***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (3 Viewers)

[timschochet]

I listen to Rush and Hannity.

That explains a lot.

If you ever need a Constitutional lesson you should listen to Mark Levin.

I just can't. I enjoy listening to conservative talk show hosts: my favorites are Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, and Hugh Hewitt. Prager is astonishingly knowledgeable and speaks with great moral clarity. Medved is a moderate conservative and I enjoy his pragmatism and his humor. Hewitt is one of the best interviewers I have ever heard anywhere. Though I disagree with the three of them often, I always learn things from listening to them. Rush and Hannity not so much. Rush says a lot of absurd things for shock value. Hannity is a shill for the GOP, and though he is also a good interviewer, he gets his facts wrong a lot of the time IMO. But I can't listen to Levin. I get that he's intelligent, but his voice grates on me. Like fingernails on a chalkboard.

 

[Cookiemonster]

You can say what if all you want as long as you have actual factual proof that the "what if" can occur. I can say "what if the US gets invaded by a military alien life force that will drop nuclear bombs and destroy our cities" but there is absolutely nothing to prove that will happen and preparing yourself for it is stupid. This whole preparing for a government take over and capture of law abiding citizens guns is just this paranoid fantasy.

In case you missed it:

FERDINAND E. MARCOS, FORMER PRESIDENT/DICTATOR OF THE PHILIPPINES

President Marcos declared Martial Law by virtue of Proclamation No.1081 on Sept.21, 1972 and on the following day issued General Order No. 6 declaring that no person shall keep, possess or carry any firearms with penalties ranging up to death. The Philippines was under his dictatorship for the next 14 years.

ADOLF HITLER

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."

gunfacts.info

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. Then, from 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 millon dissidents were rounded up and killed.

In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a shot in protest, were rounded up and killed.

In 1935, China established gun control. Subsequently, between 1948 and 1952, over 20 million dissidents were rounded up and killed.

In 1956, Cambodia enshrined gun control. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million "educated" people were rounded up and killed.

In 1964, Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981, over 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and killed as a result of their inability to defend themselves.

In 1970, Uganda embraced gun control. Over the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were rounded up and killed.

In all, over 56-million people have died because of gun control in the last century.*523

523 (Most of the genocide statistics were reported in "Death by 'Gun Control': The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament," Aaron Zelman & Richard W. Stevens, 2001.

So, it is fallacy to believe an oppressive government or a dictator would want to control their subjects? One of the 1st steps in the book Dictatorship for Dummies is to control your subjects essential needs, ie food, shelter, defense, medicine... The more dependent people are on their leaders, the more pliable they become. Taking away their right to defense not only makes them dependent on you for defense, but you can now rule without confrontation. You have all the power, they have none. With all the power, you can take wealth. They now become dependent on you to provide food and shelter. Eh, screw 'em. = food shortage. It is all steps to the same place.The problem we gun rights advocates have with further restrictions is that they have already imposed their will on us with no significant results. Now they want more. Our government has already gotten too fat off our labors. It has it's hands into too many things as it is, and doesn't (IMO) do a good enough job. Our rule of law should be more in the hands of our states where it is much easier to move to and from. If I don't like it in California (and I don't), I can move to Arizona (and I will). The federal government was never supposed to get this big, nor this powerful. Government is not going to recede on its own account. It wants to keep growing and becoming more powerful despite what we want. It no longer cares what we want, it cares about getting reelected by making people scared, and then making them smile because they made new laws about it, but not about fixing anything.

THE COALITION TO STOP GUN VIOLENCE

"It is our aim to ban the manufacture and sale of handguns to private individuals."451

"We will never fully solve our nation's horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons."

SARAH BRADY, CHAIRPERSON FOR HANDGUN CONTROL, INC. (NOW THE BRADY CAMPAIGN)

"I don't believe gun owners have rights."457

ELLIOT CORBETT, SECRETARY, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR A RESPONSIBLE FIREARMS POLICY

"Handguns should be outlawed."

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (ACLU)

"We urge passage of federal legislation ... to prohibit ... the private ownership and possession of handguns."464

MICHAEL GARDNER, PRESIDENT OF NBC NEWS

"There is no reason for anyone in this country ... to buy, to own, to have, to use a

handgun. ...The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns." 470

"In fact, only police, soldiers -- and, maybe, licensed target ranges -- should have handguns. No one else needs one." 471

GEORGE NAPPER, ATLANTA PUBLIC-SAFETY COMMISSIONER

"If I had my druthers, the only people who would have guns would be those who enforce the law."476

JANET RENO, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL

"The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace." 477

Judge Garwood: [to federal lawyer] "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?"

Meteja: [federal lawyer] "Yes" Garwood: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National

Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?" Meteja: Exactly.

Meteja then said that even membership in the National Guard isn't enough to protect the private ownership of a firearm. It wouldn't protect the guns owned at the home of someone in the National Guard.

Garwood: Membership in the National Guard isn't enough? What else is needed? Meteja: The weapon in question must be used in the National Guard.

VIOLENCE POLICY CENTER

"[Gun] licensing systems are very expensive to administer ... licensing and registration in America would have little effect on the vast majority of gun violence."

"[We are] the largest national gun control advocacy group seeking a ban on handgun production."467

PATRICK V. MURPHY, FORMER NEW YORK CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER

"We are at the point in time and terror where nothing short of a strong uniform policy of domestic disarmament will alleviate the danger which is crystal clear and perilously present. Let us take the guns away from the people."463

NELSON T. "PETE" SHIELDS, CHAIRMAN EMERITUS, HANDGUN CONTROL, INC.453

"The final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal."454

"Yes, I'm for an outright ban [on handguns]."455

"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily - given the political realities - very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal."456

HOWARD METZENBAUM, FORMER U.S. SENATOR

"No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns."

JOSEPH BIDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM DELAWARE

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."

JOHN CHAFEE, FORMER U.S. SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND

"I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!"444

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS

"I believe.....this is my final word......I believe that I'm supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun...."445

Are we more worried about a nuclear alien invasion, or politicians setting their aim on provisions to make a future all-encompasing gun ban possible? And what would a complete gun ban accomplish? Softer targets for crime, and a government that no longer has to respect their citizens. The federal government was never intended to become so powerful, or have their hands into so much of our state laws or our daily lives. Federal government is a growing cancer and needs to be reined in, not given more power and the ability to become the uncontested power in our country.

 

[tom22406]

I listen to Rush and Hannity.

That explains a lot.

If you ever need a Constitutional lesson you should listen to Mark Levin.

I just can't. I enjoy listening to conservative talk show hosts: my favorites are Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, and Hugh Hewitt. Prager is astonishingly knowledgeable and speaks with great moral clarity. Medved is a moderate conservative and I enjoy his pragmatism and his humor. Hewitt is one of the best interviewers I have ever heard anywhere. Though I disagree with the three of them often, I always learn things from listening to them. Rush and Hannity not so much. Rush says a lot of absurd things for shock value. Hannity is a shill for the GOP, and though he is also a good interviewer, he gets his facts wrong a lot of the time IMO. But I can't listen to Levin. I get that he's intelligent, but his voice grates on me. Like fingernails on a chalkboard.

No debating on his voice because you are correct but it is his message and the facts he backs them up with that should get your attention more.He is very passionate about the Constitution and what he believes in so I respect that even though I don't always agree with him much like you with Rush and Hannity(and I also don't always agree with them either).I have caught each of those guys as well and enjoy them from time to time.I also catch Alan Colmes,Michael Savage,Laura Ingraham from time to time as well.No one host shares all of my views so I consider it a buffet of talk radio and take a little something away from each that I can agree on(even Colmes).

 

[timschochet]

I listen to Rush and Hannity.

That explains a lot.

If you ever need a Constitutional lesson you should listen to Mark Levin.

I just can't. I enjoy listening to conservative talk show hosts: my favorites are Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, and Hugh Hewitt. Prager is astonishingly knowledgeable and speaks with great moral clarity. Medved is a moderate conservative and I enjoy his pragmatism and his humor. Hewitt is one of the best interviewers I have ever heard anywhere. Though I disagree with the three of them often, I always learn things from listening to them. Rush and Hannity not so much. Rush says a lot of absurd things for shock value. Hannity is a shill for the GOP, and though he is also a good interviewer, he gets his facts wrong a lot of the time IMO. But I can't listen to Levin. I get that he's intelligent, but his voice grates on me. Like fingernails on a chalkboard.

No debating on his voice because you are correct but it is his message and the facts he backs them up with that should get your attention more.He is very passionate about the Constitution and what he believes in so I respect that even though I don't always agree with him much like you with Rush and Hannity(and I also don't always agree with them either).I have caught each of those guys as well and enjoy them from time to time.I also catch Alan Colmes,Michael Savage,Laura Ingraham from time to time as well.No one host shares all of my views so I consider it a buffet of talk radio and take a little something away from each that I can agree on(even Colmes).

Levin's views on the Constitution are similar to those of Scalia or Robert Bork. I respect that, but it's not my cup of tea.

 

[tom22406]

I listen to Rush and Hannity.

That explains a lot.

If you ever need a Constitutional lesson you should listen to Mark Levin.

I just can't. I enjoy listening to conservative talk show hosts: my favorites are Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, and Hugh Hewitt. Prager is astonishingly knowledgeable and speaks with great moral clarity. Medved is a moderate conservative and I enjoy his pragmatism and his humor. Hewitt is one of the best interviewers I have ever heard anywhere. Though I disagree with the three of them often, I always learn things from listening to them. Rush and Hannity not so much. Rush says a lot of absurd things for shock value. Hannity is a shill for the GOP, and though he is also a good interviewer, he gets his facts wrong a lot of the time IMO. But I can't listen to Levin. I get that he's intelligent, but his voice grates on me. Like fingernails on a chalkboard.

No debating on his voice because you are correct but it is his message and the facts he backs them up with that should get your attention more.He is very passionate about the Constitution and what he believes in so I respect that even though I don't always agree with him much like you with Rush and Hannity(and I also don't always agree with them either).I have caught each of those guys as well and enjoy them from time to time.I also catch Alan Colmes,Michael Savage,Laura Ingraham from time to time as well.No one host shares all of my views so I consider it a buffet of talk radio and take a little something away from each that I can agree on(even Colmes).

Levin's views on the Constitution are similar to those of Scalia or Robert Bork. I respect that, but it's not my cup of tea.

I get it and see why

 

[Guest]

You don't want compromise!You want one-sided concessions.Compromise involves BOTH sides giving something up.Unless your stance is that the gun grabbers really want to ban all guns and the "compromise" is that you let The People keep some, but that sounds an awfully lot like you are agreeing with the ol' slippery slope argument that the goal is a complete disarming of The People. And I know how you are adamant that there is zero chance of any slippery slopes happening with gun control.

From the perspective of a lot of people, private gun ownership represents a net negative to this country. So the status quo is gun owners kicking everyone else in the collective teeth. Under your formulation of compromise, we can only have you stop kicking us in our teeth if you get to knee us in the nads. No. Not going to happen.The way you solve a negative externality is you force it to be internalized. If we need more police or security guards in schools because of private gun ownership, then private gun owners should pay for it via a tax on gun purchases, gun ownership, bullets, or some combination of all of the above. If that means fewer people owns guns then it means that we were out of social equilibrium.

 

[Guest]

The only other issue that is up for grabs is keeping the guns out of hands of criminals. Some want to say we should be required by law to have them locked up. I squashed the idea of that just a few posts back.

Not very effectively and not in a way that showed any nuance or understanding. You raised what ifs and asked what you believed to be rhetorical questions. Where does it have to be locked up? What if it's a gun that you're not that generally aware of or don't use that often? So on and so forth. Standards of care are something that the law has spent a lot of time thinking about. It's not inconceivable and is indeed absolutely expected that the duty established would be one that would take into account those types of concerns.As I've said before, as much as you all enjoy lauding over other's limited understanding of firearms, you have gaping holes in your legislative and constitutional understandings. So pot kettle, glass houses and all that.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

"If I could've gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." Diane Feinstein

Just for reference, she's talking about all assault rifles here, NOT about all guns. The statement was a response to a point made, that the AWB including grandfathering in all assault weapons that were previously owned. It's been misconstrued ever since to suggest that Feinstein is secretly (or not so secretly) in favor of banning all guns. That is not the case.

The point remains the same, what you just articulated was the slippery slope you are so much against. You just said she wanted an outright ban of AWB but had to settle for grandfathering. There are enough quotes in this thread of politicians who have much broader restrictions/bans in their "sights" but are aggressively going after what they think they can chip away at in light of Sandy Hook. I don't remember seeing any such "momentum" generated after Va Tech shooting since no rifles were used in that incident.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

You don't want compromise!You want one-sided concessions.Compromise involves BOTH sides giving something up.Unless your stance is that the gun grabbers really want to ban all guns and the "compromise" is that you let The People keep some, but that sounds an awfully lot like you are agreeing with the ol' slippery slope argument that the goal is a complete disarming of The People. And I know how you are adamant that there is zero chance of any slippery slopes happening with gun control.

From the perspective of a lot of people, private gun ownership represents a net negative to this country. So the status quo is gun owners kicking everyone else in the collective teeth. Under your formulation of compromise, we can only have you stop kicking us in our teeth if you get to knee us in the nads. No. Not going to happen.The way you solve a negative externality is you force it to be internalized. If we need more police or security guards in schools because of private gun ownership, then private gun owners should pay for it via a tax on gun purchases, gun ownership, bullets, or some combination of all of the above. If that means fewer people owns guns then it means that we were out of social equilibrium.

So much is wrong with what you just posted.You have to be at this point.

 

[jonessed]

Why is it unnerving to believe this? We can point to a list of tyrannical governments that exist TODAY. It's not like we've having to believe in something that hasn't happened in 600 years.

Actually it's exactly like that, except it's not 600 years, it's forever. Two points:1. There has never been an instance in human history where private ownership of guns was the key to resistance against a dictatorship.

2. There has never been an instance in human history where the seizure of private ownership of guns was the key to imposing a dictatorship.

You mean like in 1774 and 1775 when the British were removing arms from the states? The British Parliament banned the export of muskets and ammo to the colonies. This was all before the Revolutionary War and one of the causes of it. State militias were hiding their cannons and #### out in the woods so they wouldn't be confiscated.Acts like this are one of the primary reasons George Mason argued for the inclusion of right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution. They didn't want standing federal armies during peacetime that could enforce the government's will like English kings used to do. There were always political struggles involving Kings, Legislatures and Churches and gun control laws and standing armies were used to weaken enemies.

There is so much wrong with what you wrote here that I'm not sure where to start but:1. Although some of the colonists brought their own privately owned guns to militias, more were given guns BY the militia, and these guns were not owned but were the shared property of the militia.

2. Many of the weapons we used to defeat the British were given to us by France. We also received from France training and direct military aid, and these facts are the key to our success in the American Revolution, not the presence of privately owned guns.

3. The spiritual descendents of our early militia movement is not today's private gun owner, but our military forces and the national guard.

Tim, if the American colonists hadnt possessed their own weapons at the beginning of the Revolution there wouldnt have been a Rebellion for the French to support. While it may be true that not all of the weapons used by the colonists were privately held many state militias were bank rolled by wealth land owners. Our Military today is the spiritual descendent of the Continental Army.

tim getting raked over the coals here.

Hardly. He didn't contradict anything I wrote. And Cookiemonster's quotes don't justify the belief that privately owned firearms protect a nation against tyranny. They never have and they never will. You guys can believe this all you want but I'm telling you it makes you look nutty and extremist. And if the NRA pushes this as their main reason for opposing mild gun control measures, they will continue to lose more public support.

 

[Guest]

You don't want compromise!You want one-sided concessions.Compromise involves BOTH sides giving something up.Unless your stance is that the gun grabbers really want to ban all guns and the "compromise" is that you let The People keep some, but that sounds an awfully lot like you are agreeing with the ol' slippery slope argument that the goal is a complete disarming of The People. And I know how you are adamant that there is zero chance of any slippery slopes happening with gun control.

From the perspective of a lot of people, private gun ownership represents a net negative to this country. So the status quo is gun owners kicking everyone else in the collective teeth. Under your formulation of compromise, we can only have you stop kicking us in our teeth if you get to knee us in the nads. No. Not going to happen.The way you solve a negative externality is you force it to be internalized. If we need more police or security guards in schools because of private gun ownership, then private gun owners should pay for it via a tax on gun purchases, gun ownership, bullets, or some combination of all of the above. If that means fewer people owns guns then it means that we were out of social equilibrium.

So much is wrong with what you just posted.You have to be at this point.

In your limited understanding world, I'm sure you think so. But you're wrong on all counts.

 

[Cookiemonster]

From the perspective of a lot of uninformed people, private gun ownership represents a net negative to this country. So the status quo is illegal gun owners kicking everyone else in the collective teeth. Under your my formulation of compromise, we can only have you them stop kicking us in our teeth if you get to knee us kneed in the nads. No. Not going to happen.

The way you solve a negative externality is you force it to be internalized use cherry picked and falsified statistics. It's how we all argue and why we can't agree on anything.If we need more police or security guards in schools because of private gun ownership, then private gun owners should pay for it via a tax on gun purchases, gun ownership, bullets, or some combination of all of the above. If that means fewer people owns guns then it means that we were out of social equilibrium. WTF? Make sense.

You grammar is all out of sorts. Providing you with a philosophy and english tutor.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

From the perspective of a lot of uninformed people, private gun ownership represents a net negative to this country. So the status quo is illegal gun owners kicking everyone else in the collective teeth. Under your my formulation of compromise, we can only have you them stop kicking us in our teeth if you get to knee us kneed in the nads. No. Not going to happen.

The way you solve a negative externality is you force it to be internalized use cherry picked and falsified statistics. It's how we all argue and why we can't agree on anything.If we need more police or security guards in schools because of private gun ownership, then private gun owners should pay for it via a tax on gun purchases, gun ownership, bullets, or some combination of all of the above. If that means fewer people owns guns then it means that we were out of social equilibrium. WTF? Make sense.

You grammar is all out of sorts. Providing you with a philosophy and english tutor.

 

[Guest]

From the perspective of a lot of uninformed people, private gun ownership represents a net negative to this country. So the status quo is illegal gun owners kicking everyone else in the collective teeth. Under your my formulation of compromise, we can only have you them stop kicking us in our teeth if you get to knee us kneed in the nads. No. Not going to happen.

The way you solve a negative externality is you force it to be internalized use cherry picked and falsified statistics. It's how we all argue and why we can't agree on anything.If we need more police or security guards in schools because of private gun ownership, then private gun owners should pay for it via a tax on gun purchases, gun ownership, bullets, or some combination of all of the above. If that means fewer people owns guns then it means that we were out of social equilibrium. WTF? Make sense.

You grammar is all out of sorts. Providing you with a philosophy and english tutor.

It's not philosophy. It's classical economics.I do agree that the way you guys solve your gun problem is by argue to a draw. Any large solution such as banning a large class of guns gets labeled as extreme, ridiculous, and a non-starter. And then any small solution such as controlling magazines or registering guns or only those guns which are the most dangerous gets minimized with out-of-place statistics such as, "Only 3% of murders each year are with rifles" or, "If you require people to register their weapons, then only the criminals won't do it." So since you can't come to any large agreement and since you ridicule/minimize the effect of any small agreement, you get years of absolutely nothing done. So congratulations on that.

 

[Guest]

From the perspective of a lot of uninformed people, private gun ownership represents a net negative to this country. So the status quo is illegal gun owners kicking everyone else in the collective teeth. Under your my formulation of compromise, we can only have you them stop kicking us in our teeth if you get to knee us kneed in the nads. No. Not going to happen.

The way you solve a negative externality is you force it to be internalized use cherry picked and falsified statistics. It's how we all argue and why we can't agree on anything.If we need more police or security guards in schools because of private gun ownership, then private gun owners should pay for it via a tax on gun purchases, gun ownership, bullets, or some combination of all of the above. If that means fewer people owns guns then it means that we were out of social equilibrium. WTF? Make sense.

You grammar is all out of sorts. Providing you with a philosophy and english tutor.

Moe giving Curly a high-five.

 

[hammerva]

This last page is why we will never have any real changes involving gun in our country. Jon Stewart put it best when he basically said that we can't solve today's real issue of guns in this country because we are more worried about a future imaginary problem. I mean in the last 4 years of Obama when has he EVER taken guns away from law abiding "responsible" as you love to use people? They might have taken away permits but when you go on youtube telling people that you will kill people in the government if they try is just asking for it. Hell the NRA and the right should be thanking him because gun sales have increased and more weapons out there.

You can mention Hitler and Stalin a million times but there is absolutely no proof that the government and our military is out to take over the people and steal all of our guns. It is a way to scare the stupid and naive but there is no factual proof anywhere

My link1st of all, you listen to Jon Stewart. I listen to Rush and Hannity. We're never going to see eye to eye on this, and the best arguments we could make would only convince the other that we're not "bat #### crazy." I haven't seen you in this thread, where I have only been on board for the last 1500 or so posts, so I'll take another shot and see if you are more like ChopMeat (so far anti-gun you can't talk to him), Timschochet (very left, and mostly ant-gun but will accept reason for what it is and is willing to take a peek at what is on the other side of the fence), or if you just have not heard more than one side (Jon Stewart's).

If you see all gun owners similar to the wanna-be-militaristic-tactifool instructor on youtube, then you would only be about 0.05% right about us. Yes, there are some of us like that out there. 50% just don't care unless it affects only them. Probably 40% of us are just pissed about all the gun talk, and about the fact that a proven non-solution is being preached about by the same people that have been preaching the same things for 15+ years, only because they had a couple good tragedies to use. I think this whole gun debate is a disrespect to the slaughters that happened, and to the root problem and is also a disrespect to our citizens who are being bombarded by the heavily-anti-gun-influenced media who take the side of a very vocal few in politics who are fanning the newfound flame for gun bans. It is sad that our media can control our population's feelings so much by telling everybody what they're afraid of and who/what is to blame for it, but nothing about how to fix it. We have gone on for pages and pages here about the effectiveness of gun-free zones (killing fields), AWBs (very little, if any effect - but are used in so few crimes that their sample size is too small to even determine whether the previous AWB made any difference or not), and magazine restrictions (been shown plenty of times that limiting magazines to 10 rounds slows down the rounds per minute rate from about 100 to about 90 rpm) and that even eliminating semi-auto could be minimally effective in slowing down someone who was willing to put in the work and practice (most of these mass-killings are done by mentally damaged people, but they are usually of at least average intelligence, patient, thorough and deliberate in their planning and fairly resourceful - so practice reloading a revolver to be 90% as fast as semi-auto is a non-issue).

I don't believe we should get rid of guns at all. My dad and grandfather were hunters and have a large collection of guns that the were actually used for hunting. They didn't need tons of magazine rounds or high powered triggers because to them hunting was about the sport and the challenge and the actual meat to consume and not the bloodshed and how much damage you can perform. My dad and grandpa never thought the government was out to get them and they never thought that a gun defined you as a person. The idea that the government will take ALL your guns is just stupid talk that will never happen anyway. You can throw all of the quotes from liberal politicians and think-tanks all you want but the REALITY is that entire government will never let that happen because no matter how many times Rush and Hannity tells you that our president hates America and is a communist he still believes in gun ownership. If you don't believe me just look at the 4 years of him doing absolutely nothing on the gun issue. And most gun owners know that but they don't scream and yell like the ones screaming 1776 all the time that get on TV.

As for this idea that the disrespect by the media is having an impact, you must not be living near DC area because as soon as the Sandy Hook shootings happen, gun sales went through the roof. they had a gun show a couple weeks later and there was the line was long and winding. So if the media is trying to make people hate guns they are doing a terrible job. It is going to get to the point where people who don't want guns will have to get them which is a slippery slope indeed

I have no issue with most gun owners because they are knowledgeable about what they REALLY NEED, how to use and store it, and how NOT to use and store it. I just wished that those people would tell the delusional superheroes with esteem issues at the bottom of the gun food chain to calm down and use common sense. But that argument could be made to all groups.

 

[StrikeS2k]

(CNSNews.com) - A new Justice Department study looking at violent crimes committed against “youth”—defined as Americans from 12 to 17 years of age—discovered that the rate of "serious violent crime" committed against youth by a perpetrator using a firearm dropped 95 percent from 1994 to 2010.

The study—“Violent Crime Against Youth, 1994-2010”--also discovered that American youth who were victims of a serious violent crime in 2010 were six times more likely to have been attacked by a perpetrator wielding a knife than one wielding a gun.

Serious violent crimes against youth perpetrated at schools dropped 62 percent from 1994 to 2010, said the study, and students were less likely to become victims of a serious violent crime at school than they were away from school. In 2010, 6.6 out of every 1,000 youth became victims of a serious violent crime at school while 7.4 of every 1,000 became victims of a serious violent crime away from school.

The study, released Dec. 20, also discovered that an American youth was 3.8 times more likely to become the victim of a serious violent crime if he or she lived in a home where the householder was unmarried than if he or she lived with married parents. In 2010, 7.4 out of every 1,000 youth living with married parents became the victims of a serious violent crime. At the same time, 27.8 out of every 1,000 living with an unmarried householder became the victims of a serious violent crime.

Back in 1994, an American youth was slightly more likely to be victimized with a knife than with a gun. But that has changed dramatically in recent years, according to the study.

In 1994, 11.4 out of 1,000 youth became the victims of a serious violent crime committed by a perpetrator with a firearm; and 11.8 out of 1,000 youth became the victims of a serious violent crime committed by a perpetrator with a knife. By 2010, however, only 0.6 out of 1,000 youth were victimized in a serious violent crime committed by a perpetrator with a firearm, while 3.7 out of 1,000 youth were victimized in a serious violent crime committed by a perpetrator with a knife.

The study defined “serious violent crimes” as rape, other sexual assaults, robbery and aggravated assault.

The study also notes that homicides among American youth declined by 65 percent from 1993 to 2010, dropping from 8.4 per 100,000 youth to 3.0 per 100,000 youth.

Between 1994 and 2010, there was also a drop of 78 percent in the number of American youth who were "injured" by a serious violent crime. In 1994, 19.2 out of every 1,000 youth were injured by a serious violent crime, while in 2010 only 4.2 percent were injured by a serious violent crime.

The studies statistics on non-homicide violent crimes was based on annual surveys of American youth conducted by the Census Bureau. In 2010, the Census Bureau interviewed a random sampling of 73,300 youth for the study.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/doj-children-unmarried-38x-more-likely-be-victims-violent-crime

 

[Cookiemonster]

I don't believe we should get rid of guns at all. My dad and grandfather were hunters and have a large collection of guns that the were actually used for hunting. They didn't need tons of magazine rounds or high powered triggers because to them hunting was about the sport and the challenge and the actual meat to consume and not the bloodshed and how much damage you can perform. My dad and grandpa never thought the government was out to get them and they never thought that a gun defined you as a person.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about hunting or self defense because it was just common sense that people can hunt and protect themselves. The reason that the 2nd Amendment was written was for political reasons, and control by government. It has been an issue throughout history, and is still in many countries besides ours so to think our country could never go down that path is just burying your head in the sand. I (and most of us) are not saying it is going to happen, or that it is happening, or that it is the goal of the entire democratic party or any such thing. We are saying that we will not allow for the potential of it now, or for future generations.Hunting and sporting is not the issue, nor is what they use or want. Animals shot from 75 yards away don't usually try to kill you. They (almost always) are not trying to kill you when you shoot, nor do they try to do anything but get away after they have been shot - I would allow that several defensive shootings happen with bears. Defending your home against more than one attacker at night is not the same as shooting a deer in the daylight. Stress, visibility, reaction time and quickly moving targets/opponents lead to very poor hit ratios. Besides that, guns - even high powered 12ga shotguns or hunting rifles - are not death rays. They do not flip people backwards 5 feet like Hollywood portrays, and quite often one or two hits does not stop a man that has the proper mindset unless those shots are placed in the central nervous system. 10 rounds may barely be adequate for one perpetrator, let alone 2 or 5. I agree that 10 rounds should be adequate for hunting, but for home defense it is minimal IMO.

The idea that the government will take ALL your guns is just stupid talk that will never happen anyway. You can throw all of the quotes from liberal politicians and think-tanks all you want but the REALITY is that entire government will never let that happen because no matter how many times Rush and Hannity tells you that our president hates America and is a communist he still believes in gun ownership. If you don't believe me just look at the 4 years of him doing absolutely nothing on the gun issue. And most gun owners know that but they don't scream and yell like the ones screaming 1776 all the time that get on TV.

I actually believe that Obama would like strong gun restrictions (his Illinois history supports that) but yes, he is very limited in his ability to do so now. It would be political suicide for the Dems to push this too hard as evidenced by the elections following the Clinton ban. I think his previous 4 years of doing nothing is more indicative of his desire to be reelected. Obama is not our biggest opponent to gun rights, but I think it's a far cry from believing in gun ownership by the population. Illinois history says otherwise.

As for this idea that the disrespect by the media is having an impact, you must not be living near DC area because as soon as the Sandy Hook shootings happen, gun sales went through the roof. they had a gun show a couple weeks later and there was the line was long and winding. So if the media is trying to make people hate guns they are doing a terrible job. It is going to get to the point where people who don't want guns will have to get them which is a slippery slope indeed

A two-year study by the Media Research Center concluded that television reporters are overwhelmingly opposed to Second Amendment rights. For broadcasts from major networks from July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1997, covering 244 gun policy stories:• The ratio of anti-gun to pro-gun bias was 16:1. • Anti-gun spokespeople (Sarah Brady, etc) were given three times the number ofsound bites than pro-gun spokespeople (NRA, etc).People are buying guns at such a high pace because they want to get theirs before they can't. A gun ban is not likely IMO, but still possible. I'm not into the panic buying, but I can understand those that are.

I have no issue with most gun owners because they are knowledgeable about what they REALLY NEED, how to use and store it, and how NOT to use and store it. I just wished that those people would tell the delusional superheroes with esteem issues at the bottom of the gun food chain to calm down and use common sense. But that argument could be made to all groups.

My favorite pro gun forum is thehighroad.org and there is a lot of self-policing on that board. Common misquotes and urban legends are smacked down there whether they are pro or anti gun related, and they allow for arguments from the whole spectrum of extreme left and right. It is by far the most mature and civil message board I've found. Granted, every time there is a pro-restriction argument made there are at least 10, "Never. No more," replies. That is just representative of the feelings that a large portion of gun owners have because of political agendas that are largely ineffective and restrictive to a populace that is for the most part, not the problem. We (gun owners) quite often have to ##### slap some of these superheros because they not only look stupid, but make us look bad. I don't bother with the survivalist-type boards because of exactly this kind of nonsense. I will admit that I will use my guns to protect from an illegal seizure of them, but I'm not planning to go on a rampage if they make another stupid law. This would only cause our step to move very far backwards in public opinion.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Do you NEED alcohol?Does your car NEED to go faster than the speed limit?Do you NEED a swimming pool?All of those have accounted for more deaths many times over than the weapons and weapon modifications you are in favor of banning so that you will FEEL better. You guys acknowledge the impact will be negligible and yet you keep screaming from the tree tops that YOU NEED these items banned for YOUR peace of mind.

 

[Hoosier16]

re: magazine caps

As soon as the AWB became law, manufacturers began retooling in order to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant with the new gun regulations. One of those new, ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995 carbine, which was sold with ten-round magazines.

In 1999, five years into the Federal AWB, the Columbine shooting occurred. Eric Harris was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: 13 magazines were found in the aftermath. Harris fired at least 98 rounds before killing himself.

Cho (Va Tech shooting) fired approximately 170 rounds - or 10 rounds per magazine - from two handguns before killing himself.

Like Eric Harris before him, Cho demonstrated that a magazine cap was incidental to the amount of death and destruction an unopposed murderer could cause in a "gun-free zone".

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

But in both of those situations, even more people might have died without the cap. And in the case of Jared Loughner, less people would likely have died with the cap. And many of the Aurora families believe this to be true in their case as well. Your post demonstrates, correctly, that magazine caps will not deter these crazy mass shooters. What it might do, however, is limit their damage, sometimes. And that's enough for me to support doing it.

You have got to be kidding! I think the very next post fits better right here.

This last page post is why we will never have any real changes involving gun in our country.

It's clear by your post that you really aren't looking for effective solutions. When two of the worst mass shootings in history would still occur with a high cap magazine ban, it's pretty clear the ban is not effective. As everyone has been saying for 100+ pages, there just isn't any reason people can't buy more magazines and produce the same amount of damage. It's ridiculous to suggest that the ban was even remotely effective. The killers decided when it was over, not the magazine limitation.Columbine:

There were no further injuries after 11:35 a.m. They had killed 10 people in the library and wounded 12. Of the 56 library hostagees, 34 remained unharmed. The shooters had enough ammunition to have killed them all.[24]

VA Tech:

Approximately 10–12 minutes after the second attack began, Cho shot himself in the head.[38] He died in Jocelyne Couture-Nowak's Intermediate French class, room 211. During this second assault, he had fired at least 174 rounds,[22] killing 30 people and wounding 17 more.[1][38] All of the victims were shot at least three times each; of the 30 killed, 28 were shot in the head.[39][40] During the investigation, State Police Superintendent William Flaherty told a state panel that police found 203 live rounds in Norris Hall. "He was well prepared to continue...," Flaherty testified.[41]

As you can see, the magazine limitations had absolutely no effect in even saving one life. If the control side would start concentrating on the effective solutions, instead of pushing ineffective ones, the resistance might not be as strong.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

(CNSNews.com) - A new Justice Department study looking at violent crimes committed against “youth”—defined as Americans from 12 to 17 years of age—discovered that the rate of "serious violent crime" committed against youth by a perpetrator using a firearm dropped 95 percent from 1994 to 2010.

The study—“Violent Crime Against Youth, 1994-2010”--also discovered that American youth who were victims of a serious violent crime in 2010 were six times more likely to have been attacked by a perpetrator wielding a knife than one wielding a gun.

Serious violent crimes against youth perpetrated at schools dropped 62 percent from 1994 to 2010, said the study, and students were less likely to become victims of a serious violent crime at school than they were away from school. In 2010, 6.6 out of every 1,000 youth became victims of a serious violent crime at school while 7.4 of every 1,000 became victims of a serious violent crime away from school.

The study, released Dec. 20, also discovered that an American youth was 3.8 times more likely to become the victim of a serious violent crime if he or she lived in a home where the householder was unmarried than if he or she lived with married parents. In 2010, 7.4 out of every 1,000 youth living with married parents became the victims of a serious violent crime. At the same time, 27.8 out of every 1,000 living with an unmarried householder became the victims of a serious violent crime.

Back in 1994, an American youth was slightly more likely to be victimized with a knife than with a gun. But that has changed dramatically in recent years, according to the study.

In 1994, 11.4 out of 1,000 youth became the victims of a serious violent crime committed by a perpetrator with a firearm; and 11.8 out of 1,000 youth became the victims of a serious violent crime committed by a perpetrator with a knife. By 2010, however, only 0.6 out of 1,000 youth were victimized in a serious violent crime committed by a perpetrator with a firearm, while 3.7 out of 1,000 youth were victimized in a serious violent crime committed by a perpetrator with a knife.

The study defined “serious violent crimes” as rape, other sexual assaults, robbery and aggravated assault.

The study also notes that homicides among American youth declined by 65 percent from 1993 to 2010, dropping from 8.4 per 100,000 youth to 3.0 per 100,000 youth.

Between 1994 and 2010, there was also a drop of 78 percent in the number of American youth who were "injured" by a serious violent crime. In 1994, 19.2 out of every 1,000 youth were injured by a serious violent crime, while in 2010 only 4.2 percent were injured by a serious violent crime.

The studies statistics on non-homicide violent crimes was based on annual surveys of American youth conducted by the Census Bureau. In 2010, the Census Bureau interviewed a random sampling of 73,300 youth for the study.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/doj-children-unmarried-38x-more-likely-be-victims-violent-crime

0.6 out of 1000 youth were victimized in a serious violent crime committed by a perpetrator with a firearmI wonder what the stat is for "assault rifles"...

I wonder what the stat is for "high-capacity magazines"...

Why are the gun grabbers so hell bent again coming after the Sandy Hook shooting? Oh yeah...emotions...

 

[5 digit know nothing]

from a Jewish friend of mine:

Hitler has been on record many times stating he got his ideas for the Holocaust based on American policies of detainment camps for Japanese Americans on the west coast and our treatment of native Americans. Many Americans are ashamed that our country could of had slaves. So by some people, our country has evil tendencies. However, at the same time, people argue our country has our best interests and we don't need guns. The point of gun ownership according to our founders is to give Americans the ability to protect themselves should our government turn against us. While it is highly unlikely we will need to protect ourselves today against tyrannical forces, the possibility exists that 50 years from now there could be a need.

 

[Slingblade]

re: magazine capsAs soon as the AWB became law, manufacturers began retooling in order to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant with the new gun regulations. One of those new, ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995 carbine, which was sold with ten-round magazines.In 1999, five years into the Federal AWB, the Columbine shooting occurred. Eric Harris was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: 13 magazines were found in the aftermath. Harris fired at least 98 rounds before killing himself.Cho (Va Tech shooting) fired approximately 170 rounds - or 10 rounds per magazine - from two handguns before killing himself.Like Eric Harris before him, Cho demonstrated that a magazine cap was incidental to the amount of death and destruction an unopposed murderer could cause in a "gun-free zone".http://www.assaultweapon.info/

But in both of those situations, even more people might have died without the cap. And in the case of Jared Loughner, less people would likely have died with the cap. And many of the Aurora families believe this to be true in their case as well. Your post demonstrates, correctly, that magazine caps will not deter these crazy mass shooters. What it might do, however, is limit their damage, sometimes. And that's enough for me to support doing it.

 

[Cookiemonster]

re: magazine caps

As soon as the AWB became law, manufacturers began retooling in order to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant with the new gun regulations. One of those new, ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995 carbine, which was sold with ten-round magazines.

In 1999, five years into the Federal AWB, the Columbine shooting occurred. Eric Harris was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: 13 magazines were found in the aftermath. Harris fired at least 98 rounds before killing himself.

Cho (Va Tech shooting) fired approximately 170 rounds - or 10 rounds per magazine - from two handguns before killing himself.

Like Eric Harris before him, Cho demonstrated that a magazine cap was incidental to the amount of death and destruction an unopposed murderer could cause in a "gun-free zone".

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

But in both of those situations, even more people might have died without the cap. And in the case of Jared Loughner, less people would likely have died with the cap. And many of the Aurora families believe this to be true in their case as well. Your post demonstrates, correctly, that magazine caps will not deter these crazy mass shooters. What it might do, however, is limit their damage, sometimes. And that's enough for me to support doing it.

At least he wasn't speaking in absolutes. He was leading, and didn't really say anything, but at least he wasn't so audacious as to state these as facts.

 

[timschochet]

from a Jewish friend of mine:

Hitler has been on record many times stating he got his ideas for the Holocaust based on American policies of detainment camps for Japanese Americans on the west coast and our treatment of native Americans. Many Americans are ashamed that our country could of had slaves. So by some people, our country has evil tendencies. However, at the same time, people argue our country has our best interests and we don't need guns. The point of gun ownership according to our founders is to give Americans the ability to protect themselves should our government turn against us. While it is highly unlikely we will need to protect ourselves today against tyrannical forces, the possibility exists that 50 years from now there could be a need.

You'r Jewish friend is an idiot. Just about everything he wrote is a complete and utter falsehood, starting with the "Hitler has been on record many times"- what record is that? And how could Hitler base his "ideas for the Holocaust" on American policies of detainment camps for Japanese Americans, when those camps were installed in April of 1942, long after the Holocaust had already begun? So incredibly stupid.

 

[timschochet]

re: magazine caps

As soon as the AWB became law, manufacturers began retooling in order to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant with the new gun regulations. One of those new, ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995 carbine, which was sold with ten-round magazines.

In 1999, five years into the Federal AWB, the Columbine shooting occurred. Eric Harris was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: 13 magazines were found in the aftermath. Harris fired at least 98 rounds before killing himself.

Cho (Va Tech shooting) fired approximately 170 rounds - or 10 rounds per magazine - from two handguns before killing himself.

Like Eric Harris before him, Cho demonstrated that a magazine cap was incidental to the amount of death and destruction an unopposed murderer could cause in a "gun-free zone".

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

But in both of those situations, even more people might have died without the cap. And in the case of Jared Loughner, less people would likely have died with the cap. And many of the Aurora families believe this to be true in their case as well. Your post demonstrates, correctly, that magazine caps will not deter these crazy mass shooters. What it might do, however, is limit their damage, sometimes. And that's enough for me to support doing it.

At least he wasn't speaking in absolutes. He was leading, and didn't really say anything, but at least he wasn't so audacious as to state these as facts.

Of course I didn't. I never said it would absolutely save lives, any more than you guys can prove that they wouldn't. But I don't come up with these assumptions based on my own flawed wisdom. The recommendation to limit high capacity magazines has been made and reaffirmed over the years by hundreds of law enforcement officials. Here is a recent example:http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=01682CE7-D8C8-477B-B670-FF62C828D61A

Now, to be fair, this guy has his information wrong. He states that all 22 of the mass shootings between 1994 and 2011 have used high capacity magazines. That is incorrect- as you guys note, both Columbine and Virginia Tech did not use these magazines. However, it's still 20 out of 22, so this guy's point is still just as good, IMO. And he is only one of so many law enforcement people in favor of this. The only ones I can find opposed are either gun-owners or conservative ideologues who want no gun restrictions.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

from a Jewish friend of mine:

Hitler has been on record many times stating he got his ideas for the Holocaust based on American policies of detainment camps for Japanese Americans on the west coast and our treatment of native Americans. Many Americans are ashamed that our country could of had slaves. So by some people, our country has evil tendencies. However, at the same time, people argue our country has our best interests and we don't need guns. The point of gun ownership according to our founders is to give Americans the ability to protect themselves should our government turn against us. While it is highly unlikely we will need to protect ourselves today against tyrannical forces, the possibility exists that 50 years from now there could be a need.

You'r Jewish friend is an idiot. Just about everything he wrote is a complete and utter falsehood, starting with the "Hitler has been on record many times"- what record is that? And how could Hitler base his "ideas for the Holocaust" on American policies of detainment camps for Japanese Americans, when those camps were installed in April of 1942, long after the Holocaust had already begun? So incredibly stupid.

"...Let me remind you only of the witch-hunts of the middle ages, the horrors of the French revolution, or the genocide of the American Indians... in such periods there are always only a very few who do not succumb. But when it is all over, everyone, horrified, asks `for heaven's sake, how could I?' " Albert Speer, Hitler's minister of war production, writing from prison in 1953."Hitler's concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild west; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America's extermination - by starvation and uneven combat - of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity." P. 202, "Adolph Hitler" by John Toland

 

[timschochet]

From the above editiorial:

Law enforcement officers with experience in mass shootings confirm that, in a large number of cases, the shooters are subdued by nearby bystanders or law enforcement when they pause to reload. These devices simply give assailants more time to kill.

What else does anyone need to know about this? To me this argument is decisive and final. No good excuse or reason not to have a ban, IMO.

 

[timschochet]

from a Jewish friend of mine:

Hitler has been on record many times stating he got his ideas for the Holocaust based on American policies of detainment camps for Japanese Americans on the west coast and our treatment of native Americans. Many Americans are ashamed that our country could of had slaves. So by some people, our country has evil tendencies. However, at the same time, people argue our country has our best interests and we don't need guns. The point of gun ownership according to our founders is to give Americans the ability to protect themselves should our government turn against us. While it is highly unlikely we will need to protect ourselves today against tyrannical forces, the possibility exists that 50 years from now there could be a need.

You'r Jewish friend is an idiot. Just about everything he wrote is a complete and utter falsehood, starting with the "Hitler has been on record many times"- what record is that? And how could Hitler base his "ideas for the Holocaust" on American policies of detainment camps for Japanese Americans, when those camps were installed in April of 1942, long after the Holocaust had already begun? So incredibly stupid.

"...Let me remind you only of the witch-hunts of the middle ages, the horrors of the French revolution, or the genocide of the American Indians... in such periods there are always only a very few who do not succumb. But when it is all over, everyone, horrified, asks `for heaven's sake, how could I?' " Albert Speer, Hitler's minister of war production, writing from prison in 1953."Hitler's concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild west; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America's extermination - by starvation and uneven combat - of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity." P. 202, "Adolph Hitler" by John Toland

That's an excellent book; I've read it twice. I don't believe Toland mentioned Japanese internment as an influence on Hitler. Because if he had, he would have been an idiot, much like your friend. By the way, the Boers were extremely well-armed, and that did not protect them. They did fine in small skirmishes, but the moment they had to go up against a regular army, they were screwed. That's because private arms are no protection against the military, and never have been, in all of human history. So even your "examples" are incredibly flawed even if we ignore your paranoia.

 

[timschochet]

Hmm, some actual statistics seem to contradict a few people here:

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-10/news/36272948_1_capacity-magazines-and-assault-33-round-magazine-high-capacity-magazines

During the 10-year federal ban on assault weapons, the percentage of firearms equipped with high-capacity magazines seized by police agencies in Virginia dropped, only to rise sharply once the restrictions were lifted in 2004, according to an analysis by The Washington Post.

The White House is leading a push to reinstate a national ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons after a gunman armed with an AR-15 and 30-round magazines killed 20 children and seven adults in Connecticut. Vice President Biden is holding advisory meetings this week to hammer out a course of action that will address the issue of the larger magazines, which under the lapsed federal ban were those that held 11 or more rounds of ammunition.

In Virginia, the Post found that the rate at which police recovered firearms with high-capacity magazines — mostly handguns and to a smaller extent rifles — began to drop around 1998, four years into the ban. It hit a low of 9 percent of the total number of guns recovered the year the ban expired, 2004.

The next year, the rate began to climb and continued to rise in subsequent years, reaching 20 percent in 2010, according to the analysis of a little-known Virginia database of guns recovered by police. In the period The Post studied, police in Virginia recovered more than 100,000 firearms, more than 14,000 of which had high-capacity magazines.

To some researchers, the snapshot in Virginia suggests that the federal ban may have started to curb the widespread availablity of the larger magazines.

“I was skeptical that the ban would be effective, and I was wrong,” said Garen Wintemute, head of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California at Davis School of Medicine. “The trend downward in high-capacity magazine use during the ban, the immediate and marked reversal when the ban was lifted and the sustained rise thereafter, are about as clear an example as we could ask for of evidence that the ban was working.”

The analysis is based on an examination of the Criminal Firearms Clearinghouse, a database obtained from state police under Virginia’s public information law. The data, which were first studied by the Post in 2011, offer a rare glimpse into the size of the magazines of guns seized during criminal investigations. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which traces guns and regulates the industry, tracks details about the guns seized after crimes, but not the magazine size.

The initial Post analysis was prompted by a mass shooting in Tucson. Jared Lee Loughner — armed with a legally purchased 9mm semiautomatic handgun and a 33-round magazine — opened fire outside a grocery story, killing six people and wounding 13, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).

In the following two years, a succession of mass shootings has occurred, including several in which the gunmen reportedly had high-capacity magazines.

At the Dec. 14 shooting in Newtown, Conn., the gunman was reported to have been armed with a two handguns, an AR-15 rifle and numerous 30-round magazines. He killed himself at the scene. The guns were legally purchased by his mother.

The federal ban that expired in 2004 prohibited the manufacture of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. But the law permitted the sale of magazines manufactured before the ban. By some estimates, 25 million of the large-capacity magazines were still on the market in 1995.

Many semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic handguns accept magazines of various sizes. Larger magazines increase a gun’s firepower, enabling more shots before reloading.The Virginia database analyzed by The Post lists about three-quarters of guns recovered by police, missing the rest because some agencies failed to report their recoveries to the state. The database contains details about more than 100,000 guns recovered by 200 police departments in a wide range of investigations from 1993 through August 2010, when The Post last obtained it.

In recent weeks, The Post conducted additional analysis into the type of guns confiscated with large-capacity magazines. The guns included Glock and TEC-9 handguns and Bushmaster rifles. Most had magazines ranging from 11 to 30 rounds.

Of 14,478 guns equipped with large-capacity magazines that were confiscated by police, more than 87 percent — 12,664 — were classified as semiautomatic pistols. The remainder were mostly semiautomatic rifles.

The Post also identified and excluded from the counts more than 1,000 .22-caliber rifles with large-capacity tubular magazines, which were not subject to the ban.

In Virginia, handguns outfitted with large-capacity magazines saw the biggest fluctuation during and after the ban.

 

[timschochet]

So what do we have in favor of the proposed ban on high capacity magazines?1. We have concrete evidence that the last ban, which lasted 10 years, actually worked (see the above post.)2. We have the fact that out of 22 mass shootings since 1984, 20 of them were committed with high capacity magazines, including all of them since the last ban was lifted.3. We have the testimony of numerous law enforcement that " in a large number of cases (of mass shooting), the shooters are subdued by nearby bystanders or law enforcement when they pause to reload." (See posts # 5985 and #5987).And what do we have against the proposed ban? We have a some gun-owners telling us it won't make any difference. To prove it, they use 2 examples out of 22. We have other gun-owners warning us that this is part of a "slippery slope" to make all guns illegal. And finally, we have a few people bringing up Adolf Hitler and concentration camps. Why is this even a debate at this point? Let's just get it done.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Confiscations aren't a sign of it "working."Impact in intentional homicide rate is negligible if even showing any positive effects as you have pointed out for us, nice try to twist the argument to measure something else.

 

[timschochet]

Confiscations aren't a sign of it "working."

Impact in intentional homicide rate is negligible if even showing any positive effects as you have pointed out for us, nice try to twist the argument to measure something else.

If we're limiting the discussion to mass shootings, then I don't believe it is, and that's the whole point. Obviously a ban on high capacity magazines is going to have NO impact on overall gun crimes. It's designed specifically with regard to mass shootings.

 

[Guest]

There's a couple other amazing things about this thread.The gun guys copy and paste over and over quotes from dictators about taking away guns as if to prove historical precedent. But then they ignore the times that people in the United States tried to use their guns to overthrow or defend themselves from oppression and failed. Everyone from Shay's Rebellion to the Confederacy to David Koresh have tried to revolt using the weapons they had and the nation is still here. The Second Amendment guys are patsies. The government has already taken away from them anything they could use to effectively revolt. They can't have nuclear weapons. They can't have a fully functional tank. They can't have a fully functional bomber. Most of the military advances made in the last 150 years since the last civil wars are reserved exclusively for the military. The private stockades of 12-gauges and rifles and handguns won't do anything in the overthrow of a government, just like it hasn't been successful in the past.They won't overthrow the government. The government has all the good stuff.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Confiscations aren't a sign of it "working."

Impact in intentional homicide rate is negligible if even showing any positive effects as you have pointed out for us, nice try to twist the argument to measure something else.

If we're limiting the discussion to mass shootings, then I don't believe it is, and that's the whole point. Obviously a ban on high capacity magazines is going to have NO impact on overall gun crimes. It's designed specifically with regard to mass shootings.

:shakeshead: at Tim being stubborn about passing legislation to address outliers, admitting it will have no impact on the big picture.If all you care about is mass shootings, put armed guards in the 2/3rds of schools that don't have any instead of inconvenience millions of gun owners FOR A CHANCE to save 1 life. Your whole argument is a joke.

You are worried about what those armed guards cost? Not my problem, I don't have children. Move funds around in school budgets, surely saving that 1 life is more important than a gymnastics program.

 

[timschochet]

Confiscations aren't a sign of it "working."

Impact in intentional homicide rate is negligible if even showing any positive effects as you have pointed out for us, nice try to twist the argument to measure something else.

If we're limiting the discussion to mass shootings, then I don't believe it is, and that's the whole point. Obviously a ban on high capacity magazines is going to have NO impact on overall gun crimes. It's designed specifically with regard to mass shootings.

:shakeshead: at Tim being stubborn about passing legislation to address outliers, admitting it will have no impact on the big picture.If all you care about is mass shootings, put armed guards in the 2/3rds of schools that don't have any instead of inconvenience millions of gun owners FOR A CHANCE to save 1 life. Your whole argument is a joke.

You are worried about what those armed guards cost? Not my problem, I don't have children. Move funds around in school budgets, surely saving that 1 life is more important than a gymnastics program.

You've made quite a number of tasteless and ignorant remarks in this thread, and this is yet another one. I find your "know nothing" nickname to be pretty apt. My response is, it IS your problem. We're going to have universal background checks, a limit on high capacity magazines, and a much stronger ATF, and you and the other gun owners are going to be taxed to pay for it; I'm not.

 

[timschochet]

There's a couple other amazing things about this thread.The gun guys copy and paste over and over quotes from dictators about taking away guns as if to prove historical precedent. But then they ignore the times that people in the United States tried to use their guns to overthrow or defend themselves from oppression and failed. Everyone from Shay's Rebellion to the Confederacy to David Koresh have tried to revolt using the weapons they had and the nation is still here. The Second Amendment guys are patsies. The government has already taken away from them anything they could use to effectively revolt. They can't have nuclear weapons. They can't have a fully functional tank. They can't have a fully functional bomber. Most of the military advances made in the last 150 years since the last civil wars are reserved exclusively for the military. The private stockades of 12-gauges and rifles and handguns won't do anything in the overthrow of a government, just like it hasn't been successful in the past.They won't overthrow the government. The government has all the good stuff.

It's not just the United States. It's never happened anywhere.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Confiscations aren't a sign of it "working."

Impact in intentional homicide rate is negligible if even showing any positive effects as you have pointed out for us, nice try to twist the argument to measure something else.

If we're limiting the discussion to mass shootings, then I don't believe it is, and that's the whole point. Obviously a ban on high capacity magazines is going to have NO impact on overall gun crimes. It's designed specifically with regard to mass shootings.

:shakeshead: at Tim being stubborn about passing legislation to address outliers, admitting it will have no impact on the big picture.If all you care about is mass shootings, put armed guards in the 2/3rds of schools that don't have any instead of inconvenience millions of gun owners FOR A CHANCE to save 1 life. Your whole argument is a joke.

You are worried about what those armed guards cost? Not my problem, I don't have children. Move funds around in school budgets, surely saving that 1 life is more important than a gymnastics program.

You've made quite a number of tasteless and ignorant remarks in this thread, and this is yet another one. I find your "know nothing" nickname to be pretty apt. My response is, it IS your problem. We're going to have universal background checks, a limit on high capacity magazines, and a much stronger ATF, and you and the other gun owners are going to be taxed to pay for it; I'm not.

There you go twisting words again, I said I would not be paying for armed guards in schools to protect YOUR children.You have repeatedly shown your ignorance by ignoring the big picture and focusing on isolated incidents nor do you understand what the real issues are, you are looking for a scapegoat to make you feel better, to make you feel like you have done your part to save America. You are pushing your baseless agenda based on emotions and "what-ifs" as has been pointed out too many times to count while pointing your finger at the other side for their "what-ifs." You are as hypocritical as they come.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Tim,

1st of all, to say that the high cap magazine ban was working because they seized fewer of them is not saying anything. There are more of them in use now because they are legal now. There were fewer in use before because they were illegal before. What's the point? Your opinion seems very easily swayed. Just yesterday you are saying we make a lot of sense on a subject and you agree with what we are saying, and then today you read an article by a bigot who makes #### up to put out anti-gun propaganda, IN THE MEDIA, and now you're solid on the other side of where you were leaning yesterday. Grow some balls, man.

If you're going to state that it's a fact that 22, oh wait, 20 mass shootings were committed with high cap mags, I think we need to know what exactly the other 20 were to make sure he didn't make any more glaring omissions in his very slanted article. Maybe a few of those were made with a bolt-action .22 rifle or a couple .38 snubby revolvers. If he was obviously wrong on the two most famous ones, I don't put much merit at all in the rest of his op ed.

Third, for every police officer that argues against civilian firearms, you can find 5 more that argue for it. They know they can't be everywhere and do it all. They hope that we can help ourselves. I'd also say that in all of the anti-civi-gun remarks I've read from officers, the majority of those come from captains and chiefs - i.e. law enforcement politicians. The beat guys, who interact with the public on a daily basis, are typically pro-civi-gun. You will also find a much wider gap of opinion on the subject depending on geography. New York City cops will sound more like New York politicians and civilians. San Francisco, Chicago, LA and other restrictive areas will sound more restrictive. More pro gun cops will typically come from areas with loose gun laws. Now, I ask you... which law enforcement agencies would you think would have the more informed/experienced view of gun rights? The cops who encounter more guns on a regular basis, or the cops who infrequently encounter guns?

 

[Hoosier16]

So what do we have in favor of the proposed ban on high capacity magazines?

1. We have concrete evidence that the last ban, which lasted 10 years, actually worked (see the above post.)

An opinion, not evidence. from a known gun control person.

2. We have the fact that out of 22 mass shootings since 1984, 20 of them were committed with high capacity magazines, including all of them since the last ban was lifted.

The fact that 20 were committed with hi cap magazines doesn't prove anything about whether a ban on those would limit anything. You have to look at the two that were committed with the low cap magazines to make that determination. You must have missed this from above, so I'll re-post:Columbine:

There were no further injuries after 11:35 a.m. They had killed 10 people in the library and wounded 12. Of the 56 library hostagees, 34 remained unharmed. The shooters had enough ammunition to have killed them all.[24]

VA Tech:

Approximately 10–12 minutes after the second attack began, Cho shot himself in the head.[38] He died in Jocelyne Couture-Nowak's Intermediate French class, room 211. During this second assault, he had fired at least 174 rounds,[22] killing 30 people and wounding 17 more.[1][38] All of the victims were shot at least three times each; of the 30 killed, 28 were shot in the head.[39][40] During the investigation, State Police Superintendent William Flaherty told a state panel that police found 203 live rounds in Norris Hall. "He was well prepared to continue...," Flaherty testified.[41]

As you can see (hopefully), the low capacity magazines didn't limit the killing. The killing continued until the killers decided it should stop, just like in about every other mass shooting.

3. We have the testimony of numerous law enforcement that " in a large number of cases (of mass shooting), the shooters are subdued by nearby bystanders or law enforcement when they pause to reload." (See posts # 5985 and #5987).

That's absurd. In the vast majority of mass shootings, the killer stops himself, usually with a bullet to the head. I'd love to see examples "of the large number of cases" where the the killer was shot or subdued "when they paused to reload".

Why is this even a debate at this point? Let's just get it done.

The debate continues because you continue to refuse to look at facts.

 

[cobalt_27]

Confiscations aren't a sign of it "working."

Impact in intentional homicide rate is negligible if even showing any positive effects as you have pointed out for us, nice try to twist the argument to measure something else.

If we're limiting the discussion to mass shootings, then I don't believe it is, and that's the whole point. Obviously a ban on high capacity magazines is going to have NO impact on overall gun crimes. It's designed specifically with regard to mass shootings.

:shakeshead: at Tim being stubborn about passing legislation to address outliers, admitting it will have no impact on the big picture.If all you care about is mass shootings, put armed guards in the 2/3rds of schools that don't have any instead of inconvenience millions of gun owners FOR A CHANCE to save 1 life. Your whole argument is a joke.

You are worried about what those armed guards cost? Not my problem, I don't have children. Move funds around in school budgets, surely saving that 1 life is more important than a gymnastics program.

Terrible. All of this.

 

[timschochet]

Tim,

1st of all, to say that the high cap magazine ban was working because they seized fewer of them is not saying anything. There are more of them in use now because they are legal now. There were fewer in use before because they were illegal before. What's the point? Your opinion seems very easily swayed. Just yesterday you are saying we make a lot of sense on a subject and you agree with what we are saying, and then today you read an article by a bigot who makes #### up to put out anti-gun propaganda, IN THE MEDIA, and now you're solid on the other side of where you were leaning yesterday. Grow some balls, man.

If you're going to state that it's a fact that 22, oh wait, 20 mass shootings were committed with high cap mags, I think we need to know what exactly the other 20 were to make sure he didn't make any more glaring omissions in his very slanted article. Maybe a few of those were made with a bolt-action .22 rifle or a couple .38 snubby revolvers. If he was obviously wrong on the two most famous ones, I don't put much merit at all in the rest of his op ed.

Third, for every police officer that argues against civilian firearms, you can find 5 more that argue for it. They know they can't be everywhere and do it all. They hope that we can help ourselves. I'd also say that in all of the anti-civi-gun remarks I've read from officers, the majority of those come from captains and chiefs - i.e. law enforcement politicians. The beat guys, who interact with the public on a daily basis, are typically pro-civi-gun. You will also find a much wider gap of opinion on the subject depending on geography. New York City cops will sound more like New York politicians and civilians. San Francisco, Chicago, LA and other restrictive areas will sound more restrictive. More pro gun cops will typically come from areas with loose gun laws. Now, I ask you... which law enforcement agencies would you think would have the more informed/experienced view of gun rights? The cops who encounter more guns on a regular basis, or the cops who infrequently encounter guns?

I'm curious as to why you would call the writer of that article a bigot. Against what, exactly? High capacity magazines? Give me a break. Regarding the bolded: find me a law enforcement officer that argues FOR private citizens owning high capacity magazines. If you can, and I hear good reasons (which I so far have not heard) I will be impressed, and I may even change my mind. But personally I can't find any law enforcement officers in favor of this.

Five digit thinks of me as a hypocrite. I don't want to return the favor, especially with you. I have read enough of what you've written here to respect your integrity. I believe that if you truly thought that a ban on high capacity magazines would have an effect on these mass shootings, you would be in favor of it. But you don't believe it will have any effect, and that is fine- it is the principle point of our disagreement.

 

[Dvorak]

Tim,

1st of all, to say that the high cap magazine ban was working because they seized fewer of them is not saying anything. There are more of them in use now because they are legal now. There were fewer in use before because they were illegal before. What's the point? Your opinion seems very easily swayed. Just yesterday you are saying we make a lot of sense on a subject and you agree with what we are saying, and then today you read an article by a bigot who makes #### up to put out anti-gun propaganda, IN THE MEDIA, and now you're solid on the other side of where you were leaning yesterday. Grow some balls, man.

If you're going to state that it's a fact that 22, oh wait, 20 mass shootings were committed with high cap mags, I think we need to know what exactly the other 20 were to make sure he didn't make any more glaring omissions in his very slanted article. Maybe a few of those were made with a bolt-action .22 rifle or a couple .38 snubby revolvers. If he was obviously wrong on the two most famous ones, I don't put much merit at all in the rest of his op ed.

Third, for every police officer that argues against civilian firearms, you can find 5 more that argue for it. They know they can't be everywhere and do it all. They hope that we can help ourselves. I'd also say that in all of the anti-civi-gun remarks I've read from officers, the majority of those come from captains and chiefs - i.e. law enforcement politicians. The beat guys, who interact with the public on a daily basis, are typically pro-civi-gun. You will also find a much wider gap of opinion on the subject depending on geography. New York City cops will sound more like New York politicians and civilians. San Francisco, Chicago, LA and other restrictive areas will sound more restrictive. More pro gun cops will typically come from areas with loose gun laws. Now, I ask you... which law enforcement agencies would you think would have the more informed/experienced view of gun rights? The cops who encounter more guns on a regular basis, or the cops who infrequently encounter guns?

I'm curious as to why you would call the writer of that article a bigot. Against what, exactly? High capacity magazines? Give me a break. Regarding the bolded: find me a law enforcement officer that argues FOR private citizens owning high capacity magazines. If you can, and I hear good reasons (which I so far have not heard) I will be impressed, and I may even change my mind. But personally I can't find any law enforcement officers in favor of this.

Five digit thinks of me as a hypocrite. I don't want to return the favor, especially with you. I have read enough of what you've written here to respect your integrity. I believe that if you truly thought that a ban on high capacity magazines would have an effect on these mass shootings, you would be in favor of it. But you don't believe it will have any effect, and that is fine- it is the principle point of our disagreement.

If those larger magazines have no value for self-defense, wouldn't we prohibit them for law enforcement too? Or are our police out there shooting people offensively?

 

[timschochet]

Tim,

1st of all, to say that the high cap magazine ban was working because they seized fewer of them is not saying anything. There are more of them in use now because they are legal now. There were fewer in use before because they were illegal before. What's the point? Your opinion seems very easily swayed. Just yesterday you are saying we make a lot of sense on a subject and you agree with what we are saying, and then today you read an article by a bigot who makes #### up to put out anti-gun propaganda, IN THE MEDIA, and now you're solid on the other side of where you were leaning yesterday. Grow some balls, man.

If you're going to state that it's a fact that 22, oh wait, 20 mass shootings were committed with high cap mags, I think we need to know what exactly the other 20 were to make sure he didn't make any more glaring omissions in his very slanted article. Maybe a few of those were made with a bolt-action .22 rifle or a couple .38 snubby revolvers. If he was obviously wrong on the two most famous ones, I don't put much merit at all in the rest of his op ed.

Third, for every police officer that argues against civilian firearms, you can find 5 more that argue for it. They know they can't be everywhere and do it all. They hope that we can help ourselves. I'd also say that in all of the anti-civi-gun remarks I've read from officers, the majority of those come from captains and chiefs - i.e. law enforcement politicians. The beat guys, who interact with the public on a daily basis, are typically pro-civi-gun. You will also find a much wider gap of opinion on the subject depending on geography. New York City cops will sound more like New York politicians and civilians. San Francisco, Chicago, LA and other restrictive areas will sound more restrictive. More pro gun cops will typically come from areas with loose gun laws. Now, I ask you... which law enforcement agencies would you think would have the more informed/experienced view of gun rights? The cops who encounter more guns on a regular basis, or the cops who infrequently encounter guns?

I'm curious as to why you would call the writer of that article a bigot. Against what, exactly? High capacity magazines? Give me a break. Regarding the bolded: find me a law enforcement officer that argues FOR private citizens owning high capacity magazines. If you can, and I hear good reasons (which I so far have not heard) I will be impressed, and I may even change my mind. But personally I can't find any law enforcement officers in favor of this.

Five digit thinks of me as a hypocrite. I don't want to return the favor, especially with you. I have read enough of what you've written here to respect your integrity. I believe that if you truly thought that a ban on high capacity magazines would have an effect on these mass shootings, you would be in favor of it. But you don't believe it will have any effect, and that is fine- it is the principle point of our disagreement.

If those larger magazines have no value for self-defense, wouldn't we prohibit them for law enforcement too? Or are our police out there shooting people offensively?

I find this to be an illogical argument. Police have responsibilities far beyond self-defense: we expect them to seek out bad guys, engage them and defeat them. As such, they should be allowed to have all kinds of technology that , for purposes of public safety, society should deny the private individual. The notion that private individuals should have access to the exact same weaponry that law enforcement does is hardly a convincing one.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Female in dark parking garage = victim. Same female in dark parking garage with a .357 = boss

 

[timschochet]

Female in dark parking garage = victim. Same female in dark parking garage with a .357 = boss

I agree with you. I like the fact that women are armed; I think it's one of the best protections against assault and rape. It's another reason I've become skeptical of gun-free zones (partly because of some of the arguments made in this thread.) Are there any statistics regarding increased rape incidents in gun-free zones? I would think that would be a good argument against having them.

 

[Dvorak]

Tim,

1st of all, to say that the high cap magazine ban was working because they seized fewer of them is not saying anything. There are more of them in use now because they are legal now. There were fewer in use before because they were illegal before. What's the point? Your opinion seems very easily swayed. Just yesterday you are saying we make a lot of sense on a subject and you agree with what we are saying, and then today you read an article by a bigot who makes #### up to put out anti-gun propaganda, IN THE MEDIA, and now you're solid on the other side of where you were leaning yesterday. Grow some balls, man.

If you're going to state that it's a fact that 22, oh wait, 20 mass shootings were committed with high cap mags, I think we need to know what exactly the other 20 were to make sure he didn't make any more glaring omissions in his very slanted article. Maybe a few of those were made with a bolt-action .22 rifle or a couple .38 snubby revolvers. If he was obviously wrong on the two most famous ones, I don't put much merit at all in the rest of his op ed.

Third, for every police officer that argues against civilian firearms, you can find 5 more that argue for it. They know they can't be everywhere and do it all. They hope that we can help ourselves. I'd also say that in all of the anti-civi-gun remarks I've read from officers, the majority of those come from captains and chiefs - i.e. law enforcement politicians. The beat guys, who interact with the public on a daily basis, are typically pro-civi-gun. You will also find a much wider gap of opinion on the subject depending on geography. New York City cops will sound more like New York politicians and civilians. San Francisco, Chicago, LA and other restrictive areas will sound more restrictive. More pro gun cops will typically come from areas with loose gun laws. Now, I ask you... which law enforcement agencies would you think would have the more informed/experienced view of gun rights? The cops who encounter more guns on a regular basis, or the cops who infrequently encounter guns?

I'm curious as to why you would call the writer of that article a bigot. Against what, exactly? High capacity magazines? Give me a break. Regarding the bolded: find me a law enforcement officer that argues FOR private citizens owning high capacity magazines. If you can, and I hear good reasons (which I so far have not heard) I will be impressed, and I may even change my mind. But personally I can't find any law enforcement officers in favor of this.

Five digit thinks of me as a hypocrite. I don't want to return the favor, especially with you. I have read enough of what you've written here to respect your integrity. I believe that if you truly thought that a ban on high capacity magazines would have an effect on these mass shootings, you would be in favor of it. But you don't believe it will have any effect, and that is fine- it is the principle point of our disagreement.

If those larger magazines have no value for self-defense, wouldn't we prohibit them for law enforcement too? Or are our police out there shooting people offensively?

I find this to be an illogical argument. Police have responsibilities far beyond self-defense: we expect them to seek out bad guys, engage them and defeat them. As such, they should be allowed to have all kinds of technology that , for purposes of public safety, society should deny the private individual. The notion that private individuals should have access to the exact same weaponry that law enforcement does is hardly a convincing one.

And I have a responsibility to protect my family from those same bad guys and as such, I want the same tools that law enforcement has proven to be the most effective in defeating said bad guys.There are only two people ultimately responsible for the safety of my family--my wife and myself.

If you choose not to accept that responsibility, that is your choice.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Attempted Gun Burglary tied to Journal News Gun Maps

Brewster, N.Y. – 1/13/2013 – Today Senator Greg Ball (Patterson – R, C, I) announced that a burglary has been reported on Davis Ave. in White Plains, New York that evidently ties into The Journal News gun maps. It is reported that the burglar used The Journal News’ interactive gun map to target a home included on the map. Luckily the gun was locked up and no one was hurt.“The Journal News has placed the lives of these folks at risk by creating a virtual shopping list for criminals and nut jobs. If the connection is proven, this is further proof that these maps are not only an invasion of privacy but that they present a clear and present danger to law-abiding, private citizens. Former convicts have already testified to the usefulness of the asinine Journal News ‘gun maps’ yet the reckless editors are evidently willing to roll the dice, gambling with the lives of innocent local homeowners,” said Senator Greg Ball.Tomorrow, Senator Ball will be publicly unveiling three separate pieces of legislation, all with bipartisan support, among them (S2132), to protect the privacy rights of ordinary citizens; including: law enforcement personnel, victims of domestic violence and private citizens. Let it be clear however, that under Ball’s legislation that has garnered bipartisan kudos and support, law enforcement and all related agencies would continue to have full access to permit information. Senate bill (S2132) would protect lawful gun owners, including thousands of retired and active law enforcement and victim of domestic violence survivors, from having their information publicly disclosed.“The same elitist eggheads who use their editorial page to coddle terrorists and criminals are now treating law abiding citizens like level three sexual predators. These bills are critical to keep folks safe and fundamentally protect their inherent right to privacy. I hope all of these bills will be brought to the floor for an up or down vote, and allowed to fail or pass on their own merits and not as part of a large, overarching gun-control package. This is not about the Second Amendment; these bills are simply about commonsense and personal privacy. Publishing this information on a website, as we have evidently just witnessed in the recent attempted gun burglary, provides criminals with a map of where they can steal firearms from lawful owners for later use in the commission of crimes. This legislation is critical,” said Senator Greg Ball.In addition to Senator Ball’s legislation, the Vice President of the Affiliated Police Association of Westchester County, Robert Buckley, said in a letter, publishing these maps online is jeopardizing the safety of residents and is irresponsible.“The Affiliated Police Association of Westchester County Inc. is putting The Journal News on notice that we will hold [them] accountable for any incident where any of our over 25,000 members are involved with an incident where a criminal or ex-con presents themselves at the residence of one of our members as a result of their name being made public by [their] newspaper,” said Buckley.The Affiliated Police Association of Westchester will be holding a press conference on January 15, 2013 at the Westchester County Courthouse located at 111 Dr. Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard, White Plains, N.Y. at 1:00 p.m.For more information, please contact Joe Bachmeier at (845) 200 9716.

Nothing to see here, just a bunch of paranoid psychotic musings shown to be true.

 

[Dvorak]

Female in dark parking garage = victim. Same female in dark parking garage with a .357 = boss

I agree with you. I like the fact that women are armed; I think it's one of the best protections against assault and rape. It's another reason I've become skeptical of gun-free zones (partly because of some of the arguments made in this thread.) Are there any statistics regarding increased rape incidents in gun-free zones? I would think that would be a good argument against having them.

I have no stats to back it up, but college campuses seem to be a hotbed for such activities. Most of them are gun-free.

 

[timschochet]

Tim,

1st of all, to say that the high cap magazine ban was working because they seized fewer of them is not saying anything. There are more of them in use now because they are legal now. There were fewer in use before because they were illegal before. What's the point? Your opinion seems very easily swayed. Just yesterday you are saying we make a lot of sense on a subject and you agree with what we are saying, and then today you read an article by a bigot who makes #### up to put out anti-gun propaganda, IN THE MEDIA, and now you're solid on the other side of where you were leaning yesterday. Grow some balls, man.

If you're going to state that it's a fact that 22, oh wait, 20 mass shootings were committed with high cap mags, I think we need to know what exactly the other 20 were to make sure he didn't make any more glaring omissions in his very slanted article. Maybe a few of those were made with a bolt-action .22 rifle or a couple .38 snubby revolvers. If he was obviously wrong on the two most famous ones, I don't put much merit at all in the rest of his op ed.

Third, for every police officer that argues against civilian firearms, you can find 5 more that argue for it. They know they can't be everywhere and do it all. They hope that we can help ourselves. I'd also say that in all of the anti-civi-gun remarks I've read from officers, the majority of those come from captains and chiefs - i.e. law enforcement politicians. The beat guys, who interact with the public on a daily basis, are typically pro-civi-gun. You will also find a much wider gap of opinion on the subject depending on geography. New York City cops will sound more like New York politicians and civilians. San Francisco, Chicago, LA and other restrictive areas will sound more restrictive. More pro gun cops will typically come from areas with loose gun laws. Now, I ask you... which law enforcement agencies would you think would have the more informed/experienced view of gun rights? The cops who encounter more guns on a regular basis, or the cops who infrequently encounter guns?

I'm curious as to why you would call the writer of that article a bigot. Against what, exactly? High capacity magazines? Give me a break. Regarding the bolded: find me a law enforcement officer that argues FOR private citizens owning high capacity magazines. If you can, and I hear good reasons (which I so far have not heard) I will be impressed, and I may even change my mind. But personally I can't find any law enforcement officers in favor of this.

Five digit thinks of me as a hypocrite. I don't want to return the favor, especially with you. I have read enough of what you've written here to respect your integrity. I believe that if you truly thought that a ban on high capacity magazines would have an effect on these mass shootings, you would be in favor of it. But you don't believe it will have any effect, and that is fine- it is the principle point of our disagreement.

If those larger magazines have no value for self-defense, wouldn't we prohibit them for law enforcement too? Or are our police out there shooting people offensively?

I find this to be an illogical argument. Police have responsibilities far beyond self-defense: we expect them to seek out bad guys, engage them and defeat them. As such, they should be allowed to have all kinds of technology that , for purposes of public safety, society should deny the private individual. The notion that private individuals should have access to the exact same weaponry that law enforcement does is hardly a convincing one.

And I have a responsibility to protect my family from those same bad guys and as such, I want the same tools that law enforcement has proven to be the most effective in defeating said bad guys.There are only two people ultimately responsible for the safety of my family--my wife and myself.

If you choose not to accept that responsibility, that is your choice.

Fair enough, Dvorak, I challenge you on this: I would like you to describe a situation of self-defense which would require you to have a 30 round magazine vs. a 10 round magazine. And please don't bring up the Korean store owners again. Give me something that might happen to YOU. tia.