The Expired Assault Weapon ban didnt stop Columbine..or the hollywood shootout

[rangersmith82]

The AWB was worthless legislation and didnt stop gun crime at all.

Video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joBMq6b4MmE&feature=related

Hollywood shotout

text

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

video

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=hollywood+shootout+1997&aq=1&oq=hollywood+shoo

[MajorChode]

1. The Social Security Act didn't prevent all old people from living in poverty

Are you saying it was a bad idea too?

[hlthe2b]

2. Banning drinking and driving didn't stop DUI accidents!

But, it sure as hell cut down on them..... :eyes:

[Schema Thing]

3. You are using a stunningly stupid arguing technique, if you are against the AWB.

but perhaps you are being sarcastic.

[hlthe2b]

5. ....

;) this is the one issue that I have trouble disguishing many otherwise intelligent progressives from freepers.... The repetitive arguments are very similar and inconsistencies or blatant contradictions don't seem to have any impact. Plus, there is a tendency to draw such strict lines, as though one can only be TOTALLY ANTI-second amendment if you favor some gun restrictions... There is no middle ground.

[HALO141]

86. We already have

"some gun restrictions." The point is that they don't work.

The point, in fact, is that they NEVER work.

[frogcycle]

4. who gives a shit? pointless point. n/t

[rangersmith82]

19. obviously you ,because you fu**ing replied

n/t

[onehandle]

6. I get your point. You want to ban All guns.

You're right. If there were no guns, there would be no gun violence.

You're a genius!

[villager]

7. My God! Murder laws haven't stopped murder! Let's legalize it!

n/t

[rangersmith82]

9. Well this law expired...

Just like the no drinking laws/prohibition.

It was a stupid law and therefore it was allowed to expire/go away.

Prohibition was a stupid law that got repelled/went away

The 1994 didn't deter gun crime and didn't prevent one of the biggest shootings at a public school.

A stupid law that doesn't need to return.

[villager]

10. well, sure, "stupid" from the standpoint of an NRA corporate lobbyist

whose only interest is seeing more and more guns sold everywhere, damn the cost to communities, neighborhoods, etc...

[X_Digger]

12. Stats?

Have any stats to show that the 94 AWB was effective in reducing crime anywhere?





Thought not. One definition of insane is repeating the same action expecting a different result. More gun control, that'll reduce crime, yeah!

[villager]

13. Stats to show it wasn't?

Or were violent gun deaths unaffected by the ban -- which, I suppose, was just fine by you...

[X_Digger]

21. Check the FBI stats.. no change

The FBI lumps together all rifle data, not making the distinction between hunting rifles or "assault weapons". My guess (not backed up by stats, just personal experience mind you) is that there are more hunting rifles owned than "assault weapons", drastically more so in the early 90's.

There was MORE "rifle" death during the ban than after.

94 - no data on fbi site that I could find.
95 - 3.2%
96 - 3.4%
97 - 4.1%
98 - 4.5%
99 - 3.1%
00 - 3.1%
01 - 2.7%
02 - 3.4%
03 - 2.7%
04 - 2.9% * AWB ended here
05 - 2.9%
06 - 2.9%
07 - 3.0%
08 - only preliminary data available right now, no tabular breakdown.

If we exclude 94 and 08, the average percentage during the ban is 3.6 .. after the ban? 2.9%

Correlation isn't causation, so I'd never say that the 94 AWB caused increased rifle deaths, but the least I'd say is that there's no stat showing that an AWB correlates with a _decrease_ in rifle deaths.

(source for data: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm)

[MajorChode]

15. The 94 AWB was part of a much larger bill that did a lot of things

And yes crime was reduced significantly as a result. The AWB itself may have had little effect, but those who were aware and observant at the time noted that the repugs watered the legislation down to INSURE it would have no effect. The justice dept commissioned a study that determined the LCM portion of the AWB was having an effect but was hampered due to the massive importation of LCM which were imported prior to the ban. The ban on LCMs was a good idea and still is.

[X_Digger]

23. Source for JD study?

If it's this one: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_brief1999.pdf

You might actually want to read it

"A number of factors—including the fact that the banned weapons and magazines were rarely used to commit murders in this country, the limited availability of data on the weapons, other components of the Crime Control Act of 1994, and State and local initiatives implemented at the same time—posed challenges in discerning the effects of the ban.

<snip>

Various provisions of the ban limited its potential effects on criminal use. As shown in exhibit 1, about half the banned makes and models were rifles, which are hard to conceal for criminal use. Imports of the five foreign rifle categories on this list had been banned in 1989. Further, the banned guns are used in only a small fraction of gun crimes; even before the ban, most of them rarely turned up in law enforcement agencies’ requests to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) to trace the sales histories of guns recovered in criminal investigations."

The only significant mention of Large Capacity Magazines is this in the "Implications and research recommendations" section:

"- Study criminal use of large capacity magazines. The lack of knowledge about trends in the criminal use of large capacity magazines is especially salient for three reasons. The large capacity magazine is perhaps the most functionally important distinguishing feature of assault weapons. The magazine ban also affected more gun models and gun crimes than did the bans on designated firearms. Finally, recent anecdotal evidence suggests that new and remanufactured preban, high-capacity magazines are beginning to reappear in the market for use with legal semiautomatic pistols."

But what I really love is from the conclusion:

"The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated."

[MajorChode]

53. While you're cherrypicking, don't forget these nuggets

Following implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving AWs declined by 17% to 72% across the localities examined for this study (Baltimore, Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage), based on data covering all or portions of the 1995-2003 post-ban period. This is consistent with patterns found in national data on guns recovered by police and reported to ATF.

Because the ban has not yet reduced the use of LCMs in crime, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. However, the ban’s exemption of millions of pre-ban AWs and LCMs ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually. Those effects are still unfolding and may not be fully felt for several years into the future, particularly if foreign, pre-ban LCMs continue to be imported into the U.S. in large numbers.

...reducing criminal use of AWs and especially LCMs could have nontrivial effects on gunshot victimizations. The few available studies suggest that attacks with semiautomatics – including AWs and other semiautomatics equipped with LCMs – result in more shots fired, more persons hit, and more wounds inflicted per victim than do attacks with other firearms. Further, a study of handgun attacks in one city found that 3% of the gunfire incidents resulted in more than 10 shots fired, and those attacks produced almost 5% of the gunshot victims.

Relative to the AW issue, criminal use of LCMs has received relatively little attention. Yet the overall use of guns with LCMs, which is based on the combined use of AWs and non-banned guns with LCMs, is much greater than the use of AWs alone. Based on data examined for this and a few prior studies, guns with LCMs were used in roughly 14% to 26% of most gun crimes prior to the ban (see Chapter 8; Adler et al.,1995; Koper, 2001; New York Division of Criminal Justice Services, 1994).

It is also possible, and perhaps probable, that new AWs and LCMs will eventually be used to commit mass murder. Mass murders garner much media attention, particularly when they involve AWs (Duwe, 2000). The notoriety likely to accompany mass murders
if committed with AWs and LCMs, especially after these guns and magazines have been deregulated, could have a considerable negative impact on public perceptions, an effect that would almost certainly be intensified if such crimes were committed by terrorists
operating in the U.S.

[X_Digger]

55. And yet..

The FBI data doesn't back it up. Not when looking at murder, or assault, or armed robbery.

BTW, I couldn't find that text in the link I provided. Are you looking at a different study?

Oh wait, I found it: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

An unpublished paper by a UoP prof.

"Because the ban has not yet reduced the use of LCMs in crime, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence." -- check. Banning LCMs doesn't reduce crime ;)

"Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading." -- check, check. Substitution, and second gun offsets this ban.

"Approximately 40 percent of the semiautomatic handgun models and a majority of the semiautomatic rifle models being manufactured and advertised prior to the ban were sold with LCMs or had a variation that was sold with an LCM (calculated from Murtz et al., 1994)" -- I would think this number has reached >50%, especially within the last 6 months. Any ban on LCMs would come up against the 'in common, lawful use' test set forth in Heller. Check, check, check.

I love this bit-

"Pistol Grip
Allows the weapon to be “spray fired” from the hip. Also helps stabilize the weapon during rapid fire."

Put your hand around an empty can of soda. Which is more comfortable while holding it at your hip, with your fingers down and the can horizontal, or at an awkward angle with the can pointing up?

"Looking at the nation’s gun crime problem more broadly, however, AWs and LCMs were used in only a minority of gun crimes prior to the 1994 federal ban, and AWs were used in a particularly small percentage of gun crimes." -- check. Solution looking for a problem.

[MajorChode]

56. And yet still you obfuscate....

An unpublished paper by a UoP prof.
The same "prof" as the author in the older study you linked to. Imagine that. Both study's were commissioned by the DOJ.

"Because the ban has not yet reduced the use of LCMs in crime, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence." -- check. Banning LCMs doesn't reduce crime ;)
Non sequitur.

"Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading." -- check, check. Substitution, and second gun offsets this ban.
OK, so we should just let everyone have fully automatic weapons, because they would only need to bring some of their buddies along to increase their rate of fire anyway. Ya gotta love how your logic works.

"Approximately 40 percent of the semiautomatic handgun models and a majority of the semiautomatic rifle models being manufactured and advertised prior to the ban were sold with LCMs or had a variation that was sold with an LCM (calculated from Murtz et al., 1994)" -- I would think this number has reached >50%, especially within the last 6 months. Any ban on LCMs would come up against the 'in common, lawful use' test set forth in Heller. Check, check, check.
You're making a lot of incorrect assumptions. First, the 'in common, lawful use' test relates only to specific classes of weapons. Expanding that to accessories is a bit far fetched. Also, Heller only applies to DC right now. You're assuming Heller will be universally applied to the rest of the US and that remains to be seen. Since the Heller ruling was nothing more than judicial activism to begin with and the court makeup could be different by the time the next case makes it to the USSC. Heller is by no means written in stone and only time will tell if it ever is.


"Looking at the nation’s gun crime problem more broadly, however, AWs and LCMs were used in only a minority of gun crimes prior to the 1994 federal ban, and AWs were used in a particularly small percentage of gun crimes." -- check. Solution looking for a problem.
The problem is obvious regardless of how much you choose to ignore it. The only question is which solutions are going to be the most effective. The previously applied solutions were extremely watered down to begin with by the Republicans in congress at the time. Does it really come as a surprise that the results were watered down as well? Now you want to point at those watered down results and say, "see look, it wasn't very effective so it was a wasted effort."

[AtheistCrusader]

61. So, aside from some anecdotal incidents

such as columbine, or or VT (one of Cho's weapons barely qualifies) how often do large capacity magazines figure into a crime? For studies of police officers that actually get into gunfights with suspects, the average shots fired per officer in 2000 is about 7, total shots per gunfight about 10.

How many crimes, out of the total crimes committed with firearms, actually utilize a large capacity ammunition feeding device?

[MajorChode]

70. So we have to wait until hundreds of people are killed BEFORE we can regulate something?

Prior to the strict regulation of fully automatic weapons and sawed off shotguns there weren't all that many deaths from them compared to the total number of firearm deaths. So if such ridiculous arguments had to be made back then, there never would have been such restrictions. The question is, and should be, do you think we are better or worse off with such regulation. I'm pretty sure most reasonable people would say yes we are better off with them.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. The registration aspect is probably a good thing.

I'm willing to work on that. I'll need guarantees against post-facto bans, but I am willing to work on it. It would help knock out the straw purchase problem, for one.

But did banning Machine Guns really cut down on crime, or make crime more victim-friendly? I doubt it. Same reason the military decided to limit early M-16's to single or 3 round bursts, in most cases. Soldiers were prone to burn through more ammo than they could carry, too early in the fight. (to say nothing of overheating issues) edit: and never hit a thing. Spray and pray is a good way to miss every target.

[MajorChode]

80. I've never been a big advocate of outright bans

In fact, there isn't an outright ban on fully automatic weapons. They are just restricted to the extent that most people aren't going to go to the trouble to buy one. The original intent of such legislation was to reduce the number of such weapons to people who have a compelling reason to have one. Few countries have an outright ban on all guns, although many have bans on certain classes of them. As such people can buy guns for hunting or self defense if they want one, but criminal elements have a much tougher time acquiring and keeping a gun, particularly those that are capable of violence on a massive scale. So maybe someone can argue that their GI Joe M-47 Terminator hunting rifle with the flash suppressor, pistol grip, and laser sights shouldn't be banned, but the one thing they can't argue with are the results that other civilized nations have regarding gun violence.

[AtheistCrusader]

81. Some problems though.

First, some states do fully ban automatic weapons, period. My state is one. There are three exceptions. Law enforcement, active duty military, and manufacturers engaged in repair and sale to in and out of state eligible customers (LEO/Military customers). We still get the occasional weapons stash turning up, sometimes imported from other states, sometimes smuggled into the country. Sometimes they are made here. But it's an even smaller problem than the rest of the states where the provisions of the 1934 NFA is in effect.


As for other civilized nations, there are more directly relative factors than the presence of firearms. Look at Switzerland. They are awash in guns, compared to us. Yet our firearm homicde rate is higher. Why? I can think of a few reasons I suspect, some cultural, some not. A direct comparison between Americans and X other country can never work, no matter what the subject, really. Even between the US and our neighbors, Canada, there are so many social differences, where do you even start?


The weapon's specific capabilities are rarely meaningful. The .50 is demonized as an anti-aircraft gun, when in reality, most deer rifles are about as dangerous, and capable of hitting a moving aircraft, and if you touch off a .50, anyone within a mile or more knows exactly where you are, so you're not going to be doing it for long. A mass-murderer with a rifle or a pistol, reloading every 10 shots instead of every 30, is not a meaningful restriction. Many of the 'reasonable gun control' proposals made, have no meaningful effect. The best kind of gun control that I think we can work on, is anything that gets guns out of the hands of criminals. Sting operations for straw purchasing rings. Maybe some registration, if we can work out something for the people who think bans will automatically follow any registration. Sequential sentences for gun violence, not concurrent sentences. There's a lot we can do that will leave bad people with no access or very very difficult access to guns without pissing off hunters, sport shooters, collectors, self-defense gun owners, etc.

Reasonable regulation does not require head to head confrontation. Confrontation strengthens groups like the NRA, who use fearmongering to garner support.

[MajorChode]

91. A good place to start is to try and figure out why

As for other civilized nations, there are more directly relative factors than the presence of firearms. Look at Switzerland. They are awash in guns, compared to us. Yet our firearm homicde rate is higher. Why? I can think of a few reasons I suspect, some cultural, some not. A direct comparison between Americans and X other country can never work, no matter what the subject, really. Even between the US and our neighbors, Canada, there are so many social differences, where do you even start?

You can compare the US to some other countries and draw some reasonable conclusions. Switzerland is the most often country cited by the gun lobby, but you're really talking about apples and oranges there. Poverty is practically non-existent and it's a very small country with a small population. It would be like trying to compare New Hampshire to the rest of the US. Even at that Switzerland has a lot of gun laws that the gun lobby here in the US would never accept. There are some other countries like Germany and France which have similar poverty levels and relatively large populations which at least make decent comparisons.

You can't say that just because some laws haven't had any obviously measurable effect that there aren't laws that won't be effective. Also I can't think of any attempts at gun regulation that haven't been met with confrontation by the NRA and attempts at fearmongering.

[AtheistCrusader]

99. Culture is too varied.

It would really be impossible to list all the differences even between the US ang Germany. In Germany, you can reasonably expect to recieve mental health care even if you can't afford it. In the US, you are pretty much on your own. Overall suicide is much lower in Germany than the US, even ignoring firearms. Add in firearms, and damn you have a lot of people killing themselves. That's before we even touch criminal behavior.

Our entertainment is different, our values are somewhat different, there's just no end to the things between the two cultures that do not directly compare. There is a large disparity in just violent assualt with hands and feet, let alone blunt weapons, knives, or firearms.

[X_Digger]

62. Can't decide.. reductio ad absurdum or false dichotomy

"Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading." -- check, check. Substitution, and second gun offsets this ban.

OK, so we should just let everyone have fully automatic weapons, because they would only need to bring some of their buddies along to increase their rate of fire anyway. Ya gotta love how your logic works.

Please take a few minutes and read the Wake Forest Law Review article I posted above. It explains quite nicely the multitude of factors that make these kinds of bans problematic- 1. Remainder 2. Substitution 3. Non-compliance. My logic never lead to fully automatic weapons, even at the most absurd. Yours does, eh?

"Approximately 40 percent of the semiautomatic handgun models and a majority of the semiautomatic rifle models being manufactured and advertised prior to the ban were sold with LCMs or had a variation that was sold with an LCM (calculated from Murtz et al., 1994)" -- I would think this number has reached >50%, especially within the last 6 months. Any ban on LCMs would come up against the 'in common, lawful use' test set forth in Heller. Check, check, check.

You're making a lot of incorrect assumptions. First, the 'in common, lawful use' test relates only to specific classes of weapons. Expanding that to accessories is a bit far fetched. Also, Heller only applies to DC right now. You're assuming Heller will be universally applied to the rest of the US and that remains to be seen. Since the Heller ruling was nothing more than judicial activism to begin with and the court makeup could be different by the time the next case makes it to the USSC. Heller is by no means written in stone and only time will tell if it ever is.

Stare decisis. Not likely to change that soon. You mention in another thread, the eventual banning / buy back of unmodified rifles that don't have some kind of 'delay' between magazine changes. I probably mixed up that post with this one, but the point stands separately. Banning a whole class of rifles (those that, unmodified, accept detachable magazines without delay) isn't going to fly.

Looking at the nation’s gun crime problem more broadly, however, AWs and LCMs were used in only a minority of gun crimes prior to the 1994 federal ban, and AWs were used in a particularly small percentage of gun crimes." -- check. Solution looking for a problem.

The problem is obvious regardless of how much you choose to ignore it. The only question is which solutions are going to be the most effective. The previously applied solutions were extremely watered down to begin with by the Republicans in congress at the time. Does it really come as a surprise that the results were watered down as well? Now you want to point at those watered down results and say, "see look, it wasn't very effective so it was a wasted effort."

It just seems like wagging the dog to me- Gun crime is a symptom of a larger problem, not a phenomenon standing alone. Early identification and treatment of mental disease would do more to stop the random tragic mass shootings than any feel good law that mainly targets (no pun intended) overwhelmingly law abiding citizens and behaviors. Stop the war on drugs, and the profit motive for illegal drugs is decreased (as is the crime surrounding the trade). Work on urban poverty so that fewer need to turn to crime. Enforce existing harsh penalties already on the books for the use of a gun while committing crime. Do away with concurrent sentencing for same. Those issues seem to me to be better use of our time, as they would likely have demonstrable, significant results. Yes, it's harder, but only treating a symptom will never cure a disease.

eta: fixed quotes

[MajorChode]

66. Just add it to the collection of your other logical fallacies

Please take a few minutes and read the Wake Forest Law Review article I posted above. It explains quite nicely the multitude of factors that make these kinds of bans problematic- 1. Remainder 2. Substitution 3. Non-compliance. My logic never lead to fully automatic weapons, even at the most absurd. Yours does, eh?

Do you think it really matters where the "logic" came from? The natural extension of such "logic" could just as easily be applied to fully automatic weapons. So if it was absurd in the instance I provided, it's just as absurd in the instance you provided. The whole point in banning LCMs was to reduce the rate of fire from a single weapon. Someone who "substitutes" something else is irrelevant to the intent of the ban. If they make such a substitution, then the intent was already realized.

Stare decisis. Not likely to change that soon. You mention in another thread, the eventual banning / buy back of unmodified rifles that don't have some kind of 'delay' between magazine changes. I probably mixed up that post with this one, but the point stands separately. Banning a whole class of rifles (those that, unmodified, accept detachable magazines without delay) isn't going to fly.

I never advocated the ban of any class of weapons, so you would do better to restrict your replies to what I actually claimed, not what you imagined I claimed.

It just seems like wagging the dog to me- Gun crime is a symptom of a larger problem, not a phenomenon standing alone. Early identification and treatment of mental disease would do more to stop the random tragic mass shootings than any feel good law that mainly targets (no pun intended) overwhelmingly law abiding citizens and behaviors. Stop the war on drugs, and the profit motive for illegal drugs is decreased (as is the crime surrounding the trade). Work on urban poverty so that fewer need to turn to crime. Enforce existing harsh penalties already on the books for the use of a gun while committing crime. Do away with concurrent sentencing for same. Those issues seem to me to be better use of our time, as they would likely have demonstrable, significant results. Yes, it's harder, but only treating a symptom will never cure a disease.

This is just another example of the obfuscation that infests the pro-gun lobby in the US. If anyone suggests the slightest regulation of firearms, the retort is, "what about poverty?", "what about drugs?", "what about traffic fatalities?", "what about hospital deaths". The suggestion is we can't do anything about firearm regulation until we do something about all the other issues which may or may not have anything to do with firearm regulation. You speak of "false dichotomy"? There you go. The next "false dichotomy" is that we can't have any new regulations because the existing ones aren't being fully enforced.

[X_Digger]

71. Not really..

Do you think it really matters where the "logic" came from? The natural extension of such "logic" could just as easily be applied to fully automatic weapons. So if it was absurd in the instance I provided, it's just as absurd in the instance you provided. The whole point in banning LCMs was to reduce the rate of fire from a single weapon. Someone who "substitutes" something else is irrelevant to the intent of the ban. If they make such a substitution, then the intent was already realized.

The intent is to decrease crime. You advocate decreasing magazine capacities as a means to that end. My point here was that a simple substitution of weapon, or bringing an additional weapon would make the benefits of that ban moot.

I never advocated the ban of any class of weapons, so you would do better to restrict your replies to what I actually claimed, not what you imagined I claimed.

You're right, I was responding to another poster who posted nearly the same thing regarding magazine capacities. My bad.

This is just another example of the obfuscation that infests the pro-gun lobby in the US. If anyone suggests the slightest regulation of firearms, the retort is, "what about poverty?", "what about drugs?", "what about traffic fatalities?", "what about hospital deaths". The suggestion is we can't do anything about firearm regulation until we do something about all the other issues which may or may not have anything to do with firearm regulation. You speak of "false dichotomy"? There you go. The next "false dichotomy" is that we can't have any new regulations because the existing ones aren't being fully enforced.

How is it obfuscation to try to address the root cause of a problem? Perhaps you should tell that to all the community organizers who are addressing youth gang violence through outreach, GED courses, and job training programs.

A false dichotomy would be saying "Oh, you're against the AWB? You must want people to have rocket launchers and M-16's" (A false either / or choice.)

[MajorChode]

82. Really

The intent is to decrease crime. You advocate decreasing magazine capacities as a means to that end. My point here was that a simple substitution of weapon, or bringing an additional weapon would make the benefits of that ban moot.

No, I didn't advocate anything of the sort. I was simply replying to your assertion that there were no "stats" available to show that the AWB was effective in reducing crime. The fact is crime has been reduced since the legislation which included the AWB was passed. That fact doesn't seem to be in dispute by anyone. It is also a fact that the number of high capacity magazines found on criminals has been reduced by as much as 72% in some jurisdictions. So there are stats available, the only question is what conclusions you can draw from the available facts. It's pretty hard to conclude what might have happened in any study, but unquestionably criminals did have less access to LCMs. The tradeoff for that is that perhaps not as many law abiding people were allowed to live out their GI Joe fantasy life, but I don't think any hunters suffered as a result nor do I think anyone who tried to defend themselves against a criminal suffered as a result.

The "intent" of the AWB was not to decrease crime, but to address the concerns over the growing number of crimes caused by AWs and other guns with LCMs. So you can't "prove" that intent wasn't realized anymore than anyone else can prove it was.

[X_Digger]

84. Now THAT's spin..

The "intent" of the AWB was not to decrease crime, but to address the concerns over the growing number of crimes caused by AWs and other guns with LCMs.

Nevermind that the title of the bill was "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994" and preventing crime was mentioned in the text as one of the goals.

No, I didn't advocate anything of the sort. I was simply replying to your assertion that there were no "stats" available to show that the AWB was effective in reducing crime. The fact is crime has been reduced since the legislation which included the AWB was passed. That fact doesn't seem to be in dispute by anyone.

Murders went _slightly_ up during that time, and the report you mention even says that the effects of the AWB aren't statistically significant.

It is also a fact that the number of high capacity magazines found on criminals has been reduced by as much as 72% in some jurisdictions.

Jurisdictions like Anchorage? Yah, I'm sure they had a big problem with high capacity magazines.. oh wait. Went from 13 to 9.

"Because the ban has not yet reduced the use of LCMs in crime, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence."

So what I would take away from that statement is that the number of LCMs used in crime is fairly static regardless of the ban. The only effect I saw was a tripling in price, when pre-bans were available at all (after about '98, anything other than 5 and 10 rounders were pretty scarce). So either criminals were using their same supply of magazines, or they were getting them through some other means. They're not consumed quickly, and some of mine are more than 7 years old, so I can imagine there's enough for a while. I have 10-12 magazines, and if each lasts 5 years minimum, I have enough for the rest of my life.

[MajorChode]

89. So far you've posted nothing BUT spin

Nevermind that the title of the bill was "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994" and preventing crime was mentioned in the text as one of the goals.

Since when does preventing = decreasing? And are you talking about the entire bill as a whole, or just the AWB? Furthermore, don't you think congress already knew that AWs weren't used in all that many crimes in '94? The intent of the AW-LCM ban was to address the concerns of the public that cheap high capacity autopistols were being used in drive-by shootings and the concerns of law enforcement that they were increasingly being outgunned by criminals. See page 14 of the report.

Murders went _slightly_ up during that time, and the report you mention even says that the effects of the AWB aren't statistically significant.

The homicide rate decreased from 1994 - 2000 and leveled off. The homicide rate in many big cities decreased very dramatically after 1994. NYC had a 26 rate around 1994 and it now has a 7.3 rate. Other large cities showed similar declines. Gun crimes, in particular have dramatically decreased. It didn't say the effects weren't statistically significant, it said it was hard to tell what effect the AW-LCM ban had on the decrease in gun crime.

Jurisdictions like Anchorage? Yah, I'm sure they had a big problem with high capacity magazines.. oh wait. Went from 13 to 9.

"Because the ban has not yet reduced the use of LCMs in crime, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence."

So what I would take away from that statement is that the number of LCMs used in crime is fairly static regardless of the ban. The only effect I saw was a tripling in price, when pre-bans were available at all (after about '98, anything other than 5 and 10 rounders were pretty scarce). So either criminals were using their same supply of magazines, or they were getting them through some other means. They're not consumed quickly, and some of mine are more than 7 years old, so I can imagine there's enough for a while. I have 10-12 magazines, and if each lasts 5 years minimum, I have enough for the rest of my life.

Again you are cherrypicking the data. What you fail to take into account is that AW-LCM manufacture and sales was skyrocketing years before debate on the '94 law ever started. So where we would be had their never been a ban is impossible to predict accurately, and the study clearly states this.

Next you say that since the ban has not yet significantly limited the use of LCMs in crime, that it should have never been banned in the first place, but the study does not suggest that. In fact, it suggests the opposite:
If anything, therefore, gun attacks appear to have been more lethal and injurious since the ban. Perhaps elevated LCM use has contributed to this pattern. But if this is true, then the reverse would also be true – a reduction in crimes with LCMs, should the ban be extended, would reduce injuries and deaths from gun violence.

[X_Digger]

97. Prevent != Decrease???

Since when does preventing = decreasing? And are you talking about the entire bill as a whole, or just the AWB? Furthermore, don't you think congress already knew that AWs weren't used in all that many crimes in '94? The intent of the AW-LCM ban was to address the concerns of the public that cheap high capacity autopistols were being used in drive-by shootings and the concerns of law enforcement that they were increasingly being outgunned by criminals. See page 14 of the report.

How else would you know whether or not you are preventing crime other than measuring the incidence and looking for a decrease???

If you watched to all the pontificating on the floor of the house and senate via cspan, you would have to think that criminals we running around all over with "assault weapons". There was a HELLA lot more debate over this than the provisions on drunk driving or adding police.

[MajorChode]

106. How can you possibly know something that was not constant?

How else would you know whether or not you are preventing crime other than measuring the incidence and looking for a decrease???

You're assuming the incidence is a constant, and it most certainly was not at the time. In the late 80's and early 90's there was an explosion of the manufacture and import of cheap guns with high rates of fire and there was a commensurate increase in the use of those weapons for criminal purposes.

The more relevant questions would be where was that increase going to level off without the AWB and what effect if any did the AWB have on where and when it did level off? Claiming the AWB had no effect is quite the crock of bullshit because those questions were infinitely harder to answer, if not impossible so the study didn't address them, and those questions remain unanswered.

[X_Digger]

107. effectiveness: impossible to answer.. ?

I'm completely dumbfounded. You usually attach a metric to a corrective action in order to judge its effectiveness. (Just like a section of the larger bill said that studies had to be done.) Assuming it's not just a feel good measure, intended to reassure folks, you have to at least _believe_ that some measurable result will vindicate it. Otherwise, it's just capricious.

How do you know if a piece of legislation met its goal without some measurement?? Just pass laws and _assume_ they help? Just _hope_ they do some good?!? *headdesk* You win, I can't respond to that kind of absurdity.

[MajorChode]

110. So what's your solution?

Wait until problems become completely out of control before you do something about it?

Study it ad nauseum and do nothing?

There are lots of instances throughout history where action was taken with little hope of any measurable results.

FDR did a lot of things during the depression without any guarantees. In fact, some of the things he tried were failures, but he still took action during a time when action was needed and his idealistic approach speaks for itself. I thank God he wasn't as shortsightedly pragmatic as you think everyone should be.

In fact the overall results of the '94 bill speaks for itself. I suppose your solution would have been to selectively implement each part of the bill and then wait and see what the singular effect was before the next part could be implemented so we could accurately derive your required metrics. Do you really think that is realistic?

[X_Digger]

113. My last post this sub-thread..

Since ~50% of firearm deaths result from suicide, I'd attack that heavily first. UHC that includes mental health coverage, PSA campaigns to help alleviate the stigmata surrounding mental illness, fully fund states' ability to send all involuntary mental health committments to the feds (so that these individuals show up in an NICS check). The metric to measure effectiveness would be the number of suicides by gun per year.

This would also help stop some of the random, deranged mass murderers who have been in and out of the mental health system because of lack of medicare / medicaid funding. Get those folks the help they need. The measurement would be a lack of high profile random mass murders.

Mandatory consecutive sentencing for gun crime (not concurrent). Make the thought of using a gun in a crime anathema to criminals. Check effectiveness by monitoring crimes with a gun rates.

Institute _voluntary_ buy back programs. This one is harder to measure because it may or may not actually take guns off the street (cheap guns can be stolen / bought elsewhere and brought in just to sell.) Probably also use the metric of guns used in the commission of crimes.

Each of these items has a measurable metric, and also makes the response to the problem proportional (e.g., lots of effort on common problems like gun suicides, less effort on rare, though tragic, problems like mass shootings.) So you would be able to measure whether the laws were working, or if they needed to be tweaked, expanded, or scrapped as useless.

eta: and just because I couldn't resist.. it's a magazine. Calling it a clip is like telling your car mechanic that the pedal thingies go 'UUURKK' when you push them and the thing that goes back and forth goes 'whomp' instead of 'snick'. *grin*

[MajorChode]

114. All of your proposed solutions are all well and good

But it ignores what was going on at the time.

After the collapse of the Soviet union you had massive availability of cheap assault weapons. The very cheap supply created an enormous demand. So much that some manufacturers were even mass producing knock offs and selling those as well. Many of those weapons were finding their way into the hands of criminals. Nobody knew where it was going, but the public and the police had very legitimate concerns.

As far as your weighing in on the clip/magazine discussion, your false analogy is even more lame than the original lame comments made. You might want to restrict your points to the more rational side of the debate.

[AtheistCrusader]

118. Sources?

Rifles are largely irrelevant, given the low incidence of their use in crime. So by Assault Weapon, i'm going to assume you mean large-capacity handguns, which ARE often used in crime. Is that fair?

Since select-fire weapons have been verboten for import to the US since the 80's, what specific weapons were the concern here?

[Statistical]

75. Heller does apply to the entire UNITED States just (not yet) to the States

You're making a lot of incorrect assumptions. First, the 'in common, lawful use' test relates only to specific classes of weapons. Expanding that to accessories is a bit far fetched. Also, Heller only applies to DC right now. You're assuming Heller will be universally applied to the rest of the US and that remains to be seen. Since the Heller ruling was nothing more than judicial activism to begin with and the court makeup could be different by the time the next case makes it to the USSC. Heller is by no means written in stone and only time will tell if it ever is.

Your belief that Heller only applies to DC show a lack of understanding.

Heller applies to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The 2nd is a check against the Federal Govt power of it's citizens.
No serious legal scholar considers Heller limited to DC only. What a laughable concept.

The only question that remains is "is the 2nd ammendment incorporated to the states". Since DC was a Federal District (chosen intentionally) the question of incorporation rightly wasn't decided in Heller vs DC. Now that would be true activism if the Court had overreached and ruled on a question not before the court.

However there are lawsuits in both Chicago and California. Eventually one or both will make it back to SCOTUS and we will find out if the Heller decision limits state governments also. That is the only question remaining.

I wouldn't expect a change in the Court. The three most likely Judges to retire are the ones who decided against Heller. At best Obama will be able to make the liberal side of the court younger. To setup some future Democratic President with the ability to change makeup of the court.

[MajorChode]

83. So it only applies to DC, Perry Mason, just like I said, duh

Your belief that Heller only applies to DC show a lack of understanding.

Heller applies to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The 2nd is a check against the Federal Govt power of it's citizens.
No serious legal scholar considers Heller limited to DC only. What a laughable concept.

You may list all the "federal" laws other than the DC ban Heller currently affects if you like.

I'll patiently await your answer. Take as much time as you need.

The only question that remains is "is the 2nd ammendment incorporated to the states". Since DC was a Federal District (chosen intentionally) the question of incorporation rightly wasn't decided in Heller vs DC. Now that would be true activism if the Court had overreached and ruled on a question not before the court.

No, actually there are a number of questions that remain unanswered, and your interpretation of judicial activism is quite a "laughable concept".

As far as the makeup of the court goes, a lot can happen in 4 years, or even 8. Both Kennedy and Scaila are 72. But even if any challenges manage to make it to the USSC before either leaves, there's no guarantee the same standards would apply to state and local laws.

[Statistical]

85. Are you dense or do you play one on TV

The 2nd amendment restricts the FEDERAL GOVT as opposed to state or local govts (try looking up Federalism). Contrary to popular belief the Bill of Rights were not originally intended as a check against local govts but instead they were intended by the Founders as a check against Federal Tyranny.

SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd affirms an individual right.
An AWB would be a FEDERAL law.
Any such ban would run afoul of Heller. Now we can argue that Heller is limited in scope to only handguns (I would disagree) but to make a claim that Heller only applies to Federal land is laughable. Nobody, not even the most moonbat anti-gun crusaders on the planet think that. VPC doesn't think that, ACLU doesn't think that. Brady Campaign doesn't think that.

There are no legal briefs, or articles in any law review ANYWHERE that reach the utterly stupid conclusion that Heller is limited to DC (or federal lands). Serious? We can disagree without you jumping the shark.

On the other hand the CA AWB, or the Chicago handgun ban can not YET be challenged.
Why? Glad you put the moonbat down and asked.

There is no precedent yet that the 2nd amendment is incorporated to the states due to a doctrine of selective incorporation adopted by the Supreme Court over the last 60 years. Now when I say "against the states" I mean that state govts are restricted by the 2nd amendment. Now this is not to say that the 2nd won't be incorporated. It may or may not. We just don't know yet because no case has gone before Supreme Court asking that question since the period of Selective Incorporation

Personally I think it will. It doesn't make logical sense that the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments (among others) would be incorporated against the states but the 2nd isn't.


It might not though. For the sake of arguments lets say the 2nd is found to NOT be incorporated against the states.

Even then AWB will be challenged on Constitutional grounds.

State Ban = ok (if not incorporated)
Same Ban but Federal = not ok

Seriously? :wtf: I mean you really though Heller only applied to Federal lands? Where the hell is the rolling on the floor laughing smiley. All I can say is "buckle up" if you think Heller is that limited you are going to be utterly shocked and amazed at legal activity coming from this "insignificant" case.

Seriously? (No way you have to be joking. Nobody. Not even an anti is that stupid).

[friendly_iconoclast]

88. And they forgot two *other* nongun legal precendents

The Betamax and DeCSS cases, where it was held that if a device was used primarily in a
legal manner, said legal use carried more weight than a possible illegal use.

Which is why we can all buy DVD and CD burners. Yes, you *could* use them to bootleg
movies and music, but since most people use them for what the law considers legit
purposes they are freely available. The only people who disagree are the
MPAA and RIAA, both of which are lately getting their asses handed to them in "filesharing" cases

[MajorChode]

90. Time to send up the flag

I'm sure it took you quite a while to come up with that much obsfucation, Perry, but lets back up a bit, shall we?

Here is what I said, "Heller only applies to DC right now."

Here is what you said, "Heller does apply to the entire UNITED States just (not yet) to the States"

Last time I checked, the "states" covers pretty much the entire US except for DC. Do you own a different map than I do, Perry? I don't know if you got the memo or not, but the AWB has already expired which means there are no other laws that Heller could possibly be applied at this time without further judicial rulings.

So you can go into long dissertations about what you THINK is going to happen in the future, and you can opine about a lot of other irrelevant details regarding jurisprudence if you like, but none of your long winded spewage contradicts what I said and only amounts to obsfucation (aka bullshit).

What we were specifically talking about when you interjected your nonsense was the LCM ban in particular and not the AWB which has expired anyway. So in your glee to jump at the opportunity to cut and paste from your favorite gunnut reference source, you missed the point of the statement entirely and dreamed up some other false assertion all on your own, Perry. You might want to brush up on your comprehension skills next time.

Nice try, Perry, but you really need to practice up a bit more or just limit your obsfucation nonsense to someone less likely to call BS on you. Just a suggestion.

Now I'm sure you're going to follow up with more BS and more pretending about what you THINK I wrote, and I certainly wouldn't want to discourage you from doing so as I'm sure many people find your silly antics quite amusing. However, as of now you have already well exceeded my desire to engage in tangential discussions with those who have no demonstrated ability to read AND comprehend what anyone else wrote. So I won't be following up in any future replies you might make in this thread, nor will I read them. Feel free to have the last word as I'm sure such things matter greatly to you.

[villager]

26. Thanks, MajorChode! Too many in this forum take NRA talking points as holy writ!

n/t

[benEzra]

22. Less than 3% of U.S. murders involve any type of rifle...

whether or not the handgrip sticks out.

The "assault weapon menace" is a fraud.

[rrneck]

8. I think the AWB

was designed to be confusing and wreck the market for them. By proposing an absurd cocktail of cosmetic requirements, law abiding citizens were supposed to give up in frustration and not risk investing in an illegal weapon. The same holds true for the manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of the guns. By writing a nonsensical law everyone was supposed to be afraid of making the capital investment in inventory that may or may not be legal. Or so they thought. Unfortunately for them, the "free market" responded and just found a way to provide what consumers wanted.

Just about anybody on this forum knows more about firearms than me, but it seems that the bottom line is this: The bullets go in the bottom and out the front. If you want to regulate the firearm, you have to regulate the movement of the ammunition through the ordnance delivery device. That means slowing their movement down, making them less powerful, or making the movement through the device less continuous. But the reality is that all of those factors figure large in the lawful use of the weapons, so it makes it impossible to craft legislation to reduce weapon efficiency in one case and keep it legal in another in all but the most extreme instances. It's easy to restrict full auto and belt fed weapons. Explosive, armor piercing, and tracer ordinance can be controlled. As can weapons that could be dangerous to commercial aircraft, targets at extreme range, hardened targets, military installations etc.

The truth is that almost every rifle in dispute was designed to kill a two hundred pound mammal. It's dual use technology. It can kill either a deer or a human. Trying to regulate the ordinance or its system of delivery much more than it already is will always be a red herring in the face of people's ability to concoct new and sinister ways to terrorize each other.

[rangersmith82]

14. villager, care to explain why the AWB needs to be renewed??

n/t

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MajorChode]

16. The AWB included a ban on LCMs

Do you know the difference between a 10 round and a 30 round clip?

How many "sensible" gun owners do you know need a 30 round clip?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

17. So Constitutional rights are based on need?

[rangersmith82]

18. Only LCM made after 1994

There are millions of legally owned LCM or 30rd mags in civilian hands.

You can never ban them all, and you just can't go around stealing peoples possesions.

The ban only banned ownership of mags made after Sep 94, even then they were millions of mags in the US.

The ban went away and the 30rd mag production has tripled, so if we have a new ban, mags made before the ban will be grandfathered.

I have almost 75 Ar mags, 40 AK mags, and 2 75rd drums and a 100rd drum.

This enough for my family and even with current use these mags will be around even when my children pass them on to their kids.

The LCM is bullshit and there are way too many mags for a new ban to make a difference.

Plus there will be thousands of replacement mag bodies, rebuild kits etc...

You are not gonna stop Americans from having semi auto rifles with 30-100rd mags.

Gun owners will not roll over...and will not go quietly in the night....

The only way would to be to go door to door and confiscate them.

That will be the end of our current control of the government and might possibly start a civil war.

Is an Assault Weapon Ban really worth this????? I think not.

[MajorChode]

52. Yes, there will be a civil war if the government bans LCMs

Do you even realize how ridiculous this sounds?

The sad part is you're not the only one to share such distorted beliefs, and that's where the problem lies and why common sense gun legislation can't be passed. The NRA fights every single effort to regulate gun ownership. The LCM ban did have an effect on criminals. So it did "make a difference" regardless of what you think, and there's plenty of other legislation that has the potential to make a difference also. It is going to take some time thanks to the NRA which has been fighting legislation for decades thanks to people who think the slightest regulation like banning the sale of LCMs and requiring background checks or gun registration means the government is going to go door to door seeking guns and bibles.

[benEzra]

20. 10 rounds is a ridiculously low limit that was exceeded in the 1860's.

30-round civilian guns hit the civilian market in the 1880's. A majority of our family's guns hold over 10 rounds, just like the guns police use, and for much the same reasons.

FWIW, they are magazines, not "clips." A clip is a device used to load a magazine.

And by the way, the 1994 Feinstein law didn't reduce availability of over-10-round magazines; it raised prices on over-10-round handgun magazines, but did not ban them, and did not significantly affect rifle magazine prices; they were cheaper then than now ($5.99/ea for 20's and $9.99/ea for 30's in 2002-2003).

[X_Digger]

24. Ban Duct Tape!

I can use duct tape to turn 2 10 round magazines into a 20 round magazine (with a 2 second pause) in about 30 seconds. If I get creative, I can take 3 10 round magazines and do the same. *sigh*. Even if I have an ammo pouch on my belt filled with 10 round mags, a swap only takes about 3-4 seconds with practice.

eta: '2' 10 round magazines

[jeepnstein]

48. I do!

I'm as law-abiding a citizen as you will likely ever meet. Hey, I even obey speed limits.

As a lawful citizen why shouldn't I be allowed to exercise my Constitutional Rights fully? It doesn't say I'm allowed to kill, terrorize, or intimidate. All the Second Amendment says is that I'm free to own firearms that are generally useful in a militia setting. What have I done that would merit being stripped of my rights? Is it just because you don't want me to have a particular right?

There are plenty of laws governing the use and carrying of firearms. Perhaps we should spend more time worrying about the criminals among us who prey on decent folks.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. First demonstrate there is or has ever been such a thing as a 30 round clip.

Perhaps you meant Magazine?

[MajorChode]

59. Do I have to demonstrate the sky is blue, grass is green, and water is wet while I'm at it?

I'm just wondering how far your absurdity goes.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. Your absurdity is complaining about things that don't exist.

Ban 30 round clips. I've never seen one that held more than 7, personally.

Now MAGAZINES on the other hand, are another story.

[MajorChode]

63. Now that you've taken absurdity to an art form...

What do you do for an encore?

Keep it up and soon there won't be a dry eye in the house.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. Here's an idea.

When discussing legislation to ban or regulate a technical item, use accurate language.

This is a clip


This is a magazine.


You were talking about regulating clips, when what you really meant was magazine. Let's say your legislation is a good idea (I don't but for argument's sake) and you lobby your lawmakers, and your representative, which is so clueless about any technical aspect of a firearm they think a 'barrel shroud' is a 'shoulder thing that goes up' takes the language you provided him or her with, and runs with it, you end up banning or regulating something that does not exist.

(Correction to an earlier post, the en-bloc clip for a Garand holds 8 rounds, and there are 10 round clips for the SKS, much bigger than that, I am unaware of)

Edit: Woot, embedded images

[MajorChode]

68. Here you go, colonel:

cartridge clip
–noun
a metal frame or container holding cartridges for a magazine rifle or automatic pistol.
Also called ammunition clip.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cartridge%20clip

I'm not really sure what dialect you speak, but personally I prefer the standard English language. Now perhaps such is not good enough in the strictly "technical" crowd you run with, but as I've misplaced my official GI Joe Gunnut-to-English translating dictionary at this time I'm afraid you're just going to have to get over it or you can continue with your absurdity which does contain certain entertainment aspects. Your choice.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. Very good, now look up Magazine.

An en-bloc clip like the garand holds a collection of rounds together, to be fully inserted into an INTERNAL MAGAZINE on the Garand. You could make a 30 round clip for it, but it would never fit inside the weapon, because it does not fit in the magazine. A stripper clip, such as you would find on an SKS rifle, does not insert inside the weapons magazine either. The original SKS has a fixed, 10 round box magazine. The Clip is used to fill the magazine, by sliding the rounds off the clip, into the feed ramp of the magazine.

In all cases, when discussing clips, the firearm is still limited by the capacity of its magazine.

For Pistols, there are few examples that use a 'clip'. I guess the broomhandle mauser might be one. Any pistol with an internal, fixed magazine, uses clips. Detachable magazines, that can be made much larger than anything originally intended for the weapon, are simply magazines.

Here's the rule of thumb. If it just holds the rounds together, it's a clip. If it completely encompasses the rounds, it's probably a magazine.

The reason large capacity magazines significantly increase the capacity of a pistol is, the magazine completely contains the rounds, and the spring required to feed rounds into the action of the weapon. It has enough structural support to extend beyond the end of the mag well. I have never heard the magazine well called a 'clip well', ever, no matter how much hollywood education abuses the term 'clip'.

[MajorChode]

76. I'll stick with the dictionary definition, colonel

But thank you for your extremely detailed dissertation on the history of small arms in the 20th century. Even though such was never requested or the topic of discussion. I now feel much more informed and enlightened as a result.

Feel free to petition Webster's and American Heritage to correct their obviously erroneous definition. Until you're successful in your one man campaign to do so, I'll stick with my original usage. Fair enough?

[AtheistCrusader]

78. A dictionary definition you didn't even read isn't a legal definition.

"a metal frame or container holding cartridges for a magazine rifle or automatic pistol."

The Magazine is what must be regulated. If you do not, then you do nothing to limit high capacity ammunition feeding devices. Feel free to be wrong I guess. After all, I do not approve of arbitrarily limiting magazine size.

[MajorChode]

92. OK, so now just to have a discussion we must use only LEGAL definitions

Gee, colonel, you sure are going way past mere garden variety absurdity here.

But since you've already ventured into well beyond absurdity, you wouldn't perhaps have a cite from an actual "legal" dictionary, would you? Or perhaps in your delusions of grandeur you mistook your M-47 manual for a legal dictionary, no?

Feel free to continue. I'm getting a good deal of amusement from it.

[AtheistCrusader]

93. Well, someone's laughing.

Point out the part of the 1994 AWB (Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) that specifies large capacity CLIPS.

I'll wait.

[MajorChode]

94. I'll take that as a no.

But thanks for verifying.

[AtheistCrusader]

95. Sure if you mean 'no, Clip is not used in legislation and is not accurate'.

It's not in there. It's not in the 2007 attempt to re-authorize it. It's a hollywood, non-technical, pop culture reference, and has no place in any discussion of potential regulation or banning.

And if you think i'm singling you out, go look at the 'righteous shoot' thread.

[MajorChode]

96. Really...

It's not in the 2007 attempt to re-authorize it. It's a hollywood, non-technical, pop culture reference, and has no place in any discussion of potential regulation or banning.

Perhaps you should urgently call Dianne Feinstein and tell her that:
"Just last month, I spoke at the funeral of San Francisco Police Officer Isaac Espinoza, who was shot and killed by a gang member armed with an AK-47 and a 30-round clip."
http://feinstein.senate.gov/04Speeches/halt-assault.htm

"And this is the Tec-DC-9 he was carrying with a 30-round clip."
http://feinstein.senate.gov/04Speeches/aw-2months.htm

Here she is again right on the floor of the US Senate:
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=6704640

Here is is, used over 40 times in just one excerpt of an official congressional record:
http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/record/1998/1998_S09106.pdf

Here it is again from the office of the Illinois governor:
"In fact, just this past New Year’s Eve, the Chicago Police Department recovered 22 weapons,
including an AK 47 and MAC 10 with a 30 round clip and laser sight – weapons that would be banned
statewide if lawmakers pass a measure."
http://www.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=59&RecNum=4723

While you're at it, don't forget to call this police organization:
"Now, we come together again to urge your support for legislation to renew the 1994 ban on assault weapons and high capacity ammunition clips."
http://www.hapcoa.org/congressletter.html

I never claimed "magazine" wasn't appropriate. So let's not pretend I did, OK? Fair enough? Or is it just too much to admit the absurdity that you have to try and effectively lie by putting words in my mouth?

Now if you want to make the case that "clip" wasn't appropriate in my context, here is what else you are up against:

1) A google search on "30 round clip" yields over 19,000 results.

Within those 19,000 results you'll find all sorts of organizations that include the term "clips" in reference to LCMs, including numerous retailers who amazingly enough do indeed sell "30 round clips".

Imagine that.

2) Remington Arms, who just so happens to be the oldest arms manufacturer in the US agrees that there indeed is such a thing as a "30 round clip"
http://www.remington.com/products/accessories/gun_parts/magazine_clips.asp

Imagine that.

3) Webster's and American Heritage support my usage.

Imagine that.

If I'm wrong, I'm in with some pretty good company, eh? So now if you want to make a complete idiot out of yourself by going down the road of a completely tangential discussion about how my usage wasn't "technically" correct, then my all means be my guest. I'll sit back and have a chuckle at your expense.

NOW are you going to quit while you're behind, or do you have a burning desire to continue to humiliate yourself?

[AtheistCrusader]

98. Pretty bad appeal to authority.

Feinstein may use it in casual conversation, but it is completely missing from the legislation she sponsored. Why? Because it's wrong.

Websters and American Heritage have plenty of grey area on this, I note significant differences in that definition just between various EDITIONS of the same dictionary. Pop culture references get into dictionaries all the time. That does not make the usage in this case, correct. Question, what do you think 'automatic pistol' means in that 'clip' American Heritage defintion?

You just completely mis-represented Remington's sales page. "Model 597™ 30-Round Magazine Clip". Do you not see the preceeding 'magazine' right in front of your eyes? Clip is inappropriate, but probably listed to make it easier for people to search on the part, since a LOT of people misuse 'clip' just like you are.

19,000 people, and yes, even retailers can be wrong. The 1994 legislation that banned the manufacture of new LCM's (hey, guess what the 'M' stands for?) specified MAGAZINES, not CLIPS, because CLIP is meaningless in the context of large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Same for the 2007 attempt at re-authorizing it. Same for the 2004 attempt. They all specify, in legal terms MAGAZINE, not CLIP. Pop culture references really have no place in law.

Would it really hurt you to just use the correct term, that can be referenced in US Code, and actually applies to firearms nomenclature?

Edit: Misspelling.

[MajorChode]

100. Do you even know what "appeal to authority" means?

Obviously not.

First it was "there is no such thing as a 30 round clip"

Then I proved the dictionary agreed with the usage.

Next it was, "hollywood abuses the term" it's not a "legal" definition.

So I asked for a reference to the "legal" definition and got <crickets> in return.

Next it was, "(it) has no place in any discussion"

So I proved how it was used extensively by all sorts of discussions including co-sponsors of legislation right on the floor of the US Senate and many other places.

Now it's "well a lot of people misuse the term but it has no place in legislation"

Well I'm not trying to write legislation, sparky. Never was such my intent. And if it were, I don't think I would start on DU. Gee what a concept, eh?

Jebus H. Christmas on a popsicle stick do you really even realize how asinine you've become?

Now you want to accuse me of a bad "appeal to authority".

Actually it was a pretty good "appeal to authority", sparky. Politicians, retailers, arms manufacturers, the friggin dictionary for Christmas sake. And an "appeal to authority" is perfectly acceptable in informal logic, sparky, so what you've described is NOT a logical fallacy because it's used by the very people you claimed didn't use the term.

On the other hand, these are. Go look it up:
Argumentum ad nauseam
Non Sequitur

So far I've proved that every one of the assertions used against my original statement is wrong. In return you and the colonel have proved exactly what?

<crickets>

So we have only YOUR word on the matter, and legislators, retailers, arms manufacturers, the friggin dictionary (for Christmas sake) are all wrong. At least I have an "appeal to authority". You have an "appeal to bullshit artists".

But by all means do continue. I'm enjoying the ride.

[AtheistCrusader]

101. Are you serious, I told you EXACTLY where to find the legal definition.

(b) DEFINITION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 110102(b), is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(31) The term `large capacity ammunition feeding device'--

`(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but

`(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.'.

I guess I gotta copy and paste it for you too. A 'clip' is not a feeding device in this sense. No matter how large the clip is, it cannot feed more rounds than the internal, fixed magazine of the weapon will allow. Nor does it work like a belt, drum, or feed strip. CLIP HAS A SPECIFIC WEAPONS NOMENCLATURE. When you use it interchangably with the pop culture common usage, you are abusing it.

I've shown you pictures of what an actual clip looks like. I've shown you the law that, when the law was in effect, defined a large capacity ammunition feeding device, and noting related to a damn clip is referenced. A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE actually INCREASES the ammunition available to the weapon for fire without reloading. A clip cannot do this. If you insert a 10 foot long clip into the top of a USM1917 rifle, with hundreds of rounds, you cannot work the bolt. The weapon will not work. A clip does not INCREASE the rounds available to the weapon. It's a quick way to recharge the weapon's magazine, nothing more.

They make the same thing for revolvers, half moon and full moon circlips. It just holds the rounds together for easy insertion into the weapon. It is not the magazine. It is not a functional part of the weapon. It's presence is not required for the weapon to fire. It's presence may INTERFERE with the function of the weapon, depending on how the clip interfaces with the feed ramp and magazine.

And yes, you made a bad appeal to authority 'hey lookit what all these morons on google think'. You want to go google Holocaust denials and come back and present that as evidence the Holocaust never happened? You'll find a lot of people out there that think that. Doesn't make them right.

There is no such thing as a 30 round clip. If you have one, post it. So far, you've posted a magazine, not a clip.
Hollywood ALSO does abuse the term, and between movies and games, there is a common pop culture reference to clips, which is not proper.
I just gave you the legal definition of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, which is the long form name of the core issue you were discussing. Nowhere in the legal definition does it mention clips. A clip is not a similar device to a Magazine. A clip is a tool for CHARGING a magazine. It cannot extend the capacity of the weapon/magazine.
You haven't proved squat. (Except that once again, as in other discussions, dictionaries are not necessarily good sources)

[MajorChode]

105. So much absurdity and ignorance, where do I start to correct you?

You don't have the least clue what a "legal definition" is. A "legal definition" would be a word or term that has been defined by a legal authority (such as Black's) and can then be referenced by the law. A word or term defined within a law is not a "legal definition" because it can only be referenced from within that particular law. Strike one.

So not only have you never referenced a "legal definition", you could not possibly do so because none exist in this instance. Furthermore what you erroneously refer to as a "legal definition" defines a "large capacity ammunition feeding device", not a magazine OR a clip. Strike two.

I never mentioned google as an "authority", sparky. I showed that there were thousands of references to "30 round clip" and a good number of those WERE authoritative and I even mentioned specifically what some of those were. So keep dreaming up nonsense, sparky, and I'll keep showing how completely full of shit you are. Strike three.

Need I go on since you're already out? Sure, what the hell, you were out a long time ago anyway.

Try doing a bit of clicking on the source (Wiki) you pretend is an authority. The web site it references even acknowledges that "clip" is widely used as a synonym for "magazine":
Clip:
A device for holding cartridges together, usually to facilitate loading. Widely used as a synonym for "magazine" (although most firearm authorities consider this substandard usage). Technically, a magazine has a feeding spring, a clip does not.

So perhaps if I were a "firearm authority" speaking to another "firearm authority", I might choose to use the term "magazine" instead of "clip", but I ain't a "firearm authority" and never claimed to be one and you sure as hell aren't one, sparky, and neither are you a 'legal authority' regardless of how much you think you're one of those too.

Your latest absurdity that dictionaries are not "good sources" is really a knee slapper. That might go over well in appalachian circles, sparky, but it's a pretty good joke among people who aren't subliterate. Words constantly evolve depending on usage. Words like "gay" and "cock" mean something completely different today than they did 50-100 years ago, and "clip" is no different. The ultimate reference to the literate, believe it or not is....a dictionary. And if you can't show my usage fails the dictionary test, you failed in your lame attempt right out of the starting blocks, sparky. Everything else is pure hard core bullshit. So be my guest and keep diving deeper and deeper, but you failed from your very first post. From now on it's just a question of how far you want to continue with your failure. Perhaps I'm just a sadist at heart, but I truly enjoy it when a person makes a complete ass of themselves and I'm more than willing to watch as it happens and even encourage them some. In your case, I'm starting to think your self humiliation really is approaching the line of serious mental health issues, especially considering the fact that you're now double posting to my replies and obviously going off the deep end. Still I derive a certain amount of humor from that.

So I'll keep using the word "clip" as a synonym for "magazine" if for no other reason than it is perfectly legitimate common usage and it pisses off those who are anally retentive.

[AtheistCrusader]

108. Now who is putting words in whose mouth?

Try doing a bit of clicking on the source (Wiki) you pretend is an authority.

Cite the post where I referenced any wiki, wikipedia or otherwise.

You don't have the least clue what a "legal definition" is.

'Legal Definition and Terms' is a bit different from 'legal definition' as I used it in a sentence. I would have damn well capitalized it if I was using it the way you are, and of course neither magazine, nor clip will appear in a legal reference. The 1994 AWB (now expired) is only one of MANY Federal and State laws, to say nothing of declarations made by the BATFE that are legally binding around what constitutes a LCM. Each specifies what an LCM is, and some are still in force. This thread began around a response you made regarding the 1994 AWB and LCM's, so pardon me if I use the terminology actually specified in that piece of US Code.

Regarding dictionaries, if I look up 'Assault Rifle' in 6 different dictionaries, I will find 6 different definitions, none of which match (though they may resemble each other to some degree) each other, nor do they match Assault Rifle as you would find in any Armorers references (an actual AUTHORITY on the subject), nor how Congress defines one, nor State Legislatures, nor the Military etc. In discussing an existing law, how it's been enforced by Government Agencies, relevant Court decisions, etc, a dictionary is a pretty piss poor authority.

Am I a firearms authority? Hmm. I can make them. I can repair them. I am very familiar with current state and federal laws regarding firearms. I'm not certain you are qualified to pass any sort of judgment on that question, to be honest. Maybe I'll consult the dictionary on what 'authority' means eh?

Also, lighten up a bit will you? I fear some sarcasm has been mis-interpreted as anger, in this thread. We were having a pretty good discussion in the top half of this page. Much more respectful at least.

[MajorChode]

112. Good point

Thanks for correcting me for giving you more credit than you deserved. It was another poster that referenced Wiki. You provided absolutely no proof of anything, and I incorrectly implied you had.

Words have meaning and to most fully literate people "legal definition" means something, and no it should not be capitalized. Apparently to you it means whatever you decide depending on the situation which changes post to post. First I shouldn't use "clip" because it wasn't appropriate to use in a discussion regarding legislation, then I clearly showed it indeed has been used for exactly that purpose over and over and over, by who? Legislators! ...and on the floor of congress no less. When you couldn't get anywhere that line of bullshit the story changed. We've already covered this.

As far as being minutely technically correct, I could have used the term "LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE" if that were my aim, I suppose. Your suggestion to use "magazine" would have been no more minutely technically correct as it would have excluded other "AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE(s)" covered by the original ban.

As far as lightening up, I'm having a great time. Once you decide to go down the road of a chickenshit response all bets are off and if I need to use intense sarcasm to reveal your chickenshittery for exactly what it is, then that's exactly what I'm going to do. If you wanted to have a respectful discussion, you should have thought about that back on post #58 or so. Making a worthless technical point on a completely valid common use term certainly classifies. I'd put it right up there with lame-ass grammar flames, if not higher. I get a particular kick out of people who want to make chickenshit tangential points for no other reason than a conceited effort to express what they think is superior knowledge. I'll ride that train all the way to the end of the line waving gleefully out the window.

[AtheistCrusader]

117. Meh.

In the context of a discussion on the original limitation enacted in the first AWB, I specified exactly where to find how Congress defined LCM's. It would be nice if people who bloviate about existing legislation actually have some knowledge of it. It has been repeatedly defined, not only by Congress, but also the BATFE, and several State Legislatures. Each piece of legislation defines LCM's, in each law's 'Definitions' section, and to my knowledge, none make the mistake of calling a magazine, a clip. Presumably, an actual authority on firearms is consulted when drafting the legislation, after all the bleating on the Congressional floor is done.

I did not make a mistake regarding the 'drum' definition. Drums are also Magazines. Clips are not. A drum is a round magazine with a spring (sometimes manually wound, sometimes passive) that actually feeds rounds into the weapon, extending the capacity of a weapon. Again, a clip does not. A clip adds no capacity, and no functionality to a firearm. It has no moving parts. It is little different from the plastic tray you purchase new ammunition in, inside the cardboard box, it simply arranges the rounds in a convienient orientation for insertion into the weapon's magazine. A belt fed weapon obviously has no magazine, and the supply of ammo is potentially unlimited, as part of the function of the weapon is to draw ammo into the weapon. A clip will not serve this purpose.

Correcting your knee jerk assumptions is not 'changing my story'. Just because a legislator uses slang when addressing Congress, doesn't make it correct. Again, I point to the fact that the slang does not make it into the actual law under review.


If we had some other term that would serve for the actual technical meaning of 'clip', I would back down on this. Often slang becomes the preferred word, over time. Unfortunately, there is no substitute for this word, for it's actual meaning, so I will continue to point out the slang/pop culture usage of it, is not correct.

Edit: My first post on this subject may have been sarcastic, but you went straight for childish name calling, which is somewhat dissapointing.

[AtheistCrusader]

102. Here, hey, why not, I'll use your own appeal to 'authority'

Results 1 - 10 of about 50,500,000 for 30 round magazine. (0.21 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 17,000,000 for 30 round clip. (0.32 seconds)


HAHAHA LOOK AT ME I'M A RESEARCH GENIUS

[friendly_iconoclast]

103. Notice the backhanded acknowledgement of Heller in all this "large capacity magazine" folderol?

Heller, of course said that it is legit to ban "dangerous and unusual" firearms.

Large capacity magazines are certainly not unusual.

So now MajorChode (amongst others) have now chimed in and are (falsely) telling us how
dangerous they are, and thus need to be banned. All within a day or so here at the Gungeon.

Nice of the Major, et al, to admit the correctness of the majority opinion in Heller vs DC.

[MajorChode]

104. Notice the ratfuckery

Heller, of course said that it is legit to ban "dangerous and unusual" firearms.

Large capacity magazines are certainly not unusual.

Nor are they firearms.

Congratulations, you have now been awarded the prestigious Irony Cross for absurdity above and beyond the call of duty. Wear it proudly.

[friendly_iconoclast]

109. "Ratfuckery" - Interesting you should use this word.

This subject requires a knowledge of law, terminology and technology - and you are lacking
in all three. But don't worry, you've got mad skillz in invective!

Last time we went down the "Assault Weapons Ban" route, the Republicans used the issue to
gain the majority in Congress. This was the opinion of President Clinton (among others),
but of course you know more about politics than he does.

You can assure us it'll work this time, and that that pesky Heller stuff doesn't
apply. Right? Your strength is as the strength of ten, for your heart is pure.

Apparently you didn't know that firearms acessories and parts (like magazines, for instance)
are regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. So for the purposes of law
they *are* regulated firearms.

I'm sure you're busy and all that, so I'll just ask again:

Are large capacity gun magazines "dangerous and/or unusual" and so
possession of the same not protected under the Second Amendment?

[MajorChode]

111. It does apply so well to you, no?

DC v Heller answered the question of whether Heller could or could not own a specific type of pistol. It said nothing about magazine capacities or any of the other shit you've dreamed up all on your own. What the ATF does and does not regulate is irrelevant to Heller, but it does show the lengths of obfuscation you're willing to go to in order to make your worthless points.

In fact, large segments of guns could still be severely regulated or even outright banned even with Heller in place because it created more questions than it answered. So what it will or won't do is up to quite a bit of interpretation and future rulings, and I really don't care much to discuss those interpretations with someone who passes off purely biased conjecture (ratfuckery) as fact.

Go find someone else to play your games with. Nobody here is interested.

[friendly_iconoclast]

115. Why? *You* want to do what already cost Democrats (and the country) dearly

So far, you've demonstrated:

You don't know what the Federal firearms laws say.

You don't know what the Federal firearms laws do and do not regulate.

You don't know what commonly used terms with regard to firearms mean.

You didn't know what the actual title of the 1994 AWB was.

You can't demonstrate it even worked.

You can't explain why the proposed version 2.0 is Constitutional.

You can't show why it should be passed.

You can't show that if it did pass, it wouldn't actually be a gain for the GOP,
like the first one was.

And when people press a point with you, or persist in asking questions you don't
want to or can't answer:

You get shouty, pouty, and basically call them poopyheads.

Oh, and I'll be sure to keep posting here, thank you very much.

[friendly_iconoclast]

116. Ok, what happened to the Great Purple Hope of Gun Control?

You gotta admit he's very, uuuh, energetic!

[Statistical]

79. How sad you are trying to ban things you don't even understand.

When corrected you lash out like a child.

Clips and Magazines are similar just like Semi and passenger cars are similar. It doesn't mean the terms can be used interchangeably.

At the very least we can agree to use the correct terminology.

Several rifle designs utilize an en-bloc clip to load the firearm. Cartridges and clip are inserted as a unit into a fixed magazine within the rifle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clip_(ammunition)

The most popular type of magazine in modern rifles and handguns, a box magazine stores cartridges in a column, either one above the other or staggered zigzag fashion. This zigzag stack is often identified by the misnomer double-column when in fact, it is a single, staggered column. As the firearm cycles, cartridges are moved to the top of the magazine via spring tension to either a single feed position or side-by-side feed positions. Box magazines may be integral to the firearm or removable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_(firearms)


An internal box or fixed magazine (also known as a blind box magazine when lacking a floorplate) is built into the firearm and is not easily removable. This type of magazine is found most often on bolt-action rifles. An internal box magazine is usually charged through the action, one round at a time. Military rifles often use stripper clips or chargers permitting multiple rounds, commonly 5 or 10 at a time, to be loaded at once. Some internal box magazines use en-bloc clips that are loaded into the magazine with the ammunition and that are ejected from the firearm when empty.



A detachable box magazine is a self-contained mechanism capable of being loaded or unloaded while detached from the host firearm. They are attached via a slot in the firearm receiver usually below the action but occasionally to the side (FG42, Johnson LMG) or on top (Bren gun, FN P90). When the magazine is empty, it can be detached from the firearm and replaced by another full magazine. This significantly speeds the process of reloading, allowing the operator quick access to ammunition. This type of magazine may be straight or curved, the curve being necessary if the rifle uses rimmed ammunition or ammunition with a tapered case. Box magazines are often affixed to each other with clips, tape, straps, or otherwise, for quicker access.

So you are advocating limits on the size of magazines. Technically you are advocating limits on the size of detachable box magazines.

[friendly_iconoclast]

69. You're *wrecking* the attempt to gin up a moral panic, you awful person you

You big meanyhead, bringing facts and statistics to this thread.
The nerve of some people!

They can't flat-out ban handguns now, they have to propose something
in an attempt for attention. The 'danger' of high-capacity magazines is their new hobbyhorse.

Whether it exists or not is irrelelvant, it's the claim of 'saving lives' that gets the bandwidth,
and attention and donations from the weak-minded.

[MajorChode]

74. It's not a hobbyhorse, it's an elephant

You know, the one that's in the room that you choose to ignore.

The facts that gunnuts want everyone to forget is that the US has a gun homicide rate that rivals many 3rd world countries. If you look at every other country in the G-8 (with the exception of Russia), the firearm homicide rate is practically nonexistent. Yet the firearm homicide rate in the US is 2.97 per 100,000 which isn't that far off from Mexico with 3.66. So what do they say? Well, guns don't kill people, people kill people. So why does every other country in the G-8 (besides Russia) have a far lower homicide rate? Nope, we can't talk about that elephant. We can only talk about how ineffective recent federal gun legislation has been (after the gun lobby insured it would never be very effective).

So while gunnuts like to poke holes in any suggestion to address this problem, what solution do they offer? More guns! Yep, the answer to all of our problems is we just don't have enough guns or liberal enough gun laws. All we need to protect everyone from gunnuts is more gunnuts. Who would have thunk it? And God forbid anyone raise the question about the effectiveness of concealed carry and make my day laws. Nope, we can't go there.

[AtheistCrusader]

77. That's a pretty big strawman you're building there. I can see it from three counties over.

I never said more guns was the answer. (Depends on the question I guess)
I am not poking holes in any suggestion to address the problem, I am pointing out your suggestion is so completely inaccurate, that if you codified it in law, it would not ban a single thing anywhere, because it does not exist outside a hollywood movie stage/script. If you want to legislate an RPM limiter for road-legal vehicles, you don't call it a 'speed thingy'. You call it a RPM limiter or governor, or you specify the feature of the car's fuel injection/brain system, or the fuel pump by which you accomplish the limiting effect.
I said nothing about concealed carry, though I do have a CPL.
I said nothing about 'make my day' laws, and if you hang around long enough, you'll find I'm a bit critical of the way those laws are worded. My state handles Justifiable Homicide much better than Florida, in my opinion. I believe Canada handles it even better than my state, based on some legislation Iverglas brought to our attention earlier. I do not generally approve of Castle Doctrine, for a variety of reasons. Not having a Duty to Retreat, and having a Castle Doctrine are two entirely different things.

[friendly_iconoclast]

87. If you want to save lives, keep the damn GOP out of power

I understand that Heller kind of took the 'ban handguns' meme out of play, and the Bradyites
appear to have seized upon 'assault weapons' and 'large capacity magazines' as their new bugbears.

Well, all the banging on about the 'cascade of massacres', et al won't work with people who
have seen this particular spin campaign before. Or those with an understanding of statistics.

All the shouting, insults, and half truths won't change three essential facts:

1. The last 'assault weapon ban' resulted in the Republicans controlling Congress, and
it arguably cost Al Gore the election in 2000. You want to try it again. Do you expect different
results?

2. We (us pro- Second Amendment Dems) now have Constitutional precedent to support
our position.

3. One of us ( a 'gunnut' as you put it) just became junior Senator from New York.
Kirsten Gillibrand- along with Howard Dean, Harry Reid, James Webb, and Bill Richardson
are highly rated by the NRA. Do you want to drive them and the Blue Dogs out of office
or out of the party?

[.... callchet ....]

25. More people are killed by drunk drivers

Make 40 mph the national speed limit.

[villager]

27. By your logic, then, drivers shouldn't be licensed in any way...

And we should unfettered, untraceable driving -- as with your wet dream of ideal gun ownership...

[.... callchet ....]

28. We have a speed limit.

If just one life is saved. Make the national speed limit 40 mph. What does that have to do with licensing divers? Or were you posting to another post ?

[villager]

29. What would you say is the equivalent of a "speed limit" for guns

Which, I presume, you doubtless support out of concern for your fellow citizens?

[.... callchet ....]

30. Was not trying to relate it to guns.

Just pointing out that there are over 40 thousand drunk driving deaths each year. An easy and also beneficial environmental solution would be to make the national speed limit 40 mph.

[villager]

31. Well, obviously. Your analogy doesn't hold up.

n/t

[.... callchet ....]

33. I did not analogize anything.

Made an observation about drunk driving deaths and lowering the speed limit. Nothing to do with guns or winning a gun argument.

[villager]

36. Evidently not!

n/t

[.... callchet ....]

34. Was looking up gun deaths on CDC

and found that drunk driving number,

[.... callchet ....]

35. There is no way to legislate a reduction in gun deaths in the foreseeable future.

[villager]

37. Yes. I am sure the NRA has drummed that into your head.

n/t

[.... callchet ....]

38. That is not NRA

There is no way to do it in the foreseeable future. Do you have any idea of how to do it? Any feasible suggestion at all that is possible ?

[villager]

39. Not letting virtually any type of military-style weapon proliferate on our city streets, maybe?

And supporting reasonable restrictions and licensure of same?

[.... callchet ....]

40. That is not going to happen.

"There is no way to do it in the foreseeable future" It is idealistic, but it's not going to happen.

[villager]

41. well, thanks to folks like you and NRA, perhaps not...

n/t

[.... callchet ....]

43. Like I said, that is a fact.

And if you seem to agree it is a fact, then why don't you support lowering the speed limit. That is probably something that could be done. It would be unilateral and easily enforced. Besides saving lives, it would reduce thousands of injuries.

[villager]

44. Sigh. You forfeit sleep for "arguments" like this?

Good night.

[.... callchet ....]

45. Not arguing,

Just being realistic.

[villager]

47. No, you're not -- in any meaningful, constructive way. This is like a Monty Python

skit -- the "Argument Clinic," to be precise. Only without the humor.

[.... callchet ....]

42. Besides that there are

virtually no military style weapons on our streets now.

[villager]

46. Jesus Christ! You really don't read newspapers, do you?

n/t

[benEzra]

49. Less than 3% of U.S. murders involve any type of rifle, regardless of how the stock is shaped.

The guns "on the streets" are almost exclusively handguns. Rifles are consistently among the least misused of all firearms.

The main reason is that rifles of any type are simply too big to effectively conceal on the person, and so-called "assault weapons" are particularly bulky. My competition rifle (civilian AK) is three feet long, 10" high with magazine inserted (more with optics), 2"-3" thick depending on where you measure, and has lots of sharp angles and protrusions. My wife's 9mm pistol, on the other hand, is 6.3" by 4.2" by 1.2", fires just as fast as an AK, and it and 30 rounds will fit in your pockets and be completely concealed under a T-shirt.

Fists and feet are used in twice as many murders annually as all rifles put together, because rifles are so darn hard to carry "on the street" as the MSM likes to say.

"(O)ur organization, Handgun Control, Inc. does not propose further controls on rifles and shotguns. RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM; they are not concealable."

---Pete Shields (head of what is now the Brady Campaign, 1978-1989), Guns Don't Die--People Do, Priam Press, 1981, pp. 47-48), emphasis added.

"Assault weapons" aren't "on the streets." They are in the homes and gun safes of people like my wife and I. More Americans lawfully own "assault weapons," as defined by H.R.1022 et seq, than hunt.

[SteveM]

54. Bet you never miss T.V. crime drama, do you?...

Remember: reality starts when you turn off the T.V.

BTW, what do you think of the 3% homicide-rate-by-rifle?

[AtheistCrusader]

67. I don't know where you think you are

but among many people you would consider 'pro gun', whether Democrat or Republican, or 3rd party, many take an extremely dim view of the political action arm of the NRA.

Smearing us as NRA supporters is going to get you nowhere. Let me state, at least for myself, slowly and clearly, so you understand:

1. I do not like the NRA.
2. I do not like many of the political candidates they support.
3. I do not like the way the NRA blocks not only possibly useful and beneficial legislation, but even meaningful DISCUSSION of potential legislation.
4. I do not like the way the NRA leverages FEAR to further a political agenda.
etc.

That said, your arguments here have not been helpful, and I, and others, will continue to correct your statements from a firearms functionality, legal, historical, and existing poltical standpoints.

[.... callchet ....]

32. As many cell phones that we have on the highway

a driver wouldn't get very far speeding.

[benEzra]

50. Quite obviously, the National Firearms Act of 1934, which tightly controls automatic weapons.

What would you say is the equivalent of a "speed limit" for guns

Quite obviously, the National Firearms Act of 1934, which subjects automatic weapons to the same tight controls as 105mm howitzers and 500-lb bombs (the NFA Title 2 provisions).

All NFA Title 1 civilian guns (including the ones you call "assault weapons") are non-automatic only, fire once and only once when the trigger is pulled, and are required by law to be difficult to convert to full auto.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. There are several.

Machine guns are registered and controlled, center fire rifles with a caliber in excess of .50 are regulated as destructive devices, both can be regulated further as crew served weapons, depending, which do not generally meet the 'arms' common legal usage, etc.

There is little practical difference between a homicidal maniac with an AR-10, equipped with one 30 round magazine, or 3 10 round magazines. It takes seconds to reload. Sometimes as little as one to two seconds, if you know what you're doing.

You'd get far more mileage out of addressing what leads to random homicidal behavior. Few shootings actually seem to involve hardened criminals. A good start might be national health care, that covers mental health care. Especially considering that about half of all firearms related deaths in this country are suicides. You don't fix that by taking away guns, suicides by other means will simply rise. You fix the issue by helping people with depression and other mental health issues, and a good way to start is to make sure it's covered by health insurance, and that everyone is covered. A little de-stigmatization of mental healh issues might be beneficial as well.

[slackmaster]

51. Both events involved firearms that were not legally acquired, manufactured, imported, or possessed

Tagged for interest.

[rangersmith82]

57. I guess villager quit...

Oh well....