Lawrence ODonnells: "You just heard the NRA’s lie, now some facts".

[kpete]

VIDEO & More://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/lawrence-odonnells-takes-apart-nra-gun-lob

You just heard the NRA’s lie, now some facts. A Justice Department study on the federal assault weapons ban, which was law for 10 years found “Gun murders declined 10.3 percent in states without preexisting assault weapons bans.” 10.3 percent. Another study by the Justice Department in 2004 concluded “If the ban is lifted, gun and magazine manufacturers may reintroduce assault weapons models and large capacity magazines, perhaps in substantial numbers.”
...........

On the NRA’s web site, gun violence cheerleader Wayne LaPierre says “It’s time to acknowledge what we know in our hearts to be true.” That “The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.”

Wayne, there was a good guy on the scene that day, in Tucson with a gun, but there wasn’t anything he could do. It was too dangerous to fire. He could have hit an innocent bystander. A good guy with a gun did not stop Jared Loughner.

It was the moment that Loughner had to reload that he became stoppable and he was stopped by a 61 year old woman who wrestled another high capacity magazine out of his hand as he tried to reload, and an unarmed 74 year old man, who had already been grazed by one of Loughner’s bullets. The second, the second Jared Loughner had to stop and reload, he became an unarmed man.

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[Junkdrawer]

2. K&R

[11 Bravo]

3. K&R - O'Donnell has been on a roll recently.

[LAGC]

4. Problem is, if Loughner didn't have high-capacity magazines...

He may have not had as much trouble re-loading as he apparently did. It's alot easier for someone to grab an extended magazine out of someone else's hands than it is a standard magazine.

And lack of high-capacity magazines certainly didn't stop the Virginia Tech shooter, who killed way more people I might add.

[Angry Dragon]

9. I read where a shell jammed in his gun

so he was having trouble inserting the next magazine

[LAGC]

10. Could have been a feeding problem due to the high-capacity magazine.

Would have he had any trouble speed-loading a standard magazine?

We will never know. Although we do know that shooter Cho at Virginia Tech experienced no problems reloading multiple times with standard mags.

[TheWraith]

276. Actually, a magazine spring broke, causing it to jam. In any event, this OP is false.

There was no one at the event who was carrying a firearm--that person had been shopping at the nearby supermarket, and came on the scene only after Loughner was already down.

Not to mention, the entire premise that "one incident wasn't prevented, therefore there is no validity to an entire idea" is nonsense that reality-based folk shouldn't touch. If you believe that one incident tells more than statistics, then you'd have a hard time reconciling that with the case of the Unitarian church shooting, where the attacker was taken down by a woman who volunteered there as a security guard, carrying her own pistol on her own time.

[jpak]

5. Large capacity magazines = instruments of mass murder

ban them

yup

[madokie]

29. Even though I chose to not own guns

I don't mind my neighbors having them. I do have a problem with high capacity magazines though. So yes BAN them

[olegramps]

62. I believe its a little too late. Millions have been produced.

[madokie]

93. yup that too

[Starboard Tack]

271. Then make the penalty for using them more than anyone wants to pay.

[pneutin]

289. How would you enforce this?

this should be good

[Starboard Tack]

299. How would I enforce what exactly?

this should be even better

[pneutin]

301. How are you going to catch people who use these magazines illegally? n/t

[Starboard Tack]

302. The same way you catch anyone. By appealing to the venality of others.

It's really quite basic. The prisons of this country are full of people who were ratted out. So if anyone besides your mother knows what you're carrying, watch your back.

[pneutin]

305. Uhh what? I don't think so

There are literally millions of these "high-capacity" magazines already in the hands of gun owners. How are you going to determine who is using a "high-capacity" magazine? Are you going to assign a cop to monitor each gun owner and count the number of rounds they shoot from each magazine? LOL

[Starboard Tack]

306. Why are you so concerned about catching people?

[friendly_iconoclast]

307. If you aren't going to enforce your proposed ban, then what's the point of passing it? n/t

[Starboard Tack]

312. When bans were enacted in the UK they were followed by amnesties

Guns were turned in to police stations, no questions asked. Surely we can do the same.

[pneutin]

309. Thanks for admitting there's no way of enforcing an idiotic ban or penalty on "high-capacity" mags

I appreciate it.

[Starboard Tack]

313. You can't ban idiots. It's more important to recognize them before they shoot you

[friendly_iconoclast]

295. Some states have the death penalty, yet some citizens of them still commit murder.

Your logic is teh fail...

[Starboard Tack]

300. "Your logic is teh fail..."

Sorry, but I don't have a clue what you're trying to say....something about the death penalty?

For 2009, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.9, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.8

For 2008, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.2, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.3

So let's bury Old Sparkie with the HiCap Mags and Hummers and all the other nasty things we used to think had value.

[friendly_iconoclast]

304. Places with the harshest penalty of all have *more* of what the penalty is supposed to prevent.

Yet you claim that increasing the penalty for doing what you want to prevent will work.

How is this supposed to happen when even the prospect of death as a punishment doesn't work?

[Porterhouse]

97. Every time a ban is enacted

criminals find a way around it, Hi Cap Mags are rarely used in criminal activity.

[Starboard Tack]

272. How rarely? More than once? Make 'em illegal and it'll be way more.

There is no sane, valid reason to use them except in wartime. So, the extremists can keep them in the bunker or go to prison for a long time.

[friendly_iconoclast]

308. Another one that wants spree shooters to be forced to reload, like at Virginia Tech....

....where the maniac using O'Donnell/Starboard Tack-approved magazines managed to kill and injure more people than Loughner did.

This is what happens when you value belief more than verifiable evidence.

There is no sane, valid reason to use them except in wartime.

Poisoning the well.


There is no sane, valid reason to ban the use of a Constitutionally protected item. You cannot even point at an increase

in crime after 2004 as a rationale. The onus is on the Government to show a demonstrable harm before an item or behavoir

may be restricted, and this in no way meets that standard.

[benEzra]

310. Oh, BS. Civilian shooters have been using >10-round magazines since Abraham Lincoln was president.

You're talking about items so mundane that roughly 40 million citizens collectively own a quarter-billion of them, give or take. Homeowners use them. Competitive shooters use them. Recreational shooters use them. Your local police officers wear them on their hip.

That's the problem with using hyperbolic rhetoric to try to stoke fear about mundane items, as the gun control lobby unwittingly found out in the '90s. If you start to believe the rhetoric yourself, you can back yourself into some pretty extreme positions, like fighting to ban and confiscate ordinary magazines for the most popular civilian guns in the United States.

[rl6214]

173. The hi cap mag was his downfall

YUP

YUP

YUP

[benEzra]

296. Is that why civilian rifles have had such magazines since the 1860's, and pistols since the 1930's?

And is intent to commit mass murder really the reason your local police officer carries several such magazines on her belt?





Keep trying, though...

[pipoman]

6. Hmmm

It seems since the repeal of the failed AWB...which BTW, didn't ban a single thing...the crime rates have continued on their downward trend and sales of the scary 'assault weapons has skyrocketed making them the number 1 rifle configuration sold for the last 15 years..

[madinmaryland]

7. Recommended! LO is making some really making some excellent points!

[pipoman]

21. Maybe if it was still 2004

or if crime rates had, in fact, increased after the lapse of the AWB in 2004, instead millions more have been sold since 1994 and crime rates have continued to decline. Since neither are true, I'm really not sure he has made a point at all..If he has, could you enlighten us what it would be?

[rl6214]

174. LO

Is like a little boy crying wolf.

[derby378]

8. Anyone have a link to that first Justice Department study?

Thanks...

[X_Digger]

27. Here's a couple..

This was the first study..

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

There were several reasons to expect, at best, a modest ban effect on criminal gun injuries and deaths.

First, studies before the ban generally found that between less than 1 and 8 percent of gun crimes involved assault weapons, depending on the specific definition and data source used.17 Although limited evidence suggests that semiautomatics equipped with large capacity magazines are used in 20 to 25 percent of these gun crimes, it is not clear how often large capacity magazines actually turn a gun attack into a gun murder.18

Second, offenders could replace the banned guns with legal substitutes or other unbanned semiautomatic weapons to commit their crimes.

Third, the schedule for this study set out in the legislation limited the power of the statistical analyses to detect worthwhile ban effects that may have occurred. Given the limited use of the banned guns and magazines in gun crimes, even the maximum theoretically achievable preventive effect of the ban on outcomes such as the gun murder rate is almost certainly too small to detect statistically because the congressionally mandated timeframe for the study effectively limited postban data collection to, at most, 24 months (and only 1 calendar year for annual data series).

...
Random, year-to-year fluctuations could not be ruled out as an explanation of the 6.7-percent drop. With only 1 year of postban data available and only 15 States meeting the screening criteria for the final estimate, the model lacks the statistical power to detect a preventive effect of even 20 percent under conventional standards of statistical reliability.20 Although it is highly improbable that the assault weapons ban produced an effect this large, the ban could have reduced murders by an amount that would escape statistical detection.

However, other analyses using a variety of national and local data sources found no clear ban effects on certain types of murders that were thought to be more closely associated with the rapid-fire features of assault weapons and other semiautomatics equipped with large capacity magazines. The ban did not produce declines in the average number of victims per incident of gun murder or gun murder victims with multiple wounds.

And the second..

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf

[bluestate10]

11. You left out the best part.

O'Donnell went on to rip LaPierre two new assholes, calling the loser out as a blood dripping hands, doughboy for merchants of death. O'Donnell cut the sadistic LaPierre into tiny pieces.

[lawodevolution]

104. You mean the part where he used dishonesty and bigotry to "tear lapierre apart."

I'm sure LaPierre cries every time an ignorant bigot says some mean things. Probably not.

[L0oniX]

12. Bull shit! That figure doesn't account for all the gun defense actions that occurred over 10 years.

The fact is that a lot of people have purchased guns for defense over 10 years and that could also account for the decline. Criminals with guns fear law abiding defense gun owners. Google gun defense if you care to find out how law abiding gun owners have defended themselves and even saved lives.

[sharesunited]

13. Isn't that mostly guns being used in defense against guns? I award zero points for those.

[Straw Man]

16. "Zero Sum" is the goal--victim prevails, status quo is restored.

A minus outcome would mean the victim succumbed. I have no idea what a plus outcome would be in your system. No crime was attempted?

[Paladin]

22. Self-Delete (n/t)

[sharesunited]

23. One point awarded when a gun is used for defense and no gun was used to initiate the crime.

I welcome seeing those stories, especially when no one gets hurt.

[minoradjustment]

311. Amazing!

If you're packing and you're attacked by someone with a knife, who you subdue without a shot fired, you get a point.

If you're packing and you're attacked by someone with a gun, who you subdue without a shot fired, you get no points.

What happens:
:: If you're packing and you're attacked by someone with a fake gun, who you subdue without a shot fired?

:: If you're packing and you're attacked by someone actively shooting at you or another innocent, who you subdue by firing to warn but not effect?

[Swede]

19. Not to mention the 30,000 gun deaths per year in the USA.

:shrug:

[beevul]

129. Only 12 thousand or so are homicides.

Only 12 thousand or so are homicides.


Suicides really should not be lumped in with murders.

[Starboard Tack]

209. Wow! Only 12 thousand are homicides

and I thought there were a lot. BTW suicide is a form of homicide,

[beevul]

210. Who owns your life?

Who owns your life?

[JDPriestly]

80. If you own a gun, but your mentally disabled neighbor does not own a gun,

that leaves the mentally disabled person to be the victim. Same for the little old lady who lives next door to you and does not see well.

Do gun owners think about those who cannot use guns?

[GreenStormCloud]

146. Please explain how taking my gun away from me help them defend themselves against crime. N/T

[darkstar3]

152. Who suggested that you surrender your weapon?

Be specific.

[GreenStormCloud]

201. See post #85. That person wants me to be disarmed because

a helpless neighbor can't use a gun.

[spin]

96. Few people are impressed with your scoring system ...

especially those who are alive today because they were able to stop an attack by a person armed with a firearm because they also had a firearm.

[YllwFvr]

126. like when police defend themselves

useless

[Starboard Tack]

275. Apparently not. Some here have posted about having brandished as a deterrent

Apparently a handgun is now considered a valid tool when confronting "thugs", would be aggressors, oglers of valuable tools, even when these "bad guys" are not visibly armed with anything more than big muscles. So, if this is the new norm that RKBA has evolved into, then maybe the crime stats are down partly due to a minority of armed individuals intimidating the "bad guys" with the possibility that anyone of us might be armed at any time. That might even work for a while, but eventually, as more folk arm themselves, the "bad guys" will assume everyone is armed and just come in blasting.

[PavePusher]

277. "eventually"? When is that, exactly?

'Cause the same claim has been made over and over and over and.....

You know, just like "blood in the streets"....

By the way, Holy Necro-thread-philia....

[Straw Man]

284. Somebody is playing "Greatest Hits."

I think this has the most recs for an anti-gun thread or something like that, and someone who is, hmmm, shall we say, "not multiple-handled" is reviving it with a two-word response. He/she does this from time to time. It's the lowest from of drive-by posting.

[Starboard Tack]

298. Hmm! Probably just before the next Rapture.

So, don't waste time or stand in line, get your tickets now!

[Missy Vixen]

17. And be sure and Google for gun fatalities that happen every day

in the US.

Those disarming Loughner that day were UNARMED.

[pipoman]

18. and while you're at it google for the breakdown of those fatalities

suicide, criminal on criminal, domestic, innocent victim..then subtract all of those fatalities which would have occurred with or without firearms..hint, the number gets pretty small...

After 1996, less than 10% of nonfatal violent crimes involved firearm.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/percentfirearm.cfm

[baldguy]

74. Nobody ever said that guns cause violent crime

(except when the gun lobby wants a straw man the argue against)

However, guns do make violent crime a whole lot easier to carry out.

[russ1943]

222. UR statistic.

Re; After 1996, less than 10% of nonfatal violent crimes involved firearm.

Of course it should be noted that the non fatal violent crime statistic you’ve referenced was at 11% in 1993 & 1994 prior to the AWB and had declined to 6% by 2004 when it expired. Most recently in 2009 it is.......8%.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/firearmnonfataltab.cfm

[safeinOhio]

270. The crime problem is about handguns

and that is why they need to be regulated more. I have nothing against less regulation of long guns.

Handguns are most often the type of firearm used
in crime
• According to the Victim Survey (NCVS), 25% of the victims of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault in 1993 faced an offender armed with a handgun. Of all firearm-related crime reported to the survey, 86% involved handguns.
• The FBI's Supplemental Homicide Reports show that in 1993 57% of all murders were committed with handguns, 3% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and 5% with firearms where the type was unknown. 
• The 1991 Survey of State Prison Inmates found that violent inmates who used a weapon were more likely to use a handgun than any other weapon; 24% of all violent inmates reported that they used a handgun. Of all inmates, 13% reported carrying a handgun when they committed the offense for which they were serving time.
What types of guns do criminals prefer?
Research by Wright and Rossi in the 1980's found that most criminals prefer guns that are easily concealable, large caliber, and well made. Their studies also found that the handguns used by the felons interviewed were similar to the handguns available to the general public except that the criminals preferred larger caliber guns. 
ttp://www.firearmsid.com/Feature%20Articles/0900GUIC/Guns%20Used%20in%20Crime.htm

[gejohnston]

279. That same study also said that

criminals were more afraid of an armed would be victim than the cops.

[Scruffy1]

24. That is laughable

The rate of guns being used in response to violent crime is about 2 per thousand and this includes the police. What the right wing radio idiots have been spouting is that guns have something to do with the rate of violent crimes decreasing is really just the downward trend from the crack cocain epidemic peak in the early nineties. All it proves is that the minions that say it listen to right wing radio or Fox. There the corelation is 100%.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[spin]

100. Many defensive gun uses never make it into a database ...

because the mere presence of a firearm stopped the criminal attack. No shots fired. That was the case when my daughter stopped an intruder breaking into our home by pointing a large caliber revolver at him. He ran.

It's hard to estimate how many DGUs occur each year but the estimates range from 108,000 to 2.5 million.

Because I had taught my daughter how to shoot and because she had access to a firearm she was able to stop a person who intended to rape and possibly kill her. She was 17 at the time and now has two children of her own that are 16 and 15.

You can argue all you want and you'll never impress me. I might have lost my daughter that night and never had my grandsons to spoil had it not been for a Smith and Wesson revolver.


S&W Model 25-2

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

44. "Criminals with guns fear law abiding defense gun owners"

Is this a factual statement supported by independent studies, or just propaganda?

[X_Digger]

70. DOJ studies / interviews with criminals from the 80's

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/8357

A 57% majority agreed that "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." In asking felons what they personally thought about while committing crimes, 34% indicated that they thought about getting "shot at by police" or "shot by victim."

Although 37% of those surveyed admitted that they personally had "run into a victim who was armed with a gun," that figure surpassed the 50% mark for armed criminals, an experience shared by 57% of the active gun predators. And 34% of the sample admitted to having been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim."

Significantly, almost 40% said there was at least one time when the criminal "decided not to do a crime because {he} knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun." Clearly, armed citizens represent a real threat to criminals, a threat with which large numbers are personally familiar, or familiar with through the shared experiences of their fellow outlaws.

Now this was in 1983, before the rise of CHL / CCW in most states, so I wonder if the percentage is higher now that the number of armed people is much higher.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[darkstar3]

107. What point?

That the near supermajority (60%) of criminals are un-threatened by citizens with guns? I think that actually proves my point from below about criminal psychology.

[darkstar3]

85. If you believe that then you believe the death penalty is a deterrent.

Criminals with guns don't fear OTHER CRIMINALS with guns, so WTF makes you think they fear a homeowner with a gun, when the homeowner is always more hesitant to use it?

[L0oniX]

90. Blah blah blah ...where's your stat links ...or common sense?

For lack of what would be right in your face ...would you choose to break into a home with Brinks security stickers and placards? Would you break into a car with NRA stickers on it and used targets in the back seat? Would you dare to mug someone with a bulge on one side of his leather vest or his hand inside his vest as you approach?

[darkstar3]

101. Spoken like someone with no insight into the criminal mind.

In order:

Security placards and stickers are often displayed on homes where no such security system exists. They are a false deterrent designed to scare the petty thief, with no effect on the professional.

A car with NRA stickers and used targets in the back seat is unoccupied. Why care about the risk the owner poses in that case? A car break-in takes seconds or less, and is far more likely to be prevented by keeping your valuables out of sight. Bonus: ANY bumper sticker is likely to reduce the possibility of car theft. Bumper stickers serve as identifying marks that are easier to mark than license plates, and also as blemishes that reduce the possibility and value of a fence. Stickered cars are only of use to chop shops and stupid joyriders.

A bulge on one side of the clothing doesn't necessarily mean "gun", and even if it does, the person has to get to it before the mugger draws on them. A hand in the vest or jacket says "probably gun", but still allows the carrier to brainpanned from behind. But those types of situations aren't how those two hypothetical people would be victimized. They are far more likely to be "dipped".

You have obviously never taken a CCW class, or you didn't pay attention. If you had, you would have been educated about the fact that owning/carrying a gun by itself doesn't keep you from being targeted. Owning/Carrying a gun by itself doesn't guarantee that you will prevent yourself or others from being victimized. Professional criminals, gang members, drug runners and cartels, and many other types of criminals are out there aside from the petty thief that is the topic of your hypotheticals, and these people face gun violence daily from assholes far more trigger happy than any average citizen. Self defense begins with psychology, not armament.

[Name removed]

249. Deleted message

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

[old mark]

14. Now you just heard the "Gun Controllers" lies...

I live my life tha way I see fit, and I expect others to do the same.

If you hate guns, don't buy any.

mark

[egressingsparrowdrop]

60. Wow, by that logic child pornography is OK too, huh?

If you hate child pornography, don't buy any.

That work for you too?

[X_Digger]

71. Please google malum in se , malum prohibitum n/t

[egressingsparrowdrop]

78. I know what it means.

Don't try and give me work to do!

Yes, you have a point. However, the poster's logic is flawed, and I could replace "child pornography" with something less heinous and still demonstrate his flaw.

"If you don't like/hate guns, don't buy one" is not a legitimate answer to the concerns that people have about guns.

My personal ownership of a gun is irrelevant to the larger questions about licensing, registering, open/concealed carry laws and safe storage laws.

I don't want people...some of whom are quite possibly idiots...carrying weapons in public. There are anecdotal arguments for and against allowing that, but none of them are going to change my opinion.

I also want guns locked in the home so children and criminals can't just pick them up and use them.

And I want every gun owner to have a license and every firearm to be registered.

I've never seen a decent argument against any of these opinions of mine. Not one.

[X_Digger]

82. Replace it with some of our asinine drug offenses and it's more apt

In any risk / benefit analysis, there are both sides- criminal misuse of a particular item, and non-criminal use.

There are about 400,000 criminal 'uses' of guns- not all involve firing them.

There are about 300,000,000 guns in about 80,000,000 gun owners' hands.

In 2009, there were about 9,000 firearm homicides and about 17,000 suicides involving firearms.

Various surveys and studies about the defensive use of guns- in the home, on the street, etc- put their number at between 1,500,000 and 2,500,000- greatly outnumbering the criminal use of such. That also doesn't take into account all the other legal uses, such as hunting and recreation.

[egressingsparrowdrop]

124. You don't provide the source of your numbers....though I've seen them before

Gary Kleck, I presume? His was the study that estimated defensive gun use in the couple million range. I don't buy it. Two words - false positives.

There is a motivation for many people in the US to answer a question about DGU positively. They realize that a positive answer bolsters the case for gun ownership.

There's also the "social desirability response bias."

Give this a read...explains it in some more detail:
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm

The idea that one in 150 people in the US are using a gun to defend themselves each year seems a bit far fetched, just from a common sense perspective.

[shadowrider]

128. So let me understand. You won't buy the link given yet you expect us to buy the link you give?

:rofl:

[egressingsparrowdrop]

131. what link? what are you

smoking?

I don't care if you "buy" my link or not. It's a published paper on the Kleck survey which exposes why the 2.5 million DGU number is obviously a gross overestimate.

It also includes a response from Kleck, and another paper that examines both the original and the Kleck response.

Put the joint down, and do some reading. Or not, really don't care.

[shadowrider]

133. My apologies. I looked at the wrong post and thought you were dismissing

that post with a link.

I need to adjust my bifocals.

[PavePusher]

150. A non-trivial number of those defensive uses...

may be by people who face multiple threats in a year.

Not all targets of crime get set upon once and only once.

[X_Digger]

163. There were 13-15 surveys from 1976-1994

http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html

Yes, I'm aware of Hemenway throwing stones in his glass house- he uses the same methodology, with fewer 'confounding' factors factored out, in his case-control gun studies, treating guns like gas that expands to even distribution in a given volume.

[egressingsparrowdrop]

180. Hemenway doesn't use the same methodology in his paper that rips the Kleck study, and all others

using the similar methodology. I started a thread in the gun forum on it, which you might have seen. It's near the top.

Really, 2.5 million DGUs each year? Do you really believe that's anywhere NEAR accurate?

Man, we'd be hearing about them in the news everyday! Almost 10,000 a day!

Hemenway looks at the numbers, and compares them to actual crime states. The Kleck surveys, and the others done using the similar method, are deeply flawed. They're useful for only one thing...propaganda.

[X_Digger]

185. For those years when the crime rate was double what it is now? Yes

Hell, I've had a DGU of my own, reported to police, who never filed a report (I had to ask for the report number for my log- it was while at work.)

[gejohnston]

269. Hemenway has three problems

one is that he spends a lot of time using red herrings and speculating on why Kleck should be wrong, but never shows the evidence, he never released his raw data or meathods for years, and he was paid by the Joyce Foundation, major funder of the Brady Campaign. Kleck kick's Hemenway's ass in his reply.

[egressingsparrowdrop]

130. Here's a great analogy from the Hemenway paper...puts the 2 million DGU BS in perspective v.well....

Consider the responses to a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1500 adults conducted in May 1994 by ABC News and the Washington Post. <34> One question asked: "Have you yourself ever seen anything that you believe was a spacecraft from another planet?" Ten percent of respondents answered in the affirmative. These 150 individuals were then asked, "Have you personally ever been in contact with aliens from another planet or not?" and 6% answered "Yes."

By extrapolating to the national population, we might conclude that almost 20 million Americans have seen spacecraft from another planet, and over a million have been in personal contact with aliens from other planets. That more than a million Americans had contact with aliens would be incredible news--but not the kind actively publicized by reputable scientists. Yet the ABC News/Washington Post data on aliens are as good as or better than that from any of the thirteen surveys cited by K-G as supporting their conclusions about self-defense gun use.

[X_Digger]

166. aka, if I can't refute it, I'll make fun of it.. n/t

[egressingsparrowdrop]

189. Actually the paper refutes it quite thouroughly.

I don't see how any reasonable person could give it a full read and not be convinced.

Go check it out, it's in the gun forum..topic started by me. Still near the top, I should think.

And the alien anecdote isn't making fun of anything. It demonstrates the phenomenon that results in huge overestimates when doing surveys about rare events of this nature.

[X_Digger]

193. It's not the first time it's been brought up here..

Just because you just found it doesn't mean it hasn't been discussed ad nauseum here.

If you'd donate to the DU valentine's day campaign, you can get your very own star, and get access to the advanced search feature that will let you find previous discussions.

[egressingsparrowdrop]

194. Well, now it's being discussed again, in keeping with the

ad nauseum moniker

[X_Digger]

303. Awww, elvis has left the building..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=267182

[QuintinInAlaska]

111. In your view

There isn't a legitimate argument against any of your misinformed opinions. So even when you are presented with a decent argument you dismiss it as invalid.

See how that works?

[egressingsparrowdrop]

119. There may be a legitimate argument against my opinions, I just haven't seen one yet

I give them a fair shake, trust me.

[rl6214]

176. I want all illegal drugs to remain illegal

POT

Yup, one seed, one plant, one joint, one ounce, one pound, using it, selling it, you go to jail for a minimum of 25 years.

Cocaine, life in prison, user or seller.

How does that work out for you?

[lawodevolution]

109. Child pornography is a type of misuse of a camera yet we are not calling for

Bans on cameras, limits on amount purchased or wait times or limits on memory capacity. Violence is a missuse of a firearms or other object that can inflict bodily harm, the firearm itself like the camera is not at fault just like gun owners or camera owners in general are not at fault for those who abuse the object.

[darkstar3]

112. That's not entirely true.

Take a look here: http://techfragments.com/news/318/Tech/New_Law_Will_Require_Camera_Phones_to_Click.html

Laws like this, some more restrictive, have been discussed in many states. I've had people tell me that we should prevent anyone convicted of a sexual crime from owning a camera phone. Your analogy sucks.

[benEzra]

297. People convicted of violent crimes are already prevented from legally owning a gun...

under the gun control act of 1968, and the last time I checked, laws requiring all camera phones to make loud "clicks" have met the same fate as laws trying to ban lawful ownership of various civilian guns---and for many of the same reasons. So on balance, that's not that bad of an analogy.

The comments at your link make some pretty good points re: ignorant and inane restrictions on cameras, BTW.

[Scout]

255. i don't have a problem with GUNS, until some asshole has one n/t

[oneshooter]

262. And you and only you make that determination? n/t

[pipoman]

15. Just some facts..as stated earlier, the AWB made absolutely no difference

Nor did the lapse of the AWB...

Nonfatal firearm-related crime has declined since 2000.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/firearmnonfatalno.cfm

Nonfatal firearm crime rates have declined since 2000.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/firearmnonfatalrt.cfm

Since 1994 violent crime rates have declined, reaching the lowest level ever in 2009.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/viort.cfm

Homicide rates recently declined to levels last seen in the mid-1960s.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/hmrt.cfm

After 1996, less than 10% of nonfatal violent crimes involved firearm.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/percentfirearm.cfm

Assault rates declined since 1994.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/aslt.cfm

Violent crime rates declined for both males and females since 1994.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/vsx2.cfm


Obviously the failure known as the "assault weapons ban" had not one thing to do with crime rates before, during, or after.

edit:Oh, actually this prediction came true, "Another study by the Justice Department in 2004 concluded “If the ban is lifted, gun and magazine manufacturers may reintroduce assault weapons models and large capacity magazines, perhaps in substantial numbers.”"

Yet even though the sale of firearms described as 'assault weapons' has skyrocketed, crime rates have continued to fall...hmm...correlation ≠ causation

[Brilliantrocket]

20. Maybe we should ban having an angry tone in your voice when you exercise free speech.

If less people spoke in an angry tone, less arguments would escalate and as a result less people would die.

yup

[immoderate]

36. Is that a strawman or a red herring?

I sometimes mix them up.

I didn't know the validity of an argument depended on tone.

--imm

[L0oniX]

92. Thanks for posting those links ...makes my point.

[pipoman]

228. I find it amusing

that this is post #15, these links completely gut LODO's points, yet no response from the 100 or so cheerleaders who obviously read the thread. It proves that the anti side really doesn't care about the truth and would rather buy into and agree with lies.

[benEzra]

314. The point that violent crime fell drastically as "assault weapon" sales tripled, you mean?

And by 2004 had come to dominate the civilian rifle market?

You do realize that the 1994 non-ban dramatically increased sales of "assault weapons" 1994-present, yes?

Your "correlation" is inverse. As "assault weapon" ownership increased by an order of magnitude, violent crime declined to its lowest levels since the 1950s.

[Kingofalldems]

25. Uh oh-- the gungeon won't lke this one

[madinmaryland]

28. Yeap. All of Wayne LaPierre supporters seem to have sniffed this one out.

:scared:

[Kingofalldems]

30. I was attacked for saying La Pierre was lying

the other day.

[lawodevolution]

110. Cite one lie please from LaPierre and you'll have made a valid point

[eqfan592]

273. The fact that he is right wing means you don't have to actually support any claims you make...

...against him. Didn't you know that? We progressives are in the business of demonizing others without any supporting evidence if they don't happen to agree with us!!!

[X_Digger]

26. From the same 2004 study..

The Ban’s Reauthorization or Expiration Could Affect Gunshot Victimizations, But Predictions are Tenuous

• 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.

aka, LoDo swung and missed.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[underpants]

31. That was one of the best posts I have ever read on DU

EVER

Well said sir!

[Judi Lynn]

32. Thank you, kpete. Rec.

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[VermeerLives]

33. The "good guy"

"here was a good guy on the scene that day, in Tucson with a gun, but there wasn’t anything he could do. It was too dangerous to fire."

Well yes, that's why he was a "good guy." A responsible gun owner would not risk the lives of innocent bystanders. I'm glad the unarmed citizens wrestled Loughner to the ground, but that does not support the argument that citizens should not be armed. One has nothing to do with the other.

[RamboLiberal]

45. It wasn't that is was too dangerous to fire

It was that the gunman was alreay on the ground being detained by the bystanders. Remember the good guy with the gun was in a store when the shooting started.

Sorry but on this rant I think O' Donnell was not totally factual as well.

[Hoyt]

67. The idea that some cowboy with a gun is going to stop these things is far-fetched.

It's over too quickly and very few who tote in public are going to react in time. Shooting hundreds of paper targets, watching a few videos, and dreaming of being Rambo ain't likely to cut it. But, there are a lot of public gun toters who think they are ready to save us from a massacre. I'd rather they leave it to unarmed citizens.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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

[GreenStormCloud]

154. Unarmed citizens are rarely able to do anything except die.

In Tucson the unarmed citizens got lucky. At Luby's and at VT and many other shootings the unarmed people just got shot. There have been numerous instances of CCW holders who have stopped crimes in progress by shooting the bad guy.

[darkstar3]

159. And numerous instances of CCW holders hitting bystanders.

And numerous instances of CCW holders getting shot, occasionally by their own weapon.

The fact is, when a madman opens fire, unarmed and armed citizens stand the same chance of survival, because it's not about whether you can fire back, but about whether you can get the fuck out of the way of the bullets fast enough to save your ass. Ask a carrier what their first action should be, and it will be "cover."

[rl6214]

177. Please cite where ccw holders have shot bystanders

Or where one was shot by their own weapons.

[RamboLiberal]

196. +1 I read a lot of news stories daily

I can't remember reading a CCW holder being shot by a bad guy with their own gun or wounding a bystander.

[GreenStormCloud]

200. It is rare for a CCW holder to hit an innocent.

Police do hit innocents at a rate of about 4X that of CCWers who engage. Sometimes the CCW holder does get shot, there are no guarantees. However those who resist with a gun have a lower injury rate than any others, including those who passively comply with the criminal.

[RamboLiberal]

198. Exactly - there are few instances where unarmed people

wrestled away the gun. Only other 2 I remember offhand are a shooting at a HS by Kip Kinkel and the Long Island RR shooting.

There are couple of instances where an armed citizen has ended a rampage. Church shooting in Colorado Springs, shopping mall shooting where armed cop stop massacre (btw his lesson was he should've had an extra mag on him), college shooting in VA, HS shooting where a school official ran to his truck to get his gun.

[Ilsa]

34. I think LaPierre needs to be in a gun battle.

He needs to see how difficult it is to pull a weapon when he is already being fired upon and taking cover. He needs to see that the only safe time to deal with a shooter is when the shooter is effectively unarmed.

[aikoaiko]

37. When did Lawrence OD turn into a fear mongering piece of shit?

"lobbyist in favor of murderers’ rights to always use the gun of their choice," -- really, I expected more from him.

It is true that the liberal gun laws advocated by the NRA can be exploited by criminals, but that's true of most civil liberties.

LOD sounds just like the right wingers who said people who weren't in support of the Patriot Act were supporters of terrorists and terrorism.


And here is the Lawrence O'Donnell lie:
"If Jared Loughner had tried to do this in 2003 when those magazines were illegal, he would have had to reload after firing 10 bullets."

The truth is, 30 round Glock magazines were legal to purchase and own (new and used) in 2003. The Columbine School shoorter legally possessed similar magazines for their firearms while the AWB was in place.

But maybe LOD is not lying, per se, and just doesn't know what he is talking about.

[RamboLiberal]

46. +1 on that - Lawrence needs to get his facts straight

[immoderate]

38. O'Donnell is lying and he knows it. Also he's full of shit. And prevaricating too.

Why does he not compare the drop in gun murders of "states without preexisting assault weapons bans" to the relative change in murder rates for states that DO have preexisting assault weapons bans? What does a 10.3% drop in murders mean if it happened in every state (which it did)?

Why would he not show a graph comparing the great gains of one group of states over the other. Because he is propagandizing. He is using statistics to lie.

The fact is that "assault weapons" and extended magazines are rarely used in crimes. The things that make an assault weapon are cosmetic, and don't affect it's lethality.

And extended magazines, of the type Loughner used, make a hand gun difficult to aim and balance. I say he could have killed 15 people and not just 6 if he had stuck to the standard Glock magazine. I own one of those 30 shot magazines. Used it once and retired to the curios drawer. It's only a conversation piece. You can't use that if you want to hit anything! Those people may be lucky he didn't know what he was doing.

If they limit mags to 10 rounds, people will buy more. There's no evidence that will save lives.

This is all not new except I can no longer respect Lawrence O'Donnell.

--imm

[DrDan]

50. probably gained much more respect from the left than he lost

[pipoman]

52. Only from the cheerleaders who don't care about the facts..

he can preach to the choir, but it wouldn't make it out of any committee without being debunked for the complete inaccuracy and in fact lies contained in this badly researched opinion piece.

[DrDan]

54. "facts" as defined by the NRA and followers, of course

[X_Digger]

72. Facts as defined by reality..

Any magazine (of any size whatsoever) produced before September 30, 1994 was legal to import, sell, or possess, even at retail.

[pasto76]

55. "If they limit mags to 10 rounds, people will buy more. There's no evidence that will save lives. "

except that every military in the world acknowledges that having more bullets loaded into magazines increases your combat effectiveness. Its been US doctrine since WWII. US soldiers carried more bullets loaded into a magazine than our Soviet counterparts, and still do.

Because as was said in the OP, when you have to reload, you become an unarmed person. I dont mind assault weapons being in the hands of the public, I do mind your average and random nutjob being able to lay down as much firepower as I did back in 2003 in Tikrit. There simply is not a non-military need for that.

And the name says it all "assualt"...in case you forgot that means ATTACK. Just whom are you planning to attack with your weapon?

SGT P (an actually SGT, not a "dad" of a SGT)

[Statistical]

66. You aren't unarmed when reloading.

Simply reload while you have a round in the chamber. Or do what Cho did and bring two guns.

" I do mind your average and random nutjob being able to lay down as much firepower as I did back in 2003 in Tikrit."
Bogus strawman. What nutjob has that much firepower. You are aware automatic weapons have been resricted since 1934 and new purchases banned since 1986.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[darkstar3]

86. +1

[bossy22]

105. Then why do we continue to support police use of similair weapons?

[darkstar3]

108. Maybe because police are fully trained by safety officers in the use of those weapons.

Maybe because police officers are trained to know exactly when it is safe and appropriate to use those weapons. And maybe because police officers are required to put themselves at risk while you are not.

[PavePusher]

151. And those police never make mistakes, amIrite? n/t

[darkstar3]

153. Everyone makes mistakes. Rigorous training and accountability reduces them greatly.

Your diversion fails.

[PavePusher]

164. Except that the police are not so "rigourously trained and accountable"...

as you suggest.

The available stats indicate that civilians shooting in self-defense hit innocent people less often and miss their target less often than the police.

There more reasons for this than only training and accountability, of course.

[darkstar3]

167. In some towns, your subject line would be correct,

but that is a failing of standardization more than a failing of the concept.

Further, though you have no link to your stats, if they exist they would be nearly moot. As I said above, we pay police officers to put themselves into dangerous and unpredictable situations. Situations where they will be expected to shoot more than any average citizen. Situations which will undoubtedly cause more missed shots than the average homeowner dropping an invader with a twelve gauge.

[PavePusher]

205. And none of that is any basis to deprive me of a valid means of self-defense.

Unless you offer an equivalent substitute.

[rl6214]

184. I guarantee you I and most competitive shooters can out shoot

99% of the police out there on the beat. Most cops shoot a couple of times a year at most when they have to qualify while competitive shooters put tens of thousands of rounds down range in a year.

Simply put they are not better trained, I have trained law enforecement and most of them have never fired a gun before going to the academy.

[rrneck]

202. And they're never around when you need one. nt

[Union Scribe]

218. Lol, funniest post of the week.

Your trust is adorable, though.

[DonP]

114. You were issued a semi auto A2?

Never heard of a semi auto issue A2 rifle ... or just a typo?

All my ARs are all semi auto, built up from kits on a legal Bushie or DPMS lower. Haven't gone crazy and started shooting thing sup yet.

Besides, the AR platform is the most popular rifle for sanctioned High Power events like Camp Perry now, replacing almost all the Garands. For the last 10 years the AR platform has been the most popular selling long arm in the country, according to the NSSF.

[QuintinInAlaska]

120. so you were a Marine

the army guys carry M4s, full auto by the way. They kick in doors with them in hand too.

[Porterhouse]

145. I seem to remember during my tour

in Vietnam that my M-16A1 was full auto. I've never heard of an A2 being semi auto.

[gejohnston]

268. A-2s are burst fire.

[Name removed]

183. Deleted message

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

[lawodevolution]

113. "except that every military in the world acknowledges that having more bullets loaded into magazine"

For full autos, in the US civilians buy semi autos. Many soldiers like the 20 round mags more than the 30 round mags because they can lie more flat with them.

[QuintinInAlaska]

118. slight factual error

Its been US doctrine since WWII. US soldiers carried more bullets loaded into a magazine than our Soviet counterparts, and still do.

In Vietnam, Ak-47s had 30 round magazines, M16s had 20. A deficiency that was corrected later on.

[rl6214]

182. except that every military in the world acknowledges that having more bullets loaded into magazines

Then why dosen't our US military supply 30+ round mags for their 9mm pistols issued to the troops?

BECAUSE THEY SUCK AND DON'T WORK WELL.

[Union Scribe]

220. Using a completely unjustifiable invasion as a proper use of firepower

isn't the most convincing thing I've ever read, btw. There's far more to condemn in your use of a weapon than in my owning one.

[one-eyed fat man]

248. You have weapons mixed up.

WW2 standard US infantry rifle, the M1 Garand held 8 rounds of .30-06. The German 98K carried 5 rounds 7.92x57mm, The Russian Moisin-Nagant, 5 rounds of 7.62x54R (the oldest serving military cartridge still in use, since 1891), the British Lee-Enfield held 10 rounds of .303 British. The M1 used en-bloc clips, all the remainder used stripper clips and only the Lee-Enfield had a detachable magazine although it was not normally used as such.

In Viet Nam the M14 (7.62 NATO) and the M16 (5.56) both had 20 round magazines. The AK-47 (7.62x39mm)standard was 30.

The US did not issue 30 round magazines for the M16 before 1972. The AK-74 (5.45x39mm)is issued with 30 round magazines standard and 45 round RPK magazines.

[StarsInHerHair]

40. K&R

nt

[Cid_B]

41. Love those facts that include lots of mays and a perhaps or two...

[krispos42]

42. "Freakonomics" says otherwise

More cops, better economy, 3-strikes-and-you're-out laws, and the legalization of abortion nationwide in 1973 resulted in a sharp reduction of the size of the population more likely to become violent criminals a generation later, which would be about 1990 or so.




As you can see, the largest drop in the number of murderers by age group is 14-17 (blue line) and 18-24 (green line), although the 25-34 group (yellow line) dropped a lot as well.





In this chart, the US homicide rate rose steadily from the 60's through the 80's and dropped in the 90's to about where it is now.

[Kaleva]

43. High capacity magazines weren't banned when the AWB was in effect.

Only the domestic production of new such magazines for sale to civilians was prohibited.

"Under the assault weapons ban, it was illegal to manufacture or sell new high-capacity magazines, defined as those that hold more than 10 rounds."

"Stores could legally only sell used high-capacity magazines at that time, and new magazines could not be manufactured."

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/09/giffords_shooting_assault_weapons_ban

“The Assault Weapons legislation enacted in 1994 prohibits the domestic manufacture of clips, drums and strips that hold more than ten bullets,” Senator Feinstein said. “The loophole in this law is that the foreign manufacturer is allowed to continue to export their large clips into this nation when they cannot be manufactured in the United States.”

http://feinstein.senate.gov/booklets/Assault_Book.pdf

Senator Feinstein Seeks to Curb Import of Millions of High-Capacity Ammunition Clips
March 9, 1999

Washington, D.C. -- Seeking to stop the flow of millions of high-capacity ammunition clips into the United States, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today reintroduced legislation to ban their import.

http://feinstein.senate.gov/releases99/gunclipsban.html

[defendandprotect]

47. k/r -- We've also just seen an entire REVOLUTION conducted w/o guns -- just non-violence -- !!

[lawodevolution]

117. 300 people died in 3 weeks mostly in Cairo, that's a faster rate of death than the afgani war

That protest was a fantastic example of massive violence thanks to gun control making sure the guns were only in pro Mubarak hands. If you allow the government or in other words Mubarak to control who gets to own guns this is what happens

[defendandprotect]

214. The protesters were NON-VIOLENT... Mubarak and his thugs VIOLENT ...

Not using guns takes more courage than using them!

Had the protesters had guns -- they would all be dead now --

Happily, THEY knew what they were doing -- very wise people!!

[lawodevolution]

242. They were throwing rocks, they were violent, they simply didn't have the more effective weapons

That would have motivated the pro Mubarak side to stay home.

[defendandprotect]

244. You're desperate -- they were "throwing rocks back" at those who threw them at them ... !!

And you believe in a "pro-Mubarak" side ... ???

:rofl:

[lawodevolution]

256. I consider it desperate to claim the disaster of a protest in Egypt with a body count of 300

Was non-violent and an argument against gun ownership when they had the same protest in Yemen (which is the second most heavily armed civilian population on earth) which has had no reported fatalities yet.

It is desperate that your only real argument aginst guns now that y'all are so excited about is so flawed.

[defendandprotect]

258. Obviously, your main concern is to prove that revolutions can't be fought without guns -- !!!

That's even funnier -- :rofl:

Egyptian protesters were NON-VIOLENT .... Did anyone say that Mubarak wasn't violent -- ???!!!!

300 people died due to attacks by Mubarak and his thugs --

It was a non-violent revolution on the part of the people -- NOT MUBARAK!!!

Had these people been armed in Tahrir Square, they would have been bombed by Mubarak!!

[shadowrider]

260. I see. 300 dead is ok with you because they didn't fight back.

VERY telling.

[defendandprotect]

263. No one but YOU has suggested 300 lives taken by Mubarak violence is "OK" --

Obviously, those who don't have the ability to actually debate will

distort as the next best thing?

The loss of these lives are immensely important to those who stood with them

in the rebellion --

and the commitment of the Egyptian protesters to remembering them and the

sacrifice of their lives for freedom and an end to dictatorship in Egypt!


You're talking nonsense, evidently for the sake of a pro-gun argument ....

but think it would be interesting to look at your posts and see how often YOU

"remember" US's immense loss of lives in Iraq and Afghanistan -- !!



:eyes:


And, you're on "IGNORE" -- trust no one else will waste their time with you --

[lawodevolution]

264. looks like the military just took control.

so you're argument is pure fail.

[QuintinInAlaska]

121. and we saw one quelled

in Iran with guns

So .... your point?

[defendandprotect]

215. What's your point about Iran?

[Major Hogwash]

48. Brilliant. The NRA is just another Republican PAC. Supporting the GOP for 30 years!!!

Most of the time, and donating to the GOP for something like 99% of the time.

[aikoaiko]

51. I wonder what happened 30-40 years ago....

... oh yeah, some very bad gun control laws led by...us :(

[pocoloco]

56. ...which caused an explosion of first generation repugs!!

How many fucking deaths has that caused???

[DissedByBush]

57. The NRA will donate Republican

If Democrats are against the Second Amendment. The people who believe in the "Bill of Rights minus one."

They are a single-issue organization regardless of party.

This last election a lot of Democrats supported the Second Amendment.

This last election a lot of Democrats got money from the NRA.

It had the Republicans furious.

[darkstar3]

106. What a wonderful straw man...

"The people who believe in the "Bill of Rights minus one.""

Sure, because people who own guns, like myself, but are for reasonable restrictions on weaponry, like myself, are completely against the Second Amendment. Gimme a fuckin' break.

[DissedByBush]

125. When an infringement is proposed

You need only ask yourself if you would accept similar for your other rights.

If not, you are for the Bill of Rights minus one.

[darkstar3]

127. We have a tri-branch government for a reason. The courts help protect us from the unconstitutional.

Your argument is ridiculous because we have "limitations" or "infringements" on other rights contained in the Bill of Rights, and I don't see anyone complaining, and I don't see any courts overturning them.

Off the top of my head, I can think of limitations already in place and accepted for the rights defined in the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. To focus on the Second alone, we ALREADY bar people from owning fully automatic weapons, which is a limitation or infringement on the Second that nobody is arguing about right now.

[beevul]

132. We do?

"To focus on the Second alone, we ALREADY bar people from owning fully automatic weapons, which is a limitation or infringement on the Second that nobody is arguing about right now."

We do?

[darkstar3]

135. Yes.

We have the National Firearms Act of 1934.

We have the Gun Control Act of 1968.

We have the Hughes Amendment of 1986.

In sum total these laws bar people from owning automatic weapons manufactured after 1986, seriously regulate the transfer of prior-made automatic weapons to private hands, and require taxes and registrations to be handled. In short, this is a serious limitation imposed on the Second Amendment, and these laws have not been struck down as unconstitutional, nor do I meet people who are "up in arms" about these limitations.

[beevul]

141. Somewhat contrary to what you said the first time.

You said:

"we ALREADY bar people from owning fully automatic weapons"

My point, entirely, is that NO we do NOT.

Manufactured after 1986, yes.

But not even machineguns are "banned" at the federal level, in the true sense of the word.

"In short, this is a serious limitation imposed on the Second Amendment, and these laws have not been struck down as unconstitutional, nor do I meet people who are "up in arms" about these limitations."

They haven't been attacked on second amendment grounds, afaik, since heller/mcdonald.

As far as the hughes amendment, its being worked on.

[darkstar3]

149. None of that changes my point.

Weapons have been barred. Rights from the BOR have been limited. We continue to allow such limitations, not just legally, but socially. The original argument made here was a straw man about consistency, claiming that people who wish for reasonable regulation are for all amendments but one. It was a bullshit argument and it has been dealt with. There's more to rights in America than a cursory reading of a single document, and focusing on one sentence from a single document is irresponsible at best.

[beevul]

156. Heh.

"Weapons have been barred."

We'll see if it lasts.

"There's more to rights in America than a cursory reading of a single document, and focusing on one sentence from a single document is irresponsible at best."

Yes indeed there is. Such as understanding that when discussing amendments, were discussing the protection of a right, for example.


Such as understanding that when we discuss amendments, were discussing restrictions on government, which protects the right enumerated in amendments.

Also understanding the nature, design, and intent of the bill of rights itself.

Of course, doing those three things, leads one to believe the sole target of restriction in amendments, is the federal government.

And leads one to understand that the bill of rights is a "government shall not" document, rather than a "people shall" document.

[darkstar3]

162. Are you a constitutional scholar?

Are you a lawyer?

Do you hold an advanced degree in anything related to public policy making?

If not, I'll thank you not to lecture me or others about the supposed nature of the Bill of Rights. There is a large body of jurisprudence about this topic, and it is far more complex than our founding document taken alone.

But thank you for recognizing that I was right. You may continue to give money to the NRA and back whatever fight you can find to remove restrictions on the Second Amendment, but lest you fall prey to the reverse of the very straw man that started this subthread, be sure to fight just as rabidly against such laws as those which prevent you from shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

[PavePusher]

165. Reasoned analysis is not dependent...

merely on pedigree or the weight of one's scholarly titles.

Your Ivory Tower(tm) seems rather cold and isolated.

You should step out into the fresh air and sunshine on occasion.


Edit: By your chain of logic, I should be able to go to the Slave Market on weekends. Cool, I could use a few 16-year old Caucasian house-pets....

[darkstar3]

170. It is not dependent on pedigree, but it IS dependent on experience,

and I gave several examples of ways in which that experience could be gleaned. The fact is that a simplistic view of American law and rights based entirely on a jaundiced interpretation of a single document serves no one.

And BTW, there is absolutely no way in which my chain of logic could be used to justify slavery. In fact, only the view of American law as described above could do that. I think you need to read more closely.

[beevul]

171. Thats quite an assertion.

"The fact is that a simplistic view of American law and rights based entirely on a jaundiced interpretation of a single document serves no one."

Jaundiced view?

My view is in line with the preamble to the bill of rights itself.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/

That states quite unambiguously what the intent purpose and function of the bill of rights is.

If that in your opinion constitutes a jaundiced view, you are the one with the problem.

[PavePusher]

207. Your words:

"There is a large body of jurisprudence about this topic, and it is far more complex than our founding document taken alone.

There was "a large body of jurisprudence" supporting ownership of slaves. We ended up having to fight an exteremly vicious civil wa, in part to over-ride such. We really don't want to have to do that again.

[DissedByBush]

257. Just look at your general attitude

Do you regularly call for more limits to First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights?

Do you find yourself arguing how some limit or encroachment is reasonable for those amendments?

Probably not. You were probably with me in condemning the Patriot Act.

For some reason, you single-out the Second Amendment as your target for desiring more limits.

This general attitude of desiring to effectively destroy one of the Bill of Rights is quite offensive to me.

This attitude belonged in Bush's cabinet, not here.

[beevul]

169. Does it matter?

"Are you a constitutional scholar?"

Does it matter? The document in question was written for the laymen.


"Are you a lawyer?"

Does it matter? The document in question was written for the laymen.


"Do you hold an advanced degree in anything related to public policy making?"

Does it matter? The document in question was written for the laymen.

"If not, I'll thank you not to lecture me or others about the supposed nature of the Bill of Rights. There is a large body of jurisprudence about this topic, and it is far more complex than our founding document taken alone."

Yes, much of it by people who can't read plain language. Folks like that tend to think you need to be a constitutional scholar or lawyer or have an advanced public policy making degree...to understand any of it.

"But thank you for recognizing that I was right. You may continue to give money to the NRA and back whatever fight you can find to remove restrictions on the Second Amendment, but lest you fall prey to the reverse of the very straw man that started this subthread, be sure to fight just as rabidly against such laws as those which prevent you from shouting "fire" in a crowded theater."

I really do love it when people envoke that one.

Its a misquote of O.W. Holmes JR in Schenck from 1919. The actual quote was:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

Of course that was overturned in Brandenberg in 1969.

In any case, we do not gag people before they enter a theater to prevent them from yelling fire falsely.

And I'd damn sure fight against it, if anyone proposed such.

Would you?

[darkstar3]

172. The document in question was written as a foundation.

We've had well over 200 years to add to that foundation, and we have done so in spades. If you think you can continue to view your rights and privileges from the point of view of 1787 then you will one day have a rude awakening.

And let's not forget that through this entire argument you and I have had in this subthread, you haven't been able to refute what I've said, and so you keep trying to change the subject. The fact remains that we have limited the rights outlined in the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth amendments, and those limitations have been held as constitutional by the courts. "Strict Constructionists" have no place in a reasoned debate, because they constantly forget or ignore that fact.

And with that, I bid you good day.

[beevul]

179. Of course it was.

"We've had well over 200 years to add to that foundation, and we have done so in spades. If you think you can continue to view your rights and privileges from the point of view of 1787 then you will one day have a rude awakening."

Its not a matter of viewing rights from the POV of 1787. Its a matter of viewing them as being what they are. I do.

"And let's not forget that through this entire argument you and I have had in this subthread, you haven't been able to refute what I've said, and so you keep trying to change the subject. The fact remains that we have limited the rights outlined in the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth amendments, and those limitations have been held as constitutional by the courts. "Strict Constructionists" have no place in a reasoned debate, because they constantly forget or ignore that fact."

I haven't attempted to refute that rights have been limited, because I don't disagree.

As far as "strict constructionists" go, one can be reasonable with respect to what limits the government might be allowed to place on things they are generally intended to be "hands off" with.

On the other hand, one still needs to understand the intended function, intent, and purpose of the bill of rights.

And one should be cognizant, that after a point, it ceases to be reasonable, and it becomes a case of government not obeying the laws which govern it. I doubt very much that anyone would disagree with that statement.

[DissedByBush]

259. Not even close to "dealt with"

I asked if you would accept similar infringements for other rights.

Your computer is a means of exercising freedom of speech.

If you have never in your life committed a crime involving a computer, would you have a problem should the government:

-Force you to license your computer?
-Prohibit you from owning one?
-Set maximum specifications your for your computer system?
-Restrict your Internet connection speed?

The Bill of Rights doesn't even specifically protect computers as does firearms themselves, yet I don't think you'd agree to the above restrictions.

[PavePusher]

155. No.

We don't. We simply make it expensive as all fuck.

And isn't that a Very Progressive Thing.

[rl6214]

186. Check your facts

we DO NOT already bar people from owning fully automatic weapons.

[DissedByBush]

187. The limits are on actions

If you own a printing press and print something that incites a riot, you may be prosecuted.

YOU. Not everybody, YOU who abused your right through your actions that harmed others.

Bullhorns or printing presses aren't licensed or limited in case some people may use them to incite riots.

Murdering or threatening someone with a gun (not in self defense), or using a gun to commit another crime, is already illegal and nobody has ever argued against that. Those are the actions that can be prosecuted.

Your Second Amendment right doesn't extend to murdering someone, your First Amendment right doesn't extend to inciting a riot.

"fully automatic weapons, which is a limitation or infringement on the Second that nobody is arguing about right now."

We got used to it. We're getting used to a lot of things these days. If we don't stand up, the sexual assaults performed by the TSA will eventually be considered normal.

We rarely lose our rights all at once. One generation gets used to an encroachment, the next generation accepts that as normal, then accepts a bit more encroachment, and so on.

[defendandprotect]

216. +1000% --

and GOP also gave start up funding for the Christian Coalition way back

at the start of it -- GOPs/Christian Coalition --

Everything the right wing does is bought and paid for -- otherwise they wouldn't have it!

The Christian Coalition was the attempt by the right wing to re-establish authority after

the Youth Revolution in the 1960's --

"I realized that in this country we had a revolution--of housing, food, hair style, clothing, cosmetics, transportation, value systems, religion--it was an economic revolution, affecting the cosmetics industry, canned foods, the use of land; people were delivering their own babies, recycling old clothes, withdrawing from spectator sports. They were breaking the barriers where white and black could rap in 1967. This was the year of the Beatles, the summer of Sergeant Pepper, the Monterey Pop Festival, Haight-Ashbury, make your own candle and turn off the electricity, turn on with your friends and laugh--that's what life was all about."

http://maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%20Articles/Ballad%20of%20Mae%20Brussell.html

And of course the "pro-life" murderers come out of the religious right --

T-Baggers are another attempt by the right wing not only to confuse the public, but to take

right wing political violence to a new and higher level in America!

And much more --


:)

[DrDan]

49. Bravo Lawrence!!!! K&R

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[October]

58. K&R

[blackspade]

59. K&R!!!

Completely agree with LO on this one.
There are no reasons to own assault weapons or high capacity mags.

[oneshooter]

147. Assault rifles are too expensive for me. I prefer semi-auto rifles.

As for High Cap clips. The clip I use only holds eight rounds.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[fascisthunter]

61. lol.... yeah well, when do they not lie?

[egressingsparrowdrop]

63. Can anyone against this ban explain one simple thing to me, please....

...why is an assault weapon required for self-defense?

If you have a handgun or a shotgun, is that not enough to repel a criminal?

The reason I get so annoyed at gun advocates is they just seem wholly and unequivocally against ALL gun control laws, regardless of the details or possible merits. They don't even want to discuss it..it's just "NO!" followed by some platitude about criminals not registering guns or guns don't kill, people do or some anecdote about needing a gun for a successful self-defense.

[Statistical]

65. The so called "assault weapons ban" banned weapons based on cosmetics/looks.

It would be like banning cars that look fast by calling them 'assault cars'.

The bill was a do nothing, feel good bill. It accomplished absolutely nothing and resulted in Republicans gaining control of Congress.

[Hoyt]

68. Doesn't buying a gun for "cosmetic/looks" bother you. Maybe we need to tighten up mental evaluation

A Catch 22, maybe. But if you drool over one of these things, that ought to be evidence enough that one is not mature enough to carry guns in public.

[Statistical]

69. Yeah that is logical.

It doesn't work that way when government tries to ban things. It should be what is the rational basis for this ban. If there is no rational basis there should be no ban.

I guess you equally advocate anyone buying a car with fancy rims, or a spoiler, or aftermarket exaust should lose their license to drive for life? Right? Cause it would be highly hypocritical for you to place a higher burden on gun owners.

[Hoyt]

73. No, just don't want to see lots of folks walking around with guns in public.

I know you look at guns as a fashion statement. But I don't want to take my kids to a park -- or even Chuck E Cheeze -- where the gun obsessed walk around toting their latest acquisition. And, yes, I wonder about anyone who is attracted to so-called "assault" weapons, whether strictly cosmetic or not.

[baldguy]

76. In the gun world, seeming to be able to kill large numbers of people is "stylish".

[QuintinInAlaska]

123. No one carries an assault weapon in public

That and the fact that is routinely pointed out here, assault rifles are used in less than 2% of crimes.

So you want a prohibition on something that is almost never used in a crime and demand to be taken seriously?

[PavePusher]

235. Actually, "assalt rifles" are used in practally no crimes.

And when they are, it's usually a disturbed or crooked police officer...

[armueller2001]

134. Can you let me know

exactly what you consider an "assault weapon" to be? I mean, what makes it different than say a normal gun?

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

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

[armueller2001]

236. Still waiting for a reply on what you consider

an "assault weapon" to be, and how it differs from a regular weapon.

[Hoyt]

64. A society where more and more folks tote guns in public is a society in real trouble.

I don't have any real problem with folks keeping guns AT HOME -- although I wonder about those who covet so-called "assault" weapons, hi-cap mags, and other accessories manufactured to appeal to gun owners' baser instincts.

Kudos to the old folks who helped stop Loughner without a gun.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beevul]

206. Well then you probably wont like this....

Better find a way to cope, I'd say.

[intaglio]

77. Boy, do the Gun Dungeon folks love their guns

1) It is easier to kill, incapacitate or seriously injure someone with a loaded gun than with fists, a knife or a club.

2) Violence with a gun can be initiated from a greater distance than with other weapons - bows, atl-atls and darts or spitballs included.

3) By definition an aggressor is more likely to initiate violence and criminals are aggressors.

4) An aggressor with a gun is likely to have a gun ready, a "good guy" will not.

5) A gun that can fire more times stands more chances of killing or injuring even carelessly aimed.

6) Are any of the Gun Dungeon people not members of a well regulated militia and if not why not - given their belief in the Constitution

[L0oniX]

94. According to DU polls over 50% of DU members own guns. Who are you attacking?

[intaglio]

227. The term used was "Gun Dungeon"

Which is commonly taken to refer to the "Guns" forum and the knee jerk defenders of the second amendment as understood by the NRA

Whilst I do not doubt your statistic, I do doubt your framing. Goodbye

[RegieRocker]

79. Total B. S.

Cops are good guys with guns and it's not useless for them to have a gun. What a total crock of manure.

[Atypical Liberal]

81. Some more facts.

1) Crime rates, including those committed with firearms, have continued to decline since the Assault Weapons Ban expired.
2) All rifles, let alone assault rifles, continually amount for fewer homicides every year than hands and feet do.
3) Since the Assault Weapons Ban expired, the AR-15, the civilian variant of the M16 Assault Rifle, has become the most popular center-fire target rifle in America.

[DrDan]

83. please provide a link crediting the expiration of AWB for declining crime rates

[X_Digger]

89. Did you and I read the same post?

I didn't see him claim causation.

But to disprove the reverse, all he needs demonstrate is that crime didn't go up after the expiration.

[DrDan]

91. I am sure we did - and that post certainly is implying that the expiration

caused the crime rates to go down, now didn't it.

Please provide a link with the evidence stating that was the cause.

[bossy22]

98. here are a few

this is overal homicide rates over the last few years (by country) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States this shows crime rates over the course of 50 years. You will notice that there hasnt been a significant change in the U.S. murder rate since 2000- and the AWB sunsetted in 2004.

It should also be noted that international homicide statistics must be taken with a grain of salt- that "salt" is the fact that many western european countries only count homicides in which a killer has been convicted as a homicide- while the U.S. counts all suspected homicides- those with convictions and those without- as homicides

here is some info from the prelim FBI uniform crime report for 2010- it shows that murders and other violent crimes continue to decline http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/preliminary-crime-in-the-us-2009/downloads

heres a really good one http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html - this breaks down murders by weapon catagories for the years of 2005-2009. as you can see- murder by rifles- which includes so called assault weapons- has been decreasing. In fact for 2009, more than double the amount of people were killed by hands and feet than there killed by rifles including "assault weapons"

hope this helps

[DrDan]

99. doesn't seem to - I looked at those - I did not see an explanation

as to the cause of the decline

Did I miss it?

[bossy22]

102. no one made the suggestion that the sunsetting of the AWB caused crime rates to decline

the stats i should you are only there to show that the end of the AWB had a negligable affect on the crime rate

I think there are a multitude of reasons for the declining crime rate

The OP never made that implication.

[DrDan]

115. of course that was the implication - let's get real

otherwise the OP would have read

1) Crime rates, including those committed with firearms, have continued to decline since 2004.

rather than

1) Crime rates, including those committed with firearms, have continued to decline since the Assault Weapons Ban expired.

[bossy22]

122. lets get real-

there is no indication that the OP was trying to say that the AWB expiration caused the decline in crime, if so it would have been something like this

1) Crimes rates, including those committed with firearms, have declined since the Assault Weapons Ban expired.

or

1) Crime rates, including those comitted with firearms, declined further after Assault Weapons Ban expired.- even this one is questionable because it recognizes that crime rates were declining prior.

the key word that is missing is CONTINUED. by using continued, the OP is indicating that crime rates were dropping prior to the AWB expiration and that afterwards they still declined.

the meaning of the phrase doesnt change if you remove the words "assault weapons ban expired"- putting this phrase is more akin to saying "despite the exipration of the AWB"


all of this does not change the fact that EXPIRATION OF THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN HAS HAD A NEGLIGABLE AFFECT ON CRIME RATES.

[spin]

136. Well, the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban DID NOT cause the violent crime rate ...

to increase.


source Dept of Justice: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/cv2.cfm

To top that off, the number of firearms in the United States has increased dramatically in the last few years.

USA Gun Owners Buy 14 Million Plus Guns In 2009 – More Than 21 of the Worlds Standing Armies Combined
Wednesday, January 13th, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- Data released by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for the year reported 14,033,824 NICS Checks for the year of 2009, a 10 percent increase in gun purchases from the 12,709,023 reported in 2008.

So far that is roughly 14,000,000+ guns bought last year!
The total is probably more as many NICS background checks cover the purchase of more than one gun at a time by individuals.

To put it in perspective that is more guns than the combined active armies of the top 21 countries in the world. countries by number of troops.
http://www.ammoland.com/2010/01/13/gun-owners-buy-14-million-plus-guns-in-2009/

Which proves that MORE firearms does not equal MORE crime.

[DrDan]

138. of course it does not prove it

there could still be other factors at work influencing the rate of crime.

[lawodevolution]

139. Seriously, explain how the expiration of the AWB could by itself reduce crime rates

If Someone were going to mug someone in the streets they'd be worried about a small concealed pistol not an AK47. The point he was making was that it did not result in any extra violent crime above what would have otherwise occurred if the AWB did not sunset which shows us it did zero to reduce violent crime.

[bossy22]

140. thats exactly what we've been saying

the AWB had a negligable affect on crime. No one is arguing that its expiration made us safer- stop trying to use that strawman arguement.

[DrDan]

144. "Which proves that MORE firearms does not equal MORE crime"

please keep up

[bossy22]

160. well it does prove it

when it comes to reality. You are correct that more factors are involved but thats the key point. If the amount of firearms increases yet the crime decreases we can safely say that there are more factors involve that have a greater affect on the crime rate than firearms. We can infer that increasing firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. does not have a negligable affect on the crime rate- if it did we would see a correlation atleast but we dont

[DrDan]

181. correct - "infer" - not proven

[spin]

190. But we can also infer that banning firearms or hi-cap magazines will not decrease violent crime ...

If violent crime would have increased after the assault weapons ban expired or during the time frame when "shall issue" concealed carry became common across our nation, I might have conceded that draconian gun regulation was necessary.

However despite all the predictions of an impending bloody disaster by those who favor draconian gun control, no such problems arose. NO STATE THAT EVERY PASSED "SHALL ISSUE" CONCEALED CARRY HAS REPEALED IT. Nor have any repealed castle doctrine, "stand your ground, "or bring your gun to work" laws after they were passed.

It would seem that those who favor tyrannical gun control have no evidence to prove that their tactics would be beneficial. In fact, imposing such law MIGHT cause violent crime to increase as criminals would no longer fear armed citizens.

Rather than focus efforts on attempting to register, ban or confiscate weapons from honest, law abiding gun owners, the proper course is to work on improving and enforcing the laws we have that do work. For example, we can improve the NICS background check by ensuring the states input the names of people who should be restricted from buying firearms on a timely basis.

[X_Digger]

175. Ooh, Carnac is in the house!

Please to be telling me what I am thinkink... NOW!

[darkstar3]

88. ODonnells is propagandizing, to be sure, but he's not the first to do that with guns.

LaPierre's supporters here would do well to realize that accusing ODonnells of fudging numbers and conveniently forgetting a few things is a little pot/kettle.

As for what I think about guns in the wake of Loughner, well, I think this video sums it up quite nicely: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_OtPc4dNyI

[lawodevolution]

142. So her point is that the a president was shot so that means the guns the secret service

Carry are useless in defending the president. thanks for the propaganda video. The secret service should go unarmed I guess. Even you probably don't agree with that.

[darkstar3]

157. That is a ridiculous summation.

You know as well as I do that she didn't claim the weapons carried by the Secret Service are useless. She simply stated that they didn't prevent the President from getting shot. And this isn't just about a TV show, because this art reflects life. Presidents in real life have been shot by pistol-wielding maniacs while surrounded by the most expensive and heavily armed personal protection in the world. More guns does not equal more prevention. Armament is not foolproof protection. That is the point of the video clip.

[lawodevolution]

243. Now you make the claim that guns are useless for defending someone again and claim

You are not. I guess the police and secret service can leave those guns at home.

But your claim is without any valid evidence. Show me the study where it is shown that political figures not covered by armed protection are just as likely to be shot than those covered by armed bodyguards. You have no idea how many presidents would be killed if the secret service were unarmed or if they were less armed.

Based on this logic there is no reason for motorcycle riders to use helmets because there have been deaths due to head injury even though the rider was using a helmet. In order to agree with what the woman said in the video you would have to agree that helmits are useless because at least one biker suffered a head injury even though he had his helmet on.

This type of concrete thinking is often seen in the mentally ill or in people with cognitive disorders.

[rl6214]

192. Ah yes, lets make our policies based upon

a TV PROGRAM.

[jpak]

95. Good one

yup

[jpak]

103. Wayne LaPierre is an asshole

yup

[lawodevolution]

148. I suspect anyone who challenges you or disagrees with you politically is an "asshole"

[jpak]

161. No so - but Wayne LaPierre and the Free Staters are assholes

yup

[GreenStormCloud]

143. The good guy with the gun was NOT at the immediate scene.

He was inside the store. By the time he could get there it was all over.

Having to reload didn't stop Cho at VT nor did it stop the Luby's killer. With practice a reload can be done in one second.

[lawodevolution]

158. Thank you for posting facts, but those on the anti gun side don't care about facts

[GreenStormCloud]

199. True, they have emotions that allows them to make up "facts". N/T

[benEzra]

168. Since the 1994 Feinstein law roughly tripled sales of civilian AR's and AK's 1994-2004...

and sharply increased stockpiles and sales of 15- and 30-round magazines, I think you might want to reexamine your hypothesis.

The 1994 "assault weapon" fraud didn't ban any guns or magazines. It did not reduce availability of over-10-round magazines for most guns, it did not ban civilian AR-15 type rifles or civilian AK-47's, nothing. It merely required post-1994 AR-15 type rifles and Title 1 AK's to have fixed stocks, smooth muzzles or integral brakes, and no bayonet lugs, prohibited post-1994 civilian guns from being marketed under any of 19 banned names (mostly red herrings anyway), and raised prices on over-10-round pistol magazines but did not ban their sale or possession.

This is my 2002 model civilian AK, which was manufactured, imported, and sold during the Feinstein non-ban; it came with a 30-round magazine and a rare (and collectible) 40-round RPK mag.



I bought an extra 30-rounder ($9.99) and a couple of 20's ($5.99) during the non-ban as well; that's a 20 in the pic. Here are the differences between my 2002 AK and a pre-1994 or post-2004 civilian AK:



And again, far more of these were sold after 1994 than prior. Here's our subcompact Glock 26 with 15-round Glock 19 magazines purchased circa 1997:



If you think the Feinstein law banned (or even reduced) sales of modern-looking rifles and over-10-round magazines, you've been had. It increased them.

You're also ignoring the fact that the murder rate has continued to drop since 2004, that rifle homicide (including with "assault weapons") is now at or near historic lows, and that rifles of any type (including "assault weapons") account for only ~3% of homicides and falling:

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%


Tell me again how modern-looking rifles are such a crime problem...

[bongbong]

178. The usual gun-lovers

I see the usual cast of gun-lovers is here, trotting out all the same "arguments" to justify their gun-love.

Thom Hartmann showed what the Founding Fathers thought about gun rights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILKiAr5Xtgg

And this link shows how the SCOTUS has repeatedly - that means over and over and over - ruled that the 2nd Amendment is about trained militias under (state) government control: http://hnn.us/articles/36395.html

It is only under the current time of activist, anti-Constitution repig judges on the SCOTUS and in other courts that these centuries-long interpretations of the 2nd Amendment have been overruled.

[beevul]

195. ROFL

The minutia he goes through, ignores the fact that the final document as passed into law, is a restriction on government which protects the rights of we the people.

Nothing more.

Thats what it is, thats what it does.

The reason WHY it is what it is and does what it does, is no justification to ignore what it is or what it does.

[bongbong]

204. ROFLx2

The 2nd Amendment is about state militias. Nothing more. The centuries - not decades, CENTURIES - of court decisions at all levels directly supports that. Pesky facts. The activist, anti-Constitutional SCOTUS idiots who gave us Citizens United ignored CENTURIES of precedent.

[beevul]

208. I can no more...

I can no more help it if you can't read, than I can if the people that make such claims can't read.

And as other posts have shown, its NOT been centuries.

In fact, historicly speaking, its the collectivist interpretation which is new and not original.

Thats ok though.

That folks keep trying to push this "militia" reading of the amendment only serve to empower those of us on the pro-gun side of the issue.

[bongbong]

211. That's OK

I read perfectly fine. Let's see, Cruickshank was decided in 1876. Other 2nd Amendment cases came up before the SCOTUS since then, and until Heller they all ruled that the 2nd Amendment was about well-regulate militias, not individual gun ownership. Let's see, Heller was in 2008. 2008 - 1876 is 132 years. When a number is larger than exactly 100, you can say centuries since it is 1.xx centuries.

"In fact, historicly speaking, its the collectivist interpretation which is new and not original."

In fact, I've presented evidence you're wrong. In the world of reality, you use evidence to prove your point.

If you need to look up the definition of either the word centuries or evidence, you can find them at dictionary.com. Have a nice day!

[beevul]

213. LOL.

"I read perfectly fine."

No, you really don't.

You don't understand what I said in my previou post, or you wouldn't have answered the way you did.


You also don't seem to understand cruikshank or presser.

Learn to understand what your reading, please.

"In the world of reality, you use evidence to prove your point."

Uh huh.

Heres all the evidence I need:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org

The "militia" reading of the amendment, ignores completely, the above.

As do those that support it.

[bongbong]

225. I'm laughing harder than you, trust me

"The militia reading of the amendment, ignores completely, the above."

That's your opinion, but the evidence presented in my post #187 refutes your opinion.

"Learn to understand what your reading, please."

I understand my reading. I don't know why you used the tangled and erroneous grammar of "your reading", but I assume you are referring to the books I own. Is that right?

[beevul]

226. I'm sure.

"That's your opinion"

No, thats a fact. The "militia reading" is 100% contrary to the function, purpose, and STATED intent of the bill of rights itself.

Thats a simply verified fact.


"I understand my reading. I don't know why you used the tangled and erroneous grammar of "your reading", but I assume you are referring to the books I own. Is that right?"

Ooo I made a gramatical mistake!! Meh.

Again, I will point out, that you do not understand what you are reading, such is true in your reply to me as I originally claimed, and true in the cases you refer to. You can read the words, no doubt, but you are failing to divine correctly what they mean.

[bongbong]

230. Definitions

"No, thats a fact. The "militia reading" is 100% contrary to the function, purpose, and STATED intent of the bill of rights itself. "

At this point, you need to learn what the words "fact", "opinion" and "evidence" mean. Use dictionary.com.

"but you are failing to divine correctly what they mean."

I bet you think they truly mean exactly, and only, what you think they mean. Again, try dictionary.com for some help. Have a nice day!

[PavePusher]

223. Cite to evidence? n/t

[bongbong]

224. Post #187

Read post #187 and learn.

[gejohnston]

274. Actually, no

There never has been a 2d Amendment case that supported the state militia argument. If there is one, show it. Hartmann joined the "against Bush's watch list before I was for it list." He also parroted the Al Qaida "you can buy a machine gun at a gun show with no idea" nonsense.

[X_Digger]

197. Here let me save you some time..

You can regurgitate this pablum again, too..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4702563&mesg_id=4704176

You never did get back to me on that..



But in the meantime..

Thom Hartmann showed what the Founding Fathers thought about gun rights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILKiAr5Xtgg

Here's the rest of the Adams quote:

The constitution furnishes no resource or remedy; nothing affords a chance of relief but rebellion and civil war. If this terminates in favor of the minority, they will tyrannize in their turn, exasperated by revenge, in addition to ambition and avarice; if the majority prevail, their domination becomes more cruel and soon ends in one despot. It must be made a sacred maxim, that the militia obey the executive power, which represents the whole people in the execution of laws. To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defence, or by partial orders of towns, counties, or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed, and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.

--The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America

Adams was proposing strengthening the federal government's control of the Militia- something the Militia Act of 1792 did (that he signed.)

Notice how Thom quickly bypasses that part of Adams' quote 'except in private self-defense'. That's because the second amendment was passed to protect the militia, but is not the extent of the right protected by the second amendment. Otherwise, why would Adams have mentioned 'except in private self-defense'?

Re Spitzer's screed..

In its 58 page ruling, the two-member Parker majority contradicts nearly fifty other federal court rulings spanning seven decades, as well as four Supreme Court rulings, all of which support the straightforward proposition that the right to bear arms exists only in connection with citizen militia service.

Bullshit..

US v Cruikshank (1876) - "This is not a right granted by the Constitution ... neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

Presser v Illinois (1886) - "the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms"

The statute under which Presser was convicted did not forbid individuals to keep and bear arms but rather forbade "bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law..." Thus, the Court concluded that the statute did not infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

The Court, however, went on to discuss the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, noting that "it is only the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States that the clause relied on was intended to protect." As the Court had already held that the substantive right to keep and bear arms was not infringed by the Illinois statute since that statue did not prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms but rather prohibited military-like exercises by armed men, the Court concluded that it did not need address the question of whether the state law violated the Second Amendment as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court did not address the interpretation of the second amendment- it just said that the Illinois law did not affect it because it did not prevent individuals from keeping and bearing arms.

[Name removed]

203. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bongbong]

240. Ha!

DU purged the entire subthread where I proved you wrong. Funny.

[X_Digger]

246. Then feel free to repost..

I certainly didn't alert on any of your posts.

[bongbong]

251. I bet!

I never suggested you alerted. Some quote by Shakespeare comes to mind about protest. :rofl:

[X_Digger]

252. If you keep within the rules of civility, you should have no problem.

I welcome some original thought. Let's hope you bring some, to make the discussion interesting.

[shadowrider]

254. I find it humerous

Some anti-gun people insult to a level that requires their posts be deleted per the rules, then complain their anti-gun posts are deleted simply because they're anti-gun.

Not all, but some.

[Union Scribe]

221. Personally, I couldn't give a single shit less what the FF thought.

The Constitution's power is that it has been defined by people far, far better than the FF. Those "activist judges" you decry (and, shit, where have I heard that phrase before?) are the ones who secured rights for people the FF wouldn't have pissed on if they were on fire. Thank God for activist judges who expand, rather than ruin, our rights as citizens.

[bongbong]

232. You're kinda brainwashed

Read my post #243 to see what happens to those gun rights when events get a bit too scary for TPTB.

[Union Scribe]

261. Would someone translate this from Superiority Complex to English?

[Name removed]

265. Deleted message

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

[Marengo]

291. No, it was scrubbed because you cannot follow simple rules of civility...

and it will likely be scrubbed again for the same reason.

There is NO content is this post which any intelligent, rational person would consider sophisticated and factual enough to win any argument with a sentient being.

[pipoman]

229. What is amusing is that you read the OP

and responded with this. It is apparent that you acknowledge that the OP is a crock as proven in post #15.

[bongbong]

231. You're a funny one

Nice strawman. Try harder next time.

[aikoaiko]

234. Not even President Obama agrees with you.

[bongbong]

237. Your point?

Obama is a center-right Democrat. Did you have a point, or are you just repeating the obvious?

[aikoaiko]

238. My point is that your position is extreme and not mainstream.

[bongbong]

239. Hmmm

So you don't have a point.

This is Democratic Underground. You're at the wrong website. If you want mainstream, go to the Newsweek or Times website.

:rofl:

[aikoaiko]

245. Don't flatter yourself.

You are not a journalist.

And yes, this is a mainstream Democratic website, or haven't you noticed. Still, there's room for a fringe types here too.

[bongbong]

250. mainstream site?

You must be that arbiter of reality that I've been looking for! But your mindreading skills need some work.

It must be mainstream - it has "underground" in the name of the website. And you never see any criticism of Obama! :sarcasm:

Are you a real person???

:rofl:

[Kolesar]

188. Thank you for posting this...eom

[beevul]

191. LO seems to be under the impression...

LO seems to be under the impression that the AWB did things, and that the things it did had some effect...somewhere.

The problem, is that the AWB didn't do anything which could have led to any effect.

[Name removed]

212. Deleted message

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

[rl6214]

217. Believe a lot of conspiracies do you?

Can you cite what "some people say", otherwise it's just bullshit.

[DonP]

219. Yes they do have a big budget - and a shitload of voters too.

That's because a little over 4.5 million of us pay $35 a year in dues. A lot of those folks also contribute to the NRA-ILA. They teach gun and hunter safety, basic marksmanship, local cops to shoot and also instruct the US Army SDM program with volunteers.

But the reason the politicians listen to them has more to do with the voters they can muster for local, state and federal elections.

"Some say" the "chat room posting" thing is an urban myth or much more likely one of the big lies some cowards have to believe because they can't accept the fact that their views on the 2nd amendment are woefully out of date and have been over ruled twice in less than 2 years and are now black letter law.

And gun laws are only being loosened everywhere in favor of the law abiding no matter how much some folks whine about it. The best news is that with all those new guns (14 million sold in 2010 alone)crime and crime with guns continues to drop to the lowest levels in 35 years according to the FBI and DoJ.

How many belong to your favorite gun control organization? Have you mailed the Brady bunch a check, or do you just talk about gun control on the interwebz?

[Euromutt]

233. Is LO'D the caller in a game of fallacy bingo?

Right off the bat, a post hoc ergo propter hoc (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#posthoc):

A Justice Department study on the federal assault weapons ban, which was law for 10 years found “Gun murders declined 10.3 percent in states without preexisting assault weapons bans.” 10.3 percent.

Well, sure, but this was during a period in which all violent crime--not just murders, and not just violent crimes committed using firearms--declined (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/cv2.cfm). In fact, the national homicide rate spiked in 1991 and started to decline from there (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/hmrt.cfm), over two years before the AWB was even passed. Crimes committed using firearms also started to drop before the AWB was passed (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/guncrime.cfm).

When there's a general decline in all forms of violent crime, with and without firearms (and note that even prior to 1994, firearms were used in less than 15% of violent crimes), you can't point to one specific form of crime--firearm homicides--and say "that particular decline is thanks to the AWB."

On the NRA’s web site, gun violence cheerleader Wayne LaPierre says “It’s time to acknowledge what we know in our hearts to be true.” That “The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.”

Wayne, there was a good guy on the scene that day, in Tucson with a gun, but there wasn’t anything he could do. It was too dangerous to fire. He could have hit an innocent bystander. A good guy with a gun did not stop Jared Loughner.

Ad hominem (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#hominem), straw man (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#strawman) and hasty generalization (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#generalization).

If LaPierre had argued that "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," O'Donnell would have a point, but that's not what LaPierre said. Moreover, the fact that we have one incident in which the shooter was overpowered by unarmed bystanders does not disprove the assertion that "a good guy with a gun" is "the best (note: best) way to stop a bad guy with a gun." Otherwise, why would police need to carry firearms?

If Jared Loughner had tried to do this in 2003 when those magazines were illegal, he would have had to reload after firing 10 bullets.

That means he would have been stopped, stopped, after firing ten bullets and Tucson would have seen fewer funerals.

Audiatur et altera pars (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#alterapars), in failing to state the premise that Loughner would have done everything exactly the same, but for using 10-round mags instead of extended ones. This is not a supportable assumption. In 1986, Patrick Sherrill killed 14 people (not counting himself) and wounded 6 more at the post office in Edmond, Oklahoma. The firearms he used were a pair of GI-issue Colt M1911A1s, using 7-round magazines. Loughner had acquired a second handgun, but apparently decided against using it in favor of the extended magazines. Absent the latter, he could readily have brought both handguns, with magazines that were far less likely to suffer a failure to feed.

In addition, it should be noted that "those magazines" were never illegal. From 1994 to 2004, it was illegal to manufacture or import magazines holding more than 10 rounds, but previously existing ones were "grandfathered in," and were perfectly legal to possess and transfer.

Gun manufacturers pay his salary so he can pretend to be representing the rights of hunters who in fact have absolutely no use for the kind of high capacity magazine Jared Loughner used.

Falsehoods aren't logical fallacies, but they're still wrong. The NRA makes enough from membership dues alone to pay LaPierre's salary a hundred times over. The NRA is also by no means an organization that only, or even primarily, represents the interests of hunters; it expends far more efforts on the interests of those who possess firearms for self-defense, and those people do have a legitimate use for "high capacity" magazines. There's a "bait and switch" being pulled here, too: whatever arguments can be produced against extended magazines do not necessarily apply to magazines that hold 11-19 rounds, which are fairly standard in full-size handguns, and have been for 30 years or more. But O'Donnell is pretending that they do.

He more than any individual law maker is responsible for this country’s insane gun laws that allow insane people to mow down Congresswomen and nine year old girls in Safeway parking lots.

Unless I missed something, this incident happened once. It's not as if "Congresswomen and nine year old girls" getting "mown down <...> Safeway parking lots" is an everyday occurrence. But you wouldn't know it from the way O'Donnell presents it.

So, a collection of fallacies and falsehoods. MSNBC is getting more like Fox News by the month.

[Glassunion]

241. +1 n/t

[benEzra]

247. One correction---it wasn't illegal to import over-10-round magazines 1994-2004

as long as the magazines were manufactured and stockpiled prior to 1994. Most of my SAR-1 mags were imported circa 2002.

The lack of an import restriction, BTW, is why civilian AK magazines were $5.99/ea for 20-round and $9.99/ea for 30-round during the non-ban, and why AR and FAL magazines were so cheap, because there was about a hundred years' supply that could be freely imported---and that's not even counting the magazines grandfathered domestically.

[WatsonT]

253. How much did gun murders decline in the other states?

Also what percentage of murders can be attributed to guns banned by the AWB prior to it's existence compared with after it had been in place a decade (in other words was it actually the cause of the drop or was it merely correlated). If the drop was entirely accounted for in reduced hand gun murders that were unaffected by the ban then it would be ridiculous to give the AWB any credit.

[onehandle]

266. Go Lawrence! nt

[Bold Lib]

267. Go Xdigger. Post number 26.

[PavePusher]

278. Guys, this is a 5 month old thread with 270 responses.

If you are going to revive it, and refer to previous comments, please provide the link to them so we don't have to go blind trying to read the out-of-sequence numbers.

Thanks! :argh:


Edit: Ooops, over 300 replies. See what I mean?

[rl6214]

280. Just another talking head that doesn't know WTF he is talking about

[Straw Man]

282. Reviving zombie threads ...

... with no commentary beyond "Rah, rah, rah"?

It's the Twinkie of rhetoric.

[ileus]

281. The AWB's biggest success was bringing the 45ACP back from the dead.

Limiting new mags to 10 meant the 45 was viable again.


It hasn't looked back since....I love my 10/12 round compact 45.


Don't get me wrong I still love my 15 and 12 round 9's but the 45 is so much fun to shoot.

[gejohnston]

283. Now if there is a way to bring back the .38 Super, I'll be happy. nt

[krispos42]

285. All murders declined in all states after the ban passed

Because, surprise surprise, the AWB didn't exist in a vacuum.






And they stayed down after the ban expired. They also stayed down as more and more states went to shall-issue concealed-carry permits, as gun sales spiked, and as semiautomatic rifles and handguns with double-stack magazines became more and more popular.




No, the reasons that the homicide rate dropped were:

a) the legalization of abortion in 1973 sharply reduced the number of babies born into conditions likely to turn them into street criminals

b) many states, including the biggest, California, implemented 3-strike-and-you're-out laws, which means that chronic offenders were locked away for long periods of time. Since homicides are generally committed by people who are chronic criminals, this probably helped.

c) Clinton put an extra 50,000+ cops on the street with federal funding


The illegal drug industry seemed to stabilize at that point, as well, after a decade of explosive growth and conflict.

There are probably other reasons as well... the relatively good economy, for example.

:shrug:

[spin]

293. Interestingly if a bad economy led to more violent crime ...

you would have thought we would have seen an increase by now. An increase was predicted. (The increase could still happen if the economy causes cities to cut back on the number of police.)

80% Expect Bad Economy To Lead To More Crime
Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Eighty percent (80%) of Americans say current economic conditions in the country are at least somewhat likely to lead to increased crime. Forty-seven percent (47%) say they are very likely to do so.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 12% say the present economy is not very or not at all likely to lead to an increase in crime.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/august_2009/80_expect_bad_economy_to_lead_to_more_crime

The equation for violent crime contains many factors and its beginning to look like some that appear important are not. For example in recent yeas the number of new firearms in civilian hands has skyrocketed but the violent crime rate has continued its fall. More firearms does not cause more crime.

[Ready4Change]

286. Decline of 10.3 percent.

If the decline of 10.3 percent in gun deaths was attributable to the assault weapon ban, that would mean that, prior to the ban, over 10.3 percent of guns deaths were attributable to assault weapons. Actually, the pre-ban percentage should have been far higher than 10.3 percent, because after the ban there still would have been some assault weapons in peoples possession. The ban only affected new weapon sales. So there should have been a fade-in effect, as old weapons become disused without being replaced.

I suspect the decline might be due to some other effect. For example, if it was during the 90's, a booming economy that provided more jobs could have given would-be criminals better options.

[Straw Man]

287. Exactly.

It's the old correlation/causation fallacy.

[AtheistCrusader]

292. Assault weapon is a moveable feast.

Certainly assault weapons in the 'long gun' category are used in less than 3% of crime, let alone murders, but handguns that may variously trip the 'assault weapon' category by holding 11+1 rounds or more, are more prevalent in crime.

Handguns make up the lions share of firearm crime.


That said, I don't buy that fucking number for one second, just as it is difficult to normalize pre, ban, postban data to show trends for other purposes.

[AtheistCrusader]

288. Loughner was tackled on the ground and disarmed before the good guy with the gun arrived.

He was inside the Safeway. By the time he got outside and could see the suspect, the suspect was disarmed, and the man holding Loughners gun immediately dropped in when the responder (sorry, forgot his name) challenged him.

Had the guy fired his gun at Loughner at that point, it would have been considered an extrajudicial killing, or not justifiable, something along those lines.

O'Donnell is a liar, and a schill. Sorry.

[jeepnstein]

290. It's not a citizens' problem...

to go out and fight crime. That's not what a concealed carry weapon is about. ODonnell is just blowing hot air. It's perfectly fine and acceptable to come to the aid of a fellow citizen who is being attacked but a concealed carrier has no duty to act. Even a cop would have to decide to shoot or not shoot based on the circumstances and his lanes of fire. Some times not shooting is the right answer.

[benEzra]

294. So a law that INCREASED sales of "assault weapons" and >10-round magazines

reduced crimes using "assault weapons" and >10-round magazines? Hmmm, that's interesting...

Contrary to popular belief, the 1994 Feinstein law did not ban AR-15 type rifles, civilian AK's, or nontraditional looking pistols, and it did not ban the importation, transfer, sale, or possession of 15/20/30/40+ round magazines. It raised prices on proprietary magazines, certainly, but most rifle magazine prices weren't affected after the initial panic in 1994 wore off.

The net effect was to vastly increase total sales of AR's, civilian AK's, and whatnot by probably 300% over the pre-1994 baseline, with the result that by 2004 "assault weapons" had become the most top selling civilian sporting rifles and defensive carbines in the United States, a position they still hold today.

Here is a 2002 model SAR-1 with a 2002-imported magazine (ban-era); I purchased this new in the box in 2003, during the non-ban. Circled areas show how it differs from a pre-1994 or post-2004 civilian AK.




The FBI keeps track of firearm murders by state and type of weapon (Uniform Crime Reports, Table 20). Rifles (the category to which the overwhelming majority of "assault weapons" belong) is the least misused category, accounting for less than 2.6% of murders---and that's for all rifles combined.

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%

Not that I expect this to make a difference to the prohibitionists, or to the fearmongers in the corporate media. Fear sells, after all.