapon used in the shootings that would have been banned. Also, the was an assault weapons ban during the Columbine incident..At least admit that the political and media narrative is deceiving..

 

[5 digit know nothing]

5 digit's latest piece of "propaganda"the further right you go, the more criminal background checks for gun sales were performed per statethe higher up you go the more intentional homicides recorded per that statethe fatter the bubble, the higher the population densitythe three highest by intentional homicide rate:1) Puerto Rico ranked 51st for background checks, ranked 3rd for population density 2) Washington D.C. ranked 52nd for background checks, ranked 1st for population density3) Louisiana ranked 27th for background checks, ranked 28th for population density

You don't understand statistics. Why do you keep trying to act like you do? You make yourself look more uninformed with every failed attempt at it.

5 digit's latest piece of "propaganda"the further right you go, the more criminal background checks for gun sales were performed per statethe higher up you go the more intentional homicides recorded per that statethe fatter the bubble, the higher the population densitythe three highest by intentional homicide rate:1) Puerto Rico ranked 51st for background checks, ranked 3rd for population density 2) Washington D.C. ranked 52nd for background checks, ranked 1st for population density3) Louisiana ranked 27th for background checks, ranked 28th for population density

You don't understand statistics. Why do you keep trying to act like you do? You make yourself look more uninformed with every failed attempt at it.

And even if he did, his point has no relevancy to the discussion.

says the two parrots that have yet to piece together any relevant stats on the subject.Tim > Not every post has to be about your two talking points: (1) limiting magazine size (2) background checksThe only reason I used NICS data here is because accurate gun ownership broken down by state is not exactly easy to come by.I find it humorous that you disregard any information that does not confirm to the more guns = more homicides shtick when you cannot ignore the facts as presented, D.C. (17.5) and P.R. (30.6) have ridiculously high intentional homicide rates yet nobody is buying guns there.

 

[Apple Jack]

Tragically, the Sandy Hook shootings are being saddled for political gain. In an attempt to pass laws that would have had no bearing in the incident.The average American really thinks the proposed ban on assault weapons would have helped..From what I understand, there wasn't qa weapon used in the shootings that would have been banned. Also, the was an assault weapons ban during the Columbine incident..At least admit that the political and media narrative is deceiving..

Imagine that...mass shootings being used to take measures to address future mass shootings. And if you think that legislation on something like this could be expected to show immediate results, you're mistaken. Thanks to all the gun sellers and buyers, the benefits will take many, many years.

 

[timschochet]

Tragically, the Sandy Hook shootings are being saddled for political gain. In an attempt to pass laws that would have had no bearing in the incident.The average American really thinks the proposed ban on assault weapons would have helped..From what I understand, there wasn't qa weapon used in the shootings that would have been banned. Also, the was an assault weapons ban during the Columbine incident..At least admit that the political and media narrative is deceiving..

Are you the least bit able to come up with a thought of your own, or is everything a talking point? There is not one thing you have written here which has not been explored in detail in this thread already. Why do you bother?

 

[timschochet]

Tim > Not every post has to be about your two talking points: (1) limiting magazine size (2) background checks

No it doesn't, but by attempting to make the very simplistic argument that guns make society safer in general, you are implying that the true motive of the people in favor of gun control are really out to get rid of all guns. It's a common theme among gun rights advocates, and it's insipid. It's also extremely frustrating. I have never in my life been involved in a discussion in which more irrelevancies were brought up on a regular basis in such a serious manner. The ONLY question we should consider, when it comes to the proposals being discussed, is whether or not they make sense in terms of increasing public safety. That's it. Guns in different societies, the Second Amendment, home invasion, a tyrannical government, the "slippery slope"- this is all useless crap that should have no bearing on the discussion. Stop wasting our time.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Tragically, the Sandy Hook shootings are being saddled for political gain. In an attempt to pass laws that would have had no bearing in the incident.The average American really thinks the proposed ban on assault weapons would have helped..From what I understand, there wasn't qa weapon used in the shootings that would have been banned. Also, the was an assault weapons ban during the Columbine incident..At least admit that the political and media narrative is deceiving..

Are you the least bit able to come up with a thought of your own, or is everything a talking point? There is not one thing you have written here which has not been explored in detail in this thread already. Why do you bother?

I haven't read the entire thread.. So,... this is my own thought.. Sorry you're flat wrong on the subject and you refuse to acknowledge any ideas other than your own contorted spin on things..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Tragically, the Sandy Hook shootings are being saddled for political gain. In an attempt to pass laws that would have had no bearing in the incident.The average American really thinks the proposed ban on assault weapons would have helped..From what I understand, there wasn't qa weapon used in the shootings that would have been banned. Also, the was an assault weapons ban during the Columbine incident..At least admit that the political and media narrative is deceiving..

Imagine that...mass shootings being used to take measures to address future mass shootings. And if you think that legislation on something like this could be expected to show immediate results, you're mistaken. Thanks to all the gun sellers and buyers, the benefits will take many, many years.

Measures that wouldn't have changed the outcome of this mass shooting... And somehow we're supposed to see some relevance where there is none.. Sandy Hook and a ban on "assault weapons" are only dance partners for the deceptive..

 

[greenroom]

Tragically, the Sandy Hook shootings are being saddled for political gain. In an attempt to pass laws that would have had no bearing in the incident.The average American really thinks the proposed ban on assault weapons would have helped..From what I understand, there wasn't qa weapon used in the shootings that would have been banned. Also, the was an assault weapons ban during the Columbine incident..At least admit that the political and media narrative is deceiving..

Are you the least bit able to come up with a thought of your own, or is everything a talking point? There is not one thing you have written here which has not been explored in detail in this thread already. Why do you bother?

I haven't read the entire thread.. So,... this is my own thought.. Sorry you're flat wrong on the subject and you refuse to acknowledge any ideas other than your own contorted spin on things..

So your answer is to do nothing? And I am not saying it is all about the guns, but they are part of the equation, but hey lets just ignore that guns are killing innocent children and adults. I do not know what the answer is, but for me: background checks should be required at all locations a gun is sold. Or a gun is to be registered so that was it can be tracked. You have to register your car why not a gun? You want to own a gun you have to go through a education class and pass it. If you are found with a gun not registered then it is a heavy fine or jail time. If your gun is used in a crime then you are held responsible. ( unless stolen and it was reported before.)

 

[greenroom]

Tragically, the Sandy Hook shootings are being saddled for political gain. In an attempt to pass laws that would have had no bearing in the incident.

The average American really thinks the proposed ban on assault weapons would have helped..

From what I understand, there wasn't qa weapon used in the shootings that would have been banned.

Also, the was an assault weapons ban during the Columbine incident..

At least admit that the political and media narrative is deceiving..

Imagine that...mass shootings being used to take measures to address future mass shootings. And if you think that legislation on something like this could be expected to show immediate results, you're mistaken. Thanks to all the gun sellers and buyers, the benefits will take many, many years.

Measures that wouldn't have changed the outcome of this mass shooting... And somehow we're supposed to see some relevance where there is none.. Sandy Hook and a ban on "assault weapons" are only dance partners for the deceptive..

Link? can you prove they would not of changed the outcome? Not saying they would, but you have no factual information to base this on.

 

[Apple Jack]

Tragically, the Sandy Hook shootings are being saddled for political gain. In an attempt to pass laws that would have had no bearing in the incident.The average American really thinks the proposed ban on assault weapons would have helped..From what I understand, there wasn't qa weapon used in the shootings that would have been banned. Also, the was an assault weapons ban during the Columbine incident..At least admit that the political and media narrative is deceiving..

Imagine that...mass shootings being used to take measures to address future mass shootings. And if you think that legislation on something like this could be expected to show immediate results, you're mistaken. Thanks to all the gun sellers and buyers, the benefits will take many, many years.

Measures that wouldn't have changed the outcome of this mass shooting... And somehow we're supposed to see some relevance where there is none.. Sandy Hook and a ban on "assault weapons" are only dance partners for the deceptive..

The primary weapon used in the attack was a “Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon,” said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance.

And high capacity magazines.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Tragically, the Sandy Hook shootings are being saddled for political gain. In an attempt to pass laws that would have had no bearing in the incident.

The average American really thinks the proposed ban on assault weapons would have helped..

From what I understand, there wasn't qa weapon used in the shootings that would have been banned.

Also, the was an assault weapons ban during the Columbine incident..

At least admit that the political and media narrative is deceiving..

Imagine that...mass shootings being used to take measures to address future mass shootings. And if you think that legislation on something like this could be expected to show immediate results, you're mistaken. Thanks to all the gun sellers and buyers, the benefits will take many, many years.

Measures that wouldn't have changed the outcome of this mass shooting... And somehow we're supposed to see some relevance where there is none.. Sandy Hook and a ban on "assault weapons" are only dance partners for the deceptive..

Link? can you prove they would not of changed the outcome? Not saying they would, but you have no factual information to base this on.

Link? Can you prove that they would have?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Tragically, the Sandy Hook shootings are being saddled for political gain. In an attempt to pass laws that would have had no bearing in the incident.The average American really thinks the proposed ban on assault weapons would have helped..From what I understand, there wasn't qa weapon used in the shootings that would have been banned. Also, the was an assault weapons ban during the Columbine incident..At least admit that the political and media narrative is deceiving..

Imagine that...mass shootings being used to take measures to address future mass shootings. And if you think that legislation on something like this could be expected to show immediate results, you're mistaken. Thanks to all the gun sellers and buyers, the benefits will take many, many years.

Measures that wouldn't have changed the outcome of this mass shooting... And somehow we're supposed to see some relevance where there is none.. Sandy Hook and a ban on "assault weapons" are only dance partners for the deceptive..

The primary weapon used in the attack was a “Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon,” said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance.

And high capacity magazines.

The weapon was not an AR15.. it was a .223 caliber rifle that looks like an AR15.. and at this point it's unclear whether that was the weapon used in the shootings, or the weapon they found in the truck of the car..

The shooter was using one Sig Sauer and one Glock pistol, according to CNN

 

[Apple Jack]

Tragically, the Sandy Hook shootings are being saddled for political gain. In an attempt to pass laws that would have had no bearing in the incident.The average American really thinks the proposed ban on assault weapons would have helped..From what I understand, there wasn't qa weapon used in the shootings that would have been banned. Also, the was an assault weapons ban during the Columbine incident..At least admit that the political and media narrative is deceiving..

Imagine that...mass shootings being used to take measures to address future mass shootings. And if you think that legislation on something like this could be expected to show immediate results, you're mistaken. Thanks to all the gun sellers and buyers, the benefits will take many, many years.

Measures that wouldn't have changed the outcome of this mass shooting... And somehow we're supposed to see some relevance where there is none.. Sandy Hook and a ban on "assault weapons" are only dance partners for the deceptive..

The primary weapon used in the attack was a “Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon,” said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance.

And high capacity magazines.

The weapon was not an AR15.. it was a 22 caliber rifle that looks like an AR15.. and at this point it's unclear whether that was the weapon used in the shootings, or the weapon they found in the truck of the car..

Link? Here's mine:http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/27/setting-the-record-straight-adam-lanza-did-use-the-bushmaster-ar-15/

 

[cobalt_27]

5 digit's latest piece of "propaganda"the further right you go, the more criminal background checks for gun sales were performed per statethe higher up you go the more intentional homicides recorded per that statethe fatter the bubble, the higher the population densitythe three highest by intentional homicide rate:1) Puerto Rico ranked 51st for background checks, ranked 3rd for population density 2) Washington D.C. ranked 52nd for background checks, ranked 1st for population density3) Louisiana ranked 27th for background checks, ranked 28th for population density

You don't understand statistics. Why do you keep trying to act like you do? You make yourself look more uninformed with every failed attempt at it.

5 digit's latest piece of "propaganda"the further right you go, the more criminal background checks for gun sales were performed per statethe higher up you go the more intentional homicides recorded per that statethe fatter the bubble, the higher the population densitythe three highest by intentional homicide rate:1) Puerto Rico ranked 51st for background checks, ranked 3rd for population density 2) Washington D.C. ranked 52nd for background checks, ranked 1st for population density3) Louisiana ranked 27th for background checks, ranked 28th for population density

You don't understand statistics. Why do you keep trying to act like you do? You make yourself look more uninformed with every failed attempt at it.

And even if he did, his point has no relevancy to the discussion.

says the two parrots that have yet to piece together any relevant stats on the subject.Tim > Not every post has to be about your two talking points: (1) limiting magazine size (2) background checksThe only reason I used NICS data here is because accurate gun ownership broken down by state is not exactly easy to come by.I find it humorous that you disregard any information that does not confirm to the more guns = more homicides shtick when you cannot ignore the facts as presented, D.C. (17.5) and P.R. (30.6) have ridiculously high intentional homicide rates yet nobody is buying guns there.

I drilled you with at least 6 studies, all of which were peer reviewed, all of which were easily understandable to anyone with an IQ north of 75 with a stiff breeze behind him. And you couldn't speak intelligently to any one of them. You don,t even comprehend basic statistics, so it's no longer worth bothering. But, to advance the notion that you were never exposed to these data is patently false. You just can,t interpret basic English combined with basic statistics.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Tragically, the Sandy Hook shootings are being saddled for political gain. In an attempt to pass laws that would have had no bearing in the incident.The average American really thinks the proposed ban on assault weapons would have helped..From what I understand, there wasn't qa weapon used in the shootings that would have been banned. Also, the was an assault weapons ban during the Columbine incident..At least admit that the political and media narrative is deceiving..

Imagine that...mass shootings being used to take measures to address future mass shootings. And if you think that legislation on something like this could be expected to show immediate results, you're mistaken. Thanks to all the gun sellers and buyers, the benefits will take many, many years.

Measures that wouldn't have changed the outcome of this mass shooting... And somehow we're supposed to see some relevance where there is none.. Sandy Hook and a ban on "assault weapons" are only dance partners for the deceptive..

The primary weapon used in the attack was a “Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon,” said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance.

And high capacity magazines.

The weapon was not an AR15.. it was a 22 caliber rifle that looks like an AR15.. and at this point it's unclear whether that was the weapon used in the shootings, or the weapon they found in the truck of the car..

Link? Here's mine:http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/27/setting-the-record-straight-adam-lanza-did-use-the-bushmaster-ar-15/

Showing the inconsistencies

 

[Apple Jack]

Tragically, the Sandy Hook shootings are being saddled for political gain. In an attempt to pass laws that would have had no bearing in the incident.The average American really thinks the proposed ban on assault weapons would have helped..From what I understand, there wasn't qa weapon used in the shootings that would have been banned. Also, the was an assault weapons ban during the Columbine incident..At least admit that the political and media narrative is deceiving..

Imagine that...mass shootings being used to take measures to address future mass shootings. And if you think that legislation on something like this could be expected to show immediate results, you're mistaken. Thanks to all the gun sellers and buyers, the benefits will take many, many years.

Measures that wouldn't have changed the outcome of this mass shooting... And somehow we're supposed to see some relevance where there is none.. Sandy Hook and a ban on "assault weapons" are only dance partners for the deceptive..

The primary weapon used in the attack was a “Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon,” said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance.

And high capacity magazines.

The weapon was not an AR15.. it was a 22 caliber rifle that looks like an AR15.. and at this point it's unclear whether that was the weapon used in the shootings, or the weapon they found in the truck of the car..

Link? Here's mine:http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/27/setting-the-record-straight-adam-lanza-did-use-the-bushmaster-ar-15/

Showing the inconsistencies

That is very bad writing and painfully long-winded, so I'm comfortable the countless sources I have, including the police on the scene and REDSTATE.COM. Regardless, my concern is the high capacity magazines, not the gun.

 

[timschochet]

Regardless, my concern is the high capacity magazines, not the gun.

I've provided solid reasoning in this thread as to why these magazines should be banned. I've given many examples of situations in which a limited cap would have saved lives. I've posted the testimony of numerous police and law enforcement officials in favor of this limitation. I've posted studies which demonstrate that the previous ban, as part of the AWB law from 1994-2004, WAS effective, contradicting the baseless claims of many people here that it was not. I have spent time refuting, with success IMO, every ridiculous argument made about how these magazines are vital to the Second Amendment, how they are necessary for defense against home invasion, how they are the only means for private citizens to fight back against a tyrannical government. And yet most of these guys either never read the stuff, or they just gloss over it, or laugh at it as if it doesn't mean anything. And then they return to their ignorant talking points. Most of them are fanatical on this issue, caught up in their own paranoia, and refuse to listen to the other side. There's a few here that I'm happy to engage with. The rest are a waste of time.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The ONLY question we should consider, when it comes to the proposals being discussed, is whether or not they make sense in terms of increasing public safety. That's it. Guns in different societies, the Second Amendment, home invasion, a tyrannical government, the "slippery slope"- this is all useless crap that should have no bearing on the discussion.

I haven't followed this thread all that closely. But if we're discussing proposals to further limit what types of arms people may own, why shouldn't the Second Amendment have some bearing on the discussion?

 

[timschochet]

The ONLY question we should consider, when it comes to the proposals being discussed, is whether or not they make sense in terms of increasing public safety. That's it. Guns in different societies, the Second Amendment, home invasion, a tyrannical government, the "slippery slope"- this is all useless crap that should have no bearing on the discussion.

I haven't followed this thread all that closely. But if we're discussing proposals to further limit what types of arms people may own, why shouldn't the Second Amendment have some bearing on the discussion?

Because none of the proposals in question would violate the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The ONLY question we should consider, when it comes to the proposals being discussed, is whether or not they make sense in terms of increasing public safety. That's it. Guns in different societies, the Second Amendment, home invasion, a tyrannical government, the "slippery slope"- this is all useless crap that should have no bearing on the discussion.

I haven't followed this thread all that closely. But if we're discussing proposals to further limit what types of arms people may own, why shouldn't the Second Amendment have some bearing on the discussion?

Because none of the proposals in question would violate the 2nd Amendment.

All reasonable people agree on that point? Like I said, I haven't followed the thread and I don't know exactly what's been proposed, but that would surprise me.

 

[timschochet]

The ONLY question we should consider, when it comes to the proposals being discussed, is whether or not they make sense in terms of increasing public safety. That's it. Guns in different societies, the Second Amendment, home invasion, a tyrannical government, the "slippery slope"- this is all useless crap that should have no bearing on the discussion.

I haven't followed this thread all that closely. But if we're discussing proposals to further limit what types of arms people may own, why shouldn't the Second Amendment have some bearing on the discussion?

Because none of the proposals in question would violate the 2nd Amendment.

All reasonable people agree on that point? Like I said, I haven't followed the thread and I don't know exactly what's been proposed, but that would surprise me.

I'll admit that reasonable people differ on whether or not a ban on assault weapons would violate the 2nd Amendment. Personally, I don't think it would, and there is the evidence of a federal AWB ban being in place for 10 years without challenge, as well as many similar state laws. But it is still a debatable point. I haven't focused on it since I regard an assault weapons ban as a stupid idea anyhow. But- I have yet to find a single reasonable voice make the argument that either bans on high capacity magazines, or a removal of the private sales loophole (which are the other 2 big items up for debate) would violate the 2nd Amendment. I have heard a lot of UNREASONABLE people state this. The NRA itself is very tricky, claiming that these measures violate the "spirit" of the 2nd Amendment, without being specific, whatever that means. One single poster here attempted to make an argument, a few pages earlier, that a ban on the magazines MIGHT violate the 2nd Amendment, but the only example he could provide is if the law limited magazines to 1 bullet. And that was the ONLY time in this thread anyone has even attempted to make a specific argument.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The ONLY question we should consider, when it comes to the proposals being discussed, is whether or not they make sense in terms of increasing public safety. That's it. Guns in different societies, the Second Amendment, home invasion, a tyrannical government, the "slippery slope"- this is all useless crap that should have no bearing on the discussion.

I haven't followed this thread all that closely. But if we're discussing proposals to further limit what types of arms people may own, why shouldn't the Second Amendment have some bearing on the discussion?

Because none of the proposals in question would violate the 2nd Amendment.

All reasonable people agree on that point? Like I said, I haven't followed the thread and I don't know exactly what's been proposed, but that would surprise me.

I'll admit that reasonable people differ on whether or not a ban on assault weapons would violate the 2nd Amendment. Personally, I don't think it would, and there is the evidence of a federal AWB ban being in place for 10 years without challenge, as well as many similar state laws. But it is still a debatable point. I haven't focused on it since I regard an assault weapons ban as a stupid idea anyhow. But- I have yet to find a single reasonable voice make the argument that either bans on high capacity magazines, or a removal of the private sales loophole (which are the other 2 big items up for debate) would violate the 2nd Amendment. I have heard a lot of UNREASONABLE people state this. The NRA itself is very tricky, claiming that these measures violate the "spirit" of the 2nd Amendment, without being specific, whatever that means. One single poster here attempted to make an argument, a few pages earlier, that a ban on the magazines MIGHT violate the 2nd Amendment, but the only example he could provide is if the law limited magazines to 1 bullet. And that was the ONLY time in this thread anyone has even attempted to make a specific argument.

Cool, thanks. I guess the surprising thing is that the proposals are so limited.

 

[timschochet]

The ONLY question we should consider, when it comes to the proposals being discussed, is whether or not they make sense in terms of increasing public safety. That's it. Guns in different societies, the Second Amendment, home invasion, a tyrannical government, the "slippery slope"- this is all useless crap that should have no bearing on the discussion.

I haven't followed this thread all that closely. But if we're discussing proposals to further limit what types of arms people may own, why shouldn't the Second Amendment have some bearing on the discussion?

Because none of the proposals in question would violate the 2nd Amendment.

All reasonable people agree on that point? Like I said, I haven't followed the thread and I don't know exactly what's been proposed, but that would surprise me.

I'll admit that reasonable people differ on whether or not a ban on assault weapons would violate the 2nd Amendment. Personally, I don't think it would, and there is the evidence of a federal AWB ban being in place for 10 years without challenge, as well as many similar state laws. But it is still a debatable point. I haven't focused on it since I regard an assault weapons ban as a stupid idea anyhow. But- I have yet to find a single reasonable voice make the argument that either bans on high capacity magazines, or a removal of the private sales loophole (which are the other 2 big items up for debate) would violate the 2nd Amendment. I have heard a lot of UNREASONABLE people state this. The NRA itself is very tricky, claiming that these measures violate the "spirit" of the 2nd Amendment, without being specific, whatever that means. One single poster here attempted to make an argument, a few pages earlier, that a ban on the magazines MIGHT violate the 2nd Amendment, but the only example he could provide is if the law limited magazines to 1 bullet. And that was the ONLY time in this thread anyone has even attempted to make a specific argument.

Cool, thanks. I guess the surprising thing is that the proposals are so limited.

I don''t think it is surprising at all. Despite the fact that the NRA crowd has attempted to paint those in favor of gun control as extremist and desirous of a gun-free society, most people aren't. The proposals have been very moderate, and this is almost always the way it's been.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Tim > Not every post has to be about your two talking points: (1) limiting magazine size (2) background checks

No it doesn't, but by attempting to make the very simplistic argument that guns make society safer in general, you are implying that the true motive of the people in favor of gun control are really out to get rid of all guns. It's a common theme among gun rights advocates, and it's insipid. It's also extremely frustrating. I have never in my life been involved in a discussion in which more irrelevancies were brought up on a regular basis in such a serious manner. The ONLY question we should consider, when it comes to the proposals being discussed, is whether or not they make sense in terms of increasing public safety. That's it. Guns in different societies, the Second Amendment, home invasion, a tyrannical government, the "slippery slope"- this is all useless crap that should have no bearing on the discussion. Stop wasting our time.

That's how you interpret the bubble chart I posted? I'm not saying I am disagreeing with that statement, but that is not the point of the bubble chart, that was a conclusion you drew from the data.You don't get that gun control FLAT OUT does not work? The two areas with absurdly high homicide rates and also very strict gun control laws were ranked last and 2nd to last in terms of gun applications from January through November of 2012 yet they are still head and shoulders above the rest of the map for intentional homicide rates? Do you really think any of the changes you are campaigning for will make a difference? If not than maybe you should start a thread talking about how to solve outlier problems that will have no noticeable impact on gun violence? Or perhaps like others you are hoping this first step in the process of the slippery slope will eventually get you to a point where you are happy. Yes we are calling it a slippery slope because once you gain these concessions you (or more importantly people like you) will not stop for gun control. Now you can preach all day long this is the end of the road for you, great! But that says nothing about your cohorts who in this very thread have already stated it is all part of "the process."

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Tim > Not every post has to be about your two talking points: (1) limiting magazine size (2) background checks

No it doesn't, but by attempting to make the very simplistic argument that guns make society safer in general, you are implying that the true motive of the people in favor of gun control are really out to get rid of all guns. It's a common theme among gun rights advocates, and it's insipid. It's also extremely frustrating. I have never in my life been involved in a discussion in which more irrelevancies were brought up on a regular basis in such a serious manner. The ONLY question we should consider, when it comes to the proposals being discussed, is whether or not they make sense in terms of increasing public safety. That's it. Guns in different societies, the Second Amendment, home invasion, a tyrannical government, the "slippery slope"- this is all useless crap that should have no bearing on the discussion. Stop wasting our time.

That's how you interpret the bubble chart I posted? I'm not saying I am disagreeing with that statement, but that is not the point of the bubble chart, that was a conclusion you drew from the data.You don't get that gun control FLAT OUT does not work? The two areas with absurdly high homicide rates and also very strict gun control laws were ranked last and 2nd to last in terms of gun applications from January through November of 2012 yet they are still head and shoulders above the rest of the map for intentional homicide rates? Do you really think any of the changes you are campaigning for will make a difference? If not than maybe you should start a thread talking about how to solve outlier problems that will have no noticeable impact on gun violence? Or perhaps like others you are hoping this first step in the process of the slippery slope will eventually get you to a point where you are happy. Yes we are calling it a slippery slope because once you gain these concessions you (or more importantly people like you) will not stop for gun control. Now you can preach all day long this is the end of the road for you, great! But that says nothing about your cohorts who in this very thread have already stated it is all part of "the process."

 

[Apple Jack]

These two remind me of that time all the people in Payne Stewart's plane were dead but it kept flying for hours until it ran out of gas and crashed in South Dakota. There is nobody to get through to, but the posting goes on.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

http://www.startribune.com/local/west/187610601.html?refer=y

Murderous 'monster' acquires an arsenal

Article by: PAUL MCENROE and GLENN HOWATT , Star Tribune staff writers

Updated: January 21, 2013 - 12:06 PM

The Oberender case exposes loopholes in national gun laws and Minnesota's background checks.

They knew the Delano house far too well. It was where Christian Philip Oberender, then 14 years old, had murdered his mother in a shotgun ambush in the family rec room in 1995.

Now, 18 years later, Carver County Sheriff Jim Olson was sending his deputies back to the home where Oberender still lives. Just two days earlier, Olson had scanned the day's shift reports and froze when he tripped over Oberender's name. A scan of a Facebook page then showed firearms spread out like a child's trophies on a bed inside the home, along with notes about the Newtown, Conn., gunman who shot 20 children to death.

What Olson's deputies found in the home was chilling: 13 guns, including semi-automatic rifles, an AK-47, a Tommy gun, assorted shotguns and handguns, including a .50-caliber Desert Eagle.

Even more disturbing was the letter Oberender had written recently to his late mother, Mary: "I am so homicide,'' it said in broken sentences. "I think about killing all the time. The monster want out. He only been out one time and someone die.''

Today, Oberender sits in a Carver County jail cell on a charge of being a felon in possession of firearms. And Olson, who investigated the 1995 murder as a young detective, finds his investigators at the center of a case that exposes the dangerous loopholes in the nation's gun laws and Minnesota's system of criminal background checks.

Even though Oberender killed his mother with a firearm, even though he was committed to the state hospital in St. Peter as mentally ill and dangerous more than a decade ago, he was able to obtain a permit to purchase firearms last May. That piece of paper gave Oberender, now 32, the ability to walk into any licensed Minnesota retailer and buy any assault weapon or pistol on the rack.

Dozens of other Minnesotans judged by a court to be mentally ill have also found that designation no barrier to obtaining deadly weapons.

A Star Tribune review of state court records found case after case in which individuals deemed mentally ill in judicial proceedings later wound up in possession of guns and accused of violent crimes.

At least 84 people have been charged since 2000 with illegal gun possession or assault with a dangerous weapon even though they had previously been committed by a judge as mentally ill. Of that group, 29 were charged with multiple counts of weapons possession and nine were considered by a judge to be mentally ill and dangerous.

Additionally, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) has more than 168,000 "suspense files'' -- records on Minnesotans who have been arrested since 1990 but whose files are so incomplete that the state can't determine if they should have the right to buy guns.

"The system failed in this case,'' Olson said in an interview. "We are having discussions with the BCA to make sure there aren't similar things like this hanging out there.''

Federal agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are working with Olson's investigators to sort out which guns Oberender might have bought from retailers using a permit he should never have possessed.

No red flags

How did Christian Oberender succeed in obtaining a gun permit?

The answer lies in a combination of deceit on his part, failures in the state court system, and haphazard data collection by state agencies, according to interviews with law enforcement officials.

In Minnesota, a person seeking a permit to purchase an assault weapon or pistol must submit an application to the local police or sheriff's department. There, the background check process begins with a query of the BCA's system. If no disqualifications show up -- such as a violent criminal record or mental illness commitment -- the permit is granted.

No state permit is required to purchase a long rifle or a shotgun in Minnesota. Buyers going to a licensed retailer must pass a federal background check at the counter -- but those records can also be incomplete because they are supplied to the FBI by state agencies.

Minnesota's gun laws don't require an applicant to provide a fingerprint or a Social Security number to verify identity.

"This was one of our concerns during the 'Conceal and Carry' debate in Legislature 10 years ago and it was beaten down like everything else," said Heather Martens, executive director of Protect Minnesota, a gun violence prevention organization.

Martens said Oberender's case highlights the reluctance of lawmakers to tighten gun laws because they fear being accused of infringing on individual rights. "Public schoolteachers have to go through a complete background check, even including a fingerprint,'' Martens said. "For buyers of assault weapons and pistols, law enforcement currently has only seven days to verify the person's identity and criminal history -- otherwise, a permit is automatically granted. We should at least allow police enough time to verify the person's identity.''

At the BCA, a spokesperson said the agency's database will catch closely matched names and aliases, but it would not snag a name like the one on Oberender's application.

In Oberender's case, the first glitch was that he simply transposed his first name and middle name on the gun permit application, apparently in an attempt to avoid recognition by the BCA's database.

Additionally, when Oberender applied for his permit, records show, he lied about his mental health history, a move that triggered no red flag in the computers -- the BCA's system doesn't contain any state commitment records of the mentally ill and dangerous.

"When we checked the record, there were no disqualifiers for a 'Philip Christian Oberender,'" said Carver Deputy Jason Kamerud.

Last week, investigators also learned that Oberender's juvenile record -- where the murder of his mother is recorded -- had not been attached to his criminal history at the BCA. Carver investigators are still puzzled over that.

In a statement, BCA spokesperson Jill Oliveira said, "There were no data submitted to the BCA about this individual; without it there can be no record."

Loopholes

The state's criminal background system appears to contain another loophole for violent felons and persons found mentally ill and dangerous who want to escape scrutiny. Under state law, a person's juvenile record is deleted from the BCA's database when the individual turns 28 unless a judge says otherwise, Oliveira said. As a result, a person with a violent juvenile record -- like Oberender -- might still qualify to buy a gun if there were no felonies on his adult record.

State law requires the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) to provide local law enforcement agencies with records of people who have been committed to institutional care for mental illness, if the applicant gives consent. But in general, the BCA said, a court order for civil commitment is classified as private data and is not available to the BCA.

"There is no way that BCA can have DHS's commitment data,'' Oliveira said in a statement. In addition, about half of those committed by a court are directed to community providers, not state facilities, thus leaving it to the courts, not DHS, to ensure that the records are sent.

It's unclear whether Oberender's mental health history was ever entered into any background check database.

In late 2011, DHS tried to streamline the process, opening an electronic portal for background checks used by law enforcement officials. Last year an estimated 32,000 checks were conducted, and about 500 people were flagged as potential risks. When that happens, the agency provides law enforcement officials with a deeper check on people who could be disqualified.

DHS also checks the state Supreme Court information system, currently the most accurate record of commitments, the agency said in a statement. "However," it added, "without additional identifying information, it may be difficult to determine whether someone with a common name matches an entry in the system."

'Want to hurt people'

Oberender received three years of intensive treatment for his mental illness as a juvenile, but in late 1998 was ordered committed as "mentally ill and dangerous" to the St. Peter state hospital. Mental health professionals wrote in court findings that they believed there was "a substantial likelihood that Oberender will engage in acts capable of inflicting serious physical harm to another." There are apparently no public records of when he was released from St. Peter. In a 2003 interview with the Star Tribune, Oberender said he spent a year in a halfway house after his release and believed he was turning his life around thanks to "all kinds of treatment."

The felony charge he now faces could put him in prison for up to five years, or it could lead a judge to send him back to St. Peter for psychiatric care.

Before his arrest, Oberender had been working as a skilled mechanic at a local sanitation hauling company.

David Peterson, a co-worker and friend, said he believes his friend must have been living two lives.

The two often spent time shooting guns behind Oberender's home, at targets ranging from old television sets to junk cars and pop cans, all the while critiquing each weapon, he said. He said that Oberender told him that he bought most of his guns at two licensed retail stores in the area and that the weapons were all registered.

Oberender, he said, rarely mentioned his past, sharing only brief snippets about the murder.

Still, Peterson said he felt so comfortable with Oberender that he invited him to his home for social occasions and was planning on setting him up with a date. "He is an excellent, great friend," Peterson said.

Then there was the other life, the one where a self-described "monster" lived inside the quiet young man.

"I think about killing all the time,'' Oberender wrote. "Why god do I feel like this? The monster want to hurt people. Guns are too fast. The monster want it to be slow and painful. There is so much pain in my heart and soul. Me want other to feel it."

Sheriff Olson read the letter after his investigators inventoried their evidence.

"It was chilling," he said.

 

[timschochet]

http://www.startribu...01.html?refer=y

"This was one of our concerns during the 'Conceal and Carry' debate in Legislature 10 years ago and it was beaten down like everything else," said Heather Martens, executive director of Protect Minnesota, a gun violence prevention organization.

Martens said Oberender's case highlights the reluctance of lawmakers to tighten gun laws because they fear being accused of infringing on individual rights. "Public schoolteachers have to go through a complete background check, even including a fingerprint,'' Martens said. "For buyers of assault weapons and pistols, law enforcement currently has only seven days to verify the person's identity and criminal history -- otherwise, a permit is automatically granted. We should at least allow police enough time to verify the person's identity.''

.

This is the key part of the story. In this case, law enforcement made a reasonable suggestion. And it was beaten down. Why? I'm betting the arguments were similar to the ones we're hearing in here: "It won't make any difference!" "You can't trust law enforcement!" "It's a slippery slope!", etc. etc. I'm just sick of this. Law enforcement wants to remove all of these stupid loopholes and make it possible to prevent felons and mentally ill from buying guns through the system. Law enforcement wants to ban high capacity gun magazines because they cause more damage. And we can't seem to make it happen because one-third of our population is paranoid and ignorant. It's disgusting.

 

[Maude]

Weren't there several shootings at various gun shows in the past week? Multiple people injured at freakin gun shows! Guns are dangerous enough, but it's the idiots who own them that scare me.

 

[boots11234]

Weren't there several shootings at various gun shows in the past week? Multiple people injured at freakin gun shows! Guns are dangerous enough, but it's the idiots who own them that scare me.

Sort of: My link About those gun show shootings…POSTED AT 2:01 PM ON JANUARY 20, 2013 BY JAZZ SHAW Following the events of Gun Appreciation Day, there was a cynical, yet almost gleeful tone being taken by certain gun rights opponents at the expense of several people who were injured. The headlines speak volumes without even digging into the nasty messages underneath. 5 People Shot at 3 Different Gun Shows on Gun Appreciation Day. Holy cow! Five people were gunned down? That’s awful! I’m sure you wouldn’t go and get all snarky about shooting victims though, would you?If the gun advocates behind this year’s inaugural Gun Appreciation Day had hoped to use the day’s festivities to build support for their anti-regulation platform, they are going to have to wait another year.There were more. Shots Fired on Gun Appreciation Day. The list goes on. Unfortunately for the ghoulish brigade, it didn’t take much reading to figure out that the actual stories were far different from how they were being portrayed in the headlines. The highly charged terms “people shot” and “shots fired” leave one with the impression that gun fights were breaking out among crazed second amendment supporters, blasting their way into or out of various buildings. The reality, as you have probably already guessed, was somewhat different. First, the North Carolina show.A man identified as Gary Lynn Wilson, 36, of Wilmington, brought the 12-gauge shotgun to the show at the North Carolina State Fairgrounds and was attempting to remove it from its case when the weapon went off shortly after 1 p.m., police said.Linwood Hester, 50, of Durham, was struck in the left hand by birdshot, according to Joel Keith, police chief with the state Department of Agriculture. The birdshot also struck a woman identified as Janet Hoover, 54, of Benson, and Jake Alderman, a retired sheriff’s deputy from Wake Forest who was working at the event.The owner had stupidly not ensured the weapon was unloaded before bringing it out for safety inspection – before it got into the show. Three people took some bird shot with all being treated and released at a local facility on the same day.The second incident, in Indianapolis, concerned a guy who accidentally shot himself with his new gun after leaving the gun show. The final one was in the Buckeye state.And in Ohio, a gun dealer in Medina was checking out a semi-automatic handgun he had bought when he accidentally pulled the trigger, injuring his friend, police said. The gun’s magazine had been removed from the firearm, but one round remained in the chamber, police said.There were no shooting sprees, no attacks, and no “assault weapons” or extended volume magazines involved. If this is proof of anything, it’s that when you get a large enough crowd of people together you will inevitably find a few who are either foolish or careless enough to make a mistake with gun safety rules. There are many things you can’t fix through legislative action, and stupidity is among them. But let’s not see people fooled by opportunists who want to use injuries to random show attendees as a cynical ploy to depict gun ownership in a false light. Tags: gun control, gun shows, guns, Second Amendment

 

[Apple Jack]

Weren't there several shootings at various gun shows in the past week? Multiple people injured at freakin gun shows! Guns are dangerous enough, but it's the idiots who own them that scare me.

Sort of: My link About those gun show shootings…

POSTED AT 2:01 PM ON JANUARY 20, 2013 BY JAZZ SHAW

Following the events of Gun Appreciation Day, there was a cynical, yet almost gleeful tone being taken by certain gun rights opponents at the expense of several people who were injured. The headlines speak volumes without even digging into the nasty messages underneath. 5 People Shot at 3 Different Gun Shows on Gun Appreciation Day. Holy cow! Five people were gunned down? That’s awful! I’m sure you wouldn’t go and get all snarky about shooting victims though, would you?

If the gun advocates behind this year’s inaugural Gun Appreciation Day had hoped to use the day’s festivities to build support for their anti-regulation platform, they are going to have to wait another year.

There were more. Shots Fired on Gun Appreciation Day. The list goes on. Unfortunately for the ghoulish brigade, it didn’t take much reading to figure out that the actual stories were far different from how they were being portrayed in the headlines. The highly charged terms “people shot” and “shots fired” leave one with the impression that gun fights were breaking out among crazed second amendment supporters, blasting their way into or out of various buildings. The reality, as you have probably already guessed, was somewhat different. First, the North Carolina show.

A man identified as Gary Lynn Wilson, 36, of Wilmington, brought the 12-gauge shotgun to the show at the North Carolina State Fairgrounds and was attempting to remove it from its case when the weapon went off shortly after 1 p.m., police said.

Linwood Hester, 50, of Durham, was struck in the left hand by birdshot, according to Joel Keith, police chief with the state Department of Agriculture. The birdshot also struck a woman identified as Janet Hoover, 54, of Benson, and Jake Alderman, a retired sheriff’s deputy from Wake Forest who was working at the event.

The owner had stupidly not ensured the weapon was unloaded before bringing it out for safety inspection – before it got into the show. Three people took some bird shot with all being treated and released at a local facility on the same day.

The second incident, in Indianapolis, concerned a guy who accidentally shot himself with his new gun after leaving the gun show. The final one was in the Buckeye state.

And in Ohio, a gun dealer in Medina was checking out a semi-automatic handgun he had bought when he accidentally pulled the trigger, injuring his friend, police said. The gun’s magazine had been removed from the firearm, but one round remained in the chamber, police said.

There were no shooting sprees, no attacks, and no “assault weapons” or extended volume magazines involved. If this is proof of anything, it’s that when you get a large enough crowd of people together you will inevitably find a few who are either foolish or careless enough to make a mistake with gun safety rules. There are many things you can’t fix through legislative action, and stupidity is among them. But let’s not see people fooled by opportunists who want to use injuries to random show attendees as a cynical ploy to depict gun ownership in a false light.

Tags: gun control, gun shows, guns, Second Amendment

You just underscored Maude's point. Nice work.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Weren't there several shootings at various gun shows in the past week? Multiple people injured at freakin gun shows! Guns are dangerous enough, but it's the idiots who own them that scare me.

Sort of: My link About those gun show shootings…POSTED AT 2:01 PM ON JANUARY 20, 2013 BY JAZZ SHAW Following the events of Gun Appreciation Day, there was a cynical, yet almost gleeful tone being taken by certain gun rights opponents at the expense of several people who were injured. The headlines speak volumes without even digging into the nasty messages underneath. 5 People Shot at 3 Different Gun Shows on Gun Appreciation Day. Holy cow! Five people were gunned down? That’s awful! I’m sure you wouldn’t go and get all snarky about shooting victims though, would you?If the gun advocates behind this year’s inaugural Gun Appreciation Day had hoped to use the day’s festivities to build support for their anti-regulation platform, they are going to have to wait another year.There were more. Shots Fired on Gun Appreciation Day. The list goes on. Unfortunately for the ghoulish brigade, it didn’t take much reading to figure out that the actual stories were far different from how they were being portrayed in the headlines. The highly charged terms “people shot” and “shots fired” leave one with the impression that gun fights were breaking out among crazed second amendment supporters, blasting their way into or out of various buildings. The reality, as you have probably already guessed, was somewhat different. First, the North Carolina show.A man identified as Gary Lynn Wilson, 36, of Wilmington, brought the 12-gauge shotgun to the show at the North Carolina State Fairgrounds and was attempting to remove it from its case when the weapon went off shortly after 1 p.m., police said.Linwood Hester, 50, of Durham, was struck in the left hand by birdshot, according to Joel Keith, police chief with the state Department of Agriculture. The birdshot also struck a woman identified as Janet Hoover, 54, of Benson, and Jake Alderman, a retired sheriff’s deputy from Wake Forest who was working at the event.The owner had stupidly not ensured the weapon was unloaded before bringing it out for safety inspection – before it got into the show. Three people took some bird shot with all being treated and released at a local facility on the same day.The second incident, in Indianapolis, concerned a guy who accidentally shot himself with his new gun after leaving the gun show. The final one was in the Buckeye state.And in Ohio, a gun dealer in Medina was checking out a semi-automatic handgun he had bought when he accidentally pulled the trigger, injuring his friend, police said. The gun’s magazine had been removed from the firearm, but one round remained in the chamber, police said.There were no shooting sprees, no attacks, and no “assault weapons” or extended volume magazines involved. If this is proof of anything, it’s that when you get a large enough crowd of people together you will inevitably find a few who are either foolish or careless enough to make a mistake with gun safety rules. There are many things you can’t fix through legislative action, and stupidity is among them. But let’s not see people fooled by opportunists who want to use injuries to random show attendees as a cynical ploy to depict gun ownership in a false light. Tags: gun control, gun shows, guns, Second Amendment

I don't think anybody even remotely tried to portray these incidents as gun fights breaking out. Every report I read or comment that I have seen has been about how stupid people are.

 

[boots11234]

Weren't there several shootings at various gun shows in the past week? Multiple people injured at freakin gun shows! Guns are dangerous enough, but it's the idiots who own them that scare me.

Sort of: My link About those gun show shootings…

POSTED AT 2:01 PM ON JANUARY 20, 2013 BY JAZZ SHAW

Following the events of Gun Appreciation Day, there was a cynical, yet almost gleeful tone being taken by certain gun rights opponents at the expense of several people who were injured. The headlines speak volumes without even digging into the nasty messages underneath. 5 People Shot at 3 Different Gun Shows on Gun Appreciation Day. Holy cow! Five people were gunned down? That’s awful! I’m sure you wouldn’t go and get all snarky about shooting victims though, would you?

If the gun advocates behind this year’s inaugural Gun Appreciation Day had hoped to use the day’s festivities to build support for their anti-regulation platform, they are going to have to wait another year.

There were more. Shots Fired on Gun Appreciation Day. The list goes on. Unfortunately for the ghoulish brigade, it didn’t take much reading to figure out that the actual stories were far different from how they were being portrayed in the headlines. The highly charged terms “people shot” and “shots fired” leave one with the impression that gun fights were breaking out among crazed second amendment supporters, blasting their way into or out of various buildings. The reality, as you have probably already guessed, was somewhat different. First, the North Carolina show.

A man identified as Gary Lynn Wilson, 36, of Wilmington, brought the 12-gauge shotgun to the show at the North Carolina State Fairgrounds and was attempting to remove it from its case when the weapon went off shortly after 1 p.m., police said.

Linwood Hester, 50, of Durham, was struck in the left hand by birdshot, according to Joel Keith, police chief with the state Department of Agriculture. The birdshot also struck a woman identified as Janet Hoover, 54, of Benson, and Jake Alderman, a retired sheriff’s deputy from Wake Forest who was working at the event.

The owner had stupidly not ensured the weapon was unloaded before bringing it out for safety inspection – before it got into the show. Three people took some bird shot with all being treated and released at a local facility on the same day.

The second incident, in Indianapolis, concerned a guy who accidentally shot himself with his new gun after leaving the gun show. The final one was in the Buckeye state.

And in Ohio, a gun dealer in Medina was checking out a semi-automatic handgun he had bought when he accidentally pulled the trigger, injuring his friend, police said. The gun’s magazine had been removed from the firearm, but one round remained in the chamber, police said.

There were no shooting sprees, no attacks, and no “assault weapons” or extended volume magazines involved. If this is proof of anything, it’s that when you get a large enough crowd of people together you will inevitably find a few who are either foolish or careless enough to make a mistake with gun safety rules. There are many things you can’t fix through legislative action, and stupidity is among them. But let’s not see people fooled by opportunists who want to use injuries to random show attendees as a cynical ploy to depict gun ownership in a false light.

Tags: gun control, gun shows, guns, Second Amendment

You just underscored Maude's point. Nice work.

Wow, if I were you I'd worry less about guns and more about your second grade teacher who taught you how to read and comprehend.

 

[Run It Up]

School shooting just took place in a Texas college.For those not keeping track thats 3 school shootings in less than 10 days.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think the gun show shootings are at all relevant to this discussion. That is not to say that anecdotal incidents can't be used to make decent points here, but exactly what point does this make? That some people with guns are stupid? We already knew that. It doesn't make the arguments for specific gun control measures either stronger or weaker.

 

[tom22406]

Will you at least admit that Feinstein's proposal will be the one pushed the hardest for a AWB?Read that proposal very carefully and tell me what she has in mind.This is not saying it will be passed but what are her intentions.

1. I don't know.2. I have read her proposal. I don't agree with it. However, I don't find it to be unconstitutional, and I certainly don't think she has in mind going into private homes and seizing guns. 3. Her intentions are to ban certain forms of semi-automatic guns, to limit high capacity magazines, and to remove the private sales loophole. She has no "secret" intentions beyond what she states.

Never said she had the intention of going into homes and seizing them but I think it's pretty clear she wants a huge portion of guns to be banned based upon her proposal.That IMO is no secret and we all know it.Would it be fair to say that unless all guns were banned that is the only way you would see it as unconstitutional?I still say the only thing that gets done this time is the background checks.We then wait for the next mass killing and start it all over again.

As to your question, my answer is no. There are lots of proposals that I would consider to be unconstitutional. For instance, as someone (perhaps you?) asked me before, if a law attempted to set a limit on magazines of one bullet per magazine, I would find that to be unreasonable. I have a feeling any attempt to make all semi-automatic weapons illegal (as one person here proposed) would be unreasonable (as well as completely impractical.)

Fair enough and thanks for the reply.We agree on the background check but not on the magazine limit so I will leave it at that.Once I see what the AWB proposal is(and my money is on Feinstein's)we can then discuss that once it's made.

 

[mad sweeney]

Weren't there several shootings at various gun shows in the past week? Multiple people injured at freakin gun shows! Guns are dangerous enough, but it's the idiots who own them that scare me.

Sort of: My link About those gun show shootings…POSTED AT 2:01 PM ON JANUARY 20, 2013 BY JAZZ SHAW Following the events of Gun Appreciation Day, there was a cynical, yet almost gleeful tone being taken by certain gun rights opponents at the expense of several people who were injured. The headlines speak volumes without even digging into the nasty messages underneath. 5 People Shot at 3 Different Gun Shows on Gun Appreciation Day. Holy cow! Five people were gunned down? That’s awful! I’m sure you wouldn’t go and get all snarky about shooting victims though, would you?If the gun advocates behind this year’s inaugural Gun Appreciation Day had hoped to use the day’s festivities to build support for their anti-regulation platform, they are going to have to wait another year.There were more. Shots Fired on Gun Appreciation Day. The list goes on. Unfortunately for the ghoulish brigade, it didn’t take much reading to figure out that the actual stories were far different from how they were being portrayed in the headlines. The highly charged terms “people shot” and “shots fired” leave one with the impression that gun fights were breaking out among crazed second amendment supporters, blasting their way into or out of various buildings. The reality, as you have probably already guessed, was somewhat different. First, the North Carolina show.A man identified as Gary Lynn Wilson, 36, of Wilmington, brought the 12-gauge shotgun to the show at the North Carolina State Fairgrounds and was attempting to remove it from its case when the weapon went off shortly after 1 p.m., police said.Linwood Hester, 50, of Durham, was struck in the left hand by birdshot, according to Joel Keith, police chief with the state Department of Agriculture. The birdshot also struck a woman identified as Janet Hoover, 54, of Benson, and Jake Alderman, a retired sheriff’s deputy from Wake Forest who was working at the event.The owner had stupidly not ensured the weapon was unloaded before bringing it out for safety inspection – before it got into the show. Three people took some bird shot with all being treated and released at a local facility on the same day.The second incident, in Indianapolis, concerned a guy who accidentally shot himself with his new gun after leaving the gun show. The final one was in the Buckeye state.And in Ohio, a gun dealer in Medina was checking out a semi-automatic handgun he had bought when he accidentally pulled the trigger, injuring his friend, police said. The gun’s magazine had been removed from the firearm, but one round remained in the chamber, police said.There were no shooting sprees, no attacks, and no “assault weapons” or extended volume magazines involved. If this is proof of anything, it’s that when you get a large enough crowd of people together you will inevitably find a few who are either foolish or careless enough to make a mistake with gun safety rules. There are many things you can’t fix through legislative action, and stupidity is among them. But let’s not see people fooled by opportunists who want to use injuries to random show attendees as a cynical ploy to depict gun ownership in a false light. Tags: gun control, gun shows, guns, Second Amendment

worst. defense, ever.

 

[mad sweeney]

I don't think the gun show shootings are at all relevant to this discussion. That is not to say that anecdotal incidents can't be used to make decent points here, but exactly what point does this make? That some people with guns are stupid? We already knew that. It doesn't make the arguments for specific gun control measures either stronger or weaker.

I think it's the irony factor that all of these legally obtained firearms in the hands of trained gun owners at a gun safety checkpoint all ended up with people shot. It doesn't prove anything, but it certainly flies in the face of the safety factor that gun advocates are trying to get across: more guns = safer.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Weren't there several shootings at various gun shows in the past week? Multiple people injured at freakin gun shows! Guns are dangerous enough, but it's the idiots who own them that scare me.

And there were people injured and killed in motor vehicle accidents as well..Whats your point?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Tragically, the Sandy Hook shootings are being saddled for political gain. In an attempt to pass laws that would have had no bearing in the incident.The average American really thinks the proposed ban on assault weapons would have helped..From what I understand, there wasn't qa weapon used in the shootings that would have been banned. Also, the was an assault weapons ban during the Columbine incident..At least admit that the political and media narrative is deceiving..

Imagine that...mass shootings being used to take measures to address future mass shootings. And if you think that legislation on something like this could be expected to show immediate results, you're mistaken. Thanks to all the gun sellers and buyers, the benefits will take many, many years.

Measures that wouldn't have changed the outcome of this mass shooting... And somehow we're supposed to see some relevance where there is none.. Sandy Hook and a ban on "assault weapons" are only dance partners for the deceptive..

The primary weapon used in the attack was a “Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon,” said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance.

And high capacity magazines.

The weapon was not an AR15.. it was a 22 caliber rifle that looks like an AR15.. and at this point it's unclear whether that was the weapon used in the shootings, or the weapon they found in the truck of the car..

Link? Here's mine:http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/27/setting-the-record-straight-adam-lanza-did-use-the-bushmaster-ar-15/

Showing the inconsistencies

That is very bad writing and painfully long-winded, so I'm comfortable the countless sources I have, including the police on the scene and REDSTATE.COM. Regardless, my concern is the high capacity magazines, not the gun.

Washington Post?

"He had two semiautomatic pistols and a .223-caliber rifle, law enforcement officials said. He apparently used only the handguns, which were later found in the school. The rifle was found in the vehicle."

 

[Maude]

Weren't there several shootings at various gun shows in the past week? Multiple people injured at freakin gun shows! Guns are dangerous enough, but it's the idiots who own them that scare me.

And there were people injured and killed in motor vehicle accidents as well..Whats your point?

So you're telling me that motor vehicles are intended to kill and injure people? Do I have this right? Please provide a link to injuries at multiple car shows on the same weekend. Thanks!

 

[SacramentoBob]

Washington Post?

"He had two semiautomatic pistols and a .223-caliber rifle, law enforcement officials said. He apparently used only the handguns, which were later found in the school. The rifle was found in the vehicle."

Just found out about this from my work's resident Doomsday Prepper.

 

[Apple Jack]

Washington Post?

"He had two semiautomatic pistols and a .223-caliber rifle, law enforcement officials said. He apparently used only the handguns, which were later found in the school. The rifle was found in the vehicle."

Just found out about this from my work's resident Doomsday Prepper.

It's troubling that this guy owns guns.

 

[Apple Jack]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/62yearold-with-gun-only-one-standing-between-natio,30984/

 

[timschochet]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/62yearold-with-gun-only-one-standing-between-natio,30984/

Priceless.

 

[glock]

Weren't there several shootings at various gun shows in the past week? Multiple people injured at freakin gun shows! Guns are dangerous enough, but it's the idiots who own them that scare me.

Sort of: My link About those gun show shootings…POSTED AT 2:01 PM ON JANUARY 20, 2013 BY JAZZ SHAW Following the events of Gun Appreciation Day, there was a cynical, yet almost gleeful tone being taken by certain gun rights opponents at the expense of several people who were injured. The headlines speak volumes without even digging into the nasty messages underneath. 5 People Shot at 3 Different Gun Shows on Gun Appreciation Day. Holy cow! Five people were gunned down? That's awful! I'm sure you wouldn't go and get all snarky about shooting victims though, would you?If the gun advocates behind this year's inaugural Gun Appreciation Day had hoped to use the day's festivities to build support for their anti-regulation platform, they are going to have to wait another year.There were more. Shots Fired on Gun Appreciation Day. The list goes on. Unfortunately for the ghoulish brigade, it didn't take much reading to figure out that the actual stories were far different from how they were being portrayed in the headlines. The highly charged terms "people shot" and "shots fired" leave one with the impression that gun fights were breaking out among crazed second amendment supporters, blasting their way into or out of various buildings. The reality, as you have probably already guessed, was somewhat different. First, the North Carolina show.A man identified as Gary Lynn Wilson, 36, of Wilmington, brought the 12-gauge shotgun to the show at the North Carolina State Fairgrounds and was attempting to remove it from its case when the weapon went off shortly after 1 p.m., police said.Linwood Hester, 50, of Durham, was struck in the left hand by birdshot, according to Joel Keith, police chief with the state Department of Agriculture. The birdshot also struck a woman identified as Janet Hoover, 54, of Benson, and Jake Alderman, a retired sheriff's deputy from Wake Forest who was working at the event.The owner had stupidly not ensured the weapon was unloaded before bringing it out for safety inspection – before it got into the show. Three people took some bird shot with all being treated and released at a local facility on the same day.The second incident, in Indianapolis, concerned a guy who accidentally shot himself with his new gun after leaving the gun show. The final one was in the Buckeye state.And in Ohio, a gun dealer in Medina was checking out a semi-automatic handgun he had bought when he accidentally pulled the trigger, injuring his friend, police said. The gun's magazine had been removed from the firearm, but one round remained in the chamber, police said.There were no shooting sprees, no attacks, and no "assault weapons" or extended volume magazines involved. If this is proof of anything, it's that when you get a large enough crowd of people together you will inevitably find a few who are either foolish or careless enough to make a mistake with gun safety rules. There are many things you can't fix through legislative action, and stupidity is among them. But let's not see people fooled by opportunists who want to use injuries to random show attendees as a cynical ploy to depict gun ownership in a false light. Tags: gun control, gun shows, guns, Second Amendment

worst. defense, ever.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Weren't there several shootings at various gun shows in the past week? Multiple people injured at freakin gun shows! Guns are dangerous enough, but it's the idiots who own them that scare me.

And there were people injured and killed in motor vehicle accidents as well..Whats your point?

So you're telling me that motor vehicles are intended to kill and injure people? Do I have this right? Please provide a link to injuries at multiple car shows on the same weekend. Thanks!

More people die in motor vehicle accidents every year than from firearm injuries.. That's my point..A vehicle in the wrong hands is just as dangerous as a firearm in the wrong hands.. And actually, statistics will show you, more dangerous..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Washington Post?

"He had two semiautomatic pistols and a .223-caliber rifle, law enforcement officials said. He apparently used only the handguns, which were later found in the school. The rifle was found in the vehicle."

Just found out about this from my work's resident Doomsday Prepper.

It's troubling that this guy owns guns.

Which Guy? Me? I don't own any guns.. I've shot guns, enjoy shooting guns, and have gone hunting and/or skeet shooting on numerous occasions.. But, I don't own one, I own a couple bows though..Washington post a good enough link for you bud?