Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Laize]

I always thought it had something to do with a Republican president, Senate, and House majority..silly me. Please cite the "no effects on crime rates" source.

Well, first off, crime rates have been declining since 1970 (before even automatic weapons were banned).



Second, no one extended the ban because it had an automatic sunset provision in it (which was the entire reason it was even able to pass in the first place) and no one saw any need to extend it due to the aforementioned 4 decades of falling crime rates.

If anything, violent crime spiked a wee bit AFTER the AWB was in place.... and then promptly continued falling... and falling some more AFTER the AWB's sunset.

The pure, unadulterated fact of the matter is that fully automatic weapons have been barred from civilian use for about 30 years now. The only thing left is semiautomatic weapons and anti-gun people don't seem to understand what semiautomatic means.

It means that for every pull of the trigger, you get one shot. Not 2, not 3... not 100. ONE.

As such, it takes an extremely skilled operator to fire off 100 rounds a minute with ANY sort of accuracy.

[Svifnymr]

Again Mis-Information. No. I'll respond to more people later on today. Sadly I don't have the time to respond right this moment to every single point. It was created for a reason and failed to pass because the Dems did not have the majority in the House and the Republicans failed to bring it to the floor. If it in fact virtually did nothing at all then you would not see the swell of support to have to put back into place and even though Americans are divided. It's great to see some common sense Gun Owners supporting the ban in the polls.

Connecticut continued the ban.

The Sandyhook Bushmaster was not a banned weapon.

If there was support to reinstate the ban, there would have been calls for it in 05-12. There was no mention of it until after Sandyhook. It is an emotional plea that has no basis in facts.

[FusedMass]

Connecticut continued the ban.

The Sandyhook Bushmaster was not a banned weapon.

If there was support to reinstate the ban, there would have been calls for it in 05-12. There was no mention of it until after Sandyhook. It is an emotional plea that has no basis in facts.

This what I call ignoring information. The same exact stuff you are accusing me of ignoring information. Is exactly and I mean exactly the same thing you are doing.

I frankly almost find it amusing you use one sole example then in the next sentence use it as an emotional plea. By using that logic if the events that took place in NJ those people didn't need the 50 Billion funds from congress. It's an emotional plea. My case and point of course the situation is emotional. It's not just on my side. It's on your Pro Gun extremely hostile side.

To respond to your question. I'm going to quote from a source.

What Did the Assault Weapons Ban Do?

Passed by Congress on Sept. 13, 1994, and signed by Bill Clinton later that day, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban prohibited the manufacturing of 18 specific models of semiautomatic weapons, along with the manufacturing of high-capacity ammunition magazines that could carry more than 10 rounds. The ban had a provision that allowed it to expire in September 2004.

Several attempts were made in Congress to re-up the ban, the most recent in June 2008, according to the Library of Congress, but none of them have been successful. Republicans generally opposed it; high-profile Democrats typically shied away from the issue.

In the second presidential debate of the 2012 campaign, President Obama said he was interested in re-instituting the ban.

"Weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets. And so what I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally," the president said. "Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced."


Could a Ban Have Prevented the Connecticut Shootings?

It's impossible to say for sure, but it seems unlikely that if the law were still in place, as it was written, it could have done much to prevent Friday's tragedy. Lanza's primary weapon, the Bushmaster .223 rifle, is a type of AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, certain models of which were prohibited from being sold under the ban, but the Bushmaster model used by Lanza was not on that list.

Additionally, the language in the law was loose enough that a gun enthusiast who was interested in adding a type of AR-15 to their collection could have purchased one legally.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...effective?lite

[Svifnymr]

How many people use bayonets?

Even Feinstein woke up to the stupidity of that line and bayonet mounts aren't in the new ban, btw.

The other poster is just trying to justify the Scary Feature list in any way possible, a thumbhole stock/ pistol grip is not a feature that increases effectiveness, it is an aesthetic that Feinstein pointed to as being "military like" since such guns have pistol grips. Same with "barrel shroud" that the authors didn't know what it was, just that the Tec9 advertised having one.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Stop using news articles to fight your battles.

[petej0]

The entire reason this entire debate started because people took a gun decided it was a good idea to start blowing people away.

Why didnt we have this debate following the VT shooting despite more people dead? In fact there was more focus on the mental state of the shooter then the weapons involved, is it because it was with handguns?

It's something that belongs in the battlefield of war. Not stuck in your closest gathering dust.

What does? All guns or just assault weapons? What is your definition of an "assault weapon"?

What is the trend in crimes involving assault weapons since the ban’s expiration?

As explained above, there has been no comprehensive nationwide study done since 2004. However, the Police Executive Research Forum reported several findings in "Guns and Crime: Breaking New Ground by Focusing on the Local Impact" in 2010. Since the ban’s expiration in 2004:
37 percent of police agencies who responded to this survey reported that they’ve seen noticeable increases in the use of assault weapons by criminals.
53 percent reported seeing increases in large-caliber handguns, such as .40 caliber weapons.
38 percent reported noticeable increases in criminals’ use of semiautomatic weapons with high-capacity magazines (holding 10 or more rounds

The FBI crime statistics disagree with these findings. So who are you going to trust and who is more likely to be stretching the truth? FBI crime statistics also show that violent crime has been decreasing EVERY year since the 90's and is still dropping. FBI stats show that RIFLES (including "Assualt rifles") account for less then 1% of all gun crimes yet everyone is only focused on "Assualt rifles"?

an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms

That is correct, but having a flash suppressor or a bayonet attachment does not make the weapon any more dangerous. Your common semi-automatic hunting rifle can fire at the same rate as an AR15. But because the AR15 looks scarey then it must be banned?

Facts. 84 people died just in one day in Syria. Before that a hundred died. Before that a thousand died. These people in Syria are armed with better weapons then even you have yet they are still dying by the thousands. The reason is while you might be able to counter a small incoming of troops with assault weapons you will not be able to hide yourself from machine guns and heat seeking missiles just every type of high tech function that the Military have. It's just the illusion in your head of safety.

Fact: It doesnt matter. Some people are willing to give up their lives fighting for freedom, then fall to an oppressive regime. Ask the Syrian resistance fighters if they are willing to live under an oppressive regime or fight it to their death. Ask North Koreans which they prefer. What do you think the rounded up Jews in Germany would have decided?

You flipped flopped so many times WHY you need the weapon.

Nobody needs to explain the NEED. It is a right given by our Constitution.

[Tinykong]

What do people who agree with an assault weapons ban think manufacturers are going to do during the ban?

Unless there is a ban on the inner workings of semi-automatic weapons, they will just produce whatever weapons they can come up with that are as close to the legal restrictions as possible without breaking them. The demand will be there, ban or no ban, and they will continue to manufacture firearms.

[Nictuswolf]

Same reason they refused to accept the UN status on the rights of a disabled person. They sincerely thought by signing that they were giving the UN authority over there own. Some people think messing with 2nd "right to bear arms" means we want to take away ALL their guns and not just some of it. I know it sounds sillly but they're actually pople out there.

Like NRA (National Rifle assciassion) think think the goverment wants to rub us of guns and take over..

Valid argument, because you know.

A Government has never taken the right to protect themselves from the people then committed genocide against them.

People are just so ignorant on this issue, take away something little by little till it's all gone.

[Svifnymr]

So, what you're saying is that officially the sum total of deaths attributed to "assault weapons" used in "mass shootings" for years 2004 through 2012 is roughly 1/4 the number of deaths caused by people hitting deer on the highway in just one year? (~45 over 9 years vs. ~150-200 per year)

These politicians need to get to work and ban deer! Geez...think of the lives that would be saved!

What was the one letter? A lady that wrote that she saw the Deer Crossing signs on a busy highway and deer were getting hit. So she wrote a letter asking that they move the deer crossings to somewhere safer.

(May have been fake, I forget where I saw it, still funny.)

[Mormolyce]

Ok I'm going to quote myself because i asked fused this question 22 pages ago.

He completely ignored it after saying over and over that the ban was NOT based purely on aesthetics. Again, does anyone want to explain why of the top three guns why the middle one is effected by the ban and the bottom and top ones are not? They are the same gun, use the same magazines, same caliber, same action, same trigger assembly. What is the difference or more importantly why is the difference important, more deadly and bannable.

Why is the mini 14 tactical more deadly than say a straight grip stock semi auto? I started shooting a pistol grip semi auto, i much prefer straight grip stocks and especially level actions the straight stock is much more comfortable in my opinion than even a true pistol grip. What possible difference does a pistol grip make?

Do you honestly think that gun control advocates don't want to ban ALL of those guns? It's only because of stubborn campaigning by gun rights advocates that they restrict their efforts to "assault rifles" and "large magazines" and whatever. All you're doing is pointing out that the gun control movement is being far too lenient with you.

---------- Post added 2013-01-29 at 10:40 PM ----------

Connecticut continued the ban.

The Sandyhook Bushmaster was not a banned weapon.

If there was support to reinstate the ban, there would have been calls for it in 05-12. There was no mention of it until after Sandyhook. It is an emotional plea that has no basis in facts.

Doesn't that just highlight that the Bushmaster and probably a huge category of other firearms should be included in the list of banned weapons?

[FusedMass]

Why didnt we have this debate following the VT shooting despite more people dead? In fact there was more focus on the mental state of the shooter then the weapons involved, is it because it was with handguns?

Because simply the Political Climate was not prepared for it. People have these stern things known as elections so they try not to say or do anything that would lose them a majority of the votes. However Mitt Romney before he ran for President a Republican mind you signed an assault weapon ban in his state. It took the death of 20 kids and 7 adults and numerous deaths before then to get our elected leaders in Washington to do anything.

What does? All guns or just assault weapons? What is your definition of an "assault weapon"?

It's on the front page with a full working link and several other news articles that defines the weapons also an update on recent developments. Sincerely I don't see why this is so important as the actual damage these weapons inflict as my personal knowledge of the weapons

The FBI crime statistics disagree with these findings. So who are you going to trust and who is more likely to be stretching the truth? FBI crime statistics also show that violent crime has been decreasing EVERY year since the 90's and is still dropping. FBI stats show that RIFLES (including "Assualt rifles") account for less then 1% of all gun crimes yet everyone is only focused on "Assualt rifles"?

I'm not the one using this as a shield. Pro Gun Fanatics have been repeating that crime has dropped and the ban did virtually nothing by default I have to look up information to provide in detail that it did do something now since these two data's are obviously contradicting each other. I'm going go with I trust what I see with my eyes and what I hear and the information on shootings etc have been building up in the past few months.

It's not normal to blindly ignore when people are killed when it's almost embarrassing. That people outside the US have very few gun deaths and not only do we have sky rocketing violence we have un-rational obsession with fire arms and the intense burning desire from some folks to go so far as to murder people to hold on to these weapons.

That is correct, but having a flash suppressor or a bayonet attachment does not make the weapon any more dangerous. Your common semi-automatic hunting rifle can fire at the same rate as an AR15. But because the AR15 looks scarey then it must be banned?

No one is saying it should be banned because it look's scary expect the Pro Gun Fanatics. I not once..not once said it looks dangerous I look at what it's capable of doing.

Fact: It doesnt matter. Some people are willing to give up their lives fighting for freedom, then fall to an oppressive regime. Ask the Syrian resistance fighters if they are willing to live under an oppressive regime or fight it to their death. Ask North Koreans which they prefer. What do you think the rounded up Jews in Germany would have decided?



Nobody needs to explain the NEED. It is a right given by our Constitution.

You have a right to your life. I'm sure the kids that were shot and killed before they reached their teenager years had a right to their own. Your right must not infringe on another persons right to live their life. You do have a right to have a weapon that is not up for debate. What IS up for debate is the type of weapon. Honestly any firearm you personally should be happy with why a person needs a weapon with a hundred bullets or even 30 for some hand guns is past me.

Obama's bill would limit the number of bullets to ten and that to me at least is a reasonable common sense.

[zhero]

Connecticut continued the ban.

The Sandyhook Bushmaster was not a banned weapon.

If there was support to reinstate the ban, there would have been calls for it in 05-12. There was no mention of it until after Sandyhook. It is an emotional plea that has no basis in facts.

the bushmaster wasn't even used.

[Grizzly Willy]

the bushmaster wasn't even used.

Don't the recent reports say it was?

[Tinykong]

Do you honestly think that gun control advocates don't want to ban ALL of those guns? It's only because of stubborn campaigning by gun rights advocates that they restrict their efforts to "assault rifles" and "large magazines" and whatever.

They restrict the conversation because it's what the uninformed public identifies as "military weapons." Most people are completely clueless about firearms, and only know what they've seen in video games and TV/movies. If they put up the hunting rifle variant on the board, people would be asking "Why is that up there, it's a hunting rifle" while completely misunderstanding that the internal mechanics function identically to the "military" looking tactical one.

---------- Post added 2013-01-29 at 10:45 PM ----------

Don't the recent reports say it was?

I believe the reports about the Bushmaster being left in the car were fake twitter trolling, but at this point, who really knows. There is so much bullshit being posted trying to prove that this was a hoax it's hard to tell whats real and whats not in the media.

[Mormolyce]

Well, first off, crime rates have been declining since 1970 (before even automatic weapons were banned).



Second, no one extended the ban because it had an automatic sunset provision in it (which was the entire reason it was even able to pass in the first place) and no one saw any need to extend it due to the aforementioned 4 decades of falling crime rates.

If anything, violent crime spiked a wee bit AFTER the AWB was in place.... and then promptly continued falling... and falling some more AFTER the AWB's sunset.

The pure, unadulterated fact of the matter is that fully automatic weapons have been barred from civilian use for about 30 years now. The only thing left is semiautomatic weapons and anti-gun people don't seem to understand what semiautomatic means.

It means that for every pull of the trigger, you get one shot. Not 2, not 3... not 100. ONE.

As such, it takes an extremely skilled operator to fire off 100 rounds a minute with ANY sort of accuracy.

Well given one guy managed to kill 26 people with one I'd say they're pretty damn effective at civilian massacres no matter how much you quibble about rate of fire.

Obviously the problem with gun control in the US is that it's pissweak and doesn't ban nearly enough categories of firearms. In fact the majority of gun homicides are committed by handguns, so you should be thinking of banning them as well.

You are quite correct about the decline in the homicide rate since the 70s. But the percentage of the population that own guns has declined significantly since the 70s as well.

2011 - 36%
1974 - 47%

http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ow...-demographics/

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Fused, stop using the deaths of kids to push your agenda.

The FBI and DoJ reports say the past bans did nothing. Did you even read them? I have read every pice of crap biased news article from CNN you have posted, so at least have the common courtesy.

[Mormolyce]

They restrict the conversation because it's what the uninformed public identifies as "military weapons." Most people are completely clueless about firearms, and only know what they've seen in video games and TV/movies. If they put up the hunting rifle variant on the board, people would be asking "Why is that up there, it's a hunting rifle" while completely misunderstanding that the internal mechanics function identically to the "military" looking tactical one.

Gun nerds may enjoy geeking out on the distinctions between one gun and another but it's irrelevant to the gun control debate. Regardless of what you choose to call the Bushmaster rifle used in the Sandy Hook massacre, it successfully killed 26 people so there's no debating its effectiveness as a weapon of murder. Other categories of firearms may be able to match that degree of lethality but all that does is raise them as strong candidates for bans as well.

The real reason gun control targets these weapons are simply because they are the most egregious. They're just the first on the chopping block.

[Jaxi]

Obama's bill would limit the number of bullets to ten and that to me at least is a reasonable common sense.

You like citing news articles; let me do the same.

In a 2004 study for the Department of Justice linked on Mrs. Feinstein’s own website, Christopher S. Koper, a professor of criminology, reported that “assailants fire less than four shots on average, a number well within the 10-round magazine limit” of the “assault weapons” ban.

“Studies prove that the arbitrary magazine capacity restriction that was in place for a decade did not reduce crime,” Lawrence Keane, the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s senior vice president and general counsel, told The Washington Times. “In searching for effective means to reduce violence, we should not repeat failed policies, especially when they infringe on the constitutional rights of the law-abiding.”

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/20...magazine-myth/

On top of that, if you limit the magazine size, criminals will simply bring more. As I speculated earlier, in a quick exchange of fire, such as the Tuscon shooting, a larger magazine might make a bigger impact. However, in a shooting that lasts longer, like Columbine, the size of the magazine is completely irrelevant.

[zhero]

Don't the recent reports say it was?

it was in the car, do you think he went back out to the car to put it in the trunk and went back in to kill some more and then himself?

[ugotownd]

This what I call ignoring information. The same exact stuff you are accusing me of ignoring information. Is exactly and I mean exactly the same thing you are doing.

I frankly almost find it amusing you use one sole example then in the next sentence use it as an emotional plea. By using that logic if the events that took place in NJ those people didn't need the 50 Billion funds from congress. It's an emotional plea. My case and point of course the situation is emotional. It's not just on my side. It's on your Pro Gun extremely hostile side.

To respond to your question. I'm going to quote from a source.

What Did the Assault Weapons Ban Do?

Passed by Congress on Sept. 13, 1994, and signed by Bill Clinton later that day, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban prohibited the manufacturing of 18 specific models of semiautomatic weapons, along with the manufacturing of high-capacity ammunition magazines that could carry more than 10 rounds. The ban had a provision that allowed it to expire in September 2004.

Several attempts were made in Congress to re-up the ban, the most recent in June 2008, according to the Library of Congress, but none of them have been successful. Republicans generally opposed it; high-profile Democrats typically shied away from the issue.

In the second presidential debate of the 2012 campaign, President Obama said he was interested in re-instituting the ban.

"Weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets. And so what I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally," the president said. "Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced."


Could a Ban Have Prevented the Connecticut Shootings?

It's impossible to say for sure, but it seems unlikely that if the law were still in place, as it was written, it could have done much to prevent Friday's tragedy. Lanza's primary weapon, the Bushmaster .223 rifle, is a type of AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, certain models of which were prohibited from being sold under the ban, but the Bushmaster model used by Lanza was not on that list.

Additionally, the language in the law was loose enough that a gun enthusiast who was interested in adding a type of AR-15 to their collection could have purchased one legally.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...effective?lite

Don'e even go there. The fucking govt hasnt done shit for NJ. I live in one of the hardest parts hit. We have yet to see a singel dollar from Obama and his bitches. You might want to look again at that 50 billion. Most of it is for garbage that has nothing to do with Sandy damage let alone even the area at all. Tell me how an Alaska fishery has to do with Sandy dmg. Earlier you blamed Bush for killing the country. You need to open your eyes and look at the idiot in office now. 58.7% of americans are employed, 16 Trillion in debt increase in 4 damn yrs. Should we keep going. Pull you head out of your ass and wake up.