A real explanation of "assault weapons" and the myths perpetuated by the uninformed
I've been hearing a lot about how we need to ban assault weapons, but I'm finding that the same misinformation that was floated back in 1994 is being used once against to ramp up hysteria around semi-automatic rifles. So, the following is an explanation of terms and general discussion of the folly of so-called "assault weapon" bans.
Assault Weapons:
What is an assault weapon? Well, the truthful answer is that there is no such thing as an assault weapon. The term was fabricated by gun control groups and the media to describe semi-automatic rifles that had 2 or more cosmetic features such as pistol grips and telescoping stocks--such as civilian versions of the AR-15 and AK47.
The term was created to intentionally cause confusion among the uninformed public and to create fear. The gun control groups wanted people think that we were banning fully automatic machine guns. When the truth is these civilian owned rifles were NOT machine guns. They LOOK like machine guns, but they do not FUNCTION like machine guns.
The "evil" Bushmaster AR-15 that we hear so much about is one such rifle. It fires one round at a time, it is no more a "rapid fire" gun than a revolver. It only shoots as fast as the shooter can pull the trigger. It LOOKS like the military equivalent, but no military in the world uses it. Nor can it be easily converted to fully automatic.---If it was so easy to convert these rifles to fully automatic, why have none of the recent mass shooters used a converted rifle?
When the 1994 assault weapon ban was enacted, these evil black rifles were still available to the public, they simply had their cosmetic features removed--such as fixed stocks rather than adjustable telescoping stocks.
The ban was admittedly, "symbolic" and had no effect on crime. Think of it this way--It was like enacting a ban on spoilers on cars in order to reduce traffic deaths. No sane person would expect that changing a cosmetic feature on a car would have any effect on vehicular homicide, but that is precisely what an assault weapon ban is. It's a ban on cosmetic features. So instead of making our roads safer or punishing people who break traffic laws, we essentially banned spoilers, chrome rims, etc. and hoped to reduce traffic deaths and failed.
Also keep in mind that the definition of "assault weapon" varies by State. For example, the assault weapon ban that Rep. Acevedo tried to sneak through the Illinois General Assembly during the lame duck session would have classified certain revolvers as assault weapons.
The truth is that rifles (of any cosmetic appearance) are used in relatively few murders. The number of murders in the U.S. in 2011 committed with rifles: 323. In 2011, more murders were committed by knives (1,694), hands, fists and feet (728) and blunt weapons such as clubs and hammers (496), according to FBI data. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1
What does this mean? It means that in 2011 you were more likely to be killed with a hammer than a Bushmaster. It means that the people in the legislature don't really care about reducing violent crime. They want to ban guns. Period. As many as they possibly can. Where's the public outcry to ban assault hammers?
Semi-Automatic vs. Fully Automatic:
Again the media loves to confuse people over the difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic.
The only thing that is "automatic" about a semi-automatic firearm, be it shotgun, pistol or rifle is that upon firing a round, the casing from the spent round is ejected, the next round in the magazine is automatically loaded into the chamber. In order to fire another round, the shooter must RELEASE THE TRIGGER and then pull the trigger again.
Fully automatic means that once the trigger is pulled, the gun will fire multiple rounds until the trigger is released. These are "machine guns" and they are essentially already banned. You can't buy new ones and the ones that are available are subject to enough federal regulation to choke a horse.
Semi-automatic is just a type of technology and it's how "modern" firearms operate. If you were to ban all semi-automatic firearms you would be left with bolt action rifles (think World War I era), lever action rifles (think Old West cowboy era), pump action shotguns, and revolvers. (And if you're Rep. Acevedo, you'd be trying to ban those as well). These older technology guns require the user to manually eject the round and load a new round via a crank, lever, pump, etc.
Magazines:
Please stop calling them "clips." Modern firearms use "magazines" not clips. Every time a person, be it the media or Obama, opens their mouth and refers to a "high capacity clip" in reference to an AR-15, they are revealing how truly ignorant they are when it comes to modern firearms. A clip is a metal prong or strip that holds bullets, usually less than 10, the metal clip then feeds the bullets into a magazine that is usually built into the gun. Unless you're talking about a World War II era M1 Garand, you're probably talking about a magazine, not a clip.
Probably the loudest cry right now is to ban magazines that hold over 10 rounds. (Or 7 if you live in the People's Republic of New York.) The logic that goes into this is astounding. Essentially what gun control advocates are saying is that it's ok for 10 people to be shot before having to reload, but 11 is too many.
The number of rounds "allowed" in a magazine under an assault weapon ban is completely arbitrary, somewhere someone decided that "10" was the magic number of people that could be shot on one magazine. The reasoning, of course, is that the victims can "tackle the guy" while he's reloading, which is exactly how the shooter in Tucson Arizona was stopped. Fantastic. Kudos to those brave individuals who put their lives in harm's way to save others. Now, someone give me another example of when victims successfully "tackled the guy." What's that? Do I hear crickets?
Stop believing what you see in movies. It takes a fraction of a second to reload a handgun. The Virginia tech shooter had 2 handguns, and fired over 124 rounds. That means that he had to reload MULTIPLE TIMES! Why wasn't he tackled!?
The number of bullets in magazines is a false argument and everyone knows it. Does anyone really think that a crazed psychopath or a gang banger is going to care if some politician passes a law that bans magazines with over 10 rounds? Does anyone honestly think that a psycho is going to think, "Hmm, I'd like to commit mass murder today, but I better not use these 11 round magazines, that would be illegal." It's lunacy. The only thing magazine bans do is limit how many rounds a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN can carry to defend themselves, because law abiding citizens are the only ones that are going to listen to the idiot politician, who by the way is surrounded by armed guards all day.
Politics and Reality:
The NRA was lambasted for saying that, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
Well it's true. With the exception of the Arizona shooter, every other mass shooter has been stopped by either armed law enforcement or an armed concealed carry permit holder. (Ironically the concealed carry permit holders usually stop the psycho before he can kill more than 2 people, so those events don't get actually get classified as "mass murder" and the mainstream media ignores them.)
Whenever an active shooter is confronted by armed resistance he either: gives up, is shot dead by the armed resistance, or commits suicide. That's how mass shootings end, these are the facts, they are unfortunate but true.
The current gun control debate is a farce. We need to do something about the horrible state of mental health treatment in this country. We need to improve security in our schools. We need to eliminate gun free zones. We need to allow people to defend themselves.
Guns are not the problem--In Switzerland, the citizenry is required to own and maintain a fully automatic Sig 550 Assault Rifle. (A REAL military gun, not a look alike) Switzerland doesn't have home invasions and they don't have mass shootings. Nor does Israel, where people walk around with machine guns.
I'm not saying that we need to start toting around machine guns, but what I am saying is that the current gun control argument is a giant distraction from the real problems that we have in protecting our children.
Finally, I think Rick Perry got this one right:
"The piling on the by the political left and their cohorts in the media, to use the massacre of little children to advance a pre-existing political agenda that would not have saved those children, disgusts me, personally. The Second Amendment to the Constitution is a basic right and cannot nor will not be abridged by the executive power of this or any other president."
In other words, if you don't like guns, just say so. If you want to repeal the second amendment, there is a process for doing so. But, please don't stand on the graves of children to move your political agenda forward.
Join a Group:
The above writings are my views and mine alone. They are not necessarily the views of any company or organization that I may be associated with. That being said, if you agree with the basic tenants of gun rights, I would encourage you to join www.illinoiscarry.com and http://www.isra.org/ if you have any interest in keeping your lawfully owned guns in Illinois.
Glock
7:27 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
Great writing. I am glad somebody is actually doing some research before putting an article about guns out. Thanks
D'skidoc
7:59 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
True, your fist is an assault weapon. But let's not split hairs. In China a man attacked school children, injuring 30 or so. NO deaths cuz he only had a knife. America doesn't have a corner on the nut case market, but we have equipped our nut cases with the most effective projectile weapons known to man. 30 people die every day in the USA from gun violence. In large part, because anywhere there is a conflict, there is a gun handy to end it.
Carl Castrogiovanni
12:58 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
" In large part, because anywhere there is a conflict, there is a gun handy to end it."
Get rid of guns and you still have violent conflict. Get rid of viollent conflict, and you won't have to worry about guns...
recarry
8:40 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
It's ironic that Democrats sent so many campaign mailers for November elections blaring about a woman's "Right To Choose". Abortions. As in after a rape. But these same social engineers prohibit a woman's 2nd Amendment-protected Right To Choose a self-defense option that would prevent the rape or violent assault. Isn't it sad that liberals don't really believe in a person's "Right To Choose" unless it's about their own narrow agenda?
D'skidoc
8:44 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
And more people are injured by their own guns than have ever protected themselves.
Carl Castrogiovanni
12:59 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Do you have a source of data to support that assertion?
recarry
1:48 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
More people cause their own car crashes, too. Let's ban cars. More people cause their own alcoholism. Let's ban alcohol. I suppose you believe that women cause their own rapes, too. Let's cover them in burkhas. When you compile your list of everything that you want to ban to make "modern society" safer, don't forget to include plea-bargaining that gives criminals lighter sentences, and Governors' pardons to ease prison crowding.
D'skidoc
8:52 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
I've nothing against the 2nd amendment, but it's time people woke up and realized that the culture of guns in this country leads to 12,000 deaths a year from guns. Isn't it worth a few lives saved. Can't people have the 'right' to bear arms without needing to arm themselves to the teeth?
Duh2013
9:35 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
Anyone that starts out by saying "I've nothing against" has something against.
Dan
10:47 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
Maybe if it saved lives, then yes. But if you think banning certain cosmetic features on guns and limiting magazine sizes will save lives, then you're living in a fantasy world.
recarry
1:52 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
"Culture of guns"? How do explain the number of murders attributed to hammers, baseball bats, fists, and knives? People want protection from the culture of violence and the culture of entitlement and the culture of wealth redistribution that drives crime. It seems the people also need protection from the culture of corruption in government that leads to tyranny and oppression. THAT is what the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment are for. THAT is why millions of people left countries where they were oppressed and came to America.
recarry
7:32 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Isn't worth allowing people the right and the means to fight off their attackers? The media rarely reports on the thousands of citizens who successfully fight off attackers because a firearm levels the playing field. "God made man. But Samuel Colt made them equal."
Paddy Bauler
9:56 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
Thank you, I didn't realize how people like Bloomberg where twisting the truth. I tell you, I'm starting to feel like gun control groups are purposefully twisting and misrepresenting the truth to people like me, who naturally don't want people running around with machine guns but don't understand a "civilian legal gun" is not one.
recarry
1:41 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
The truth speaks for itself. 2nd Amendment supporters to be rational people, in command of the facts. Gun grabbers just make this an emotional issue backed up with "because I want you to follow my dictums" logic. The Founding Fathers were wise enough to know the nation would need to remain vigilant against those who want to control others.
Charles
12:29 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Thank you. It's about time someone starts countering the mis-information and outright lies put out by the media as well as people who know absolutely nothing about firearms.
Brad Faxton
12:46 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
You wrote an outstanding article and gave a clear binary (quite neutral) definition of a "Clip", "Assault rifle", "machine gun". Something that I haven't been able to read about without launching into a hateful diatribe about.... whatever.
Moe @ the Buck
12:55 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Very well put Alan. This article of yours is very informative. Paddy Bauler, thanks for your comment
Dan Arenov
1:15 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
good arguments.. excellent article.
Another misconception that many anti- gun people have is "..why would anybody need that much ammo to hunt"? We know that it's got nothing to do with hunting, but everything to do with combating tyranny.
Brian
1:59 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
This is a good article and is informative, but still seems to focus on trying to make anyone who opposes guns sound ignorant for doing so just because of the vernacular that they use. Assault weapon is a broken term for sure and we (anti-gun folks) should come up with different ways to describe them.
Your numbers are true, but also via the FBI site there were 1,587 murders via firearms where the type of gun wasn't identified and still a total of 8,583 deaths by firearms. If I did my math right that number is still double all other murder types combined. So maybe instead of focusing on rifles we should focus on handguns, right? There is no outcry to ban hammers because their primary/invented use is not to kill, it is to hammer nails. Guns were invented and advanced to kill an enemy faster and/or easier.
The Swiss own their guns because they belong to the military by requirement, not because the country makes you own a gun as you seem to imply. They can choose to keep their guns but the fully automatic function is taken away. There are also relatively extreme laws about ammunition. They have more regulations than we do on a whole as far as owning, carrying, and purchasing guns or ammunition.
On a final note, automatics have been banned for civilian ownership for some time now. How many deaths do we have in America due to the use of automatic weapons? So, great restrictions on those have impacted how they are used.
Danette Hayes
4:36 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
I agree with Brian...hard to continue reading this article when the first few paragraphs call those opposed to "more guns" idiots for supposedly not being informed aka idiots giving into fear. Let's not even go down the fear mongering path the NRA recently took with their new ad.
I don't believe the way to prevent more mass killings is through outlawing guns...however I will agree with many gun owners, particularly military members, there's no need for automatic weapons that shoot rounds of 10, 15, 100 in a matter of seconds in the hands of citizens. Their ONLY use is to kill, and kill many quickly. So let's stop the anti-gun talk vs the pry my gun from my dead hands crowd and actually discuss the real issue about violence in our country.
It scares me to death to realize that teachers are running out and buying guns, taking lessons on how to shoot and thinking this somehow makes them safer. There is a difference between the "protector" vs. the criminal who cares very little if you live or die. Anyone who has learned how to shoot has been told, unless you plan on shooting the perpetrator, don't bring a gun to the standoff. The intent to kill someone isn't second nature...the burden of taking a life is heavy and the cost sometimes only surmountable by one's own death.
Carl Castrogiovanni
5:00 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
"there's no need for automatic weapons that shoot rounds of 10, 15, 100 in a matter of seconds in the hands of citizens. "
I hope you realize that such weapons (that you describe here) require a special federal license, and there are actually very few of such weapons in civilian hands.
Brian
2:14 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
"Whenever an active shooter is confronted by armed resistance he either: gives up, is shot dead by the armed resistance, or commits suicide"
So with that being the case, we need to focus on stopping this before it starts. A big part of that is identifying a crazy person before they acquire the means to carry out their atrocity. One way to perhaps do that is to allow law enforcement the ability to track large scale ammunition purchases like Mr. Holmes made leading up to his tirade. Maybe they could have found how troubled he was.
We track people who purchase bomb supplies, so this seems to me like an easy step in the right direction. If you are flagged for what you purchase and you aren't planning on killing anyone, your life won't change.
Danette Hayes
5:11 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Carl - you mean a federal background check for a Class III permit is a "special" federal license. When you say there are very few of such weapons in civilian hands is that BEFORE or AFTER they've been confiscated from killing the masses of people that have died in this country from such weapons? How many of those who have conducted the mass killings in the US had legal guns in their possession? Isn't that the point? Over 500,000 guns are stolen a year...from legal owners. You really want to assert that "very few" of these weapons are in the hands of civilian hands? You can continue with that argument but it just seems like folly since we're talking about mentally ill people who STEAL guns and then use them to kill their families and school children. The laws aren't working...I'd have more respect for the NRA if they'd stop the fear mongering and actually introduce sensible legislation to fix the loopholes in gun ownership.
RB
2:16 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Excellent. The gun toting right is looking for Rick Perry to be their spokesman. He, along with the guy from the NRA and one more and you'll have a trifecta of ignorance. Maybe Lance Armstrong? He's not doing much. Or, Sarah "I can see Russia from my porch" Palin. What's she up to? Each addition to the smorgasbord of ridiculousness just adds to the case for more responsible gun ownership and acquisition. Make our case!
Walter White
2:28 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
I would definitely choose Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, and the third one...ah....lemme see...I knew which one I would choose....ahhh....I lost it.
Charles
2:31 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
And this my friends is a prime example of someone who knows nothing but ignorant rhetoric which is based on nothing more than what he pulls out of his own orifice. Please continue, RB, with your great wisdom and enlighten us all.
RB
2:42 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Charlie, thanks for asking me to continue. Lets see class, what do we learn today. Oh, why don't we stick to the basics. People don't need huge clips and semi automatic weapons to defend their homes or hunt deer. People should have a background check if they buy a gun, even if at a gun show or from an individual. People who lie on FOID applications should go to jail. People who are mentally ill should not own guns. if you use a gun in a crime, you get another background check. There is over a 40 times better chance that a gun in your home will injure or kill a family member instead of being used for self defense. Now, what did we learn today?
Charles
2:50 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
And who are you to decide what type of firearm someone needs to defend themselves? Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the U.S. and yet Chicago had over 500 deaths there last year.... Not one of them that I am aware of was caused by a law abiding citizen. Tell me RB how any of what you just said would have prevented any one of those.
Every thing you said is against the law to begin with so please try again with something more original. You bring nothing substantial to the table to bolster your argument against my 2nd Amendment right which has been upheld twice by the Supreme Court. You have nothing.
RB
2:59 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Now Charlie, don't sass your teacher. Pay attention. Lets go through some of your lesson again. The Supreme Court did not guarantee you the right to have a AK-47. There is a gun show loophole and individuals are selling 40% of the guns without background checks. Gun ownership is not bad. Repeat. What's bad is guns getting into the wrong hands and guns that are too powerful for protection or hunting...More designed for offensive Cop killing. One of your right wing classmates suggested that having laws was not the way to solve problems. A general statement, not just about guns. Since some of your classmates don't want laws or may not be as law abiding as they say they are...it scares the hell out of me and many other sensible people. Now, what else did we learn today?
Charles
3:17 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
RB, what I've learned today is you know nothing about firearms. Please take the time and research them before you make assumptions. I'll help you out with the first one.
A lot of hunting rifles are semi-automatic and do far more damage to their target than what you call "assault weapons". You look it up. Most modern day pistols are semi-automatics. A good many shotguns are semi-automatic with buckshot do far more damage than a .223 projectile.
I'm not right wing by the way. Your statement to that effect only shows that you tend to lump people into a category and that right there shows me, as well as anyone else the mindset of the anti-gun establishment.
If I see something new and earth shattering from you in the future, I most certainly will debate you on the subject, but so far you have spent more time showing how little you know more than how much you know.
RB
3:26 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Charlie, I am familiar with shotguns and the damage they can cause, particularly in the area of suicide. I did not call you right wing, I said one of you right wing classmates here yesterday on another gun related posting. But, you're right I assume most (not all) people who are so wrapped around the axle thinking the Government will come take their guns away are right wing. My bad. I am surprised you're so pleased to have Rick Perry as your new spokesman, however. The smorgasbord is full for the day...
sankar
2:57 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
What about steps to ensure the "evil" firearms can be owned only by the good people, those with no criminal records and have no medical problems. I am assuming even NRA does not want the guns to fall into bad hands, giving those fine and dandy people in the NRA a bad rap.
McCloud
3:39 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
They've been passing laws for the last 75 years or more. Gun registrations, Gun control, Banning, etc When are you going to wake up and get it? None of the laws affect the bad people who do not obey the laws anyway. Why is your solution always a law or control? Why is it you miss the point entirely that it is the criminal who should be punished for using a gun. Any crime where a gun is used gets an addition of 35 years tagged on top of regular sentence, no parole nothing. Problem solved. Instead I have to conclude that it is once again all about a political victory for you and your king.
RB
3:53 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
See, there you go again. Did I say anything about no guns? Keeping guns from the bad guys must include stopping the leaks in the system that allows them to drive to a gun friendly place and load the trunk up. I'm not stupid. I'm also for 'stop and frisk' to start getting illegal guns out of the communities...it helped in New York. Just because you want to CC does not mean a bad guy is going to throw his gun in the dumpster. Also, just because I don't want you to have an AK-47 since you may become unhinged does not make him throw away his gun either. But, laws for controlling access to guns to law abiding sane people is a start. Stop and frisk is a good followup. You can't ignore these issues. It's not about a political victory, if it was I'd rub all those comments you made about taking back the White House right in your face. So stop thinking its all about politics. It's really about the NRA owning so many politicians, which I guess makes it about politics doesn't it?
McCloud
4:07 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
It is all about politics, the visual with the children illustrates this without words. Meaningless legislation costing us more debt is what we get? Logical solutions like locking up the bad guy who uses guns are never on the table, I wonder why? I think I know.
RationalTht
2:28 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
RB - if it is keeping the guns from the bad guys, why are they not TARGETING THE GUNS THAT MOST BAD GUYS USE? Most bad guys aren't going out and shooting people with the guns the media and such are labeling "assault weapons", yet those are the ones that are being targeted. Besides stupidity, why is that?
McCloud
3:55 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Its the same thing with your 75 year old economic ideas, they try to regulate, tax, and control while the masses suffer under 1% GDP and 23 million unemployed. The policies are old and always fail, yet the this time they will? It has nothing to do with problem solving and everything to do with political power, and unfortunately it works for that.
RB
4:13 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Well, we elect citizens who become politicians and work in Washington 32 weeks a year 3 days a week. The rest of the time is spent fund raising, hence the appeal of the NRA.
Danette Hayes
5:21 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Locking up the bad guy is more cost effective? Hmmmm. Yes let's flood the prisons with all the bad guys. That won't cost a damn thing - way to save the budget! not...
You say it's all about politics but it doesn't have to be. How about we leave Congress, the NRA out of the discussion. What if we just did the right thing by say - hmmmm flagging a person who's got a known psychological issue; allow families to commit their family members who need help - 72 hr minimum and forget the age thing? Oh what if we allowed military leadership to take away guns from soldiers they know are suicidal? I say act first, ask forgiveness later.
McCloud
4:19 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
The NRA is no different than any other organization of people who collectively voice their influence. How is the NRA any different from union thug groups, gay/lesbian groups, women rights groups, NAACP, green energy groups set up to launder money?
Danette Hayes
4:27 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
True the NRA is one of the MOST POWERFUL lobbying group in the USA - no more relevant than any other powerful lobbying group such as the unions etc. What does it matter about the NRA if Americans truly want to have a thoughtful discussion on the safety of America and its citizens? The NRA isn't about securing protection for its citizens. Their goal and objective is to line the pockets of the gun makers, ammo makers and make sure they can keep selling them, regardless if it's a legal purchase or not. Afterall, that's not their job - it's Congress's job to make sure the laws that are passed are good for the American people.
Charles
4:37 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
And the lobbying by the pharmaceutical, unions, and countless others aren't about lining someone's pockets? What a naive world you live in Danette.
Gary
5:17 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Actually, it's Congress' job to defend the Constitution, as they all swore an oath to do exactly that. The right to own a gun is one of the things they swore to defend.
But now it's your turn to call me naive... and you would be right. Congress doesn't give a damn about the Constitution, and does little more than use our money for to buy votes and build their power base.
In fact, neither the NRA nor any gun manufacturer has the ability to take money from me by force. Congress does it all the time, while insulting me and blaming me for the problems that their own policies created. If it weren't for the NRA you would not have the right to own your gun today. Congress would have taken that right from you long ago. It's that simple.
You might want to consider who is on your side.
RationalTht
2:30 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
@Danette - is it really a "thoughtful" discussion when politicians go out and try to ban weapons that are not even the ones involved in most of the crimes here in the US, just because they "look" scary? There was no "thoughtful" discussion proposed by Obama / Biden and the rest of the Democrats - it was just fear mongering and belittling of people that think a CAUTIOUS / THOUGHTFUL approach should be taken.
Danette Hayes
4:48 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Naive world I live in...that's funny considering. What did I say that isn't "of this world?" true. So yeah pharmaceutical companies, unions etc too...but we're talking about the NRA. Are you suggesting that the NRA truly cares about the safety of its citizenry? There solution is armed guards in schools. Wow...let's fight violence with violence because that always works.
I'm not anti-gun but I'm not pro NRA either. I own a gun, I know how to use a gun and I've been the victim of a violent crime. I speak from experience - if you plan on using a gun to protect yourself you better damn be sure you can actually go through with the kill. It's something you NEVER forget and you live it over and over. So save your bs talk about me being anti-NRA as living in a naive world. I wish I had that luxury.
Charles
5:03 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
I support the NRA and take the bad with the good. Personally I hope I never have to defend myself again. Viet Nam gave me my fill for the rest of my life.
I am glad to know that you are not anti-firearm, I will give you that for sure.
Danette Hayes
5:35 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Gary perhaps you should vote for better representation if your elected officials have taken your money without asking, insulted you and blamed you for their policies. Last I checked we vote in these ninny's. I can't be controlled by the government unless I choose to be. I get it - you guys want your guns and you want all of them when you want them, how you want them etc. As long as they're legal I'm okay with it. I assert we don't need automatic weapons... one bullet goes just as far. We need comprehensive, common sense action on how to stop violence in our communities. Take guns out of the equation for now...I'm okay with that as long as no one uses the influence of the NRA or Congress to insert their agenda into the discussion. You want to know why violence is prevalent in Chicago? Gangs pay better than Walmart.... these kids killing each other are family of generations of gang bangers. We're shutting down the schools in their neighborhoods, they have a parent working three four jobs and no one at home knows if they ate today. If we don't start investing in education and giving gangs a way out of the circle of destruction violence will continue.
Danette Hayes
5:40 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Charles thank you for your service to our country. I hope your burden and your actions have given into peace. I wish we could save these guys coming home who can't find peace or purpose. If only our military leadership could take away the guns from those they know can't live with the burden of their wounds of war we might not have lost 349 souls this year. This is where me and the NRA butt heads - they say it's unconstitutional. I say bullshit...save a life first then let's talk about the constitution.
Charles
5:52 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
At this point Danette, I'm going to simply leave it at "agree to disagree" where as the NRA is concerned. Sometimes folks can look at the same exact thing and see something completely different. I do not disagree that firearms should be removed from those 'proven' to be mentally unstable, no matter who it is. I'm for universal back ground checks. I have no issue with that either. What I do have a problem with is penalizing law abiding firearm owners who enjoy them for other things than self defense. There are many things that can be done, including the above mentioned to reduce some of the gun violence, but I draw the line when it comes to "projecting" that I as a law abiding firearm owner should be penalized in any way what so ever for the action of people that break the law. I understand where you are coming from, and duly noted as well hopefully you see where my concerns are.
Good night.
John Brinkmann
5:39 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
It amazes me how a well written piece here by Alan can become somewhat lost in the crossfire of ignorant comments---stick to what the guy is saying and drop the silly digressive arguments....We chide Congress for not being able to meet on common ground to work out the many problems we face as a nation, and yet we can't even hold forth over a civilized conversation here on this very important issue....Alan does a great job of defining the many elements of firearms while also clearly stating how certain politicians mislead people in anti gun legislation...We can all learn from reading this insightful piece and l applaud his efforts.
Brian
5:55 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Very true, which is why I responded as I did earlier. While it is a well written article with statistics and points, Mr. Kaufman still did what many do with stats. He used the ones that make his side look completely right while ignoring others that may contradict even a small portion.
By also adding in the Swiss but failing to mention what all goes in to their gun laws and ownership he makes it sound like everyone there is forced to own a gun their whole life and seems to imply that is the only reason they have low break ins and low to no mass shootings.
The problem with opinion articles is that they are just that. They will almost always hold insightful comments and statistics to prove the opinion they are presenting, but they also will almost always leave out other numbers and comments that would present more opportunity to learn, which is where these message boards come in. As long as, like you said, we can carry on a normal conversation.
Carl Castrogiovanni
7:02 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Here is additional reading for a truthful and honest (balanced) discussion on the subject:
William Bratton (former police chief): The Real Cures for Gun Violence
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323968304578246721614388346.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
John Lott: The Facts About Assault Weapons and Crime
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323468604578245803845796068.html?KEYWORDS=Lott
Jeffrey Scott Shapiro (Washington DC Prosecutor): A Gun Ban That Misfired
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324081704578235460300469292.html?KEYWORDS=DC+Prosecutor
Alan Kaufman
8:51 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
I appreciate all of the positive comments. I really wrote this article to try to clear up some of the "fog" around the current gun debate. Unfortunately, people will always make decisions based on emotional responses, rather than logic and there's no "reasonable" discussion that's going to change those sort of emotional views.
Again, no AUTOMATIC weapons were used in any of the recent mass shootings and an assault weapons ban has NOTHING to do with automatic weapons.
I intentionally avoided getting into a statistical discussion, because quite frankly it's been done to death and there are others that do a much better job of explaining it than I could, such as John Lott, linked above.
Yes, handguns are used in many more murders than rifles, but the discussion in congress, Illinois, and the media isn't about handguns--it's about rifles. Furthermore, an outright ban on handguns is unconstitutional, see DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.
RB
9:44 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Alan, respectfully you have written a one sided opinion. I disagree with much of what you say. For instance this....
" It means that the people in the legislature don't really care about reducing violent crime. They want to ban guns. Period. As many as they possibly can. Where's the public outcry to ban assault hammers? "
Really? They don't care about reducing violent crime?" They want to ban guns, period! "You know that's not true and you wrote to inflame the radical NRA base (just the radicals, not the NRA of our fathers). "Evil" Bushmaster? "Sneak" the bill through the legislature? If you hadn't added these nice little one sided touches someone with some openness to your position might look deeper into your points. Instead you didn't gain anyone to join your cause other than those who are already lock step with your assault weapon loving mentality. It may take some time, some work, and lots of money to fight the NRA, but the assault weapon ban will be back. Thankfully.
Danette Hayes
9:48 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
From the police report in Newtown Conn...; Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster .223-caliber (AR-15-style)semi-automatic rifle but also carried a Glock 20 10 mm semi-automatic handgun. A Sig Sauer P226 9 mm semi-automatic handgun and a shotgun were found in his car after he killed himself at the scene. The death of 20 children is emotional but suggesting that people who don't know a semi-automatic weapon from a shotgun shouldn't have an opinion doesn't give you anymore credibility than the next pro gun guy who is somehow suggesting that death by gun isn't because of the gun. Believe it or not there are pro gun people who don't buy everything the NRA is selling and debating semantics doesn't make your assertion anymore "right" than the next guy.
G.G.
12:54 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Danette, Actually MANY shotguns are semi automatic weapons, and uninformed opinions are for almost all practical purposes worthless (unless the uninformed opinion is from a lawmaker that results in bad legislation as is often the case)
How about registering people who are taking psycotropic drugs and have "multiple personality disorders" or "Bipolar disorders" and prohibit them from purchasing firearms, or holding jobs that could endanger the public?
Bringin' Down Briarwood
9:23 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Oh Lord, can we PLEASE stop with blaming the media. That's where you lost me, Alan.
I'll be happy to help you educate the world about the difference between this gun and that gun if you're so concerned about misperceptions. However, I'll only do it when you also start telling the world that NOBODY - yes, I may go as far as that absolute word - wants to repeal the second amendment. Talk about a never-ending attempt to promote your agenda with something that's not even close to factual.
I'll put it out there again: Show me one - JUST ONE - high-level, federal government official who has advocated repealing the second amendment since Newtown.
If you're going to be the hypocrisy police, can we please stop with this bogus talking point?
BTW, please don;t tell me you used Israel as an example of a stable culture. REALLY? Are we talking about the last ten minutes?
Brian
10:10 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
When someone who is promoting what many would deem a conservative view says things like "mainstream media," it always makes me wonder what Fox News is considered (since their anchors often chide the mainstream themselves). They would generally present the same sort of story written here and talk about how we are uniformed about what guns are around for or how we define certain types. But how are they not part of the Mainstream of news media? As many republicans and right leaning folks will point out, their ratings are generally much higher than any of the left slanted markets. If we take mainstream to essentially mean popular in our culture then Fox news would be the in the #1 spot. Right?
recarry
7:29 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Diane Feinstein has stated that if she could, she would take away EVERY gun from every person. There are apparently other nuts in California who like what she says. The 2nd Amendment says the right "shall not be infringed". New York State's law is a perfect example of foaming-at-the-mouth politicians who want to gut the 2nd Amendment by banning more than 80% of popular defense handguns that are in common use. Daley and Rahm have repeatedly thumbed their noses at higher court rulings that their restrictions violate the 2nd Amendment. Do more research if you want to understand why 2nd Amendment supporters cannot trust politicians or the Hollywood elite.
Bringin' Down Briarwood
6:38 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
As usual, the Feinstein quote is totally out of context ...
http://www.infowars.com/video-dianne-feinstein-says-prepare-to-turn-in-your-guns/
(BTW, you're welcome for helping you do YOUR homework.)
And Feinstein's quote is my WHOLE point, there will NEVER be ANYTHING CLOSE to enough support for outright ban of all guns. So let's stop portraying this myth for a cheap scare tactic.
Brian
9:58 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
I'm sorry that I brought up automatic weapons in the first place since the point I was making about them became extremely twisted. I was curious as to your reaction about the correlation of low automatic weapon crime to the fact that automatic weapons are, for all intents and purposes, banned. Not as many in circulation, extremely hard to come by and subsequently not used in many home invasions, muggings, recent killing sprees by previously "law abiding citizens," etc.
I think what ends up being the sticking point for me on most of this is many of the gun advocates seem to be perfectly accepting of other people dying by gun shot. Yes, if you carry a gun as defense you might not be the victim of a gun related assault or shot by a mugger, but you shifted that problem onto the next victim or created another statistic by killing the attacker. I know, better him then me because he was a criminal who deserved it.
Brian
9:58 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
In my eyes, we should do everything we can to prevent the event before it occurs, no matter who the victim is going to be. Locking someone up after they commit the crime is obviously not a deterrent or our prisons would be empty. The threat of getting shot after you make your assault isn't working because many killers have accepted that they might die. The threat your victim might be armed isn't working or there would be little to no crime in conceal carry states.
Should we all just carry guns so everyone is afraid of everyone else? Sounds like a great place.
McCloud
7:55 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Locking someone up after they commit the crime has nothing to do with deterrence. It has everything to do with human's inability to be in two places at one time, therefore crimes with guns without a doubt is reduced. Symbolic meaningless legislation requiring registration, tracking, banning, etc has been going on for 75 years, GUESS WHAT THEY DO'NT WORK. Criminals don't obey laws, they get guns illegally, shave off the serial numbers and profit off the black market. Old ideas even when presented from the eye candy President from Harvard are still old ideas.
Brian
9:28 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
If jail and prison aren't meant as a deterrent and reform institution, why do we let people out after their term is over? They are supposed to be either frightened they may end up there again or "fixed" so they won't commit crimes again.
And why does everyone supporting guns refuse to answer on how the ban on machine guns has worked or not worked? If bans always fail then we should have more people dying under machine gun fire...right?
So we all agree that criminals by definition break the laws. So we need to do more to stop them from easy access to weapons, along with many other things we can change to help stop the problem. Bans wouldn't work because we have too many people of the "cold dead hands" mentality, but what's inherently wrong with some more requirements nationwide for deeper background checks, longer waiting periods to produce those checks, just asking a few more questions when someone purchases large quantities of ammunition, shutting down gun show direct sales, better gun owner education, among other things. I'm not talking a ban there, I'm not talking about no CC, just things to perhaps put in place to identify the wrong owners and stop even a few of these rampages where guns were acquired legally.
McCloud
9:47 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
You are assuming that criminals are deterred from participating in a crime due to laws? You are also assuming that criminals are reformed after serving a prison sentence? You are also assuming that deeper background checks, longer waiting periods has never been tried before? Perhaps you should speak with a resident of Englewood some time. You would hear from them that after a shooting, nobody talks to the police. Why you may ask? Because they all know that the criminal, even if convicted will be out on the street in little time, and the next target would be them if they talk to police.
Brian
10:01 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
I'm absolutely not assuming that criminals are deterred by laws. The opposite is what I was stating. There is no natural deterrent for someone hell bent on doing wrong. So throwing him in jail still means he will be back out. No, he isn't after the person who didn't talk, but someone else may get shot. We can't keep him in prison for his life. That's just as far fetched in America as a complete gun ban, and you seem smart enough to realize that. The reason you always mention that keeping guns out of bad hands is impossible is because you have no desire to try out of fear you won't get your guns instead. Yes, no matter what we do some people will still come by guns, but putting in measures to methodically erase the back channels will stop some people. They may then go and buy the war hammer or swords...or whatever, but at least with those you can't just point, squeeze, and end someone's life.
Oh yeah...still stands. Has the machine gun ban worked to keep people from dying by their use?
McCloud
10:20 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Can you stop and try to think for just one moment? You transition from "So we all agree that criminals by definition break the laws" to "what's inherently wrong with some more requirements nationwide for deeper background checks, longer waiting periods to produce those checks" These requirements are already in place, try google it may help you read about places like Wash DC, Chicago, Detroit. Good grief man you need to educate yourself. What machine gun ban? I thought the guy in Colorado shot up the theater with one.
Brian
11:34 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Pretty sure he only used a semi-auto....but i could be wrong, I wasn't there. Educate myself on what? So a few cities have these checks. When you can still go to your local gun show in a random state with your foid card and pick up a gun, those city to city laws don't do much without a nationwide net. You can call me uneducated all you want if it makes you feel better, but it doesn't make you any smarter. I'll say it once more. The FBI can raise flags on people that purchase large amounts of things like fertilizer because it can be used to make a bomb. What's wrong with them raising flags on someone who buys bulk ammo? If you're not using it to kill your neighbors, then the flag means nothing to you.
Nightcrawler
10:16 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Informative clip - sorry, I meant video - on an AR-15 firing technique popular among gun nuts - sorry, I meant enthusiasts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD213VW6WjY
Kevin
12:11 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
"Shall not be infringed". Can one of you smart a**es explain to me where the line should be drawn on "infringed"? These are Constitutional Rights. If you disagree, jump on a ship and head to Britain.
RB
8:26 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
@Kevin, "(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.) "
The above was in the Constitution for many years. Things change as society evolves.
Plus, the right to bear arms does not give you the right to own a Nuclear Bomb or an Armed Missile, or even a fully automatic weapon. Have your rights been infringed? So, just to be clear, you are asking for the right to own any sort of weapon (arms), without limits?
McCloud
8:29 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Sure, why not prohibit you from posting comments, after all things have changed, the founding fathers had no idea when they wrote the first amendment that the internet would one day be the vehicle for free speech.
Brian
9:53 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
The internet isn't free speech. Free speech is an intangible idea that is put to use through many channels, including the internet. Nothing about the internet affects the nature of the first amendment other than the fact that you can offend more people at once.
Firearms continue to become more powerful and (I.M.O.) somewhat less practical. We now have an army with several branches to protect our borders from military invasion. We have police and private security firms to protect us from some dangers. But we still have a country where you can buy an item purpose built to easily kill something (I know there are other uses now as well) and people still demand that it should be as easy as possible for anyone to buy.
There is a reason we require tests and practice for the chance to drive a car. If you don't know how to operate it, your odds of harming others with your ignorance go up. More testing won't stop nearly everything..but a step towards eradicating some deaths.
@Kevin, if you are such a stringent opponent to any changes to the constitution, then shouldn't all the amendments be evil as well? The bill of rights were amendments (albeit added as a very close second), the abolition of slavery changed the constitution, women's rights..they tacked that one on as well. Are you against those? My hope is no. My point is that it can be modified to the times. The US isn't stuck in the 1700's.
G.G.
1:00 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
If additional gun control laws would fix something here, wouldn't outlawing mass murder be a better solution? That way we wouldn't need to infringe on the second ammendment.
Sounds like a simple fix to me. (If you believe that criminals and the mentally deficient would follow the laws to begin with)
Just Sayin
6:41 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Alan...you lost me at : "What is an assault weapon? Well, the truthful answer is that there is no such thing as an assault weapon". LOL. I would suggest you look the word assault in a dictionary. Anything and everything...including ALL GUNS that are used as a weapon is an assault weapon. Under the guise of 'educating' the public on weapon terminology and debunking certain "myths" your article simply boiled down to being nothing but another pro gun rant. Call it what it really is Alan. Your headline should have read: " I Love Guns and All the Rest of You are Stupid ".
Speaking of stupid...your Rick Perry quote is an assault to the common and emotional senses of intelligent people. He is an ignoramus...and so are you.
McCloud
8:12 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Nice. What else would you expect from a liberal.
Sully
8:39 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Grow up McCloud. You are a ridiculous little man. Or in other words, a child.
McCloud
9:10 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Awww come on, admit it, you enjoy getting destroyed with logical observations. Otherwise you wouldn't read my comments.
Just Sayin
10:30 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
McClown...Logical observations? That's a hoot. Your comments are read because people enjoy comedic relief. You provide us with a brilliant, yet disturbing, view into the mind of the overly simplistic every man repleat with numbskull observations and unsavory political prat falls.You are the Patch's resident Jerry Lewis. You are everyone's drunk uncle. It's even humorous how you honor yourself. So if you won't go back into hiding...which is truly unfortunate...go ahead and keep us laughing. That sir...is what you are best at McClown.
McCloud
10:58 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
I'd like to see things from your point of view but I can't seem to get my head that far up my ass.
Just Sayin
4:38 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
HaHaHaHaHa...who did you steal that worn out joke from?
McCloud
11:15 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Thanks Barack, al-Qaida is on the run, the economy is in full recovery. That probably explains 19 dead hostages this morning, and job unemployment number on the rise. Can we get some kids to accompany you in this afternoon's press?
RB
3:20 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
I finally figured it out. McCloud IS Schulte! He's not done so well down there in Florida and the free wifi at McDonald's won't allow him to surf and post all the links. That's the main difference that I can see. Same taunting nonsense with fewer links and quotes.
Just Sayin
5:15 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
RB...While I can see that they are both cut from the same cheap cloth...I really don't think the clown and the Schulte are the very same idiot. Schulte was far more verbose and the clown can't seem to string together more than seven sentences...albeit none cogent, which is, reminiscent of Schulte. Personally, I don't think the clown even knows how to post a link. He does conjure the occasional quote but I think he picked those up from rush while driving to CVS for Depends,
whereas Schulte liked to alien himself with dead presidents and major generals. That was his delusional signature. The clowns signature is far more pedestrian. The syntax is also off. I do like the idea of Schulte hunkered down at a corner table for one at McDonalds trying to figure out how to log on to their wifi and bitching that the hash browns are too cold. Probably closer to reality is that Rent-A-Center has repossessed his lap top along with his mattress, ottoman and hot plate. Ahhhhh...to fall so far.....
Nightcrawler
5:27 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
RB - I know Rich Schulte. I posted with Rich Schulte. I shot gators in the backyard and dined on roadkill with Rich Schulte. And I can tell you - McCloud is no Rich Schulte.
RB
5:51 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Well, he's not shooting Gators any longer....that Bushmaster was the last thing he pawned.
McCloud
5:21 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
It is finally time for you to come out now and admit your secret love for Schulte. Don't be shy, you know all the liberal nonsense is all about Schulte's attention.
Just Sayin
6:47 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Too funny...
Just Sayin
7:02 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
It's not secret love and there is nothing to admit...other than it is still a thrill to kick him around...even though he is long dead. Is this to be your fate? LoL
Just Sayin
5:24 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
McClown...At least they allow children near Barack. Has that restraining order been lifted yet or are you still legally ordered and obligated to remain at a full six block distance from all school zones? Just wonderin'.
RationalTht
10:39 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Wow, that sounds like libel...
Brian
11:28 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Alright...so a guy used that on me here a few weeks back...that is really not cool. Yeah, it's just a board post but making insinuations like that is obscene and can actually get questions started about people.
McCloud
5:54 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
I feel like Chuck Norris. Three liberals are still no match in intellect thus the resort to ad hominem.
McCloud
11:54 am on Friday, February 1, 2013
I can just see the goatees being stroked with last night's dinner crumbling from them. Let's see, maybe I can use the word "pedestrian" again make it sound more acerbic.
McCloud
6:20 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Yes, I can just see the goatees being stroked as I type. Let's see, how can I use the word pedestrian again and sound more acerbic and wise. After all, that's all you have left.
Just Sayin
6:56 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
McClown...None of the us want to visualize what you stroke with your left hand while you type with your right...but...at least it's nice to know that the left (aka liberal) gives you a some pleasure. Time for you to finally admit it's more than verbal masterbation
that keeps you coming back.