To be more fair to the people who want more regulation. It's not that they think that another law will solve things. They just hope that it will help and they are scared and want desperately to do something. Wanting to do something about this is a good thing. And because so many countries don't allow guns and thus have very little gun violence it's easy to draw the conclusion that baning guns here would make us like them.

It wouldn't work here at all and it won't stop crazy evil people from being crazy and evil. But their heart is probibly in the right place.

zen

I for one don't care where their heart is...its where their head's are that concerns me.

Amazingly enough, stats on gun related violence in other countries appear to show that them banning guns has absolutely no direct correlation to level of gun violence. The top 10 countries for gun violence per capita have the least amount of guns owned per capita. Google it.

Anilof: If you make the claim, the responsibility to provide the competent, legitimate backup to the claim is on you. Please do so.

I have a great idea: LETS OUTLAW ALCOHOL AND DRUGS WHILE WE ARE AT IT. Those two things do more damage to society and kill more people each year and lead to more violence than guns do themselves.

Oh, wait, we tried the alcohol already once and it led to organized crime...and illegal drugs have had a mirade of complex and tough laws for years. My boo...I do not think straight without my hourly dose of nicotine and caffeine.

The only way to get sensible legislation is to have accurate data. But it is currently illegal for the government to use federal dollars to make grants into this kind of research. As a result, we have vast swaths of data for everything from car accidents to childhood drownings. But no data on gun violence. That is one law that would absolutely make a difference.

Information leads to informed laws. Which is better than the shot in the dark scenario we have now (pun intended).

“People are killed in greater number by cars..."

Almost every year since 1989 the number of auto deaths has decreased. Why? Mandatory safety regulations of the auto industry. Many of the newest safety features were self imposed by an industry that cares about their customers and people in general.

Almost every year since 1989 the number of auto deaths has decreased. Why? Mandatory safety regulations of the auto industry. Many of the newest safety features were self imposed by an industry that cares about their customers and people in general.

We are also allowed to collect and analyze data about the circumstances that lead to people being killed in cars. The information can be used to find root causes. Imagine that!

gdsmithtx: There you you since you're too lazy to use google. What you thought I was like a liberal just making sh!t up out of my @ss just to fit my narrative? Sorry to disappoint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

The three nations above the United States is South Africa, Colombia, and Thailand. According to Gunpolicy.org (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/south-africa) the regulations for those three countries are quite similar to the United States. Perhaps I'm looking at different numbers but from my research Anilof is incorrect.

I can see both points here in the argument. However, let's be honest, until Americans stop treating each other like garbage, until Americans in general stop being selfish, greedy, elitist, ignorant pr*cks then these events will continue to happen. Good luck, America.

It's time to take the "FUN" out of firearms. The only reason a gun should be owned is for self defense. The day guns were seen as "fun" is the day another person's life was devalued and made irrelevant. It's why the children who died in Newtown, CT are looked upon as little more than an unpleasant news report to the gun nuts. You people disgust me. Go serve in the military if you want to shoot military-style weapons. There's no place for them in American civilian life.

Reaper - the studies you need to pay attention to are the ones that provide per capita data. Obviously in a nation the size of the US there would be more of everything. The fact is, the US is way down on this list for gun homicide per capita. The UK? They have way more violent crime than we do. Disarming the law abiding public makes them sitting ducks for the criminal element. In the UK, after their ban - assaults when up; rape went up; robbery went up. One has to accept the connection between an unarmed society and the increase of crime.

“People are killed in greater number by cars, bats, hammers, hands, and feet,” he added. “Examining the tool and attempting to ban the tool will have absolutely no effect. We’re dealing with a people problem. We’ve got to find a people solution.”

This argument fails when you take it to its logical conclusion. If the tool has nothing to do with the problem, then there should be nothing stopping the sale of outrageous weapons such as rocket-propelled grenades, armored vehicles, and bombs of all shapes sizes and chemical contents. Clearly, the tool has a lot to do with it.

Banning an "assault" weapon is stupid. The only difference is how the gun looks. We should be banning all semi-automatic weapons, just like we ban automatic wepons, grenades, rocket launchers, missile launchers, and nuclear weapons.

When comparing stats, we can't use the entire US because we're such a large country that has vastly different regions. I would suggest to compare per capita murders by state. What you'll find is that we have many states that have lower per capita rates than those small European countries that are so often used as an example. But then when you add in places like California, Michigan, Illinois, etc. (places with large metro areas with lots of murders) then it skews the data for the country as a whole.

I've literally built spreadsheets using the FBI data that can be downloaded along with general data on each state's gun control laws along with population, etc.

The one thing that really sticks out are the gang populations. Regardless of a state's given gun control laws, the higher the gang member population, the higher the firearm murder rate. Also, its amazing how few rifle deaths there really are. Illinois with Chicago in the news daily for murders had ONE rifle death in 2011.

There are two types of gun deaths: mass murders that happen infrequently and run of the mill gun killings that happen daily. The daily type are committed by handguns and account for the vast majority of our country's gun deaths. The mass murderers sometimes use rifles and account for a miniscule amount.

Now tell me again why we are so focused on military looking rifles? I can only think it is pure emotion due to two crazy people because rationally speaking, we should be going after gangs with illegal handguns if we want to bring that overall gun violence number down.

Mass: I get it, and you get it, but some folks do not want to get it, and they are not willing to put much effort into taking effort towards a conclusion - unfortunately they "concluded" long ago. To them, you and I are liberal retards hell bent (among other things) on taking all their guns away. It will be a long row to hoe.

Well, we don't like it when people have nuclear weapons. We don't allow people to own
fully armed Sherman tanks, machine guns, or battle ships. I think we can live
with a few more token restrictions on how many rounds our semi-automatic
pistols and rifles can hold. Will it make a difference in the next mass shooting?
I doubt it.

Many of the newest safety features were self imposed by an industry that cares about their customers and people in general.

Yeah, sure.

Guess you never heard of "Unsafe at Any Speed".

Do we really need cars that can go faster than 65 MPH?

No law will cover every last eventuality and prevent a tragedy from happening, but there are a few common-sense rules that might have affected the outcome in Newtown:

1) Ban ownership of high-capacity assault-type firearms to mentally-deficient individuals and those living with a mentally-deficient individual. Can still own handguns but not the high-capacity type. And you can certainly still own them if you do not have a mentally-deficient individual living with you.

2) mandate stricter penalties, including jail time, for those who lie on that question on the purchase/permit application. If Nancy Lanza had been asked the question "Do you have a mentally deficient individual living with you?" when she bought the AR15, she would most likely have answered yes on that application no mater how much she wanted to have the gun if she knew that she would go to jail when her background check showed that she had an autistic son she had previously tried to have committed.

Therefore, in my opinion, we need a multi-pronged solution that contains common-sense legislation to:

1) promote school safety;

2) address mental health issues; and

3) gun control laws meant to limit the access that mentally-deficient individuals have to weapons that can kill large numbers of people in short periods of time.

The solution, to me, seems simple--ban ownership of high-capacity assault-type firearms to those living with a mentally-deficient individual, and mandate stricter penalties, including jail time, for those who lie on that question on the purchase/permit application. A background check for purchase/permit of such a weapon should include a mental health question for other members of the household, and such can be easily verified through government records--I am the mother of a high-functioning but autistic child, and were I to apply to purchase one of these, a background check would turn this fact up easily through Social Services records.

My situation is much like that of Nancy Lanza, with a few differences. I will never teach my son how to aim and shoot a firearm because I know what my son is capable of. Thus I will never own an assault-type firearm that can kill many in a short time. I do own a firearm, a S&W 9mm that my Dad carried in Vietnam, but I own no ammo nor does my son know we have it. The day he finds out will be the day that gun goes into a safe deposit box.

So NOW ALL the politicos, Including Our Prez O, Are GRANDSTANDING and have joined forces to ban guns. However, PB did NOT Hear ONE gesture of commitment to Establishing An American Universal HealthCARE System WITH Psychiatric OutReach TEAMS who have "Examine and Retain" Authority. Those Teams would have SEEN and Examined darling little adamn lanza and his MISGUIDED momma where little adamn was taking powerful Psychiatric "medication" whose Contraindications CLEARLY STATE "May cause Suicidal And/Or HOMICIDAL BEHAVIOR"; Meaning the "patient" MAY JUST SLIP Into CRIMINAL INSANITY. And AND! AND!!! after seeing Momma lanza putting the weapons at her little darling's disposal "To Teach Him Responsibility", which cost her Her Dumb Delusional life, The Psychiatric Team would have Locked UP BOTH of them. But Noooooo....Do Not go after Big Pharmaceutical corporations AND ALSO provide An American Universal HEALTHCARE System, with FULLY equipped Psychiatric OutReach Teams Like Our SANE Allys have, GO AFTER The Peaceful law abiding citizen! It's an "Easier Hunt" with NO political ramifications. Face IT: America has More Very Dangerous NutJobs, Including serial killers of Our Women, running around, on the loose, than fleas on a Houndog's Back. The REAL VILLAINS In this WHOLE American GUN NIGHTMARE???? They are Big Pharmaceutical Corporations who, 40 years ago, saw the INCREDIBLY PROFITABLE Opportunity of peddling worthless "psychiatric" pills to Federal and State governments for "Patient OutCare Management", BUT FIRST, with the help of the OTHER EVIL POLITICO VILLAIN, CLOSE DOWN ALL THE STAE AND FEDERAL MENTAL HOSPITALS. These Evil Sewage Politicians have to go, Be Flushed Out and of off State and Federal Crapital Hills. Ironically what's keeping them IN POWER? "law enforcemnet" GUNS...............

@Steven B

My point exactly. When Ralph Nader took on the auto industry for the senseless murder on our highways, first the public responded, then the Government and the auto industry responded in a positive way to reduce the carnage. What does the gun industry do? Call for more guns. Despicable.

Barry just signed 23 executive "actions" ( that way they aren't executive orders)...wonder what they were...no one knows for some reason. How many circumvented the Constitution as well as congress? Get use to a dictatorship people. when you sign orders BEFORE anything even goes before the senate and house , that's what it is called a dictatorship. It also oversteps the reasoning behind the executive order pen to begin with, hence the new term "action". But the sheeple will come up with excuses to back this B.S.. now wont ya libs...

scooter, you can't even understand the lower orifice in which your head buried. Why would anyone pay any attention to your opinion. You haven't even discussed the Bush administration Theory of the Unified Executive.

Meanwhile, it is quite correct to say that the assault rifle ban is useless. All automatic and semi-automatic firearms should be banned. They are simply unnecessary for anything. Except, of course, to make it easier to kill large numbers of people faster. And to make a little putz feel like a bigger putz.

http://zenpaladin.newsvine.com/">ZenPaladin

To be more fair to the people who want more regulation. It's not that they think that another law will solve things. They just hope that it will help and they are scared and want desperately to do something. Wanting to do something about this is a good thing. And because so many countries don't allow guns and thus have very little gun violence it's easy to draw the conclusion that baning guns here would make us like them.

It wouldn't work here at all and it won't stop crazy evil people from being crazy and evil. But their heart is probibly in the right place.

I agree with you for the most part, but I think some of them simply have a distorted perception of guns and/or gun owners (i.e. they think gun owners are "hillbillies, gun toting idiots", and/or they are afraid of guns), and many of them actually believe that new laws will solve things, and don't realise that they believe in myths (that criminals will follow the rules) and rely on wishful thinking for protection. They are also unaware of the many lives that have been saved by people who owned guns (the "big" news medias never, or rarely, mention them). The worst is that they want everyone else to rely on the same myths and wishful thinking for their protection.

I find it amazing that no one seems to remember that the DEADLIEST mass shooting in U.S. History, Virginia Tech, involved NO "assault weapons."

To the best of my knowledge, Luby's Massacre in 1991 is still the third deadliest mass shooting and it didn't involve "assault weapons" either.

Both of these massacres involved multiple handguns...

oh WOW thanks for sharing - that news makes it all very clear - no need to ban assault weapons at all. what could all the fuss be about. the logic of gun zealots amaze me.

Every country has their share of violence, the only difference between the other countries and the USA is that we have a sophisticated media system in place to exploit every event. In Rwanda it is machetes and knifes, in Iraq car bombs and shootings, in Pakistan it is the Taliban and extremist, and the list goes on and on. The weapon ban only applies to the law abiding citizens, it does nothing to those that have the evil intent. Therefore, the great equalizer is for everyone to be allow any type of weapon, thus anyone that may think that the other person can't hit back will think twice before proceeding. Weapons are a great deterrent, they worked against nations and will certainly work on individuals.

I have the perfect solution, lets out law people. Since people kill people not guns, we take care of the whole problem. Thank you NRA for pointing that out. Than we can just have outlaws.

JimD, if the government can't keep the guns out of criminal's hands (they've actually handed them right over to criminals in fast & furious), how on Earth do you think removing semi-autos from law abiding citizens is going to do any good at all? Seriously, think about what you are saying. Wake up man

Ten years ago, a Republican sponsored (Todd Tiahrt R-Kansas), NRA written bit of legislation was inserted into a funding bill. It gutted the ATF's ability to track firearms and enforce existing gun laws. It required that background check information be destroyed within 24 hours, restricts inspection of gun shops to once per year, cuts funding so that actual inspections only occur once every 17 years on average. It also removed any requirement for gun shops to take inventory or keep track of their products. Republicans have blocked Senate confirmation of a director of the ATF for the last 6 years. (this requirement was inserted into the Patriot act by John Sensenbrenner R-Wisconson. He won the NRA's defender of freedom award that year.) The total number of ATF agents has remained at 2500 for the last 35 years and they have 100,000 gun sellers to monitor, not to mention the alcohol and tobacco.

57% of guns used in crimes were traced back to only 1% of gun dealers. This information was obtained 20 years ago, but since then the ATF has been barred from collecting and using such a database. The NRA has little credibility after these attacks upon very reasonable gun legislation.

Good post. I was aware that the murders in Chicago (a city with strong gun control laws) are linked to the purchase of weapons outside the city limits, and primarily from one gun store. I also agree that the NRA has taken outrageous steps to keep information about the dangers of its contributors products out of public view. Could someone please explain the rationale behind keeping gun ownership secret? The logic excapes me.

Anyfishinsea-1033828

Could someone please explain the rationale behind keeping gun ownership secret? The logic excapes me.

If you are referring to public records; after a (few) news media published a map of all licensed gun owners in a certain area, there has been burglaries where the guys went directly for their gun safe. I think it is pretty obvious that not everybody should have access to this information.

If you are referring to registration of guns; refer to the 2nd Amendment. Briefly, if we were invaded, and/or if the government ever became a tyranny, they would know where to find all the gun owners and it would make it much easier for them to disarm citizens.

Meanwhile, it is quite correct to say that the assault rifle ban is useless. All automatic and semi-automatic firearms should be banned. They are simply unnecessary for anything. Except, of course, to make it easier to kill large numbers of people faster. And to make a little putz feel like a bigger putz.

Well JimD, Perhaps we should have you move to any state and try and survive on your logic along the Mexican border. We would then see how you fair without an "AKA" Assault Rifle! then you can tell us if they should be banned, if you survive that is.

Reaper M Jones... You are looking at the statistics incorrectly. You are looking at the total per country and not the rate per capita. Keep in mind that the United States has a rather large population as compared to many other countries

What I found from the same website that RM Jones referenced, is that the murder rate per capita is much higher in many countries that have strict gun laws. It seems that people are using weapons that are not guns. Imagine that?

It doesn't matter if a gun or a hammer is used. Dead is dead, and murder is murder. The countries with the strictest gun laws do have the highest murder rates

Sorry to bust your bubble RM Jones, but Anilof was correct. I used the same reference that you did to prove that you are the one who is incorrect.

scott-so did newton,or does everyone forget so quickly. the ar15 was in his trunk,now i ask this moron reporter how can he include newtown? how you lying sob? initial reports say the police found it in his trunk,so.....how can he lie about that now? huh matt? you are a pos reporter that should be fired for adding that lie to your story! can you say AGENDA? he used multiple HANDGUNS AT NEWTOWN.

Well, if America cannot "ban" assault weapons and,or, high capacity magazines then we ought to accept the Newton, Virginia Tech, movie houses and churches mass shootings as only natural. Next time twenty kids are killed, spare us seeing a President Obama crying in Church sermon and all other nationwide group mourning's. Simply shrug it off as something for the evening news as we shrug off seventy killed by suicide bomber in Iraq.

Welcome to the news: "Good evening, we follow the top story for the day as we report a gunmen walked into a hospital and shot to death forty two newborn babies in the nursery."

Weather-man Jack: "To bad, some people can abuse our second amendment, but look at the bright side, it will be sunny with low humidity for the next three days."

Next: fade to commercial break.

Doesn't it though...kinda like saying "nice doggy"... while looking around for a club.

I have a great idea: LETS OUTLAW ALCOHOL AND DRUGS WHILE WE ARE AT IT. Those two things do more damage to society and kill more people each year and lead to more violence than guns do themselves.

Oh, wait, we tried the alcohol already once and it led to organized crime...and illegal drugs have had a mirade of complex and tough laws for years. My boo...I do not think straight without my hourly dose of nicotine and caffeine.

We had a "assault weapons ban" before and it had didn't accomplish anything. At one time we had to sign a book every time we purchased a box of .22 rifle ammo. It didn't accomplish anything. Yet our leaders are going to try the same thing again with the hopes that it might work this time.

Pumbaa171 3.3

On the contrary. The prior assault weapons ban got a bunch of democrats fired from congress. I'd say that was an accomplishment.

the stats reported seem to indicate a very small percentage of rifle homicides. 300+ out of a total of 16,000 is 1.9% IT did not say how many AR's were used in homicides. One principle of management is to manage for the majority feature or phenomena, not the small tips of the bell curve. IF 16,000, 98.2% people are killed each not by rifles and AR's, why is the major cause being avoided? Why concentrate on the tips of the bell curve ? The answer is we are governed by the emotional people now. As for the pro-gun at all costs argument the idea that unless billy-bob is allowed to have an AR or AK, we are in danger of being invaded or taken over by our own gubmint we look at history. When the Germans in the 1930's took over they commonly performed their putches after mid-night by sending squads to platoon sized units and pulled people out of their houses. If you think an un-military trained billy bob (by himself or with 2 or 3 family members ) in a typically constructed house are going to stand in a window and keep out 20 men with better weapons like full auto AR's, grenade launchers, drones, night vision, IR, commo and armor protection you are crazy. IF several billy-bobs ban together they will just come with 20 times the threat and put you down anyway. And who will these people be: your gubmint employees. Common joes just looking for a paycheck. So maybe both sides will have to give a little to find a solution. Make the mentally unstable get listed and ID'd, stop selling AR's to civilians. And wait 2 generations for the current supply out in the wild to disappear.

I agreed with the first half of your post but then somehow you got back to "ban ARs" after arguing how little they matter in the big picture (1.9% of gun deaths MAX).

I don't like to play into those us vs government scenarios but what you failed to account for is that the sheer numbers of gun owners is the deterrent not so much their weaponry vs the opposition. In that scenario, 20 Billy Bobs for every 1 of the opposition is where the true value lies. Again, I think that is an absurd suggestion (our forces turning on us) but I don't have a problem with those in power knowing they can't just cake walk over the citizens - checks and balances.

As a gun owner, I have no real issues with what they came out with today. However, I still think focusing on these terrorist events (mass killings) should be AFTER we focus on the violence that happens every day. I own a gun because I'm concerned with the Gangster Disciples in my neighborhood who fire shots weekly... not the lone crazy guy who could lose it at any moment and I may just be near him when he does.

I have a closet full of guns (mostly inherited) have a concealed carry permit but have NEVER owned an assault rifle or assault pistol or ANY gun that is fully auto....I agree with the assault ban....I also think that kids memic what they see on tv and video games..I'll never forget my neighbor when he was 9 pining a towel to his shirt and jumping off the top of the slide to mimic Superman ( and breaking his ankle) a recent study said that 65% of the mass shooters were on anti depresants...dulled reasoning and feeling.....think about it.

You do know fully automatic weapons are illegal unless you have a FFL or for law enforcement. I also agree with the "assault ban", you should not be allowed to own any weapons, assault or not, until you at least learn what type guns you inherited.

If you don't care for the 2nd amendment you are free to leave! Just get out of the U.S.A.! Quit bitchin! MOVE!

2little2late is right. Jayin Fla; Doesn't matter there is 200 million guns in the US, each man dies by himself. When they (the conquering invaders, or your rogue gubmint as some fear) come for you in the middle of the night, and you are out gunned by 20, 30 or 40 to one, and you are shielding your self behind a house wall of 5/8" plywood and drywall, you won't be comforted at all knowing miles away, some guy has an arsenal in his house. IF you think I'm wrong, look up articles on SWAT teams and see how they do it.

I hit your name by error Brian. What came up was like something from a Hitchcock thriller. Copy after copy after copy of what you wrote above: "If you don't care for the 2nd amendment you are free to leave! Just get out of the U.S.A.! Quit bitchin! MOVE".

If you think an un-military trained billy bob (by himself or with 2 or 3 family members ) in a typically constructed house are going to stand in a window and keep out 20 men with better weapons like full auto AR's, grenade launchers, drones, night vision, IR, commo and armor protection you are crazy. IF several billy-bobs ban together they will just come with 20 times the threat and put you down anyway.

IReadyou - Just for edification it was a bunch of billy bobs that helped this nation beat the British in the first place. What good would military training do against someone who knows the lay of the land. Also, who is to say that billy-bob has no military training? I happen to own an assault rifle as you wish to call it and it is for defense only. I also have over 29 years of military training, so if it makes me a billy-bob to live outside the city then so be it I am a billy-bob.There are several break-ins every year in my area and they are committed by teams of people, so they can clean the house out quicker. Law enforcement is not speedy as they only have so many to cover the county. Then there are the METH Labs in the area and let's not forget the Hogs. Maybe you should experience Rural life before jumping to your conclusions and assumptions.

I agree with the Background checks and everything else, but a ban on assault rifles. Maybe the billy-bobs of america should run for congress, so that we just don't have the ideas of city-slickers trying to run our lives.

how is this reporter allowed to lie and still noone even mentions it? the "assault weapon" he added to the story for newtown was in the trunk of lanzas' car. he did know that and added it into the story anyway. starts the debate right? while noone questions it? you want cheese with that AGENDA or not?

Nice try. There has been no official report that Lanza was on psychotropic drugs. Even if he was, it was his decision to go to the elementary school and murder young children. It was his paranoid mother's decision to purchase those guns. It was her decision to teach him how to use them.

Bushmaster was used to kill the people in the school. The rifle was in the car

I thought it was originally reported that the Bushmaster was in the car, but then new reports came out that that was the gun he used for the murders. If that's truly the case, then it's not even a nice try, Rick.

I believe that the long gun found in the car was a shotgun.. but I'm also hearing some reports that 4 handguns and not 2 were found. It would be nice to see an actual police report of the incident and not just biased reporting by the left or right leaning media companies.

I just wish the TRUTH about what weapons were used would come out.

I keep hearing that he killed all 26 people with the 2 handguns he had and didn't use any "non-handgun".

It sure would be nice to know for sure! The conspiracy nuts will continue to flourish during this period where there's such a lack of credible info. Expect the conspiracies to become more and more "true" with each passing day that they're repeated.

The Connecticut State Police, the lead investigating agency, reported that the Bushmaster was the primary weapon used in the murders. He also 2 hand guns on his person, numerous high capacity clips, and a shot gun in the car. But it doesn't matter; the conspiracy nuts operate outside the realm of reality.

"Bushmaster" is a manufacturer, not a specific type of firearm.

This kid could've used one supersoaker, one gallon of gasoline and a lighter.

Want to ban those too??

I think that if we are going to use that one event as the cornerstone for why we put a bunch of new regulations, laws, etc in place - there should be detailed final report issued first. It's amazing to me that so much attention has been focused on Sandy Hook, yet we don't know such basic facts as:

1. Was he on any medications
2. Were his mom's firearms secured in the home
3. How many shots were fired from each weapon he was carrying and what specific make and model were they
4. What was the elapsed time between arriving at the school and his suicide
5. If it is true his mother was trying to commit him, why was she unable to
6. What specific video games did he play and for how long (if possible, my PS3 COD games keeps these stats)

I can understand the emotional appeal of using this incident as a catalyst for change, however it seems we should wait to fully understand what happened before running out and trying to fix a problem we don't fully understand yet.

jay, go squeeze a python. maybe you'll win a prize. None of your questions are relevant except as delaying tactics.

If you don't care for the 2nd amendment you are free to leave! Just get out of the U.S.A.! Quit bitchin! MOVE!

jay, go squeeze a python. maybe you'll win a prize. None of your questions are relevant except as delaying tactics.

JimD, it sounds like you don't care about the truth, because the truth would eliminate your beliefs. You just want to push your Liberal ways on the rest of the country. Being a Liberal doesn't make you superior to anyone. Everything you say shows the intelligence of rock. When you can speak intelligently about the subject, you can feel free to speak your piece. Until then please refrain from posting.

thank god some REALIZE the agenda this reporter is pushing. lumping in lanza to these "assault style weapons" is futile lying pos reporter! how did the editor let this one slip? agenda? they should BOTH be FIRED for knowingly lying to the public and calling it news.

Don't worry about the military. We are firmly supportive of the Constitution, first and foremost. It's those "other government agencies" you need to be concerned with. Remember, it wasn't the military at Ruby Ridge or Waco.

Guess what pro-gun people. Your AR15 is not going to stop the US Army. It is a stupid argument.

Wanna bet? hehehehe.......................

Having an armed populace as a check/balance to our government is a good thing. The point isn't who would win civilians vs our military - the point is they act as a deterrent.

Poor Belgium or Scandinavia or France, Japan, England, Denmark, Luxembourg, Monaco, the Netherlands, Lichtenstein, Canada, and Australia are all doomed.

If that was the "true reason" the 2nd amendment was written, then why does it begin "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state,..."? Wouldn't they have written something like "In order for the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government,..."? Given the first portion of that sentence, I'd suggest that their intent was to make sure that, if, when and where militias were needed to be formed, the people themselves would be prepared to quickly assemble to form those militias, with their own weapons. This allowed the militias to form quickly, prevented any attackers from being able to interrupt a supply of weapons (because the people had their own), and saved the government the cost of having to supply and transport the weapons to those militias in time of crisis.

It would do more to stop the army than our thrown rock OneVoice. This country was founded on the idea of an armed populace. We have to either change that to an unarmed one, (which is almost imposible at this point) or deal with the fact that the guns are are here and not going anywhere.

Give me a break, if the gov't wants to destroy you, it can take over your communications (cell phone, internet), make your banking records disappear, etc. Your gun will be powerless. And if that fails, a drone on your house is easy. Technology has taken away the edge guns gave the people.

howie, a free state means one that is not controlled by the federal government.

Guess what pro-gun people. Your AR15 is not going to stop the US Army. It is a stupid argument.

Bu bu but.... I thought AR-15's were designed only with the purpose to kill large amounts of people quickly? Surely with my "high capacity" magazines and my "assault weapon", I should have no problem. Oh, that's right... it's the Army that actually has the assault weapons and I just have a civilian semi-automatic rifle. Thanks for proving our point.

"free state" Just what is ment by that? No laws whatever, everyone is free to do what they please? Hmm, I wonder how well that would work??????

@Zannie

Technology has taken away the edge guns gave the people.

If this were true, the governement would just act with impugnity. They would not have to worry about the pretense of an election, voting, democracy, etc. They would just pull the plug.

howie, a free state means one that is not controlled by the federal government.

Umm, no, it doesn't. The Constitution was written in order to form a STRONGER central government, because the loose rules of the Articles of Confederation that we lived by prior to the Constitution were simply not sufficient to the task of maintaining our country.

Keep thinking that Chuck if you like an illusion. Your gun does not stand chance against what technology could do to you.

Bu bu but.... I thought AR-15's were designed only with the purpose to kill large amounts of people quickly? Surely with my "high capacity" magazines and my "assault weapon", I should have no problem. Oh, that's right... it's the Army that actually has the assault weapons and I just have a civilian semi-automatic rifle. Thanks for proving our point.

More to the point, the military has planes, tanks, mortars, artillery, missiles, and countless other weapons that vastly outclass anything a civilian could reasonably buy, even if it were legal for them to do so. Never mind the numbers. When a government wants you dead, you are dead. You won't even have the opportunity to fire a single round before a hellfire missile blows up your home. Owning an AR-15 to guard against tyranny is senseless and stupid.

chuck,

If this were true, the governement would just act with impugnity. They would not have to worry about the pretense of an election, voting, democracy, etc. They would just pull the plug.

Zannie is right. A government bent on oppressing you has the full means to, no matter what kind of firepower you own. They can just pick you up off the street, before you know what is happening they have you're CC, and then they put a bag over your head and you wake up in Italy in a secret CIA facility.

But it is also just far easier to accuse you of child sex crimes. Good luck piecing your life back together after that. And your gun can't protect you from that.

Technology has taken away the edge guns gave the people.

If this were true, the governement would just act with impugnity. They would not have to worry about the pretense of an election, voting, democracy, etc. They would just pull the plug.

Pull the plug... and THEN what? It's a lot easier and WAY more profitable to have a calm electorate than a cowed populace under military control. Elections serve to give the masses a belief (whether true or not) that they are at least somewhat in control of their own lives. Keep the people calm, and let the money flow, that's what governments all really want. It's not really a bad thing, though, because there's nothing wrong with a contented populace. We (well, most of us, albeit not all) have plenty of food, clothing, shelter, and entertainment and jobs to keep us busy. As long as we do, we won't cause too much trouble. But if enough of us lose those basics, then the country would implode, regardless of whether we're armed as individuals or not.

Shelama

Poor Belgium or Scandinavia or France, Japan, England, Denmark, Luxembourg, Monaco, the Netherlands, Lichtenstein, Canada, and Australia are all doomed.

so exercise your right to move ....

People who say that rifles are of no use against the U.S. military haven't been paying attention to the Mid-East. Also, their argument assumes that the military would comply with orders from the president to attack their own countrymen. I don't think that's the case with our current, volunteer military.

WTF are you talking about, Gomer. Obama already controls the military.... Geez that home schoolin' is really paying off

“People are killed in greater number by cars, bats, hammers, hands, and feet,”

Nobody using any or all of the above named "weapons" could kill 26 people in 10 minutes. These people are delusional.

"Owning an AR-15 to guard against tyranny is senseless and stupid."

Now you see why we ought never, never, never have allowed the right to bear arms to be infringed, and the government to form their own military.

Just imagine the tactical advantage had they not tightly restricted fully-automatic machine guns. We are already at a disadvantage, and have been for years. We're ripe for the picking, and I'm afraid conditions are right for a dictator. Today's conditions are comparable to what led to Weimar Germany's downfall, and the rise of Hitler.

The framers were wise gents, we just didn't listen to them. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall never, never, never be infringed."

It's not too late, people... demand they loosen restrictions now.

Guess what pro-gun people. Your AR15 is not going to stop the US Army. It is a stupid argument.

Guess what, anti-Second Amendment people.

The military will not obey unlawful orders to usurp the Constitution they are sworn to defend.

Also, the majority of gun owners are either former or active military.

Are you advocating civil war to disarm the People?

Nobody is advocating civil war, you drama queen. You, however are implying that the US military are pre-disposed to being traitors to their country.

“People are killed in greater number by cars, bats, hammers, hands, and feet,”

Nobody using any or all of the above named "weapons" could kill 26 people in 10 minutes.

http://forum.roadfly.com/threads/13157785-Nut-job-drives-Suzuki-car-into-crowd-killing

You, however are implying that the US military are pre-disposed to being traitors to their country.

It is unlawful to override the Constitution by Executive diktat.

Even for His Royal Highness Obama.

Pedestrian-in-SF

“People are killed in greater number by cars, bats, hammers, hands, and feet,”

Nobody using any or all of the above named "weapons" could kill 26 people in 10 minutes. These people are delusional.

lol, the gasoline in the car could do it in less than 10 SECONDS.... faster than the rifle even. What a dumb assumption. STOP BEING A SHEEPLE. Thanks

Pedestrian-in-SF

Nobody is advocating civil war, you drama queen. You, however are implying that the US military are pre-disposed to being traitors to their country.

Love when non-military people post. You take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States as a member in the military.

If the politicians give you orders violating that, THEY ARE THE TRAITORS.

There is a group of people some of you need to read about. Its called The Oath Keepers, its not a hate group, military group or anti-everything group but when the time comes, if it does come, we will be ready and we will save your defeatist butts.

The "Oath Keepers"? What a joke. A bunch of pseudo-patriotic paranoiacs.

If the politicians give you orders violating that, THEY ARE THE TRAITORS.

Good thing the politicians aren't giving any orders violating anything then, isn't it. You whackos sure were quiet when Ronald Regan and George Bush supported exactly the same things Obama is supporting. I wonder why that is... hmmm. Whatever could it be...

Oath keepers? I'm hoping that you all shoot each other and save us all the trouble.

If you don't care for the 2nd amendment you are free to leave! Just get out of the U.S.A.! Quit bitchin! MOVE!

Oh Brian, knock it off with the 2nd amendment b.s., would you? Nobody is going to take your stupid guns. Turn Beck off and get a life.

If that was the "true reason" the 2nd amendment was written, then why does it begin "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state,..."? Wouldn't they have written something like "In order for the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government,..."? Given the first portion of that sentence, I'd suggest that their intent was to make sure that, if, when and where militias were needed to be formed, the people themselves would be prepared to quickly assemble to form those militias, with their own weapons. This allowed the militias to form quickly, prevented any attackers from being able to interrupt a supply of weapons (because the people had their own), and saved the government the cost of having to supply and transport the weapons to those militias in time of

Spot on target Howie! Maybe some people should have paid more attention in History class when they were learning about the Revolutionary War. It was the Armed populace that saved this country's ass. The Local populace were able to form militias in days and were already in place and had a better knowledge of the lay of the land and weren't just sitting in their houses waiting to be killed.

All you people who say if a soldier obeys an unlawful order by the president are sadly mistaken about them being Traitors. They are sworn to support and defend the constitution and guess what the 2nd amendment is included. You would have more than half that would probably join the armed populace before they kill their own people over something protected by the constitution.

pedestrian- you would call them traitors to their country? for taking their OATH seriously? you are a fool and the reason they should not trample our rights further!

sorry but as a former Marine Corps Infantrymen, who had in fact served multiple combat tours, I can tell you first hand that the first thing me and my fellow brothers purchase after exiting service is an AR style rifle. Not because of any extra deadliness or killing capacity, because if you are going strictly by features that make for more efficient killing there are many hunting rifles and pistols that are many times more dangerous. Because of it's familiarity, because we feel much more able to defend our homes and families with weapons we were trained to use.

Before you speak out on behalf of "combat vets" you may want to consult a few. -- we have AR's in our home.

Of course, bans will not prevent these weapons being in the wrong hands, but every step to slow down someone buying assault weapons is a step in the right direction

So Banning them, Which is what this article is about ( BANNING not restricting or "slowing down" as you put it ) is a step in the right direction?

Before, you attack me as anti-gun--we have guns in our home.

wanna keep em? or perhaps just the ones YOU or the GOVT. feel are alright. Just another Kneejerk reaction that will not accomplish a damn thing but punish the legal gun owners, and allow for more tax's and money to be collected by the same.

They are called "Rights" you dumb bunny. America has been at war in the Middle east since 1990 that now covers about 2 generations of Americans that have passed thru the American Military. Guess what kind of rifles these guys and gals have been brought up on? AR style rifles and semi-automatic high capacity handguns, that is why they are so popular and will continue to be popular. We have far more ex-Military in this Country than we have current Law Enforcement and active duty Military. I am pretty sure we outnumber Government Forces here in America. Still wanna play Barry O'?

I've been to combat. I still enjoy shooting. Target shooting does not compare to combat. Killing other people is not fun, even in war.

Since you know so much, what exactly is an assault weapon? Is my Glock 37 an assault weapon? How about my Ruger 10/22 or my Remington 870 Tactical? Each one of those could or could not be considered an assault weapon, but none of them compare to the M-4 I carried in combat, or the AK-47's the Taliban used to shoot at me. Those are true assault weapons because of their capability to fire multiple shots with a single pull of the trigger. Machine guns are already illegal for the average citizen to own. Why legislate any more?

I believe in a common sense approach to gun safety. I don't mind background checks and waiting periods. I'm a little sketchy on registration because that will enable to government to know what I have when the time comes to confiscate. I have a problem with a law that makes something I legally purchased suddenly illegal and I am forced to sell it out of jurisdiction or have it seized. I have a huge problem with government intrusion into my life.

Banning assault weapons...might as well say you have no right to say that. If we're going to parse out of the constitution what we like or dont like then I'll pick you have no 1st amendment right to say that. Remember, the constitution was created to protect the few from the many as well as the people from a potentially tyrannous government, which by the way, if you havent noticed, is happening all around you.

When the attorney general is in criminal contempt of congress for illegal activity running guns to drug cartels and executive privilege stops prosecution, when executive orders are issued without Congress, when a myriad of like behavior is challenged and then it is it's squashed you have a nation without law.

I think the time has come to follow Texas' lead and secede from the union. You we'll give you whackos the northeast to live in. Good luck to you. We'll take the south and have a constitutional democracy where law abiding people are armed and we live by our means. We should have a national discussion about that.

Look at the trend lines. The last AWB had zero, let me repeat ZERO effect on crime.

Your traveling convenience seems/seemed to, of course, be more important than those killed in the 9/11 attacks too. Didn't see any bans on planes come out after that. And what are they good for? There's other ways you can travel to a destination, boat, train, car, bus, so airplanes are nothing more than a traveling convenience.

Bill, you can secede. but we keep the land. Good luck on your island where ever it is.

Obviously, these people have never been in the military and in combat. Combat vets had all the "fun" with these weapons and have no interest in reliving that "fun".

Obviously you are not a Vet. Most every Vet I know, has or would like to have an AR or AK or something similar just for the fun of it. If it was up to me, every Vet would be able to ETS with his recorded service weapons so he could still protect the soft little wimps that are the base of America today.

As a Vietnam Vet myself, I wish I could have a case of Claymores, 50cal, 60cal, 203 grenade launcher with 1000 HE rounds, Barrett M107A1 BMG, few hundred LAW rockets and maybe a M61 Vulcan with 60,000 rounds so my FUN could last a few minutes at least.

Do you people really think gun laws will stop anyone from owning something they really want? Do laws stop the banksters from devastating peoples lives? Do laws stop politicians from illegally spending your children's future? Did laws (Or decency) stop the SCOTUS from selling out America when they passed "Citizens United"? NO!!!!

I'm married to a USMC combat vet-Viet Nam (M60 machine gunner) No, buying a AR weapon of any kind is not the first thing the did when he was discharged.

But then he grew out of playing war when he was 10 years old!

@Enma3

It also wasn't the first thing I did after I got back. I have only owned 2 handguns I traided in lew of cash for work I did. Heck, I've not owned an assault type weapon until the pencil necks in DC decided they wanted to take the RIGHT of owning one away from me. Now they forced me to buy 2 and a few thousand rounds of ammo and several 30 round mags. I served my country and some di#kweed yellow belly politician is going to keep me from owning a gun of my choice...I don't think so.

I'll bet if you ask your hubby if he wanted to go out to the range and knock off a few thousand rounds out of a M60 at no cost to him, he couldn't get his shoes on fast enough. And if not, it is his RIGHT to say no. That's the best part of being FREE!!!

why do military wives always try to talk down to people as if they were the ones on the front lines?

"I didn't serve, but my husband did, so i know exactly what combat is like and i am the most qualified to speak on their behalf!"

I hate to be a sexist but maybe you should go get your husband so the big boys can talk next time

Enma3 -

Yada, yada, yada, the same old tired illogical arguments!

The only illogical arguements I hear are from the people that want to ban a gun because it "looks" different from other guns.

Bill. Go ahead it's the soouthern states that get the most money from the federal government. More than they send to it. You now have a large budget deficit in your country. Think all those folks in Miss, La, Tenn, ect that get benefits from the federal goveernment are going to do without. They're going to rise up and demand that you provide them. And they're the one's with all those guns you talk about.

Perhaps 43 years of living with someone with PTSD gives me a little insight, that the situation of combat was not a good thing. In 43 years, I have heard very little of that time of his life because it is an experience he does not want to revisit. He quit therapy because the therapist made him talk about it. I think it would do him good, but c'est la vie.

No, he would not have fun shooting an M60 again. I asked. He has no interest in that in any way. Nor does he have any interest in owning any weapon similar to that or an M16- - i.e. no assault weapons, no huge clips, automatic or semi-automatic, no Bushmasters, etc. etc.

Combat, no doubt you will withdraw the next time the big boys talk. Cretin.

I think Chuchill said, " They also serve who only sit and wait." Be careful, I take insults directed at military wives very personnaly.

And of course, YOUR fun is more important than the lives of children!

An ignorant, myopic statement.

More kids drown (average of two per day according to the CDC) than are injured by firearms.

I guess YOUR fun at the pool and the beach is more important than the lives of children!

What a ridiculous analogy.

..because that will enable to government to know what I have when the time comes to confiscate

Oh for Christs sake. Nobody is going to confiscate your guns, you fool.

And you have the authority to prevent firearms confiscation by government? Same old lame answer from a fool who hasn't a clue.

We just need to ban criminal behavior. Oh wait....

I don't know what the answer is, but statistically guns and access to guns aren't the problem. 2 women have been mass shooters out of the 142 mass shootings since 1982. Women have the same access to the same guns that men do. So why is there such a huge discrepancy and how does a gun ban or assault weapons ban address this?

Women have the same access to the same guns that men do. So why is there such a huge discrepancy

Because someone has to stay home and drive em crazy in the first place?...just guessing........:)

What problem are we trying to solve? Daily gun violence that makes up the vast majority of those statistics or these random lone wolf shooters who suddenly snap one day?

Daily gun violence could be reduce by seriously cracking down on gangs. Specific increased penalties for gang members, big penalties for theft and illegal possession of firearms, and the ability to stop and frisk any known gang members if there are two or more present. And of course community involvement and the non legislative methods to fight the rise in membership.

Lone wolf crazy people are much harder. Ask Israel - without turning the US into a police state, we can only hope to identify the violent ones, keep firearms away from them, and work on identifying them before they snap. And of course make it possible to remove them from society if they are deemed a threat.

First, they'll ban violent video games.

Next, some lunatic will do it again, and they'll ban violent movies.

Etc.

Obama would lose his followers if he banned violent movies

Actually, the media pretty much regularly refers to assault "style" or "type" and "semi-automatic" weapons.

Maybe if our guns were pink instead of black they would be o.k. Because black is scary.

I was thinking a retrofit of Hello Kitty stickers

I got one of Butler Creek hot pink drop-in stocks for my Ruger 1022. My husband just rolled his eyes.

You are correct that assault weapons are used to kill large numbers of people; so let's make sure our anointed masters and their killer cops do not have that advantage. If we are disarmed, why would they need to be? And don't bring up the "criminal" element, as it will always be a constant.

exactly macroparty! thank you

Well said marcopatry. I agree with you. FYI: I own guns and have a carry permit. So, I am pro-gun and most definitely NOT an anti-gun zealot by any means.

You do realize that a handguns are semi-automatic weapons? And since very few people are lawfully allowed to have automatic weapons. You just lost your own argument. Many drive-by shootings are done with handguns, so by your argument they aren't indiscriminate, yet often its bystanders that are killed/injured instead of the targets.

Pipe bomb will do it. So will carelessness or profiteering. Takes a little more effort admittedly. A lot more common though as its easy to get away with. I would guess that more children are killed as collateral damage by our military than in this country by assault weapons. Not our kids, so I guess it doesn't count. I assure you that someone is counting.

actually marcopatry, you can. Short range target aquisition is easier and quickest with pistols, you can injure/kill more people with a shotgun in a single trigger pull, knives and bats can bevirtually impossible to trace.

And how do you define an assault weapon? A simple pistol grip on a shotgun or rifle? My sister is unable to grip a standard rifle/shotgun and has to use a pistol grip due to an injury. Her modified remington 870 is now considered an assault weapon under the 1 feature rule.

And you realize the 323 (or 393) homicides with a rifle also include these so called "assault rifles". A fraction of homicides committed with handguns, bats, or knives. Gun control advocates coined and use the phrase "assault weapon" because it prompts controversy, and lesser informed people will believe when a weapon that LOOKS military will think it actually is, and fall in line wanting to ban it.

True assault weapons -- those capable of fully automatic fire -- have been heavily restricted since 1934. There virtually none in private hands, so there is nothing for you to worry about on that account. Most modern rifles and all modern handguns are semiautomatic. Sounds like by your definition all semiautomatic weapons are classified as assault weapons. What's not an assault weapon then? Are you proposing a ban on all semiautomatic weapons? That would include like 95% of all rifles and 99% of handguns out there.

At the range from which all of these massacres occur, a handgun can be used even more effectively than a rifle. Just ask Jared Laughner. It's easier to acquire targets with a handgun. It's also more difficult to disarm someone with a handgun.

The previous "assault weapons" ban was based solely on superficial cosmetic features like the presence of a pistol grip or flash suppressor, which have no effect on the weapon's primary function. That makes about as much sense as banning airsoft guns that look like their real counterparts.

You gun banners are all the same. Speaking out your a$$ with little to no knowledge about weapons, or law for that matter.

And I'm sure marcopatry can tell us the last time an assault rifle was used in a mass killing in the U. S.

Are you retarded, marco? If handguns can't be used to kill 25 people in "quick succession", how did that psycho at Virginia Tech manage to kill 32 people with, guess what, handguns! Way to ignore the facts to fit your own twisted agenda.

Are you out of your mind? I can't fathom the destruction my 7 round shotgun would cause in close quarters with a room full of people. A person typically needs to be shot multiple times with an AR15 since those rounds aren't that powerful.

They may look scary, but they have zero functionality that makes them any more lethal than a regular semi-auto rifle. Not more powerful, don't shoot more bullets quickly, etc. The built in bias that occurs when people call them "military" or "assault" makes people think they are something they are not. A true military assault rifle is indeed a serious weapon that can take people out very quick. They are not the same thing.

Actually I could kill a large number of people with just a revolver.....Especially if I targeted unarmed children...And especially if I chose a gun free zone as my killing ground....Now add more than one handgun...Very easy to carry....

In addition if I was young and athletic...I could kill large numbers of children without a gun of any kind...

The Fact Is...Bad people Do Bad Things.....I don't kill or injure children....Regulating me....Does Nothing To Stop Bad People From Doing Bad Things!...

Yeah Jay: I'm sure the parents in Newtown would agree with you (NOT)

@marcopatry, Sorry to differ with you but a criminal can kill many people very quickly with a knive, sword, bat, or other non-gun weapon given appropriate circumstances. Driving a car at high-speed into a crowded outdoor market comes to mind as something that has been in the news in the past, I could name more exotic ways but don't want to give anyone any ideas. The fact remains that mass violence can not be stopped with gun bans. The recently enacted or proposed gun regulations will do nothing but give a feeling of doing something about the emotional fallout. Most of the people posting against guns obviously have never dealt with them as evidenced by their lack of knowledge about the gun's capabilities. Oh and BTW - I've had law enforcment oficers be unable to trace a gun found inside the wall of a building my father renovated, because the law allows certain records to be destroyed after a defined number of years. It was obviously hidden for a reason. Keeping records is an expensive proposition, even digitally, especially for many decades. That means more taxes and government spending. It's time people cease being so naive that every situation can be solved by legislation and bans.

@marcopatry

You are so very wrong and it's folks like you have make people think a gun ban will solve all of Americas problems. Ban the nightly news and the talking heads and things could get better.

Maybe this little story of the Chinese man and a meat cleaver can open your eyes...http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/11/state-news-agency-says-children-killed-hurt-latest-attack-chinese-kindergarten/

Or this one...http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/11/state-news-agency-says-children-killed-hurt-latest-attack-chinese-kindergarten/

Or maybe this one WITH A KNIFE...http://www.whatsonxiamen.com/news28621.html

Actually you can very easily kill 25 people with a handgun or a shotgun in very quick succession. Shotguns are more lethal than rifles in close quarters combat. Essentially all handguns are semi-automatics. Double Action revolvers are semi-automatics.

Virginia Tech was done using a handgun and a 10 round magazine. Aurora was done using a pump action shotgun, more than 70% of the casualties in that incident are from the pump action shotgun.

How about we outlaw the politicians from getting us into any wars. Think of all the lives we could save.

Gilboagirl -

Whether the parents of those kids agree or not is irrelevant. People who have experienced such emotional trauma tend to think/act solely on their emotions - that's what makes us human. The point is though, regardless of how they look or what a lunatic has used one for - they are functionally no different from any other rifle so all of this focus on them is a distraction that won't solve any of the issues we are trying to address.

We can not have a productive discussion until everyone is educated and honest about the subject matter. I could care less about military style guns personally, but watching everyone flock to them knowing that 1) they are used in less than 2% of all gun violence (~200 murders year nationwide) and 2) they have zero special qualities beyond being "scary" looking really irks me. Why? Because focusing on them will not change anything and I personally would like to see less violence in our society. So while the air gets sucked out of the room focusing on the shiny things, the elephant in the room goes unnoticed.

If they were rally serious they would try to remove the need for guns. Just you wait, lawlessness will run rampant as soon as law-abiding citizens are stripped of their guns.

This also allows us to spend a lot of time, energy, and news coverage about this issue without the quote leaders working on why we are spending our way into oblivion.

Morning Scooter.

The timing coincides nicely with the fiscal cliff negotiations (or lack thereof).

Howdy Scooter!

Hi guys,

Yep, masters at the age old art of prestidigitation.

Plus as an added bonus it lends more time to spin their agenda into the "blame game" if yet another blank check isn't afforded this administration. Sad that it works time and again.

Nice Try to blame the ban as a political thing.

Check your records. Ronald Regan (Republican) pushed the original Assult Weapon Ban and it was further addressed by Bush. Now look who has flip-flopped and doesn't support a ban on AR style weapons??

Enough said.

1 badjr

nope didnt support it then either.

If you don't care for the 2nd amendment you are free to leave! Just get out of the U.S.A.! Quit bitchin! MOVE!

John (lots of #'s)

Are you Kidding???? Before I can DRIVE I have to Pass a two stage test, 1 written, 1 Driving. Also I have to take REAL class's (not like the gun permit Joke) And WAIT for it...wait for it... I Also have to Register MY Car, insure it AND License it YEARLY. I also have to Renew (along with having my picture taken)every few years. Are you that dumb to compare the two??? WOW. Your lack of Common sense is Amazing.

You are ignorant beyond belief......

ah yes....name calling...the lib mantra.

Praysalot what does registering your vehicle have anything to do with safely driving?

And yet with all the classes, tests, registration, etc., etc., people still get drunk and kill people by the thousands. So let's ban alcohol and motor vehicles. After all, these products are simply the result of profit driven companies who care nothing about the tragedies that result from their consumption. OK, I know, you need a motor vehicle to get around. But hey, the untold millions that are killed by weak hearts because they drive their lazy asses everywhere instead of walking is a real issue. A damn donut may not kill as quickly as a gun nut, but dead is dead, right? Let's get on this!

They didn't say the most commonly owned. The most popular means what is currently selling best. And gun sales in recent years indicate that that style of weapon is selling quite well, placing it "among" the most popular types of guns sold.

Sure, they are currently a hot seller because the government is going to try to ban their future sale. I don't want an AR, but I'm damn tempted to go buy one right now because I don't want that choice taken off the table in the future.

Oh, and I'm not giving up the dozen or so 30 round magazines I already have for an AR.

I know someone who went out and bought 2 of these weapons on the day of the Sandy Hook massacre. Just so happens to be my step-daughter's boyfriend who she lives with... and she's a teacher. Needless to say, it's alarming that he would think it was imperative to obtain MORE guns on THAT day (he's an AVID collector); this young man also thinks it's necessary to have a loaded gun at the READY in EVERY room of his place at all times.

In addition, my husband is a teacher in an open style classroom (no doors to lock). My niece teaches in a school for children with mental disorders... and a student actually managed to bring in a pellet gun last week... while a teacher was wanding other students he ran past. The teachers in this school are threatened constantly. I also have a sibling with a serious mental disorder... and yes, support services and treatment are very difficult to obtain in this country. I also have a grandson in 1st grade and it broke my heart to think of those terrified babies seeing their teachers and classmates murdered in front of them. And I grew up in hunting country and have eaten a LOT of venison, squirrel, wild turkey, etc. I don't have a problem with hunters or those who want personal protection... but these guns are NOT good for either use. If someone can't hit a target without firing off multiple rounds they need to learn how to use their weapons with some proficiency... not get an AR-15 or similar weapons. Why can't those weapons just be kept at the shooting range and now allowed off premises?

Why not just invest in a really good security system in your house? THAT would be much safer for any kids in the household.

I am very worried about my stepdaughter's safety with living with such an incredibly paranoid person. Do you think having loaded guns at the ready in every room of a house is safe? Would you want someone you love to be in a relationship with someone demonstrating such a lack of sensitivity and selfishness? Guess it's her life and choice if she chooses to be with this guy but I'd have seen a lot of red flags if I'd encountered someone like that when I was dating... and I'd have run like hell in the opposite direction from someone so incredibly obsessed.

This whole issue is very personal to me... and the rights of those kids to live should supersede your right to this kind of item.

With a good security system, the police are only 10 minutes away. I'm sure your family won't mind being raped or beaten for 10 minutes.

A loaded weapon in your night stand (no kids) or in a quick access gun safe (with kids) will secure you while waiting for the police to arrive.

That lady in Georgia is very glad she had a loaded pistol in her house and prevented some thug from harming her family. 5 out of 6 shots to the face and neck is a perfect example of gun control.

The police where I live can take a half hour or more to arrive. Why? I live in a town that has no local police force as it is unincorporated with only about five hundred people in it.

If someone can't hit a target without firing off multiple rounds they need to learn how to use their weapons with some proficiency...

That is not how self defense works, do you honestly think the police only fire one round at the assailant?

I know many people with a shotgun or deer rifle for hunting. Can't think of anyone I know with an AR-15.

You may be surprised. I don't go around telling everyone what guns I own given the current climate. The few times I have brought it up have been positive but I'm not interested in adding any negatives to that list.

rights of those kids to live should supersede your right...

Glimmmer -

While I certainly understand your despair regarding any of these soft-target massacres, I'd encourage you to remember that none of these murder-minded scum have anything to do with my rights, or yours. Wailing that you want to cede Constitutionally-protected rights to Big Brother will not stop these batsh!t bastards from attacking their own families, fire crews, elementary schools and churches with aluminum bats, machetes, and IEDs.

This isn't a new, U.S.-only phenomena. Think about Swedish summer camp, or Chinese school slashers, or Google "Bath school bombing."

If you don't care for the 2nd amendment you are free to leave! Just get out of the U.S.A.! Quit bitchin! MOVE!

So is a rational independent thought process...try it.

The overpressure you experience when you fire a rocket is not pleasant and can cause injury if done repetitively or inside an enclosed area (life firing it out a window).

Grenades aren't really much fun because you can't really watch them go off due to the fragmentation hazard.

Now a 5.56mm mini-gun would be a blast to own!

Its my right to have bazookas, rocket lauchers etc because they are so much fun to shoot. Thats a reason enough not to have a ban on their dangerous adult toys . To hell with the death they cause I have my rights to have my toys. Dangerous kids toys are regulated so lets remove those regulations from their toys also.

I do believe those are illegal. That is getting to be an old story. The real problem, which Lib one wants to face is the lack of morality in our culture today. Just look at the headlines. The Porn industry is making billions and is up and running full speed. That should create a lot of little bastards with no upbringing and with nothing better to do than join a gang.

What we are trying to do is treat the problem instead of the cause. It doesn't work that way. Does Rome ring a bell?

I work for the government and as required to take a root cause analysis class ... Maybe they should require this at higher levels also.

I own guns and do not fear that a ban on assault weapons or high capacity magazines will result in my right to a few reasonable guns will be taken away.

All journeys begin with but a single step.

Ok, but what actual effect does an assault weapons ban have? There is not any current or historical evidence that a ban makes any part of our society any safer. It is a completely useless ban. If you want to ban something, you can ban monogrammed towels as it has the exact same impact on gun violence as an assault weapons ban.

All journeys begin with but a single step.

If you're going to assume that (in order to argue taking away one type of weapon will lead to taking them all away), then why not assume the other direction: that if it's your absolute right to own weapons, then Congress cannot prevent you from owning ANY weapons, whether they be machine guns, grenade launchers, or rockets. The "slippery slope" argument is fatuous, no matter in which direction it is applied.

We used to be able to own machine guns...

Step two to follow.

Me? I'll take a tank! Then the gunnuts can fire all the bullets they like! It'd probably be good in traffic tie-ups too! I'd just roll over anyone in front of me. And don't even ask me what I could do at the mall parking lot? I'd always have the first spot!!!!!!!

Ok, but what actual effect does an assault weapons ban have?

That's actually an excellent question, and one that should be addressed, not dismissed out of hand (by any side). The HOPE of any weapons ban is that FIRST, it will reduce the number of those weapons in circulation. This would presumably lead to two things: one, that there would be less thefts of those weapons by criminals (since there are fewer to steal), and two, that there would be fewer people who already own such weapons using them in cases where they become unstable or so angry that they lash out using those weapons. Both of those affects are certain to happen to SOME extent, but we don't know precisely what that extent might be. (Locking up our guns better might well achieve #1 even more.) SECOND, while criminals will undoubtedly keep their weapons, criminals tend to get arrested. When that happens, their persons premises are generally searched and any illegal firearms would be confiscated. The expectation is that, over time, there would be fewer and fewer illegal firearms in *anyone's* hands. Since you can't simply make your own AR-15 (well, at least most criminals can't), and since it's much more difficult to smuggle them than it is to smuggle, say, cocaine, there wouldn't be a ready supply for the criminals to obtain more. (Remember, they are no longer around in your average home for them to steal, which is where most firearms used in crimes come from.)

However, given that most crimes are NOT committed using "assault weapons", and most deaths by guns are not by those weapons, even though those weapons CAN cause a (relatively) large number of deaths in a short period of time, even their *complete* elimination would not do much to reduce the number of crimes or the number of gun deaths. It could reduce the number of incidences of these types of slaughters, but not the overall numbers.

So... what should we do? I don't know. I own guns, and I like target shooting, and would love to use one of those "assault weapons" at the range or out in the desert. But what I like isn't the point, is it? The point is, we need to discuss the pros and cons reasonably, not from an I'm-right-you're-a-moron point of view.

Gilboagirl

Me? I'll take a tank!

Yes that would be fun. I hope you have a couple friends who are like minded though.. as its not a one man operation.

The Germans had tanks for the seige of Stalingrad, they lost. I felt the wrath of the V1s and V2s in London, they lost on that front also. When I saw the firepower going into Iraq, I pitied their grunts but we will eventually lose that battle. The VC initially fought with rancid pig fat on sharpened bamboo sticks, we lost that war too. Do you see a patern evolving?

If the resolve of the indiginous populace is greater than that of the attacker, it will eventually succeed reguardless of firepower.

The "us vs. them" mindset that is pervasive here can only weaken our resolve. Reps v. Dems: Libs v. Cons: Anything devisive v. Common sense.

I bore arms to protect the constitution, not to allow the killing of children and civilians or anyone I dissagreed with.

A select few make a fortune off of properganda as long as they can fester a dissagreement.

The fact that you can kill someone with a bat is not an arugment. Its a separate issue with separate solutions. It doesn't have anything to do with the discussion on gun control and just points out the faulty reasoning of the gun lobby. One thing does not always lead to the other (again with the all or nothing absolutism).

The reason people bring up bats is to bring some PERSPECTIVE to the conversation. It is a FACT that more people are killed by bats each year than rifles. It is a FACT that more people are killed by bare hands each year than rifles. They don't break out military style vs non military style so all we have are the total number of rifle deaths which was 323 in a nation of 300 Million. Let's just say 2/3 are military style - so this nation is going crazy over something that kills 200 people a year?

Does that sound rational or a good use of our limited resources? And please, enough with the "if we can save just one life" - the fact that we could use the time and resources to save 1,000 lives instead of 1 makes this entire argument disgusting.

There are plenty of things being discussed that are great and WILL make a difference: background checks, less mentally ill with weapons, no straw buyers, do our best to keep weapons out of the wrong hands, etc. We all want our society to be better and less violent so lets focus on things do work!

From what I have read, admittedly I cannot find a source (although these numbers are mostly from anti-gun sources so the likelihood of an underestimation seems unlikely) There have been between 160 and 385 "assault weapon" homicides in since 2004.

So even 2/3's seems like a high estimate. If anyone has factual stats on this please post.

Gilboagirl----you'll spend a fortune on fuel, though.

Gun control is not about guns. It is about control. See the difference? Never let that happen here.

Because I am disturbed over people who believe it's their right to take from me to pay for their health insurance, kids, mortgage, food etc....

I would like anyone who owns one of these guns to let me know why.

I would tell you the same as i would tell the govt...... its none of your business.....period.

( and no i am not being argumentative nor condescending i am merely stating a FACT.)

If you need to ask why then you don't need one. Thats your choice but don't try to take my choice away just because you think it's right........

I just see a gun activist on Pier Morgan's show and she said several times why "Its My Right".!!

Rights of the gun owners is more important then all the deaths that guns cause "to hell with the killings I have to have my right to own a adult toy that is dangerous" They don't care about peoples right to live if it take their toys away !

John Smith,

I just want to build a little on what waysouth said. He/she stated "Thats your choice but don't try to take my choice away just because you think it's right........" I would change it to say "don't try to take my choice away because you DONT UNDERSTAND"

Asking the questions you did just shows that you don't understand and don't want to understand. That is fine. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and I support that. However, I do have a problem with people standing up for a cause they don't understand.

Please, have respect for peoples choices and do your best to understand a topic before you argue one side or another.

John -

Why are you disturbed by what I own? I can understand if you are disturbed when bad people do bad things, but why do you feel the need to look around and make other people explain why they have what they do.

No one NEEDS an SUV/sports car, stamp collection, wine collection, swimming pool, smartphone, tablet, cable, home internet, etc. If you own any of those - is your "Johnson" bigger? People who own guns obviously saw some sort of need - whether it be hunting, collecting, protection, target shooting, etc. If you don't need one, don't buy one - but for heaven's sake the world doesn't revolve around you. Other people have other interests, that's all you really need to know.

The only ownership of an item that might lead to our "johnsons" being bigger would be a penis pump. Does trying to take away someone else's choice on how to live their life make your johnson bigger?

John -

It's a little frustrating to answer your query because "semi-automatic" covers so many types of guns... what it denotes is a gun that fires one bullet per trigger squeeze, (probably) ejects empty brass, then loads another. There are semi-automatic revolvers that don't eject brass, semi-autos that fully or partially cock their firing system (thus easing the next trigger squeeze), semi-autos with quick-change magazines, fixed internal magazines (some reloaded one-by-one, some reloaded with cartridges held en-bloc by a sheetmetal "clip"), fixed tube-feed magazines (a lot of sporting shotguns are tube-fed autoloaders), and a few oddballs that defy quick description. The key thing is, they fire once per trigger pull, and they feed up the next round.

If you do any target practice, with either rifles or handguns - which are much more demanding - you'll appreciate how critical a low-effort, predictable trigger is. Semi-autos that use part of the bullet's energy to cock the action means the arm's aim is not delayed or disturbed by operating a bolt-action, lever-action, slide-action, or extreme-effort trigger. If you're challenging yourself to develop a skill, the quality of tools really does make a difference.

Millions of your fellow citizens have been trained in the armed services (since WW II) with semi-automatic rifles and handguns. Can you please explain why these once-sworn officers can't now be trusted with the tools they were trained with?

If you don't care for the 2nd amendment you are free to leave! Just get out of the U.S.A.! Quit bitchin! MOVE!

So 6 in 10 want stricter gun laws. Where was this poll taken?? Take a poll in Middle american rather than using the typical liberal areas of the US. Eliminate all the large cities and go to the country and see what your responses are. Typical NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC polls, slanted by the areas polled and projected as real numbers.

And all of you please learn that the AR15 is a semiautomaic rifle not an assult rifle. Stop listening to Feinstein and the other libs who are misinforming you to support their cause.

mine all disappeared in a house fire, melted the safe away too.

Scooter, that's pretty tragic. I hope you had fire insurance, maybe you can collect back some of their value...

I guess I should go down to the local PD eventually and report them all "lost while boating" but what can I say, I won't offer than information until they ask for it.

be a good idea Matt...but somehow those "registration" paper's i had just filled out perished as well...dag gum it all.

There are many more people who killed while taking aspirin.

These are not "knee jerk" reactions; they've been discussed for years. It's time to act on them.

Winston1012

You sound like a KOOK as your obsession with Death stats is Sick...or is it just a bunch of made up @!$%# to justify your position???

Get a life Rambo, you have Way to much time on your hands

Dude- Did you actually write all that or is that (I hope) a copy/paste?

Long comments aren't usually read.

Winston: You forgot the Little Big Horn !

Gilboagirl

Winston: You forgot the Little Big Horn !

why? were there drugs involved? Perhaps you should try reading the comment or at least skimming though it and getting the general gist of it before jumping out there.

Winston -

That's a worthy post; I can tell because it really upset people that only want to push a gun-control agenda, and the name-calling started right away. You'll probably hear "micro-penis" before they're done. Thank you for keeping track.

As to the real point of your post info, I'll say this: some dope does help level out some people, and these bloody-minded soft-target rampage killers usually have a ramp-up... let's hope that they tried the helping professions in the interim between onset and horrifying results, and that some few did not get the relief they needed. But, baby, bathwater, blahity blah-blah...

Eugene, show me how many legal gun owners killed someone (legitimate homicide, not self defense shootings) vs how many are criminal murdering.

1) Storing at a shooting range does nothing for my home defense.

2) Define assault rifle? I, as well as many others, have stated where a semi-auto rifle are beneficial while hunting. Ever tried to kill a family of hogs chasing you with a single bullet? Or a pack of wild dogs? I will agree an assault rifle isn't optimal home defense inside the home, but a pistol isn't always a 1 shot 1 kill against an invader, and firing off as many rounds as possible to save your family/yourself is optimal.

3) The Militia acts were intended as a follow up to the 2nd Amendment. All able bodied men were required to own a rifle and X number of reloads. That itself implies individual ownership.

4) It takes a fairly skilled gunsmith to swap a gun from semi to full auto, and only on certain guns (such as TEC-9). Any goofball with a saws-all can circumvent pollution controls.

Eugene, please state the statistics that show that the President's recommendations will lessen any deaths at all. The President could suggest a ban on yellow garden hoses and be just as effective.

But here is the problem it won't work, you can fire 12 rounds from a double action revolver in less than 3 seconds. In other words you can use a 6 shot double action revolver have a sustained fire rate of 240 rounds per minute.

Banning these things isn't going to make a huge difference in the deaths by firearms, less than 330 people a year are killed by rifles of all types. Semi-automatic rifles are very effective for hunting and home defense. Why wouldn't they be effective for hunting or home defense.

So if we SOMEHOW got to 100% elimination of ALL rifles, we would save 323 lives/year. Getting rid of the scary looking ones might be what 150-200? WOW great job. In the meantime, 1000s are being killed in ways that apparently are ok with you.

Most of the misinformation you refer to was stated by you, Dave.

He had on him Bushmaster AR-15 rifle and two handguns -- a Glock 10 mm and a Sig Sauer 9 mm, and numerous high capacity clips. He had a shotgun in the car.

The primary weapon used in the attack was a “Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon,” said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance.

That's one of the problems - all of the initial reports came out that the Bushmaster was in the trunk. Then later, it becomes the primary weapon. Where is the detailed report that answers all of the questions that are key to this event?

jayinflorida, There will be no report. I watched 10 hours of coverage that friday december 16 and many times through the day state police gave updates and indicated the sig and glock were used and a AR-15 was found in the car. The next day i turned on the TV and all you herd was about an ASSUALT rifle and all the MAGAZINES everywhere. This is where the government said here's our chance. But how could they keep this quiet? It's out there doesn't anyone want to know the truth?

Your statement "The Second Amendment protects our right to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government." is patently false, as there is no such reference to the individual protecting himself from his government in either the amendment or the Heller decision. However, the Heller decision does affirm the governments right to impose restrictions and regulations.

The second amendment does not give citizens the right to protect themselves from the U.S. government with weapons of war. Absurd. Ignorant. Lunatic fringe. Nor does it give you the right to arm yourself with an M1A1 tank. Too bad. So sad. Find some different toys.

Rapidrush, of course a tank wouldn't be included, you can't carry a tank. The 2nd amendment is about firearms that are common and not unusual. Semi-automatics is a common and not unusual weapon.

at what point will you and countless others on here going to wake up and understand the NRA is a lobby group and the majority of us don't belong to it?

But I am thinking of joining since they seem to be the only group willing to stand up to this administration. I don't agree with many of their talking points, but I'm scared at the direction we are headed.

Like you said Scooter, the journey begins with a single step. I think we have already begun.

Todd -

If the federal government ever decides to confiscate firearms where do you think they will look first for a list owners?

A few years back, the NRA was selling membership lists. Oddly, my membership lapsed after that. For exactly the same reason I oppose all these "registration" schemes. See: NY FOIA publication.

lilbear - the military does not use link belts for the M-16/M-4 carbine. They use magazines just like everyone else.

You're talking about "disintegrating link", which is used for things like vehicle and turret mounted weapons, such as the Browning .50 machine gun, Vulcan Anti-aircraft emplacements, and the large rotary .60 machine guns featured on aircraft like the A-10 Warhog and Apache helicopters.

These aren't exactly the most portable, as it typically takes at least two people - one to carry the weapon and one to carry the ammo. Even when in operation, the ammo carrier also pulls double-duty, ensuring the ammo belts feed properly, do not become kinked, and remain properly linked - to prevent misfires and weapon jams.

Nearly all personally carried military firearms use "clips" or "magazines". A select few are either bolt-action, single shot, or revolvers - both see little front-line combat.

my point exactly if hi cap mags worked they could use them on the m60 also but they dont and they dont use hi cap mage on the SAW either. because they know these hi cap mage are not reliable. when i was in vietnam it was found out that even the 20 rd mags would jam the original m16 and word went out to only load 18 in the mags till new ones were issued

Actually there is the SAW M249 that is both mag fed or belt feed in the same round. The 5.56 or 223 round, I taught the use of it for years in the Army. It's not an M-16, it more like the M-60 just smaller. After 28 years of the Army I learned a little about the weapons by teaching how they are used. Everything from the pistol up to a 155 mm cannon. The same thing but much much bigger.

lilbear68

my point exactly if hi cap mags worked they could use them on the m60 also but they dont and they dont use hi cap mage on the SAW either. because they know these hi cap mage are not reliable. when i was in vietnam it was found out that even the 20 rd mags would jam the original m16 and word went out to only load 18 in the mags till new ones were issued

M60 is belt fed, it doesn't use magazines.

There hasn't been 1 mention yet if the mom kept the guns locks up. If the mom did lock them up, why did this kid had the key/combo?

Instead of banning guns, we need to ban people with no common sense.