12/17/12 8:01 PM

I will try to Erik..

12/17/12 8:32 PM

irrelevant post

12/18/12 6:28 AM

Interesting read: http://m.apnews.mobi/ap/db_6776/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=yLkc7OJv

Fans of the NRA and anti gun-control lobby, can scroll down to about 3 paragraphs from the end of story - re. how strict Norwegian gun gontrol didn't stop a man from obtaining a gun and massacring 69 people in 2001.

Imo, that's like to saying cigarettes (availability) dont kill you - smoking does...
Then again, someone will I always say I knew a 100 year old, pack-a-day smoker without any problems whatsoever.
To which I'd reply - Bell curve.

12/18/12 7:23 AM

Does anyone in this country need a weapon capable of putting eleven rounds into the body of a six-year-old?

12/18/12 9:20 AM

It's not the hunters you have to convince about semiautomatic weapons and large capacity clips. If they have such weapons, it's likely they just find them to be interesting and fun (yes, fun) machines. Most of them would, however reluctantly, give up their semiautomatics if they were banned.

The issue is the large number of people who believe they need to be armed against the possibility of an oppressive government. Knowing they would be facing troops and law enforcement personnel with fully automatic weapons, they want to own the closest thing possible - military style semiautos with large capacity clips.

Note I'm not agreeing with their position. But you can't write them off as fringe. For every wild eyed militia member, there are probably dozens of fairly rational citizens who hold that possibility in the back of their minds.

12/18/12 10:12 AM

Pat gets the gold star.


Though I WILL not give mine up.

12/18/12 10:34 AM

quote:

---

The issue is the large number of people who believe they need to be armed against the possibility of an oppressive government. Knowing they would be facing troops and law enforcement personnel with fully automatic weapons, they want to own the closest thing possible - military style semiautos with large capacity clips.

Note I'm not agreeing with their position. But you can't write them off as fringe. For every wild eyed militia member, there are probably dozens of fairly rational citizens who hold that possibility in the back of their minds.

---

12/18/12 10:50 AM

"Remember it is designed based on ergonomics, nothing more."

Originally maybe, it does not sell so much I wager due to it being ergo to the largest ownership base. I don't think you can take it out of the Rambo context or water the fact down due to how it was originally designed.

12/18/12 12:23 PM

quote:

---

But is that the argument we shouldn't have ANY gun control?

---

12/18/12 12:51 PM

quote:

---

it's because we see common interests and common threats.

---

12/18/12 1:03 PM

Not that people were perfect back in the day, but if you could take people out of era 1960 and sit them down in front of a 2000's news hour, they would likely start a revolution on the spot.
The depravity has been fed to us so gradually we can hardly recognize how bad it's gotten.
One should take a look at what variety of forces came to replace humanity with depravity, again not that the rot wasn't underway in 1960.
As long as society keeps tuning in to those voices, it would seem to be able to continue progressing in only one direction...

12/18/12 1:08 PM

After just over 54 years, I see far more in common in this country than there used to be.

I remember a country far more divided by race, if a little less by class.

We're more divided by politics, but primarily in method; most of us have the same goals. And division in political rhetoric goes back well over 200 years.

I see a much more crowded country, and world, with new stressors from the outside.

I'm proud to be an American, because the problems are still less than the opportunities. We need both.

The nation is more unsettled, as it should be. As one of the people here who has faced a hostile gun firsthand, I've got to say that neither that experience nor the shooting in Newtown has increased my desire for a gun. Dunno. Maybe I'm weird.

Yes, the truly whacked *will* find new ways to arm themselves, they'll use bombs. But we don't (except in comparatively rare circumstances) sell bombs over the counter. There are whackos everywhere. But we don't need to make it easier for them to act out.

12/18/12 2:05 PM

Can anyone explain to me why Eric wont give up his gold star :-0

12/18/12 2:10 PM

quote:

---

The problem is that it's (relatively) easy to pass laws to restrict things, but it's hard to change society. .

---

quote:

---

If you want new laws, how about starting with putting "XXX" ratings on extremely violent video games and movies and restrict their sale and access to people over 18 or 21? Make providing them to minors a crime, just as with alcohol. Yeah, I realize there's not a "snowball's chance in Hell" of that happening, but such a proposal might at least steer the conversation in a direction that could make a long-term difference

---

12/18/12 2:23 PM

You know, I've always been a little skeptical of this argument. But maybe that's because I have a couple dozen Y-foils in my basement that I haven't been able to sell X-).

12/18/12 3:36 PM

Folks, the murder rate in this country is coming down. All this talk about how society is going to hell in a hand basket is an interesting perception that seems to run counter to the statistics.

I think it can probably be shown, though, that there's a high correlation between the decline in the crime rate and the aging of the American population. Crime tends to skew towards young males, which is in declining numbers.

As an example, much of the reduction in crime for which Giuliani claimed credit in New York City was attributable to the aging of the population. There was a marked correlation.

It can be persuasively argued that the best routes to reducing crime rates are improvements to education and to the economy. But that still won't prevent a wacko incident like Newtown.

Explosives? Airplane terrorism? They make for sensational headlines, but they still don't approach the numbers dead by gun violence every year. Nor are they as easy to perpetrate as grabbing a gun, loading it, and going out for a grand old time.

12/18/12 6:18 PM

quote:

---

The issue is the large number of people who believe they need to be armed against the possibility of an oppressive government. Knowing they would be facing troops and law enforcement personnel with fully automatic weapons, they want to own the closest thing possible - military style semiautos with large capacity clips.

---

12/18/12 7:11 PM

The type of gun is an enabler.

A good article in today's NY Times essentially characterizes the individuals involved in these domestic mass murders as essentially no different then a suicide terrorist so common to middle eastern countries, but increasingly prevalent in our own domestic society. The mental illness factors that drives the action is not much different.

One thing that is different however, is the enabling factors that allow for a successful terrorist act. In a middle east bombing, the enabler of choice is for the most part, the car bomb and the easy availability of explosives. In the US it's the availability of guns that carry an excessive amount of ammunition and that can be rapidly re-loaded and that otherwise have no usefulness for the stated purposes of hunting and/or personal defense. Police professionals throughout the country will correctly argue that personal handguns of any kind do little to ensure personal safety without constant and continual training to allow the user to make the correct choices as to under what conditions deadly force should be used. Few citizens bother attempting to gain and maintain the level of training given to police officers and/or members of the armed forces. As such, they become a hazard to society. The issue of the military style rifle used as a hunting weapon simply comes down to “you want to”. You don’t really need to, but you want to.

The objective for the suicidal domestic terrorist is to kill as many people as possible in as short a period of time, before intervention of any kind can be taken. Thus a rifle is frequently used because of the carrying capacity of the magazine as well as the accuracy. A pistol might frequently be carried as backup and sometimes to use as the suicide weapon in case the rifle jams or is in other ways non-functional, or in an environment where carrying a military style rifle would otherwise see intervening action taken.

Thus the military style semi-automatic rifle with it's 20-30 round clip becomes the weapon of choice. It can be argued that without the ease of availability of such a weapon, the mass murder might not take place and in any event, there would probably be fewer casualties were a bolt or lever action rifle be the alternative. Certainly a bolt or lever action rifle can be quickly re-chambered and fired, but not as quickly as a semi-automatic and the ability to rapidly reload using additional magazines is an important part of the enabling equation. The reports coming out of Newton are stating that many magazines for the AR-15 style rifle were used. So is it worth the lives of say 10 six year old's ?. Sleep well tonight pondering that one.

Likewise a pistol with a 15 round clip that can be rapidly re-loaded is also an enabling weapon, as opposed to say a 6 shot revolver that might have to be manually emptied of shells and then reloaded. Again, the time interval and the action required to reload a standard revolver, makes the multi-magazine, large capacity automatic loading pistol an enabling factor.

So how did we get here. I’ve read comments that prior to 1968 there were no gun controls except for machine guns. In 1968 we didn’t need gun controls, EXCEPT for machine guns and that’s a telling point. It was recognized in the 1930’s that machine guns were a menace to society and were banned from public use. So how difficult is it to understand that military style rifles and handguns are a menace now ?. Recall that the AR15 as well as the automatic pistols with ammo clips were designed specifically for military use, with a sole purpose to get as much ammunition on target as accurately and quickly as possible, to kill as many enemy soldiers as possible.

So my original post stands. Recall all 4 damned million military style rifles and all pistols other then revolvers. Ban the friggin things. Buy them back, whatever. Take 10 or 20 years to get it all done.

12/18/12 7:20 PM

nm

12/18/12 7:28 PM

honestly, if you "need" more than a single-shot rifle for hunting, you're not really hunting and just expending ammo and scaring critters. you'd be better off expending time/ammo at the range learning how to shoot accurately.

to wit: lots of people hunt successfully TODAY with modern muzzle-loaders.

IMO a bolt- or pump-action with max 5-round capacity are all you need for hunting or personal protection.

Last edited by walter on 12/18/12 7:56 PM; edited 2 times in total

12/18/12 7:30 PM

Steve B.

Spectacular!

12/18/12 10:24 PM

AMEN to that Steve B.
Enough with the friggen guns and all of the lame a*** excuses.

12/19/12 10:27 AM

T\ank you Steve B

12/19/12 11:00 AM

Well said, sir.

12/19/12 11:06 AM

Steve B, well said...although I dare to say the terrorist bomber is usually motivated by relegion so it is fortunate they don't have as ready access to the guns available in the US because their cause is far more 'justified'.

The thing about these high capacity military style rifles is they are a hootin bunch of fun to play with...can't imagine anyone who could fire one off at a range and not have it put a smile on their face. The problem is explaining to millions that they are no longer allowed to have this kind of fun but clearly their 'right' to have such fun is out weighed by everyone else's right not to be killed.

I said it a long time ago, if you are not part of the solution you ARE part of the problem. The right that allows you to have these fun toys is what causes the availability to be such that any wacko can lay his hands on one and shoot up a school. It's simply the law of supply and demand, if they are banned, sales clearly have to go down, in which case so does production which thus means eventually they wont be so damn easy for a wacko to get. Not that complicated really.