Military style assault weapons can still be sold to loonies like Loughner.

[pnwmom]

He could have killed even more people if he had gotten hold of one of these weapons. The federal ban on military style assault weapons expired in 2004.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/msassaultweapons

POSITION: The Brady Campaign supports banning military-style semi-automatic assault weapons along with high-capacity ammunition magazines. These dangerous weapons have no sporting or civilian use. Their combat features are appropriate to military, not civilian, contexts.
PROBLEM: The federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in the fall of 2004.

THE THREAT: Allowing easy access to highly lethal, military-style weapons by dangerous people, like terrorists and felons, threatens the safety of our police officers, families and communities.

URGENCY: Since the ban expired, police chiefs across the country report increases in assault weapons used in crime and used against them.

[hack89]

1. The AWB banned nothing

Rifles and shotguns combined account for abut 3 percent of all murders - there are bigger threats to your life out there.

What is an acceptable rifle for civilians? Semiautomatic weapons have been in civilian hands for nearly a hundred years.

You are aware that murder and other gun crime is at a historic low despite gun ownership skyrocketing - perhaps the issue is more complicated than gun availability? How much of our murder rate is skewed by drug violence, for example? Perhaps legalization of drugs is the real answer.

[Dappleganger]

3. We should also ban airplanes and cars, then.

They can take out more people, right?

[hack89]

4. No

I simply object to emotional hyperbole regardless of the issue. The threat posed by "assault weapons" is mainly hyperbole.

[lawodevolution]

38. I pointed out before that availability of guns has an inverse relationship to violence and murder

rates in the world.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=339915&mesg_id=339915

Living in a nation with a low gun possession rate by civilians results in having a 5 times higher chance of being murdered, backed by 95% confidence interval via t test.

The thread linked above is the one ignored by the gun control crowd, but it's real data and real statistics.

[jody]

2. Sorry but the handgun Loughner used is not an assault weapon. Please don't embarrass yourself by

posting such statements that with a little bit of learning and google you could avoid.

[pnwmom]

8. Don't embarrass yourself by not using your reading skills.

In my post I clearly said "if" he had gotten hold of an assault weapon, he could have killed even more people than he did.

[jody]

11. You stated "semi-automatic assault weapons" and informed people know that's an oxymoron. n/t

[RSillsbee]

13. What you're doing is no different

Than using James Brady (who was shot by a .22 caliber revolver) to push the original (you know the one that cost Democrats the house for 10 years)AWB.

[SteveM]

46. Since the Bradys are GOP, it's a win-win for 'em. nt

[KeepItReal]

44. Actually the Assault Weapons Ban governed high capacity ammo clips

...just like the one the shooter used.

He would not have been able to purchase a 30 round clip if the ban was in place.

[Pullo]

48. Wrong. Those magazines were readily available during the AWB, legally.

Existing high capacity magazines remained legal and widely distributed. The AWB only banned the sale of high cap mags that were manufactured after the law went into effect. Magazine manufacturers, knowing the AWB was on the way, simply cranked up production beforehand so they had years, perhaps decades, of supply remaining.

If the AWB was effective at anything, it demonstrated that the advocacy of irrational and poorly thought out gun control policies was waste of political energy.

[Recursion]

5. What makes them "highly lethal" compared to non-assault weapons? (nt)

[pnwmom]

10. The number of bullets that can be shot in the space of seconds. n/t

[RSillsbee]

15. Semi automatic weapons (of all types)

Fire one round every time the trigger is pulled. The technology is over 100 years old

[pnwmom]

17. The age of the technology is irrelevant. n/t

[RSillsbee]

22. No it's really not.

the ability to do this has been around since 1902ish and people haven't done it all that often until recently.

Sounds more like a software problem than a hardware problem.

And it sounds like your software flat hates guns and isn't going to listen to anything we say anyway

[Recursion]

30. No, it's clearly not that

Assault weapons don't fire any faster than non-assault weapons.

[benEzra]

37. Rate of fire is the same. Range of magazine capacities is the same. Ammunition is the same.

Here's one gun, three different stocks.

[Tejas]

6. Your job OP, if you choose to accept it,

is to perpetuate lies as often as possible.

You seriously could not have applied more egg to your face.


Seriously.

[pnwmom]

9. Show me where I lied. You can't. Try reading my actual post,

instead of whatever you think I said.

[beevul]

12. You may not have, but Helmke did.

"These dangerous weapons have no sporting or civilian use. Their combat features are appropriate to military, not civilian, contexts."

Theres a LIE right there.

[pnwmom]

14. The poster accused me of lying. S/he obviously did not read my post.

But I disagree with you that military assault weapons have appropriate sporting or civilian use.

[RSillsbee]

18. where

does the second amendment mention "sporting or civilian use"?

[HALO141]

20. O RLY?

I use one of those "military styled" weapons in competition somewhat regularly.

Military style rifles are favored in many (if not most) rifle competitions.

If you want reliable information, you'll have to look somewhere BESIDES the bradey campaign.

[beevul]

23. No, the poster did NOT accuse you of lieing.

I believe "perpetuating a lie", were the words used.

One can do that without telling lies themself, as you are well aware.

"But I disagree with you that military assault weapons have appropriate sporting or civilian use."

Military assault weapons have nothing to do with it.


What were discussing is weapons which are NOT military in function. Sure they LOOK military, but they AREN'T.


Theyre semi automatic weapons, the design of which has been around for over 100 years.

[pnwmom]

31. Whatever you are discussing, the OP is discussing

"military style assault weapons."

[beevul]

32. It sure is.

And thats what I just defined/described in the post you replied to:

What were discussing is weapons which are NOT military in function. Sure they LOOK military, but they AREN'T.

Theyre semi automatic weapons, the design of which has been around for over 100 years.


Do you understand now?

"Military style assault weapons" are what I am talking about above, and accurately I might add.


Try banning them, and see what it costs politically.

Better yet, justify it here for all to see.

Whats the problem with these so called "military style assault weapons", that requires a ban as a solution?

[SteveM]

47. You have not shown how "military style assault weapons" would have been worse.

[Tejas]

27. semi-automatic military-style weapons not "military assault weapons"

pnwmom (1000+ posts) Sun Jan-09-11 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. The poster accused me of lying. S/he obviously did not read my post.
But I disagree with you that military assault weapons have appropriate sporting or civilian use.




geez looweez!




Tell ya what, I'll give the 2nd amendment and you give up the 1st amendment.

DEAL?




edit; uh oh

[benEzra]

36. We're talking about the most popular target rifles in the United States,

and they are all Title 1 civilian rifles, not Title 2 military weapons. More Americans own them than hunt, and they are also the most common defensive carbines in American homes.

Claiming that the most popular sporting rifles in the nation have no sporting purpose is quite a stretch.

[TheWraith]

40. The "assault weapons" you want to ban are not used by ANY military. Never have been.

They have absolutely no overlap with the automatic weapons used by actual military forces. They operate in the same way as any other civilian semi-automatic weapon.

[krispos42]

41. Accuracy, reliability, and good ergonomics are not for civilians?

Huh.

[Tejas]

25. By quoting a group w/Republican origins,

you have perpetuated their lies.

I'm sure they appreciate your efforts comrade!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Usual crap from the Brady Bunch

and should be treated accordingly

[bossy22]

16. this is a silly what-if

what if this guy rented a tractor trailer and drove it through the event? I think many more people would have also been killed.

Welcome to an open society- there are thousands of ways for one person to kill another. hey, the most infamous home grown terrorist used gardening and cleaning supplies to blow up a building. And do you know if you mix two household cleaning items together you can make mustard gas- a powerful chemical weapon that was used to kill thousands in world war 1

[RSillsbee]

19. And he would have been a Hell of a lot harder to stop NT

[Euromutt]

43. Small correction there

I suspect what you mean is chlorine gas, which was also used in World War I, and can be produced by mixing bleach and ammonia. Very effective for wiping out ants' nests, by the way, but with rather a high risk of collateral damage. Sulphur mustard (aka "mustard gas") is a little more complex.

You can also create hydrogen sulfide gas by mixing toiler cleaner with bath salts. There was a rash of suicides in Japan three years ago using that method; sixty dead in April 2008 alone.

[Pancho Sanza]

21. You're obviously passionate about guns, which is your right. What exactly do you propose

as a workable solution to what you clearly perceive as a big problem, and how would you like to see it implemented? There's no shortage of hand-wringing on this issue, but a mighty big hole in the facade of useful suggestions.

I might mention here that if eliminating guns is something you think would be desirable (or even remotely feasible), you'll need to discuss how it might be accomplished, and by whom - disarming Democrats and Progressives would be highly problematic and doing so to right wingers would be tantamount to ...uh, throwing a cow over the moon.

Thanks.

[lawodevolution]

39. "I might mention here that if eliminating guns is something you think would be desirable (or even"

First off start with China. Guns banned. Authoritarian government that does whatever it wants with the people. 40 million civilian owned guns which is 3rd largest on earth.

First off, try to figure out how our government could disarm our population better than the chinese government has given that our population is starting out with more guns and a more rebellious attitude. I can go to china and I can get a gun if I wanted one.

No law or ban or attempt at confiscation will ever remove guns from our society, if we did try to remove guns from society like in nigeria or mexico, we will end up like them where only the evil members of society do what it takes to get a gun and the ones with the guns control society, so how is it over there in Mexico and Nigeria right now?

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Tejas]

26. They'll show up at

the Joyce Foundation in the morning with blood still dripping off their shoelaces.

"See? We're on top of things!"

[aikoaiko]

28. Gasoline can still be sold to loonies like Loughner, too, and he could have made fire bombs

pnwmom, I know you would like to parlay this act of violence to reduce the civil liberties of law abiding folks, but there really is no connection.

[GSLevel9]

29. Bottom line... most legal firearms

shoot one bullet with the pull of the trigger. Some may take more time between pulls but there is NO LEGAL firearm that shoots multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger.

[benEzra]

33. Per the FBI, rifles (including "assault weapons") are the LEAST misused class of weapon in the USA

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html

Total murders...........................13,636.....100.00%
Handguns.................................6,452......47.32%
Firearms (type unknown)..................1,928......14.14%
Other weapons (non-firearm, non-edged)...1,864......13.67%
Edged weapons............................1,825......13.38%
Hands, feet, etc...........................801.......5.87%
Shotguns...................................418.......3.07%
Rifles.....................................348.......2.55%

And that's for all rifles combined. "Assault weapons", high-powered hunting rifles, .22's, all of them, combined.

URGENCY: Since the ban expired, police chiefs across the country report increases in assault weapons used in crime and used against them.

No. See for yourself. From the FBI UCR weapons tables 2005-2009:

2005: 442
2006: 436
2007: 450
2008: 375
2009: 348

It's trending down, not up, and is now near historic lows. Modern-looking rifles are simply not a crime problem in the USA.

[Atypical Liberal]

34. Check the FBI's firearm data.

More people are killed by hands and feet every year than all rifles combined!

There is no need for an assault weapons ban because crimes are hardly ever committed using rifles!

Furthermore, the assault weapons ban simply resulted in the manufacturers of these firearms making a few cosmetic changes, and swapping out a few foreign-made parts with US-made parts, while simultaneously causing massive interest in the genre.

Prior to the AWB, hardly anyone owned AR15-style firearms. Today, they are the most popular center-fire target rifle in America.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[Euromutt]

42. And if my sister had a pair of nuts, she'd be my brother

The fact is that, even though Loughner could have used a so-called "assault weapon," he didn't. Basing public policy recommendations on stuff that didn't even happen... well, I was going to say that's a new one even for the Brady Campaign, but then I remembered all the "blood flowing in the streets" predictions every time a state adopted a "shall issue" law for concealed carry permits.

The fact is that the FBI UCR 2009 reports that the number of people killed using "personal weapons" (i.e. hands and feet), strangulation and asphyxiation outnumbers the number of people murdered with rifles by almost 3 to 1 (999 vs. 348).

In principle, the law exists to prohibit persons adjudicated to be "mentally defective" from possessing firearms; the problem is due to developments in the way mental health care is treated, it's become significantly more difficult to get someone adjudicated as such since the law was passed in 1968.

[SteveM]

45. Source citing from a GOP-founded, GOP-led group? Jeez...

What is the difference between the weapon Loughner used and a "military style assault weapon," and how would the latter have caused more deaths? You should know, if you are honest enough to admit it, that the "federal ban" banned only accoutrements like barrel shrouds, bayonet lugs, folding stocks, etc., but did not ban the gun itself. During the 10-year ban, millions were sold.

The great experts at the Brady Camp should know -- and you should know -- that semi-automatic carbines (your so-called "assault weapons") are not appropriate for military use as they are semi-automatic, not full-automatic.

You should know that the number of people killed by rifles of ALL sorts amounts to 2.55 percent of all homicides, and so-called assault weapons are just one type in that group of rifles. That's hard data, not political press releases.

The Bradys have tried and failed in banning the most popular rifle in America. But I await your answer to my first question.