Assault Weapons Ban

[Jupiter551]

You realize that spike is Columbine, right? You might want a different image to support your point.

Actually, it shows the AWB did NOTHING to stop the Columbine cowards and the other spike in 2007 was the Va. Tech shootings where two pistols were used, a Glock 19 & a Walther P22. The AWB was useless then and will be useless again if/when renewed.

You're right in one respect - a 'loophole', though one about large enough to drive a truck through, the lack of background check by weapons bought at gun shows, allowed the guns used at columbine, at least one of which qualified under the ban to be bought legally.
The TEC-9 used at columbine was a banned gun, likely so was the hi point carbine. The VA Tech shooter had 19 clips and two handguns, he was taken down while reloading. As many people have proposed and as many loudly mocked, regulating ammunition sales and magazine size is integral.

If you don't think rate of reload directly influences the lethality of a weapon then you are either dishonest or simple.

Several things the AWB didn't do: restrict the MILLIONS of guns already legally out there that would have fallen under the act if they had been produced between 1994 and 2004, close gun show loopholes, and last long enough to make a difference. Law enforcement officials and ATF said they were finally starting to see a steady decline in the affected weapons after 10 years of no production, when the ban was allowed to expire.

It seems like even republicans are currently pushing for a renewal, and they're closing the gun show loophole, and if they initiate an amnesty buyback scheme...well, heh, I'm sure we'll hear the ranting from all the way over here in Australia.

Oh btw, while I think of it, where are all the people who bought assault rifles in case of having to rise up against a tyrannical state? I mean, isn't that the whole basis for the argument allowing them?

Main reason for purschasing AR-style sporting rifles:

49.1% Target Shooting
22.8% Hunting
28.1% Protection

Source: Nat'l Shooting Sports Foundation 2011 Survey

 

[Harvrath]

There are millions of 'assault weapons' in civilian hands, AR-15 platforms count for about 3-4 million alone. How many people are going out right now, buying these weapons and these people will never do this? A fucking lot. How many people are going out, buying these guns and planning or going to do this, very fucking few.

Aurora, Virginia Tech, Arizona, this guy, Columbine and countless others all have one thing in common. It is not the weapons used. It is Mental Illness. Focusing on the firearms and not the mental illness is irrational fear.

Kip Kinkel in 1998 also used a Ruger 10/22 chambered in .22LR, are we to ban them to? The Cumbria shooter in the UK used a bolt-action rifle chambered in .22LR, bolt action rifles now? Lets just ban all the guns on account of a the abuses of an incredibly tiny portion of the population.

National Mental Health Patient Firearms Database:
When you are treated for a mental health issue, the shrink enters your name into this database. If you are on this list, its a 60-day waiting period for certain illnesses, never for others. Your shrink can note that he/she doesn't think you should own firearms and it'll be in this list. Now, if you can show a 'need' for a gun such as having a restraining order on someone who is violent, than the waiting period is lifted on only 1 handgun with 7 round magazine capacity. Voluntary treatment doesn't automatically get you on this list, your shrink can make the judgement call to put your name in this list. If you are prescribed certain medications you are on this list. If a family member is on this list, you may get a call about the family member and firearms that maybe in the home.

I wonder if anyone close to Nanzy Lanza mentioned that she might wanna think about getting the guns out of the house.

 

[Mirra]

You think a significant number of people at risk for this will be identified before it's too late? You think a significant number of those identified as a risk will actually be evaluated? Are you going to force everyone to be evaluated by a mental health expert every couple years?

 

[Harvrath]

You think a significant number of people at risk for this will be identified before it's too late? You think a significant number of those identified as a risk will actually be evaluated? Are you going to force everyone to be evaluated by a mental health expert every couple years?

Not everyone needs to be evaluated. The signs of emerging mental illness is common, there are warning signs. The moment I heard Loughner's youtube videos, when he said 'There's my genocide school', I knew he was schizophrenic.

John Holmes sent a text to a grad-student asking about dysphoric mania and warning the grad student to stay away from him because he is bad news. This was days before the killing.

People at VA Tech knew the shooter was messed up in the head, his condition was deteriorating.

Adam Lanza would have been on this list. Adam Lanza attempted to buy his own guns days before the massacre. This could have been prevented with a system like this.

Will it stop every killer. No, the Columbine killers got their guns illegally.

The only way gun-control can stop this is by taking away every single person's right to keep and bear arms. That is the only way. But these rampages will continue to happen, the weapons used will change and the targets will change.

The mass death that one can concoct out of household chemicals puts firearms to shame.

 

[Alexandra Cole]

Actually, it shows the AWB did NOTHING to stop the Columbine cowards and the other spike in 2007 was the Va. Tech shootings where two pistols were used, a Glock 19 & a Walther P22. The AWB was useless then and will be useless again if/when renewed.

In a way, you've just identified why it's such a divisive argument. When you see that graph, you conclude that the ban is useless since it did nothing to prevent events like Columbine. Someone else would conclude that the ban had a significant impact on gun violence overall, but didn't go far enough for the precisely the reason you mentioned.

 

[Mirra]

You think a significant number of people at risk for this will be identified before it's too late? You think a significant number of those identified as a risk will actually be evaluated? Are you going to force everyone to be evaluated by a mental health expert every couple years?

Not everyone needs to be evaluated. The signs of emerging mental illness is common, there are warning signs. The moment I heard Loughner's youtube videos, when he said 'There's my genocide school', I knew he was schizophrenic.

John Holmes sent a text to a grad-student asking about dysphoric mania and warning the grad student to stay away from him because he is bad news. This was days before the killing.

People at VA Tech knew the shooter was messed up in the head, his condition was deteriorating.

Adam Lanza would have been on this list. Adam Lanza attempted to buy his own guns days before the massacre. This could have been prevented with a system like this.

Will it stop every killer. No, the Columbine killers got their guns illegally.

The only way gun-control can stop this is by taking away every single person's right to keep and bear arms. That is the only way. But these rampages will continue to happen, the weapons used will change and the targets will change.

The mass death that one can concoct out of household chemicals puts firearms to shame.

And yet they continue to use FIREARMS. That should tell you something. And as I asked before, do you think a significant number of those identified as a risk will actually be evaluated? Also, how many people with mental health issues don't go on shooting rampages? Those people definitely need assistance too but it's not as easy as cherry picking the ones that need it to prevent tragedies. On top of that, the people's statements about those killers are a lot easier to make in hindsight. If something was in place to take care of such things, would they have all been reported? Would the system be abused? I am not saying the mental health side of it should be ignored. I am saying that it too has flaws and is not a replacement for also strengthening the controls placed upon firearms. Both together will be more effective than either by themselves.

 

[Bocefish]

Actually, it shows the AWB did NOTHING to stop the Columbine cowards and the other spike in 2007 was the Va. Tech shootings where two pistols were used, a Glock 19 & a Walther P22. The AWB was useless then and will be useless again if/when renewed.

In a way, you've just identified why it's such a divisive argument. When you see that graph, you conclude that the ban is useless since it did nothing to prevent events like Columbine. Someone else would conclude that the ban had a significant impact on gun violence overall, but didn't go far enough for the precisely the reason you mentioned.

You can spin it however you want, the facts are the facts. So-called Assault Weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes. It's about time the antis focus on HELPING the mentally ill instead of banning inanimate objects that only hurt the innocent, law abiding citizens.

Stop treating the symptoms with band-aid, feel better temporary emotional patches and focus on the real issue with is mental illness.

The vast majority of people don't think renewing the AWB will do anything to stop future mass shootings, but hey, at least they're doing something to make their happy little asses FEEL better.

 

[Harvrath]

You think a significant number of people at risk for this will be identified before it's too late? You think a significant number of those identified as a risk will actually be evaluated? Are you going to force everyone to be evaluated by a mental health expert every couple years?

Not everyone needs to be evaluated. The signs of emerging mental illness is common, there are warning signs. The moment I heard Loughner's youtube videos, when he said 'There's my genocide school', I knew he was schizophrenic.

John Holmes sent a text to a grad-student asking about dysphoric mania and warning the grad student to stay away from him because he is bad news. This was days before the killing.

People at VA Tech knew the shooter was messed up in the head, his condition was deteriorating.

Adam Lanza would have been on this list. Adam Lanza attempted to buy his own guns days before the massacre. This could have been prevented with a system like this.

Will it stop every killer. No, the Columbine killers got their guns illegally.

The only way gun-control can stop this is by taking away every single person's right to keep and bear arms. That is the only way. But these rampages will continue to happen, the weapons used will change and the targets will change.

The mass death that one can concoct out of household chemicals puts firearms to shame.

And yet they continue to use FIREARMS. That should tell you something. And as I asked before, do you think a significant number of those identified as a risk will actually be evaluated? Also, how many people with mental health issues don't go on shooting rampages? Those people definitely need assistance too but it's not as easy as cherry picking the ones that need it to prevent tragedies. On top of that, the people's statements about those killers are a lot easier to make in hindsight. If something was in place to take care of such things, would they have all been reported? Would the system be abused? I am not saying the mental health side of it should be ignored. I am saying that it too has flaws and is not a replacement for also strengthening the controls placed upon firearms. Both together will be more effective than either by themselves.

So you finally admit that it is not just gun-control but a whole host of issues. Normal people with these firearms do not go on rampages.

I own an M1 and a Mini-14 Carbine, my dad bought both in the 80s. They have been in mine and his possession for roughly 30 years. I got 30-rd Mags for both.

As for this system being abused. Yes. Guns are abused but you advocate strict gun control because of abuse.

How about this, lift the age to own these weapons to 24 years of age. Holmes wouldn't have had legal access to these firearms. Schizophrenia usually appears in mid teens to early 20s.

 

[Alexandra Cole]

Actually, it shows the AWB did NOTHING to stop the Columbine cowards and the other spike in 2007 was the Va. Tech shootings where two pistols were used, a Glock 19 & a Walther P22. The AWB was useless then and will be useless again if/when renewed.

In a way, you've just identified why it's such a divisive argument. When you see that graph, you conclude that the ban is useless since it did nothing to prevent events like Columbine. Someone else would conclude that the ban had a significant impact on gun violence overall, but didn't go far enough for the precisely the reason you mentioned.

You can spin it however you want, the facts are the facts. So-called Assault Weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes. It's about time the antis focus on HELPING the mentally ill instead of banning inanimate objects that only hurt the innocent, law abiding citizens.

Stop treating the symptoms with band-aid, feel better temporary emotional patches and focus on the real issue with is mental illness.

The vast majority of people don't think renewing the AWB will do anything to stop future mass shootings, but hey, at least they're doing something to make their happy little asses FEEL better.

I was pointing out two possible conclusions that could be drawn from the same body of information, information you provided. I could name ten more. I would hope that you could too, seeing how there are multiple positions, perspectives, and opinions on how to handle gun violence.

You seem a little angry, Boce.

 

[Bocefish]

I was pointing out two possible conclusions that could be drawn from the same body of information, information you provided. I could name ten more. I would hope that you could too, seeing how there are multiple positions, perspectives, and opinions on how to handle gun violence.

You seem a little angry, Boce.

LOL, I may come across as angry sometimes, but that's because my reasoning is not based on emotions. I can get a little upset when people say dumb shit, ridiculously exaggerate, and lie to back up their agenda on this serious subject.

SO what's your stance and reasoning?

 

[Bocefish]

Oh btw, while I think of it, where are all the people who bought assault rifles in case of having to rise up against a tyrannical state? I mean, isn't that the whole basis for the argument allowing them?

Main reason for purschasing AR-style sporting rifles:

49.1% Target Shooting
22.8% Hunting
28.1% Protection

Source: Nat'l Shooting Sports Foundation 2011 Survey

Since you asked... if you read and could comprehend the poll title, it said MAIN reason for purchasing AR-style sporting rifles. I'm sure there are plenty of doomsdayers that expect the government to collapse or whatnot at one point in the future.

 

[LadyLuna]

Oh btw, while I think of it, where are all the people who bought assault rifles in case of having to rise up against a tyrannical state? I mean, isn't that the whole basis for the argument allowing them?

Main reason for purschasing AR-style sporting rifles:

49.1% Target Shooting
22.8% Hunting
28.1% Protection

Source: Nat'l Shooting Sports Foundation 2011 Survey

Since you asked... if you read and could comprehend the poll title, it said MAIN reason for purchasing AR-style sporting rifles. I'm sure there are plenty of doomsdayers that expect the government to collapse or whatnot at one point in the future.

Not to mention that for those who really do have that as a reason, they aren't going to go telling everybody about it, and probably aren't the kind of people who will participate in these voluntary polls. But then again, neither would those who plan to commit a crime.

Hence why polls don't count as proof of anything, ever.

 

[LuckySmiles]

Did you know that in the United States women who own guns are SIXTEEN times more likely to be killed by a gun than women who don't? So much for owning guns making one safer.

:whistle:

 

[Just Me]

The mental health debate that people put up to justify their argument for less gun control is a strawman argument. In reality it goes against the same argument they have about the right to bear arms. Which right is more fundamental? Freedom from someone involuntary incarcerating you or the right to bear arms? Which right should we trample on? It is not easy to get an involuntary hold on a person for psychiatric reasons. None of these gunman would have been considered legally insane.

I am not advocating for more or less gun control. There are so many variable involved it is difficult to get a grasp on what is the best solution. Something fundamental needs to change when 99% if not more of these tragedies are caused by young white men. Part of the solution might be better mental health care or more gun control or some of both. There needs to be a major cultural shift for the desired outcome to happen.

 

[Just Me]

Did you know that in the United States women who own guns are SIXTEEN times more likely to be killed by a gun than women who don't? So much for owning guns making one safer.

:whistle:

The plural of anecdote is not data/evidence. I can make a youtube video saying I have never had a need of gun to protect myself. It proves nothing. There are scientific, peer reviewed studies showing that owning a gun does not make you safer. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm

For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

 

[Bocefish]

The mental health debate that people put up to justify their argument for less gun control is a strawman argument. In reality it goes against the same argument they have about the right to bear arms. Which right is more fundamental? Freedom from someone involuntary incarcerating you or the right to bear arms? Which right should we trample on? It is not easy to get an involuntary hold on a person for psychiatric reasons. None of these gunman would have been considered legally insane.

I am not advocating for more or less gun control. There are so many variable involved it is difficult to get a grasp on what is the best solution. Something fundamental needs to change when 99% if not more of these tragedies are caused by young white men. Part of the solution might be better mental health care or more gun control or some of both. There needs to be a major cultural shift for the desired outcome to happen.

The video game people blame it on the guns, the gun people blame it on mental illness and lack of responsible gun ownership. Most Hollywood people I've heard also blame mental illness issues.

I would suggest making so-called assault weapons harder to purchase via more extensive background checks along with disqualifying ownership without proof of purchase of an approved gun safe for storage. I would also suggest funding an in-depth study on the mental effects of today's ultra realistic violent video games on unstable and growing teenage minds. I would also recommend arming select teachers that are willing and who pass intensive psychiatric testing and training, but keeping who they are under strict anonymity. Mental health care must be a priority too!

The last two shooters that used so-called assault weapons had no legal right using them, not to mention having any reason for access to them. Proper weapon education and security would have rendered the last two shootings non-events.

Banning inanimate objects is a band-aid to a much deeper issue that solves nothing.

 

[Anonymous]

Something fundamental needs to change when 99% if not more of these tragedies are caused by young white men.

Ban white people?

 

[Bocefish]

Something fundamental needs to change when 99% if not more of these tragedies are caused by young white men.

Ban white people?

 

[Mirra]

So you finally admit that it is not just gun-control but a whole host of issues. Normal people with these firearms do not go on rampages.

I own an M1 and a Mini-14 Carbine, my dad bought both in the 80s. They have been in mine and his possession for roughly 30 years. I got 30-rd Mags for both.

As for this system being abused. Yes. Guns are abused but you advocate strict gun control because of abuse.

How about this, lift the age to own these weapons to 24 years of age. Holmes wouldn't have had legal access to these firearms. Schizophrenia usually appears in mid teens to early 20s.

Not sure where you are coming from with the whole "finally" thing. I alluded to the mental illness thing in my first post in the thread about the school shooting. This topic happens to be titled Assault Weapons Ban so I was focusing in on that a bit.

Let me be completely clear with no allusions. I am in favor of some changes in gun control. I personally have not heard a convincing argument for civilians to have assault rifles unless required for their occupation. Therefore, I am currently in support of a ban on them. There are hundreds of other guns for people to shoot for sport or to use for self defense. I suspect there are also other gun control measures that would have minimal effect on sportsmen but would help with preventing or reducing the potency of these shooting sprees. I do believe *mental healthcare also needs to be improved in an effort to get these people help before they commit these atrocities if possible. This is something that needs to be addressed from many different angles.

While I'm posting, I think I'm just going to leave this right here.

*I also happen to think basic mental healthcare being more readily available for all citizens regardless of their ability to afford it could help with a lot of the nation's other crimes.

 

[Bocefish]

I personally have not heard a convincing argument for civilians to have assault rifles unless required for their occupation. Therefore, I am currently in support of a ban on them.

First question is what do you know about firearms and what is your experience with them?

 

[southsamurai]

just to chime in for a slightly skewed perspective. back when i was able to be physical and work out and train one of the exercises i did involved sword training against multiple armed opponents. i was never like uber good compared to my classmates and i could handle 3 other people trained to a similar level as myself. with a knife no longer than 6 inches ( about the largest folding knife you can get) i could pretty much wipe out 5 or 6 people who were at or above brown belt level in martial arts and trained against weapons. i never really practiced against people who didnt have any training or had very little, so i can only theorize about what kind of damage i could do in a controlled setting like a dojo.

all that is to make the point that if i were completely nuts and on a homicidal rampage back in my physical prime i wouldnt have needed any kind of gun to kill or maim large numbers of people. but no sword or knife has a range of more than about 20 feet. one scared person with a gun can take out the best trained swordsman out there (potentially)

the idea that getting rid of any type of gun is going to make the world less violent is just plain dumb. it will only change the type of violence available to those who are broken enough to act in that fashion.

 

[Bocefish]

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=21578

When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens

February 8, 2012

One of the most divisive issues in American politics is that of gun control. Many who oppose gun licensing for citizens do so because they believe that guns do more harm to a populace than good. They emphasize incidents of accidental death in which one's incompetence cost them their life. They also argue that increased gun ownership will result in increased gun use in cases of anger or passion, say Clayton E. Cramer, a history teacher at the College of Western Idaho, and David Burnett, the director of public relations for Students for Concealed Carry.

However, such incidents have been overblown in severity and frequency, and cloud the debate over gun control. Specifically, they draw attention away from the fact that, by prohibiting the ownership of guns by private individuals, the government would leave its citizens more vulnerable to criminal activity. The government should recognize this fact and allow for one of the most basic of human rights: the right to self-defense.

The most widely known study of gun-related self-defense, by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, was completed in the 1990s and found that there were somewhere between 830,000 and 2.45 million defensive gun uses per year in the United States.
Another prominent study, by the National Crime Victimization Survey, found that there were about 108,000 defensive gun uses per year.
The National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms, performed in 1994, arrived at a figure of 1.5 million incidents of self-defense with a firearm.
The wide variation between surveys is inherent in the type of information that is being ascertained. People often exaggerate, forget the date of the incident or fail to classify themselves as a "victim of a violent crime" (as one survey put it), creating systemic under- and overestimates.

Nevertheless, the idea that so many confrontations end with a "positive" outcome, in which the criminal is killed, forced to flee or held for the police, makes the continued availability of guns for the populace at large an attractive option.

Source: Clayton E. Cramer and David Burnett, "Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens," Cato Institute, February 2, 2012.

 

[AmberCutie]

From daily thoughts, image because it ain't linkin' properleeee.