1,534,414 gun background checks done in November. On target for 16 million in 2011!!

[Logical]

At least 1,534,414 million guns sold in November! It was the biggest month in the history of the NICS system since it was implemented in 1998! A new record!! The old record was 1,529,000 in November of 2008!

Maybe more, because some background checks equal more than one gun sold. And many states do not require background checks for CCW license holders. This also does not count private sales that bypass the NICS system.

More armed Americans than ever and the crime and murder rate continues to fall!

And now Illinois is the only state does does now allow CCW. This means Wisconsin citizens will now be able to defend themselves against criminals who will always find a way to obtain gun illegally!

Once us Democrats stop fighting this, the sooner the GOP and NRA can stop using it against us!

The bad guys will ALWAYS have guns. Why would anyone want to prevent the good guys from having them?

[orpupilofnature57]

1. Guns ? " Good Guys " ? Assault weapons are not Guns for sport . Agreed?

Do you mind waiting and being scrutinized ,both within in reason?

[IamK]

3. I disagree...

Shooting a few hundred rounds from an AK47 out in a few hundred acre backyard is fun... not sure if its a sport I guess...

[orpupilofnature57]

9. I suppose.

[Callisto32]

35. REALLY?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-2YnZtyNaj4/SkrvYMDJBNI/AAAAAAAAAY4/La3mY3EDnJ0/s320/funny+fascinating+cat.jpg

[orpupilofnature57]

82. No

[Callisto32]

93. So you don't suppose.

Just as I suspected.

[orpupilofnature57]

99. Got me

[TheWraith]

4. There's no substantial difference between an "assault weapon" and a "non-assault-weapon." nt

[orpupilofnature57]

7. Besides intent ,capability. nt

[Dr_Scholl]

11. Oh, cut the crap.

How does the pistol grip and flash hider on my AR-15 make it more dangerous than a politically correct looking Mini 14?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. Abuse, rejection of commonly used technical terms, and no answer to the question asked.

Might I suggest a soothing pot of chamomile and some meditation? All that anger is not doing you a bit of good...

[orpupilofnature57]

79. Thanks , the tea was great ,I still hate 2nd Amendment Paranoia

[ileus]

20. My AR's and mini do the same thing. the safety on the AR is much better IMHO.

[Remmah2]

39. The problem is not with the definition "assault weapon"

The problem is in the definition of "sporting purposes" and "infringement".

[orpupilofnature57]

83. I agree ,my problem is Gun Rights that are opposed to Peoples Rights

[We_Have_A_Problem]

86. How do you figure?

The right to be armed is a right the people enjoy.

Granted, an armed populace makes it pretty difficult to force a communist state, but that's kinda the point...

[orpupilofnature57]

110. In 1791 it was a necessity ,now it's infringement on well-being.

[orpupilofnature57]

78. sorry for the rant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14 compared to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47 or what is the difference between apathy and ignorance.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

87. Difference between apathy and ignorance is easy to explain...

...and not caring and not knowing are quite different things.

Still waiting for you to explain the functional differences between a mini-14 and an AK (semi-automatic version of course as the full auto variant is not available in the US)

[orpupilofnature57]

98. Not legally available, or nonexistent in the US ?

[oneshooter]

103. Full auto AK's are available, price does not include the $200 tax

And there is a very complete background check by the FBI (3-6 months average)

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=262535391

There are many others available for a lot more money, but each requires a new background check and the $200 tax.


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[orpupilofnature57]

109. Thanks

[Marengo]

19. As far as intent, the musket was an "assault weapon"...

when the Constitution was authored and one could reasonably argue the firelock was more "capable" than earlier ignition systems.

[orpupilofnature57]

84. Which must of seemed light years ahead of the catapult ,Whats your point ?

[TheWraith]

28. Insubstantial terms, defined in your own head, which do not make a weapon "super extra lethal." nt

[orpupilofnature57]

85. It's capability ,and who's shooting does.

[Callisto32]

36. Intent....

HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WEAPON!!!!!!1!!!ONE!!!!!!!

[We_Have_A_Problem]

45. Intent is in the mind of the user

A tool does not have intent.

As far as capability, please explain to us the differences in capability between an "assault weapon" as defined by the AWB, and a standard semi-automatic rifle.

[orpupilofnature57]

81. I paint them with the same brush ,Toys that kill.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

88. Well that's your problem isn't it? n/t

[SteveM]

67. Capability, there really isn't (most are somewhat less powerful than...

a Remington Model 742 semi-auto hunting rifle, used for generations without objection). Intent? The Remington, with all its checkered engraving and etchings of leaping deer, is merely a knock off of the M-1 Garand of WW II/Korean War era. How soon we forget.

Intent? That's what the expression "only people kill people" means.

[orpupilofnature57]

80. We can't police peoples minds ,just their modes of murder.

[friendly_iconoclast]

89. The mode matters not a whit to the victim. Dead is dead.

[SteveM]

95. And what "modes" do you propose for policing?...

The so-called AWB at first merely attempted to "ban" guns based on looks. The "bans" on the drawing boards only expand the number of "assault weapons" somewhat beyond looks, leaving aside semi-auto rifles made by Remington, Browning, the old Harrington & Richardson Co., and others. Why, when these latter ones are generally more powerful? It is LOOKS, the FEAR FACTOR, the old-time prohibitionist's appeal to LURIDNESS. It is not the capabilities of the weapons or their role in causing societal problems: Well less than 3% of all crimes in which a gun was used employed a semi-auto rifle of ANY type, let alone the "scary" assault weapons.

The "ban" didn't ban anything but accoutrements to these weapons in any case, and any such ban -- even if it were somehow effected -- would not have a measurable effect on crime. By the F.B.I.'s own data.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html

Note the data for 2009 wherein "rifles" are used: Only three hundred some-odd crimes, well less than half the number of crimes in which "personal" weaponry (fists, hands, feet) were used. And "rifles" includes ALL types, of which semi-auto carbines (your "assault weapons") is just one.

A so-called "assault weapons ban" is a solution in search of a problem.

[orpupilofnature57]

100. Shrub helped you people out there.

[SteveM]

101. "you people" is who, now?

I don't think you can handle argument on this topic.

[orpupilofnature57]

102. You people that split hairs on WMD.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166

[friendly_iconoclast]

104. By your metric, Iraq was and is full of "WMD"- not by mine, of course.

REAL AK-47s were and still are popular there.

Hell, by that measure the National Association of Automobile Manufacturers make "WMD"s- there are fewer automobiles than guns in
the US, yet cars kill more people then guns do.

[orpupilofnature57]

108. Cling to that metric lie ,how many times a day is an ignition turned?

Whats more necessary and used, cars or guns ,and Baghdad enjoys the lowest standard of living on the planet.While as I pointed out ( or tried ) We the US ,enjoy the most Dangerous ,as far as Murders go. Making Guns in the US the only weapons of mass destruction we have to fear.I never believed a thing the Shrub circus said or did ,including lifting the bans president Clinton put in place.

[GreenStormCloud]

113. What bans did Bush lift? N/T

[GreenStormCloud]

112. How did he do that? N/T

[orpupilofnature57]

118. By promoting the wolf at the edge of the forest ,whilst hiding the beast in the middle

of Wall street.

[GreenStormCloud]

120. What does that non-answer have to do with assault weapons? N/T

[PavePusher]

8. Please point out the "sport" provision in the Second Amendment.

Then explain what an "assault weapon" is, and why it is so much more dangerous than something with a "traditional" wood stock.

This I gotta see...

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[orpupilofnature57]

111. The number of Bullets that can be fired in a 3 second span ,now before you gild that lily

Be cool PavePusher.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

121. Every semi auto has about the same rate of fire in 3 seconds.

All depends how fast the user can pull the trigger.

It really helps if you know what the fuck you're talking about

[oneshooter]

43. By "assault weapons" are you referring to AR-15 platforms?

If so then they are the preferred rifle for many, if not most of the shooting sports. Competitions ranging from bullseye to 3gun are now dominated by the AR-15 platform.

The M1 Garand is NOT a "assault weapon" it is a battle rifle.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[We_Have_A_Problem]

44. Nope, not agreed.

Yes, I do mind waiting and being scrutinized in order to exercise my rights. Would you accept a waiting period and/or background check before being allowed to enter a church, for example?

[orpupilofnature57]

119. No I wouldn't.

[PavePusher]

49. Still waiting for a coherent answer. n/t

[SteveM]

65. Not agreed...

The so-called "assault weapons" to which you refer are generally medium-caliber semi-automatic carbines. They look "military" because they are built on the same platforms of true Assault Rifles, which are capable of FULL-AUTO fire (like a machine gun).

The carbines referenced are used for both sport shooting and hunting, as well as self-defense. With many small manufacturers (as well as "legacy" manufacturers) in the U.S. turning out more accurate renditions, they are popular on the range for target shooting. The ammunition for most is much cheaper then that used for hunting big game. However, many are now being chambered for "deer-size" rounds: .260, .308, and others. They weight slightly more than a standard walnut-and-blue steel rifle, but being shorter and more compact in general, they are ergonomically superior to the weapons seen on the covers of Field & Stream and Outdoor Life, and they have less recoil.

Several years ago, it was estimated by the Shooting Sports Foundation that some 16,000,000 have been sold to Americans, making this type of rifle the most popular center-fire rifle sold in the U.S. Surely, those numbers have gone up in the last several years. The Shooting Sports Foundation and others have predicted that the type will supplant "traditional" hunting rifles within a generation.

Be advised that this type of rifle is NOT suitable as a front-line military weapon because it DOES NOT fire full-auto; hence, it can only be used for civilian and some local LEO purposes. You may wish to see how many of these weapons are used in "gun crime." FBI data indicate that less than 3% of these crimes are committed using a rifle; and the "assault weapon (sic)" is only ONE type within that category. Seems even criminals don't have much use for it.

If I was younger, and chose a new deer rifle, I would probably get an AR-15 in .260. Fits well, fast to bring to bear, light recoil -- and it doesn't suffer from scratches.


Part of the good guys

:-)

[PavePusher]

77. Still waiting.....

[IamK]

2. shoot'em if you got'em...... n/t

[orpupilofnature57]

15. RIP

[tularetom]

5. I'm not sure Democrats are fighting it all that much

The President has figured out that it isn't an issue worth fighting over.

The GOP and NRA are never going to stop using it against us but not all gun owners buy into their bullshit.

I stopped into one of our local arms emporiums today and the place was packed. With people buying handguns. S&W, Taurus, Glock there must have been 20 people walk out the door with new guns in the half hour I was in there. And another 5 or 6 starting the paperwork for a purchase. And guess what - 80% of the customers were minorities. Hispanics, Asians, even an African American woman.

The guy at the counter said it's been like this for weeks.

Admittedly this is anecdotal but I get the feeling that gun control is a dead issue.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

6. I take issue with your last sentence.

"The bad guys will ALWAYS have guns."

The good guys will ALWAYS have them too. Nobody is coming for your guns.

[PavePusher]

10. "Nobody is coming for your guns."

Despite all the evidence to the contrary?

O.K., whatever...

[orpupilofnature57]

14. National Redneck Association has always been paranoid. ,lack of socialization.

[gejohnston]

16. What other segment of the 99 percent do you detest?

of of us need to stand together, regardless if you wear a rodeo trophy buckle or purple hair and piercings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Redneck_Manifesto_(book)

[orpupilofnature57]

32. Flea=baggers too. Who are you?you

[PavePusher]

30. O.K., you'll have to unpack that a bit more. Some of us have had a long day. n/t

[orpupilofnature57]

33. Not too tired to push paranoia of stalinist plots or as Always, abolishing the 2nd.

[DrDan]

42. I think "National Reprobate's Association" is more appropriate

why insult rednecks

[orpupilofnature57]

116. Thank you,, I'm a space case.

[SteveM]

68. Well, I thought you might want to discuss the question you raised. Sorry.nt

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

31. All the evidence? But not much common sense to back that up.

Seems more like a marketing tool for the firearms industry. The powers to be, don't want your guns, they want your voices silenced.

[doc03]

17. I own guns I have a concealed carry permit I am just

against the NRA.

[Logical]

18. I am also against the NRA! They are a right wing group of nuts!

[doc03]

21. I don't think a week passes that one of my friends that

belong to the NRA doesn't bring up something about Obama or Democrats wanting to take our guns. They are subtle about it though usually it comes from a third party such as an e-mail from a Republican Congressman or Senator. Funny only NRA members get those e-mails and letters about Hillary, the UN or Obama trying to take their guns.

[TheCowsCameHome]

22. Paranoia

Pure and simple.

[Logical]

24. Great points, and now they are saying Obama is just waiting for 2016 to ban all guns....

They need to raise money and know that the idiot right wing GOP voters will believe them.

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. They use the same techniques as the various Brady orgs. - but they're better at it.

That's one of the reasons I don't join them- the incessant money grubbing...

[doc03]

26. That's the latest Wayne LaPierre vast left wing conspiracy

theory. Obama has been cleverly avoiding any gun control issues in his first term because he is planing secretly to take our guns if he gets re-elected. That's one of the things I heard a few days ago from a NRA member. Then a few days ago another one was all fired up because he got an e-mail from Rand Paul saying Obama had nearly a million M1 rifles melted down. Another e-mail they received a while back claiming Hillary Clinton signed some kind of treaty with the UN to confiscate all our guns.

On edit: I forgot they are always accompanied with a form to check off an emergency donation to fight whatever the threat of the week is.

[Logical]

27. So true, no message is delivered without asking for money!

[GreenStormCloud]

114. I am a member of the NRA but I don't get those e-mails. Why not? N/T

[orpupilofnature57]

117. 1865 SYNDROME!!!!!!! And thats it a yen for antebellum .

[gejohnston]

29. self delete

[DrDan]

34. can you please provide a link that demonstrates that the reduction in crime is due to more guns

[Callisto32]

37. Settin up that old strawman again eh?

The data has been posted hundreds of times. An increase in the availability and efficacy of weapons does not increase violent crime. For many years the number of guns and gun owners in the U.S. has been increasing, and violent crime has been decreasing.

From this data we can ascertain that (More guns)=/=(More crime).
It is extremely difficult to tell if (More guns)=(more/less) crime, because it is difficult to control all the other possible social factors.


HAVE A NICE DAY!

[DrDan]

38. Fundamental Christianity has been on the rise - how do you know that is not

the reason for less crime.

Please post a link that demonstrates that the reason for the decline in crime is due to more guns.

[PavePusher]

40. You are asking for proof to a claim THAT NO-ONE MADE.

And your question has already been answered.

[DrDan]

41. it was certainly implied, now wasn't it

"More armed Americans than ever and the crime and murder rate continues to fall!"

[We_Have_A_Problem]

46. No it was not implied

Pointing out that the more guns = more crime meme is utterly without basis in reality is not the same thing as saying more guns = less crime.

[DrDan]

47. of couse it was implied

"More armed Americans than ever and the crime and murder rate continues to fall!"

Why else even link those two issues.

[PavePusher]

48. People who actually look at the data and think. n/t

[DrDan]

50. and what conclusion would they derive?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

51. The conclusion which has been pointed out time and time again....

While more guns does not necessarily mean less crime, it absolutely does not mean MORE crime.

[DrDan]

52. could you please post a link supporting that

[We_Have_A_Problem]

53. Uh - look upthread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=485136&mesg_id=485232

Try reading the responses...just a thought.

Want more? Check out the FBI UCR which demonstrates a solid drop in crime over the past 10 years or so.

This shit aint exactly news Dan. We've mentioned all of it before.

[DrDan]

56. the drop in crime is obviously based on multiple factors

Let's say we have a net decrease of 15%.

How do you know that would not be A 25% reduction if not for the increase in guns.

Please provide a source that clearly states the the increase in guns has not led to any increase in crime.

I realize it has been mentioned here many many times. That does not make it true.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[DrDan]

62. ok - so crime is going down - gun sales are going up

I accept that. Please produce what I requested.

"it absolutely does not mean MORE crime."

Show that guns are not producing more crime . . . while other factors are delivering a net overall drop.

[friendly_iconoclast]

63. "Show that guns are not producing more crime..." That's not what you asked originally

I hoped you properly warmed up before you moved that goalpost. They're heavy!

And the statement made was that "more guns =/= more crime", while we've been told here at DU and in other fora that an increase
in the number of guns would lead to an increase in crime.

[DrDan]

64. obviously the relationship between crime and gun sales, that

poster claims, has not been demonstrated.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

66. If a decrease has occured

then obviously an increase has not.

I fail to see what else you could possibly want.

Gun sales are way up. Crime is at its lowest point in 50 years. Obviously more guns do not mean more crime. It really cannot be more clear and simple than that.

You want proof that it would not have dropped even more if gun sales had not increased? That's an impossible request and will be treated with the contempt it deserves.

Simply put DrDan, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise, all of your unfounded fears are exactly that - unfounded. Guns in private hands do not increase crime.

I have never, and will never, claim more guns is the cause of the reduced crime rate. There are far too many other factors to be taken into account.

[DrDan]

71. that is akin to saying

I eat 4,000 calories a day and I expend 5,000 in exercise, hence my weight is dropping. Therefore I can conclude that "eating 4,000 calories will not cause one to gain weight".

Of course it will cause weight gain - and yes, that can be proven. But other factors are at work that might overshadow the calorie intake and the weight gain.

As you say, there are many factors to consider.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

97. Not QUITE.

Were I to say that more guns = less crime, then yes, I would be saying what you are with calories.

However, that is not what I am saying, is it?

[DrDan]

106. ok - so your claim is that

more guns do not lead to more crime. And you reach that conclusion because gun sales are increasing and crime is decreasing.

Did I state that correctly?

(and the calorie example seems to fit to me - I stated that more calories do not lead to more weight, did I not?)

[DrDan]

107. let me restate the calorie example like this . . .

I eat more and more calories daily. My weight continues to go down. I can therefore conclude that eating calories does not add to my weight.

Would you agree with that?

[SteveM]

70. now, you've implied dismissal of your own Straw Man! jeeez. nt

[SteveM]

69. Not implied at all, just disproving the "More guns=More crimes" meme. nt

[DrDan]

72. "disproving"???????????????

[SteveM]

96. Would you prefer "the more guns=more crime" contention be manifestly unproven?

I'll go with that.

[Callisto32]

91. No, THIS IS WHAT WAS IMPLIED:

MORE ARMED AMERICANS =/= MORE HARMED AMERICANS!!

(Dang, I like that, maybe it'll go in the sig line.)

[Callisto32]

90. Thanks for....proving my point....while simultaneously missing it entirely.

It's like the people that used to write into my school newspaper!

[DrDan]

92. enjoy your delusion

[Callisto32]

94. I said we can't know the cause with certainty...

because there are so many other factors. You agreed, but didn't seem to realize that we agreed.

Ergo, you proved one of my points, while missing that it was indeed the point. Easy.

[DrDan]

105. let me make sure I understand your point (seriously)

Crime rate is decreasing, gun sales are increasing, so one can conclude that more guns do not lead to more crime.

Did I state that correctly?

[montanto]

54. 16 million more guns! You'd think

there would be a lot more gun related crime, but no.

[Logical]

55. Weird isn't it? It is almost like more guns do not mean more crime. Hmmmm

[DrDan]

57. any studies to substantiate that?

[Logical]

58. The proof that guns cause more crime is your deal!

[DrDan]

60. you seem to be implying they do not raise the rate - or am I misreading your post

[Logical]

73. My claim is more guns do not equal more crime. Not more guns equals less crime.

[montanto]

76. They don't. You didn't.

[montanto]

74. Certainly nothing like you'd expect fom listening to the anti-

gun crowd. With millions of new guns going home every year you'd kinda expect criminal activity to increase by thousands of cases per year. Some sort of substantial increase in gun related crime, especially by legal owners. But gun related crime stubbornly refuses to go up even though all these guns are going home.

[burf]

59. The 16 million number does not necessarily

equate to 16 million guns. Background checks are also used for concealed carry permits and there may have been a number of checks prevented an individual from getting a gun.

[montanto]

75. Yeah, I get that.

I did two background checks this year that were for serial numbered parts, not whole guns. Still, its a big number, and you'd think that more guns would equal more trouble on the streets. Doesn't seem to work that way.

[GreenStormCloud]

115. In some states a CCW can be shown and no background check is needed.

Since I have a CHL (Texan for CCW)then I never show up on the NICS numbers when I buy a gun.