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

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Specifically, please list those needs. Thank you.

Yeah, I don't know why this is so difficult. If someone asks me why I need a car, I'd say: to drive to work, to take my kids to day care, to drive to the store, etc.. If someone asks me why I need a race car, I'd say: I don't "need" one, but I like it.

[alexey]

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.
..

Sounds like this is the crux of the disagreement. Some people disagree with you and want to make more hardware illegal. Their argument is based on 1) checks will not prevent weapons from being out there and 2) balance between what people need for specific purposes vs. what they want.

[Painkiller]

No, we need to take away the political power of gun nuts. They are a minority whose assault weapon interests hurt society.

Define "gun nut" for me? Anyone who owns a gun you don't approve of? and if "gun nuts" are a minority? How is it they wield so much power?

[MattFancy]

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.

One is that it is any of various automatic and semiautomatic military firearms using an intermediate cartridge

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.

So because we're not all worried about civil unrest we're wrong?

[GibbsFactor]

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.

Do 30 round clips fit on handguns?

[Redskins Diehard]

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.

You are really just talking about magazine capacity at this point. Anything that is semi-automatic can do exactly what you say. Squeeze the trigger, bullet is fired. Squeeze the trigger, bullet is fired. The process continues until the source(magazine) is out of bullets. And then it is time to reload. And repeat the process.

Prosperity proposed something that would actually have an impact. But I don't see it happening. Because it would ban ever single pistol out there.

Banning the sale of "high capacity magazines" would serve more purpose than any weapon ban that is being discussed. Make the person reload 2 times to fire 30 rounds instead of none. Or limit it to 5 rounds. But I think those would be still be fairly easy to come by. And very difficult to track. High capacity magazines that is.

[PleaseBlitz]

Define "gun nut" for me? Anyone who owns a gun you don't approve of? and if "gun nuts" are a minority? How is it they wield so much power?

I would define a gun nut as someone who is informed that 20 6 year olds were murdered and his/her first thought is about his freedom to purchase assault weapons in the future. There are of course other definitions, but that is a decent enough place to start.

[Redskins Diehard]

Do 30 round clips fit on handguns?

Much closer than you may think.

[hockeysc23]

Do 30 round clips fit on handguns?

Yes, glocks and other type of semi-automatic pistols have extended clips. I believe the glock is a 33 round.

[Redskins Diehard]

One is that it is any of various automatic and semiautomatic military firearms using an intermediate cartridge



So because we're not all worried about civil unrest we're wrong?

No need for automatic. They are illegal.

Semiautomatic? You do realize that a 9mm glock pistol is a semiautomatic weapon?

The military designation in this regard is simply cosmetics.

[DjTj]

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.

You think that limiting magazine capacities to ten would have had no effect on the number of casualties in any of these attacks?

[Redskins Diehard]

You think that limiting magazine capacities to ten would have had no effect on the number of casualties in any of these attacks?

I specifically said weapon characteristics. And have said numerous times that a magazine capacity limit would have more impact in reducing probabilities of casualties. But someone with even practice can change out magazines pretty quickly. I think the super duper magazine that was used in Aurora actually ended the whole thing....they are much less reliable and prone to misfeed.

[stevemcqueen1]

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.

It's going to take a sea change in America's popular attitudes towards guns and gun control to get powerful legislation passed.

I think there is a pretty strong demographic split on gun ownership with the generations born 1920-1960 having far higher rates of gun ownership than those 1960-present. As that older generation dies off, general American attitudes towards guns will liberalize and pave the way for control legislation to be passed.

I think gun lobbies won the war on gun control by the end of the 90's. They succeeded in making gun control a dirty word to the American public: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...united-states/

10. Gun control, in general, has not been politically popular.
Since 1990, Gallup has been asking Americans whether they think gun control laws should be stricter. The answer, increasingly, is that they don’t. “The percentage in favor of making the laws governing the sale of firearms ‘more strict’ fell from 78% in 1990 to 62% in 1995, and 51% in 2007,” reports Gallup. “In the most recent reading, Gallup in 2010 found 44% in favor of stricter laws. In fact, in 2009 and again last year, the slight majority said gun laws should either remain the same or be made less strict.”

But when you start talking specifics it's an entirely different ball game in the court of public opinion:

11. But particular policies to control guns often are.
An August CNN/ORC poll asked respondents whether they favor or oppose a number of specific policies to restrict gun ownership. And when you drill down to that level, many policies, including banning the manufacture and possession of semi-automatic rifles, are popular.

The Millenial generation is the most socially liberal generation in US history and the country will move dramatically leftward as the generation ages. I think the attitudes towards guns and gun control will move leftward in concert with the aging of the millenials and the declining rates of gun ownership. And I believe the bluest parts of the country with the tightest gun control legislature will continue to see decreasing rates of gun violence and violence in general and provide an even more stark contrast with the reddest regions with the loosest gun control.

[DjTj]

I specifically said weapon characteristics. And have said numerous times that a magazine capacity limit would have more impact in reducing probabilities of casualties. But someone with even practice can change out magazines pretty quickly. I think the super duper magazine that was used in Aurora actually ended the whole thing....they are much less reliable and prone to misfeed.

A restriction on magazine capacities was part of the 1994 AWB, and would be part of any proposed new ban. Would you support that?

[autoidiodyssey]

Let's quit the semantics debate...some of us don't know much about guns. As Prosperity said (I'm paraphrasing), let's ban whatever the guns are that can fire dozens of bullets without needing to be reloaded. I don't see any legitimate reason any individual would have to fire off more than 8-10 shots at a time. If you're hunting or, God forbid, need to protect your family from an intruder, that is sufficient.

So, whatever you want to call them, if no one owned guns that could kill 50 people in a matter of seconds, massacres like we've seen will almost certainly end.

What you are describing is a ban on almost all semi-automatic handguns, rifles and some shotguns. All of which can "fire dozens of bullets without needing to be reloaded." To do that you will probably have to get the Supreme Court to reverse DC vs. Heller.

The part of the Heller decision that will cause you problems is below, specifically the underlined part.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Semi-automatic firearms have been around for a hundred years. It is hard to argue that they are not "in common use at the time" or for that matter "unusual". The reference to Miller and "dangerous and unusual weapons" involves a Supreme Court case from 1939, US vs. Miller. Miller owned an unregistered short-barreled shotgun, that type of weapon is required to be registered by the National Firearms Act of 1934.

You could probably argue that "Assault Weapons", aka scary looking semi-auto rifles, are "dangerous and unusual". I'm not sure how that would fly with the current court. But if a ban is put in place I imagine we will find out.