WE: After school shooting in Connecticut, Piers Morgan blasts America’s ‘gun madness’

[PleaseBlitz]

In the case of serious civil unrest, I don't want anyone having assault rifles because A) I don't own one and don't want to own one and B) because if society melts down, I wont be fighting the gubmint, I will be fighting other citizens.

Also, the statistician in me would like to point out that nothing close to that has happened in this country during my lifetime, but mass shootings have become a regular thing.

[Bang]

You have to wonder how much the fear of the end of society is driving the actual end of society.

~Bang

[Redskins Diehard]

Automatic weapons like those used in the military are already banned.

The proposed federal assault weapons ban would target semi-automatic weapons with certain designated features (like a flash suppressor and a telescoping stock), and magazines holding over 10 rounds.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...s-in-one-post/

Would it solve everything? No. Would it cover the guns used in Newtown, in Aurora, and by the DC Sniper? Yes.

I disagree with your assessment of the impact it would have on Newtown and Aurora. The functionality of a "pre-ban" and "post-ban" "assault rifle" are the same. It is the point I have been trying to make in this thread. The sniper case is actually a little different because the "flash suppressor" may have contributed to their ability to remain undetected. Newtown and Aurora could have been carried out with a weapon with none of the characteristics covered by an assault weapon ban. Va Tech was carried out with pistols.

Prosperity has made the only proposal, with respect to gun control, that I think would serve any meaningful purpose. I don't think it has much chance of succeeding though.

[Corcaigh]

In the case of serious civil unrest, I don't want anyone having assault rifles because A) I don't own one and don't want to own one and B) because if society melts down, I wont be fighting the gubmint, I will be fighting other citizens.

Also, the statistician in me would like to point out that nothing close to that has happened in this country during my lifetime, but mass shootings have become a regular thing.

Seriously. It highlights the mental illness and paranoia that is mainstream thinking here that building a personal arsenal to defend against civil unrest is an argument in favor of keeping these weapons legal. Why not use the pending alien invasion as an argument, or the threat of when unicorns go rogue and start to attack?

[alexey]

I am seeing many proposals from one side of this arguments and NOTHING from the other side.

Before you make another complaint about people who want to limit your gun rights... can you please let us know if you support any new restrictions at all?



It would be great if you could stop hiding your actual position on this and openly say: "I think that no additional actions should be taken on the gun control side" - if that is where you stand.

---------- Post added December-18th-2012 at 01:19 PM ----------

As a side note, I think there eventually will be strong gun control legislation passed in America. Probably not this time, but i think it is certain to happen in a few years or in a few decades. There's going to be more people, there is going to be more crazy people (statistics), and there will be more mass shootings. The question is how many massacres it will take to turn the public opinion.

[Redskins Diehard]

I am seeing many proposals from one side of this arguments and NOTHING from the other side.

Before you make another complaint about people who want to limit your gun rights... can you please let us know if you support any new restrictions at all?



It would be great if you could stop hiding your actual position on this and openly say: "I think that no additional actions should be taken on the gun control side" - if that is where you stand.

I am in favor of plenty of restrictions. And the only problem I have with the whole "assault weapon" debate is that it really does nothing to prevent stuff like this from happening in the future. I am all for background checks, waiting periods, and per purchase limits.

I think it would be great if people that are advocating the AWB would just openly say "I really have no clue about weapons but want someone to do something and I have heard people mention assault weapons so lets ban them"

[MattFancy]

I am in favor of plenty of restrictions. And the only problem I have with the whole "assault weapon" debate is that it really does nothing to prevent stuff like this from happening in the future. I am all for background checks, waiting periods, and per purchase limits.

I think it would be great if people that are advocating the AWB would just openly say "I really have no clue about weapons but want someone to do something and I have heard people mention assault weapons so lets ban them"

Can you say why there is a need for assault weapons?

[Painkiller]

Let's try to find that common ground... Are you open to any gun control steps at all? If so, which ones?

none that restrict ownership or purchasing beyond what is already in place, but more emphasis on criminal and mental health checks. Although many people will go un-diagnosed, and evil will still find it's way.

I am not for restricting legal purchase of any guns currently on the market, until the government can guarantee that I will not be killed by one that was purchased or obtained illegally. For countless reasons I have already listed, banning gun purchasing from those who are of sound mind and would go through whatever is required to get them is not the answer nor will it prevent anything.

[Redskins Diehard]

Can you say why there is a need for assault weapons?

Calling something an assault weapon is like calling something a "fast car". It means nothing. Especially in the terms with which is was defined in 1994. So if you tell me how you define an assault weapon since you seem to be really hung up on that terminology then I can answer your question. But no, I see no need for a flash suppressor, pistol grip, or bayonet lug....and neither did the ******* that killed these people.

[Painkiller]

Can you say why there is a need for assault weapons?

Maybe for you, there is no need, but for people who have different lifestyles from you there may be a need. This is where those fundamental differences I spoke about earlier in the thread come into play. We have a huge country, with an enormous amount of diversity, and not everybody thinks the same way.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I think it would be great if people that are advocating the AWB would just openly say "I really have no clue about weapons but want someone to do something and I have heard people mention assault weapons so lets ban them"

I fall into that category and made some bad assumptions. I assumed "assault weapon" meant "machine gun" or any gun that can fire a ****load of bullets in a very short amount of time. I don't care if people are screened, deemed safe, and eventual own a hunting rifle or revolver type gun.

Maybe you can help me...what I envision when I say that though is a gun that can literally fire anywhere from 2-8 bullets before needing to be reloaded. Those are the only ones that I can see needing to be owned by any citizen. What types of guns are those? If only those were circulating legally, then no one is killing 26 people in a matter of minutes, even in an elementary school.

[twa]

I agree completely Diehard

[alexey]

...
I think it would be great if people that are advocating the AWB would just openly say "I really have no clue about weapons but want someone to do something and I have heard people mention assault weapons so lets ban them"

Roger that. As a gun enthusiast, which I assume you are, you could really help people form a more coherent position on these matters. People are concerned about crazy people with high powered weaponry. Their concerns are real and legitimate. I do not think you are helping the discussion when you tell them that they do not know what they are talking about (even if you are right).

[PleaseBlitz]

Maybe for you, there is no need, but for people who have different lifestyles from you there may be a need. This is where those fundamental differences I spoke about earlier in the thread come into play. We have a huge country, with an enormous amount of diversity, and not everybody thinks the same way.

Specifically, please list those needs. Thank you.

[stevemcqueen1]

Yet the number of NICS checks for 2012 is nearly double what it was in 2000 with a month to go. The chart is here. (Link to FBI pdf file) Checks do not equal sales, but do equal interest.

It could just be fewer people owning more guns. I wonder how they survey to find out the number of households with a gun. If a stranger called your house and asked if you own any guns would you say yes?

One of the problems of tracking this data is that apparently overall sales records aren't reliably tracked: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...0-year-decline

That discusses the odd contradiction you're getting.

I think the likely conclusion is two fold: big individual customers like police forces and militaries prop up sales while the number of households who own them declines. But also the individuals who do own guns own more of them than in the past.

If you think the surveys of ownership are unreliable, why would they be more so now than they were in the past?