Despite Tucson shootings, gun control push falters

[spanone]

These politicians need to remember that these rights aren’t given to us by them. They are God-given rights,' gun supporter says


Yet gun rights advocates and lawmakers on
both sides of the aisle said Thursday that
there was little chance the attack would produce significant new legislation or a change
in a national culture that has long been
accepting of guns.

If anything, they said, lawmakers are less
receptive than ever to new gun restrictions.

If the politically sophisticated N.R.A. has
struck a quiet pose, the Crossroads of the
West gun show will go on as planned this
weekend at the Pima County Fairgrounds, 13
miles from the shooting site; another gun
show is scheduled for the next weekend.

“We had no hesitation about going ahead with
the show so soon after the incident,” said Lois
Chedsey, secretary to the Arizona Arms
Association, a show sponsor. “Gun sales have
been up since last Saturday.”

An even bigger event in Las Vegas, the Shot
Show — which bills itself as the country’s
largest exhibition of guns and ammunition —
is proceeding next week with a four-day run
that fills two floors of convention space.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41071206/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/#

[DrDan]

1. just have to wait and see where the NRA wants to lead us

[Tippy]

19. The NRA has been silent so far they are wating for us to

Forget that limiting the size of Magazines did/was making a difference, that is why Bush did away with the regulation. Yes, some will make their own, but not all will or have the know how to do it. That is about the best we can get for now and doing a little is still better than doing nothing. Do you all know that Magazines are flying off the shelves as we speank....

[Statistical]

20. No it didn't. There is no govt or peer reviewed study that indicates the AWB had any effect.

No effect on violent crime
No effect on homicide rate
No effect on number of rounds fired
No effect on number of multiple victim homicides

Nothing.

Also Bush didn't "make it go away". The bill expired because it had a sunset date. It was worthless and after 1996 nobody wanted to risk their seat for a worthless bill. Bush didn't do a single thing. Hell there was nothing he could have done to extend it even if he wanted to as Congress didn't pass a bill extending the ban.

Even when democrats took control of Congress in 2006 with super majorities they didn't pass a bill. When Obama became President in 2008 (thus controlling all 3 elements: House, Senate, WhiteHouse) they didn't pass a bill.

[DrDan]

23. now we both know that a lack of a study indicating an effect DOES NOT

mean there is "no effect".

It only means no effect has as yet been shown statistically.

Proving someone "not guilty" does not prove innocence.

[Statistical]

24. So that is your argument.

Really no study could find any effect on the efficacy of the AWB so we should just try again and hopefully in another decade or so they might find some tiny effect (or maybe they wont' and we just lose control of Congress for another decade again).

Given so called "assault weapons" are used in <1% of crime and can be replaced by "non assault" weapons it is virtually impossible that any effect could ever be found. A key problem with the bill is that is banned the weapons least likely to be used in crime (hands, knives, and blunt objects are used far more often). Small cheap handguns are favored by most criminals. Per FBI average number of shots fired in a crime involving firearms is 2.7.

Still even if there was so insignificant undetectable effect that doesn't make this statement any less false.
"Forget that limiting the size of Magazines did/was making a difference, that is why Bush did away with the regulation. "

Neither portion is false. Bush did a lot of bad & stupid shit but he had nothing to do with AWB expiring. If there is no detectable effect one can't claim it "was working".

[Tippy]

34. Thank you for your reply......

It is to bad we are even involved in this discussion...When people try to do something for all the right reasons and the other side has a closed mind, there is no way to open it...Suffice to say I had a husband who is now a gun dealer, he is a hunter, he is reponsible...He also shot out our TV with an unloaded gun. Just because we don't have a study to quote we are wrong, but if people would pay attention and use common sense they would see. This shooter last Sat. had two magazines besides the one in the gun, another 30 round clip and a 10 round clip, and how many were killed and wounded? Also I would like to remind the other poster that many in law-enforcement were behind the ban. I sure don't need a study to see the bigger the magazine the more shots you can get off the more you can kill....again thanks for your reply.

[Statistical]

36. Cho killed 32 people with nothing more than 10 and 15 round magaxines.

A large reason why is because he had two weapons and thus could reload one while still being armed with the other.

This suspect bought 2 Glock 17. He decided to only bring one (likely due to the flashy and highly ineffective 30 rnd magazine). It is possible if he didn't he would have bought both pistols and used a technique similar to Cho killing dozens.

He made a tactically bad decision. We should be thankful he did but that doesn't change the fact that he could have killed the same number of people or possibly more people with a "New York reload".

[DrDan]

41. the fact is - he had a gun and he had an extended 30-round magazine

No conjecture there - no "it is possible . . . " or "possibly". Fact.

[Statistical]

47. and Cho didn't and killed 6x as many people without one.

The conjecture is made by the people claiming that if "only we had banned" standard capacity magazines then nobody would have died.

It is a false claim. The analysis by CDC and ATF prove that. The fact that Cho was able to carry out an attack proves that.

[michreject]

28. 94 AWB had no effect on anything

Except raising the value of guns.

[Statistical]

33. and Republican control of Congress for a decade. n/t

[X_Digger]

29. Two things..

a) Chimpie didn't 'do away' with anything.
b) President Clinton's DOJ could find no credible evidence that the ban did any good.

[beevul]

48. The original AWB had no effect on crime.

The original AWB had no effect on crime.

"that is why Bush did away with the regulation."

The regulation of which you peak, sunset by design - it had a sunset clause written into it. Congress did not renew it.

[benEzra]

50. Since the availability of over-10-round magazines was not significantly affected

by the 1994 non-ban, and the law didn't ban any guns, then any crime decreases ascribed to it must be the result of something else.

Given that violent crime 2005-2010 is *lower* than violent crime 1994-2004, I think it is quite clear that those other factors are still in play, and that the fraudulent 1994 non-ban was irrelevant.

FWIW, my wife and I bought numerous 15- to 30-round magazines between 1994 and 2004, all legally. 30-round AK magazines were $9.99/ea, and new-production AK's themselves were $300-$350, cheaper than now. 30-round Glock magazines were exorbitantly priced, but there were plenty available.

[Statistical]

2. The gun "control" bills proposed are feel good, do nothing trash.

They should be defeated.

[spanone]

3. high capacity clips seem unnecessary ...not do nothing trash imo

[Statistical]

4. The bill bans 11 round magazines.

It then exempts Police because otherwise Police Unions would never support it.

Finally it doesn't ban existing magazines (of which roughly 1 billion exist in the US) it just bans the manufacture and sale of NEW magazines.

We tried this once before from 1994-2004. It had no effect on violent crime or homicides. The only tangible effect was it turned the NRA into the most powerful lobbying organization this country has ever seen and gave Republicans control of Congress for a decade (1996-2006). Bush tax cuts, free trade agreements, patriot act, two wars, banking deregulation, etc.

McCarthy can try and piss on my leg but don't try to tell me it is raining.

[spanone]

5. guns did all that....wow. amazing. silly.

[Statistical]

7. No stupid do nothing gun control laws did all that ...

From Bill Clinton "My Life" speaking about 1996 election and cost of the so called "assault weapons ban"
----
The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Floey and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Grooks has supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committe he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master; one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen out of the twenty-four members on its list. They did at least that much damage and could rightfuly claim to have made Gingrich the House Speaker.

----

Clinton is no fan on the NRA. He is just calling it as he sees it. Now if the AWB had been some useful legilsation it *might* have been worth losing Control of Congress for a decade. However it wasn't. It was a piece of shit bill that accomplished nothing.

[spanone]

8. sometimes the right thing isn't the politically right thing.

[Statistical]

9. It wasn't the right thing. It accomplished NOTHING.

How can a bill that does NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING but causes your party to lose Control of Congress "the right thing"?

Is your opinion of "the right thing" any gun control bill no matter how useless, pointless, or ineffective?

[spanone]

10. don't worry. no ones taking your guns. or your clips. enjoy.

[Statistical]

11. That doesn't mean people like McCarthy aren't trying.

It doesn't mean people like you aren't supporting it despite the fact that it does nothing.
It doesn't mean my original point about the law being pointless and deceitful isn't valid.

People complain about the NRA but it is because of the NRA these stupid bills don't get passed. When people like McCarthy try it only sends more money and resources to the NRA. Then cycle continues.

[Hoyt]

12. So we should do nothing because the gun obsessed might contribute to NRA and vote right wing?

[Statistical]

13. No we should be looking for real solutions.

The term "common sense" gun control is used a lot but 99% of what is proposed is just pure BS.

NRA hasn't tried to defeat all gun control. They lobbied FOR the instant background check system, they lobbied to have NICS updated to better accommodate records of mentally ill persons. They didn't fight the 1986 ban on new machinegun purchases.

But a law that decitfully bans 11 round magazines by calling them "high capacity" is bullshit.
A law that bans guns based on how they look ("assault weapons ban") is bullshit.
A law that makes a law abiding citizen a felon because there is a govt official within 1000 ft (out of sight) is bullshit.

Doing something for the sake of doing something no matter how stupid, ineffective, or deceitful that law is well that is only acceptable for gun control crusaders. After 1996 a lot fewer Democratic leaders are willing to go down that path.

[Hoyt]

14. Personally I'd support law that those attracted to "assault weapon" be prohibited from owning a gun.

And I'd support laws that severely restrict packing in public. I do not think the laws you cite are BS. They might PO some folks obsessed with guns, but would be of value long-term. Further, I don't think one can assess the impact of the law just looking at what it does in the next few years. You have to look long-term. In the short-run, the unbalanced will likely run out and purchase high capacity magazines if they think they might be outlawed. But long-term, we will be better off without them. Further, their use should be restricted to home caressing and prohibited from being carried in public. I don't think we need someone obsessed with guns standing in line at Chuck E Cheeze with two guns with high capacity magazines strapped to their legs.

By golly if the term "assault" or the appearance of the gun excites a potential gun owner, that's reason enough for me to prohibit it. It indicates some degree of unbalance.

[Statistical]

15. Well thanks for being honest. Banning things for the sake of banning things.

Uncsontitutional, pointless, and political suicide.

[Hoyt]

17. No, I wouldn't ban assault weapons. I'd just deem those who want one mentally unstable to own/carry

Kind of a poor man's mental evaluation.

Certain types of guns attract unstable people, and may actually aide their mental spiral. Yet, now we allow them to buy as many as they want and increasingly carry them anywhere they want. Shoot, in Arizona if the police had stopped Loughner before he starting shooting away, they could not have done anything to him but say, "thank you sir, nice gun you are packing in public like all the other cowboys and fearful in the state."

[Statistical]

18. So called assault weapons are the most common rifle sold today.

Used in everything from hunting, to competitive shooting, to home defense.

Your belief you can define people as mentally ill for wanting high quality, functional firearms is a joke.

[Hoyt]

26. Just confirms to me how many gun purchasers should be deemed not fit to own or carry guns.

I'd say just about anyone who finds great pleasure in owning, using an "assualt" weapon has a problem and is a potential threat to society. In my opinion of course.

The fact that there are millions of alcoholics in this country, doesn't make me think we ought to relax drunk driving laws.

[michreject]

30. Fortunately for me

You don't get to decide.

[Statistical]

32. You don't get it "assault" weapons are a made up term.

It would be like saying cars with spoilers or shiny rims are "assault" cars and anyone driving one should have their license revoked.

The AR-15 platform is a high quality, effective, and customizable system. "Assault weapons" is a bogus term, making any judgements based on a name shows how suspect your judgement is.

[Hoyt]

35. Oh, I do get it. It's a marketing ploy to sell guns to those who can't control their baser instincts

Manufacturers produce guns like that to appeal to folks who shouldn't be allowed to carry in public. Just my opinion.

[Statistical]

38. No. The term was made up by anti-gun crusaders.

"Scary black rifle" ban isn't very catchy is it? Hard to rally support behind that.

An "assault rifle" is a military grade weapon, select fire, and used by all military forces in the world.
So they classified these "scary black rifles" as "assault weapons". The similarity in the name wasn't accidental. Brady campaign bragged about how the confusion of the public led to acceptance of the law.

Many people believed it banned automatic weapons, or military weapons, or weapons based on how dangerous they were. None of that was true. "Assault weapon" is a made up term by gun control crusaders to manipulate the public.

You won't find a single gun manufacturer who calls them "assault weapons".

[Hoyt]

43. Yes, to describe guns manufactured to appeal to folks' baser instincts.

[X_Digger]

44. Baser instincts?

People who want to have a gun that fits the arm length of multiple shooters, or regardless of how many layers of clothing you happen to be wearing-- are giving in to their 'baser instincts'?

People who want to have a gun that's more reliable, more accurate, less likely to break, is easier to maintain-- are giving in to their 'baser instincts'?

People who want a lighter weight gun that is less likely to get scratched up in the woods, is more flexible in the uses it can be put to-- are giving in to their 'baser instincts'?

Yeah, pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

[Maine_Nurse]

55. Absolutely!

The most basic human instinct is that of survival. I live 30-45 minutes from an emergency police response depending on where in the county the deputies or troopers are. My son is an officer and 45 minutes is the best I can hope for unless they are already up here for a car accident or something. And don't give me that "what are the chances" crap because I have a bullet hole in me from a scumbag street robbery many years ago, and, in a separate incident 4 years ago, my wife was home alone when we had a daytime home invasion (a string of drug burglaries in our area for a month or so hit over 20 houses). She managed to get her revolver out of her nightstand and the criminal ducked and ran out the door before she got a round off. Last month, we had an incident in an even smaller town than mine where two armed criminals showed up at a person's remote home and played "I was just in a car accident and need to use your phone" to lure his door open. They then pepper sprayed him and began to assault him. He managed to get his firearm out and kill one of the attackers, ending the attack (http://www.bangordailynews.com/story/Downeast/Affidavit-details-Eastbrook-shooting,161986).

My deer rifle will do far more damage than any false "assault weapon" (assault weapon IS a legitimate term, however it indicates a fully automatic rifle) with their relatively small caliber ammunition. Unfortunately my deer rifle only hold 5 rounds and takes a fairly long time to reload. I want way more available rounds than that when attacks by multiple armed persons are happening more and more often.

[Hoyt]

57. Have no real issue with guns in home. It's people packing on the town square that are a concern.

Deer rifles fine with me. "Assault" weapons that appeal to folks "baser" instincts, not so much.

BTW -- How many shots did the guy need to protect his home?

[Maine_Nurse]

58. Not sure how many rounds...N.T.

[Hoyt]

59. Glad he defended himself. If someone breaks in a house, I have no problem with opening fire.

Personally, I don't have any non-human things in my house worth killing someone to defend. I'd probably just let a burglar take what they want unless they walk in the same room as me or a member of my family. Then, I'm going to draw my machete, or worse.

Now shooting a kid for stealing a pink flamingo off the front lawn, that's a bit much. I have known gun nuts who would do just that though. It's like they were just waiting for someone to give them any excuse to shoot.

It's folks packing in public that really bother me. Too easy for them to make a mistake.

Someone who has a cache of weapons at home might have a problem. Especially if they spend a lot of time with them. And I've known a few like that too.

[beevul]

49. Mhmmm...

"The fact that there are millions of alcoholics in this country, doesn't make me think we ought to relax drunk driving laws."

I'm sure it makes you want to ban alcohol though . :eyes:

[X_Digger]

31. Tautological balderdash..

"If you want one, you're not qualified to have it. If you don't want one, you can have it."

[Hoyt]

37. Yep an ironic Catch 22. We investigate folks who want to buy bombs, why not assault weapons.

Bombs, assault weapons. Both are bad.

[X_Digger]

39. Thanks for admitting that it's a catch-22.

As such, it's untenable illogic.

[Hoyt]

40. Ah, come on. Do you really think folks who surround themselves with these type weapons are stable?

Stable enough to be packing in public?

[X_Digger]

42. Rock on, culture warrior..

What is it about having an adjustable stock or pistol grip that makes one gun so much more scary than another?



versus



Same caliber, same rate of fire, same ability to accept detachable magazines.

Here, I think you need to slather some of this around..

[benEzra]

54. The gun in your second photo...

Same gun. Three different stocks.

[Maine_Nurse]

56. What???

Do you realize how many police officers, doctors, nurses, schoolteachers, and emt's own these types of firearms and carry in public when not working?

[safeinOhio]

21. Times must be changing then.

A US house member that voted for the AWB was just elected governor of Ohio over a A+ NRA rated gun rights supporter. Also, large urban areas vote for gun control mayors and are critical to Democratic victories in national elections.
Going to have to find a way to balance all of that.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[invader zim]

6. best news I heard all day. N/T

Zim

[-..__...]

16. The parasites at Brady Inc...

thought they hit the Trifecta (a judge, 9 year old girl and a Congresswoman)...

“I really do believe that this time it could be different,” said Paul Helmke, executive director of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Instead... it looks like they'll go home empty handed...again.




:smoke:

[uncommon]

25. Gun control laws do not stop crazy people from getting guns and killing people.

They just don't.

[Hoyt]

27. Lax laws sure make it easier for Loughners to buy them 1.5 months before their killing rampage.

[Maine_Nurse]

52. What law was lax?

I don't understand the statement.

[TwilightGardener]

45. You know what would help? MORE GUNS!!! More guns is always the answer... kind of

how cutting taxes is also always the answer.

[benEzra]

51. The people causing "MORE GUNS" are the people currently proposing new bans,

leading to hedge buying against the small but unlikely possibility that another ill-conceived ban could pass.

[bullwinkle428]

46. Honestly, it's a moot point, as Obama will NEVER sign any bill

that would place any further restrictions on gun ownership, whether they're genuine or perceived.

Everyone needs to sit back and think about the way the NRA would gin up emotion with the ****tea-bagger segment**** of their membership - "ZOMG!!1! THE BLACK GUY IS TRYING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY!!", if legislation somehow made its way through Congress and ended up on his desk.





****NOTE*** : This is NOT to imply that everyone with an NRA membership is a tea-bagger! I totally understand the number of pro-gun rights advocates within the Democratic Party, obviously including those that post regularly in the DU Guns group.

[lynne]

53. Focus should be on identifying and helping the mentally ill -

- not on more gun laws. There is already a federal law to prevent the mentally ill from buying a gun. But the mentally ill must first be identified and in the database for the law to work.