Skip to main content

     A parent in Texas is so distraught over the thought of a person being armed with high-capacity assault ammunition and high-capacity assault weapons going into his child's school to commit mass murder that he did a very dumb and dangerous thing.  

     To me, the story of this man, Ronald Miller underscores that fact that parents all over the country, including the gun-savvy state of Texas realize that it is past time for a ban on assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition.

     Texas news reports that after dropping off his child at the school, Ronald Miller went up to a greeter and told her he was a gunman and that his "target" was inside the school.

      Texas news KVUE reports that:

CELINA, Texas –– A parent in Celina ISD has been charged with making terroristic threats at his child's school. Police say Ron Miller, who was unarmed, told Celina Elementary School staffers that he had a gun to test the school's security response on Wednesday morning.

      "Basically, he told one of the greeters, 'I am a gunman. My target is inside of the building. I'm going in the building. You stop me,'" said Celina Independent School District superintendent Donny O'Dell. "They recognized, at that point, that he did not have a weapon and they were able to go ahead and tell him to leave."

     Fact is, if the 'greeter' had been carrying a gun, as the NRA are pushing, then the father could be dead right now.  A "greeter" - whose assignment is to make sure student's get in the building and go to the gymnasium or lunchroom to wait for the first bell to ring to go to class - could have pulled a gun and shot the father, right in front of all those elementary school kids which would have caused lots and lots of havoc.

     To me, this story showed that even in gun-savvy parents in Texas are so freaked out that so many people, too many people, have access to assault-style weapons and high-capacity assault ammunition that they are doing dumb things, like what Ronald Miller did.

     That's why I think this father showed it is past time that we ban assault-style weapons and high-capacity assault ammunition.  

    I know gun safety discussions can become very heated as people can become very passionate about their position.  So before anyone accuses me of "wanting government to take our guns away" ... or accuses me of not knowing that people use guns to hunt with, I'd like to add these final points,

- many states, including "Red States" prohibit hunting with the AR-15 due to its .223 caliber.

- many states, including "Red States" prohibit hunting with any type of rifle and only allow shotguns, muzzle-loaders and bows to hunt with.

- many states, including "Red States" prohibit hunting with anything bigger than a 6 round mag. (meaning: high-capacity ammunition is banned.)

- many states, including "Red States" that do allow hunting with a .223 caliber also prohibit hunters to use anything bigger than a 6 round mag. (meaning: high-capacity ammunition is banned.)

    The reason many states, including Red States, ban hunting with a .223 AR-15 is due twofold:
1) the danger of innocent people being killed by them.  You see, some Red States are flat and such terrain increases the potential for missed shots from a rifle to strike unintended targets, like people.

2) the .223 AR will not put down a deer - or any other animal bigger than human.  The .223 ARs was designed to put down humans, not designed for hunting.  

    People wrongly think to themselves, “Well if the Army uses the .223 to kill people it can surely kill a deer" -- not true.  Deer are strong, fairly powerful animals with well-defined heavy muscle, bone and sinew. A .223 caliber bullet is simply too slim and too light to consistently plow through muscle, bone & tissue regardless of bullet placement.  

       Basically, .223 are banned in many states because no one wants to see a bunch of wounded Deer in the woods - that doesn't benefit anyone.

     Therefore, in my opinion, banning ARs and banning high-capacity assault ammunition would not, I repeat not, have any adverse affect on any hunters.  There is no rational reason any hunter would need an AR and/or high-capacity assault ammunition.

     I want to emphasize that my diary is not about whether or not the father was dumb and could have gotten himself killed in front of elementary school kids walking into school

... and my diary is not a discussion on whether or not the school should have been turned into a Maximum Security School whereby the father would have been dropped by a sharp-shooter in a guard tower for talking to the "greeter" too long.  

     This diary is to highlight the fact that even the parents in "gun-loving" Texas are freaking out because of the easy access to assault-style weapons and high-capacity assault ammunition -- and the father's actions tells me it is past time we ban assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition.

Originally posted to TeamSarah4Choice on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 07:00 AM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I agree that assult weapons need to be banned (11+ / 0-)

    But this anecdote doesn't illustrate that point.  I'm not sure what it illustartes -- maybe that parents are stupid as rocks?

    I mean, the greeter didn't have a gun.  So speculation on what would happen if he did seem pretty pointless.  Making a pretty clear terrorist threat to what is probably a volunteer parent?  That seems to be bordering on insanity.  

    Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

    by lostboyjim on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 07:06:57 AM PST

  •  Sorry, it was a dumb move. (16+ / 0-)

    It's more than dumb. The psychological stress he could have inflicted upon staff and children does not just go away because he wasn't a "real" shooter. I know you want to have a discussion about other things, but this is indefensible. I hope he is severely punished.  

    "They are an entire cruise ship of evil clowns, these current Republicans"...concernedamerican

    by Giles Goat Boy on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 07:08:03 AM PST

    •  he got busted over this; don't know what (0+ / 0-)

      they set bail at. Terroristic threat, is what I heard on local news....

      LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

      by BlackSheep1 on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 01:12:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  you are going to get the argument (3+ / 0-)

    that the AR-15 is for 'home defense' and for 'varmint shooting' - it will kill a small animal such as a prairie dog, a rabbit, or other mammal vermin, which is what 'sportsmen' claim they use their AR-15's for.

    "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

    by louisev on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 07:10:05 AM PST

    •  except, it is not legal to use a .223 to hunt with (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SilentBrook

      I know there will be many to argue the points you mentioned but a .22 is just as effective in both "varmint" hunting and "home defense"

      My point is there is no adverse affect on hunters or defenders of their homes in banning AR-15 and high-capacity ammo.

    •  .223 is a poor choice for "home defense", (3+ / 0-)

      because it is potentially leathal far beyond where you can see.  Unlike soldiers in combat the "home defender" cares about "collateral damage" . . . don't want to be killing the neighbor's kids, and all that.  That makes the AR-15 a poor choice quite apart from its annoying "cosmetics" (although some will argue that the "scary look" is exactly what they are "looking for", since the look itself is a deterrent).

      .223 is, though, a fine round for "varmint", and contrary to the diarist's ill-informed report it is quite effective for deer in the typical wooded setting (where long range is not an issue), or clearing an orchard or garden of the pests.  This I know from personal experience, and, of course, lots of other people use it and find it effective as well.  Not much point in an AR-15 for that use, though . . . a Mini-14 with a 5 round magazine is quite sufficient.

      What was your point?

      Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

      by Deward Hastings on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 08:08:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Deward, your points are brilliant, but .223 is ban (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SilentBrook

        ned because the .223 is not effective in deer hunting.

        While you may personally 'love' the .223 AR, it is not strong enough to take down a deer.

        If you are a hunter, iand you shoot a deer, it's your responsibility to be sure it dies quickly and to recover it. You don't shoot it and let it wander off to die. a .223 might kill it eventually, but not fast enough.

        •  Depends on where you are (0+ / 0-)

          the farther north, the larger the deer.

          Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Palate Press: The online wine magazine.

          by dhonig on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:04:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It depends on the state (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BlackSheep1

          It's legal to use any centerfire rifle to hunt deer in Texas.  So a .223 is legal to use. Personally, I wouldn't use anything less than a .30 caliber rifle for deer, but I know people who use a .243 caliber for deer.  

          "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

          by Texas Lefty on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:50:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I have found .223 (0+ / 0-)

          completely effective, and never had one "wander off to die".  But then, I've probably never shot at a deer more than 50 yards away, certainly not over 100.  I also know people who take deer with 22 long (I wouldn't, but . . .) . . . they know how to hunt, how to shoot, and don't have a "walkaway" problem either.

          While you may personally 'love' the .223 AR, it is not strong enough to take down a deer.
          I'm not sure what you mean by that, on several levels.  First, I don't "love" the .223 . . . I find it convenient and effective for the uses I put it to.  I don't know what you put the "AR" in there for . . . ".223" is a caliber (aka 5.56 NATO, which makes practice ammo inexpensive), and describes the amunition, while "AR" is a generic catch-all for a type of rifle, or more particularly a type of rifle with a particular "appearance".  There are rifles that you'd probably call "AR" that are chambered in other calibers, and others chambered in .223 that you wouldn't call "AR" (the walnut stock Mini-14 with a 5 round magazine that I own, for example).  And .223 is certainly "strong enough to take down a deer" . . . I've done it on a number of occasions.

          Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

          by Deward Hastings on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 10:29:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  deward, the .223 is banned in many states (0+ / 0-)

            because it is not effective and legislators in those states do not want wounded deer walking around in the woods.

            Like I said, if you are a hunter and you shoot a deer, it's your responsibility to be sure it dies quickly and to recover it. You don't shoot it and let it wander off to die. A .223 might kill it eventually, but not fast enough.

            If you read my diary, and my comments, you will see that I consistently type: .223 AR-15

            .... in my comment to you I merely left off the "-15"

            I don't know what state you live in, but before you go hunting, you better make sure your are hunting in a state that has not banned the .223 for hunting.

            •  What you are "typing" (0+ / 0-)

              is simply false.  .223 is effective at taking down deer.  I know this from personal experience.  In the State where I have used it .223 is banned for "hunting' in season (to limit weekend warriors who haven't a clue) and legal for varmint (deer are classified as varmint) at any time.  Laws can be funny that way.  As I already pointed out, ".223 AR-15" conflates two different things (as you use it) . . . my .223 chambered rifle is not an AR-15.

              Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

              by Deward Hastings on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 11:02:57 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Deward: I am not going to argue (0+ / 0-)

                with you.  

                .... Not Powerful enough...powerful enough.

                Fact is, many states have banned hunting with the .223 because they don't want a bunch of wounded animals walking around the woods.

                Also, you wrote:

                In the State where I have used it .223 is banned for "hunting' in season
                So you hunt with a .223 that is banned during hunting season ... ok.

                you wrote:

                and legal for varmint (deer are classified as varmint)
                Really ... you think a deer is a varmint ... ok.

                I am not here to argue with you or anyone else.  If you want to think that a deer is a varmint, so be it.

                If you want to think that .223 is effective for deer hunting, so be it.

                My truck can also kill a deer, but I would not use my truck to kill a deer.

                •  "If you want to think" (0+ / 0-)

                  Well yes, of course I do.  Try to make a habit of it, in fact.

                  But the simple fact that .223 is effective on deer is not just something I "think", it is something with which I have direct experience.

                  And yes, a deer that crawls under the fence and is in the garden munching on the asparagus, or the plums, is a varmint.  And outside the fence they can be just as devastating to the native flora.  Hooved rats, I've heard them called.  I'm inclined to think that shooting them is more "humane" than poison, or starvation after they've eaten everything in sight . . .

                  Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

                  by Deward Hastings on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 12:03:39 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  TeamSarah4Choice: name one state & give a link (0+ / 0-)

              to its game laws banning the .223.

              LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

              by BlackSheep1 on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 01:17:16 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  blacksheep: Indiana (0+ / 0-)

                Indiana is just one of many states that ban hunting with a .223

              •  Washington State (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BlackSheep1

                prohibits .223 for licenced "in season" hunting (probably because it is too weak for the longer ranges common on the more open East side) but not for pest control (raccoon and deer being the most common).

                .223 is legal for licensed hunting in Oregon and California.

                .223 is more than sufficient out to 100 yards with appropriate (fragmenting) bullet . . . I'd advise against it for any longer range.  At 50 yards and under (where aim and accuracy is less an issue) even pistol rounds suffice (Marlin Camp Carbine in 45 caliber, for example) or a slug loaded shotgun.  The heavier pistol caliber or shotgun may be preferred where overshoot is a danger, but IMO the .223 gives much greater assurance of a "clean kill".  

                It's a measure of the . . . oddness . . . of gun laws that deer hunting with shotguns firing slug or "buckshot" (hint hint) is banned in some places while required in others.

                Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

                by Deward Hastings on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 04:35:58 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Up to 100 meters I'm with you on the .223 (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Deward Hastings

                  can't vouch for it farther than that, 'cause that's what our range limited us to. It's a fine little lightweight rifle within its limits, but it does have limits.

                  LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                  by BlackSheep1 on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:20:50 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  What are you talking about? .223 is a fine varmint (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TeamSarah4Choice, BlackSheep1

      round at short distances, and AR-15s and Mini-14s are lightweight and short.

      But it is not an in-the-house defense gun if you have neighbors or family, especially if you are such a lousy fucking shot that you need a high-capacity magazine.

      I have neither family nor neighbors so I keep medium caliber pistols handy, but IMO the best all-purpose home defense weapon (after your cell phone) would be a short-barrel, open-choke pump 12-ga. I figure if the sound of a pump action shotgun doesn't scare away an intruder, s/he is batshit crazy and needs lead therapy.

      YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

      by raincrow on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 08:28:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bizarre story but interesting (0+ / 0-)

    By the way, I think when you typed "is due to-fold" you meant "is two-fold."

    Please visit: http://www.jkmediasource.org

    by Noisy Democrat on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 07:16:45 AM PST

  •  The only reason people want assault rifles... (5+ / 0-)

    is to kill their enemies; real or imagined.

    Listen to the defences raised for retaining access to all forms of assault weapons; "defend home", "fight against government", "needed for potential revolution".  I have never heard, "needed to hunt".

    These are weapons that never should have been allowed into the public's hands.  Civilians don't know how to use them, they serve absolutely no purpose any civilian may have and they are often more powerful than anything law enforcement as to counter them.

    They should be banned from civilian use and destroyed.

    Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

    by LiberalCanuck on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 07:18:36 AM PST

    •  Civilians don't know how to use them? Hunh??? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dogs are fuzzy, BlackSheep1

      Maybe LiberalCanuck doesn't know how to use them, but my family and friends are quite proficient with them, and they're just another rifle, no magic, no mystery. (Uglier IMO.)

      That said, yes they are anti-personnel (i.e., anti-human) weapons. I myself wouldn't volunteer to hunt with a .223, but if shit gets real, say, after a wide-area natural disaster (I'm in New Madrid Fault country), I will be very pleased to have a .223 on hand until civil order is restored.

      YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

      by raincrow on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 08:38:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  here's the thing (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Robobagpiper, VClib, annakerie, Joieau

    there are very few situations in which the extreme response is warranted.  in almost all situations, it is advisable to review infrastructure and fix what isn't working before integrating new parts/issues/mechanisms, etc.

    give the ample evidence that current laws are not properly enforced, like the fact BATF has been consistently underfunded and without a director, and thus unable to do its job, an AWB represents an extreme response, especially given the guns in question only account for 2%, tops, of u.s. gun violence.  

    it's kind of a last resort sort of thing, given how many other remedies to addressing (gun) violence are at our disposal.  let's try those things first; if our (gun) violence problem has not abated, then we can talk AWB.  

    because no matter how one feels about guns and what should be done about them, the second amendment exists.  there are constitutional limits on the limits to gun ownership.  so any AWB proposal would engage a battle royale, whereas nobody has a problem with better enforcement/broader application of background check requirements.

    if we try these other things and nothing changes, the argument for bans/repeal of the second would be a lot stronger at that point.  but if we can enact sensible reforms now, i don't think it will get to that point.  i truly believe things like repealing tiahrt and letting BATF do its job will help tremendously.  let's call congress and tell them to make it happen!

    peace  

    Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

    by Cedwyn on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 07:25:11 AM PST

    •  I disagree with you (3+ / 0-)

      it is a fact that ARs were designed to kill people and to hunt people.

      You nor I have a Constitutional right to own any gun you, or I please.

      Part of your comment distorts and deflects from reality. You wrote: " AWB represents an extreme response, especially given the guns in question only account for 2%, tops, of u.s. gun violence."

      The fact is, the AW and high-capacity ammunition account for close to 100% of mass killings.

      Keyword: mass killings.

      The goal is to reduce the number of mass murders and the Assault-Style weapon is used in almost 100% of mass murders in America/

      With all due respect, I find your 2% comment extremely insulting to any parent who had to bury their child because they were murdered in a mass shooting by someone unloading their Assault Weapon.

      When I read your 2% comment it made me think that you think those 2% are insignificant
      .... so, when it is YOUR CHILD's Funeral we are reading about because someone with an Assault Weapon used it on your child and many others

      ... please tell me how insignificant that 2% that you posted is to you then

      •  i don't think they're insignificant (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raincrow

        my point about 2% is:  what about the other 98% of gun violence?  i could just as easily sit here and say you don't care about those other shooting victims, that you think the suicides comprising the majority of u.s gun deaths are insignificant. but that would be rather pointless, don't you think?

        your priority seems to be to stop mass killings.  all well and good, but wouldn't addressing the issue on a broader scale also benefit the subset (mass killings) that concerns you?  

        Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

        by Cedwyn on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 08:00:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  your 2% number is not accurate in (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          S F Hippie, SilentBrook, nominalize

          reflecting the number of deaths by mass murder.

          1) The assault-style rifle is used 100% of the time in mass murders.

          2) I have not seen any FBI data that shows only 2% of all homicides in America were from "assault-style weapons."

          The FBI tables I have seen they do not differentiate between non-assault-style guns and assault-style guns.

          For instance, the FBI Tables do not let the reader know if the "rifle" is an "assault-style" rifled or not.

          Also, the FBI Tables do not let the reader know if the "handgun" is an "assault-style" handgun or not.

          Therefore, I would like to know where you get the idea that 2% of those murdered by guns were murdered by "assault-style" handguns or "assault-style" rifles.

          3) By your logic, we should stop trying to find a cure for Breast Cancer because more people die from lung cancer  than any other type of cancer --- we  should stop trying to find cures for all other types of cancer until we cure lung cancer.  

          I think you are trying to deflect from the realty that in order to reduce the number of deaths by mass murder we need to ban the weapons that cause mass murder.  A hammer is not used in mass murder, but 100% of the time, Assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition are used in mass murder.

          •  murderous people cause mass murder (0+ / 0-)

            whether they use guns, bombs, or arson.

            on point number one, you are flat-out wrong.  it is not the case that 100% of mass murders (a term not limited to shootings) involve an "assault-style rifle."

            http://www.motherjones.com/...

            http://www.slate.com/...

            Guns aren’t even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.

            ...In the 2000s, both the mass murder and the homicide rates dropped to their lowest levels since the 1960s.



            point number two:

            http://www.theblaze.com/...

            the stats you cited, interestingly enough, show both murder rates and firearm involvement in them decreasing.  

            http://news.nationalpost.com/...

            ...1,202 mass murders between 1900 and 2009. Of those, 12%, or 142 incidents, were massacres in public such as the Denver shooting early Friday morning and at Virginia Tech in 2007 and Columbine in 1999.

            But those kind of mass public shootings accounted for less than one-tenth of 1% of all murders in general, he said.

            so let's take that ratio -- 1/10th of 1% -- and look at the FBI data for 2006 as a hypothetical, since it has the highest numbers.

            Total murders:  15,087
            mass shooting percentage of total murders:  0.001%

            mass shooting number of murders:  15
            total firearm murders:  10,225

            15 murders out of 10,225 isn't even 1 full percent.  i say "2% tops" to be overly generous in estimating the impact of mass shootings/"assault weapon" events.

            as for point number three, nothing could be more apples and oranges.  the point about these types of guns and incidents being a very small portion of our (gun) violence is that if we are going to go to the mat, it should be for something more broadly effective than an AWB, especially one like DiFi's which is already so riddled with grandfathered exceptions and other silliness as to be toothless.

            there are other, much more effective means of addressing violence involving all types of guns.

            i am not your enemy; i just disagree about the value of an AWB and question the importance of making it a priority.

            peace

            Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

            by Cedwyn on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:42:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your data is scewed (0+ / 0-)

              because the data collected by the FBI does not say whether the weapon used was an assault-style weapon nor does the data table from the FBI let the reader know how many of those murdered were murdered by high-capacity assault ammo.

              I am not your enemy either but your post implies that you think mass murders are ok, because not enough people are murdered that way, so why should we bother trying to reduce the number of deaths caused by Assault Weapons used in mass murder.

              We are not allowed to own bombs -- but because not enough civilians in America have been killed in bombings should bombs be ok to own?

              More people die from Lung cancer than from Breast cancer so should stop trying to find a cure for Breast Cancer because more people die from lung cancer  than any other type of cancer

              Should we stop trying to find cures for all other types of cancer until we cure lung cancer?

              The goal is to reduce the number of deaths by mass murder.  Your 2% number is disingenuous because the FBI does not indicate if the firearms used are Assault-Style or not.

              Also, that 2% number, while it may only be a number on a piece of paper to some, in reality, that 2% number is someone's child that they buried.

              So yeah, we disagree.

      •  oh, BULLSHIT, TeamSarah4Choice. (0+ / 0-)

        Go look at Mother Jones' article on Mass Killings. The weapons used are 68% handguns.

        The AW and high capacity ammunition account for close to 100% of mass killings, you say.

        You're showing your lack of research -- or understanding.

        High capacity ammunition??????

        http://assets.motherjones.com/...

        LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

        by BlackSheep1 on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 01:22:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  blacksheep: do you not know that handguns DO (0+ / 0-)

          have high-capacity ammunition ...

          Guess what?  They do.  Handguns can and do have high-capacity ammo.

          •  erm, no. Are you confusing high-capacity with (0+ / 0-)

            high-power / caliber?

            Handguns typically can support up to 20 rounds before reloading. Is that what you mean?

            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

            by BlackSheep1 on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 04:03:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  black, erm - no YOU are wrong (0+ / 0-)

              "high-capacity" are mags that can go into a handgun that are capable of holding more than 10 bullets.

              Sheesh ....

              Read and learn:
              The Federal Assault Weapons Ban, defined "high capacity ammunition" as a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

              It seems to me you got on this Diary to disrupt it and post nonsense --- your comments indicate you do not know what you are talking about.

              I hope you go research the difference between "high-capacity ammunition" vs. "high-power" (you might want to look up "high velocity" because if you look up "hi power" it might lead you to a video game -- which -- by your comments it seems your only experience with weapons is on a video game.)

              •  No. You're factually wrong -- as in, INCORRECT -- (0+ / 0-)

                about capacity.

                Capacity is a factor of the firearm or its magazine, and means the ability to carry multiple rounds of ammunition -- it's not a property of the ammunition.  The revolver is a firearm requiring no magazine to carry multiple rounds of ammunition. It is available as several sizes and calibers of pistol and at least one rifle.

                You can have large-capacity firearms (the 17-round original capability in a Glock pistol, for example, or the highly-publicized and ever-popular-in-movies "banana magazine" for the AK-47/52).

                 You cannot have ammunition that's more than, per round, one propellant charge and projectile, cased -- paper or cloth or plastic or metal cartridge casings, familiarly referred to by shooters and reloaders as brass because most of the metal ones are some alloy of brass -- or not cased, as for muzzle-loading muskets, rifles, and fowling pieces utilizing black powder, patches and round lead shot --  except for shotgun rounds.  It's also possible to buy shotgun rounds that drive a single (slug) projectile; these are commonly referred to as "deer slugs".

                Shotgun rounds may contain several much smaller projectiles per primer and propellant charge, depending on the 'rating' of the shot. Our Air Force "riot guns" were pump-action shotguns and the issue ammunition was double-ought buck. Shotguns may be found in .410, 20-gage, 16-gage, 12-gage or 10-gage in the US.

                I see, in perusing the statute, where your confusion arises. You're assuming that "feeding device" isn't part of the description of what's being banned. TheATF has a FAQ on this; but if you're just going by the statute, the ban includes "

                large capacity ammunition feeding devices"
                and then goes on, obligingly, to define what it's banning: clips, magazines, drums, feed strips or similar devices.

                Back when he was a Senator, Joe Biden wrote this bill. Jack Brooks, of Texas, then sponsored the House version. Neither one of them is an idiot. Neither one of them would believe in "large capacity ammunition."

                There is no such thing. What there are, however, are ways of quickly reloading large numbers of rounds of regular ammunition. They put those instruments of destruction into their ban.

                   (b) DEFINITION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 110102(b), is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

                    `(31) The term `large capacity ammunition feeding device'--

                        `(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but

                        `(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.'.

                So, I guess me and my little Remington are exempt under this ban on assault weapons. That's good, because it holds 15 rounds of .22LR in one of those "attached tubular device designed to accept and capable of operating only with .22 caliber rimfire ammunition."

                I love me some Joe the Biden even more for this provision of the law. He's ensuring that we have access to small-bore firearms with readily-available ammunition for purposes of varmint control, target shooting, and basic familiarization/training of youngsters / novices in firearms safety. I take that .22LR Remington of mine very seriously -- it doesn't look like an "assault rifle," the way the Ruger-built Colt MP4 or the S&W MP 4 does (although it works the same way they do, essentially, since neither of them, despite their "AR15 look and feel" is actually a gas-operated bolt-action semi-automatic rifle as is the .223 Colt M-16/AR-15/MP4; they're rimfire .22s, just like mine). It's not triflingly expensive to buy a box of .22LR ammunition for a trip to the range, but considering it's about $5 instead of more than $20, I remain grateful to VP Biden and Representative Brooks for seeing that rifles like mine weren't banned.

                Here's the 1994 statute:

                    (a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

                    `(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

                    `(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.

                    `(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

                        `(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in Appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;

                        `(B) any firearm that--

                            `(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;

                            `(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or

                            `(iii) is an antique firearm;

                        `(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or

                        `(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

                    The fact that a firearm is not listed in Appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from Appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

                    `(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

                        `(A) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);

                        `(B) the transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or contractor of such licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials;

                        `(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving a firearm, of a semiautomatic assault weapon transferred to the individual by the agency upon such retirement; or

                        `(D) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Secretary.'.

                    (b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

                    `(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--

                        `(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--

                            `(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

                            `(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;

                            `(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);

                            `(iv) Colt AR-15;

                            `(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;

                            `(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;

                            `(vii) Steyr AUG;

                            `(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and

                            `(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

                        `(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

                            `(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

                            `(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

                            `(iii) a bayonet mount;

                            `(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

                            `(v) a grenade launcher;

                        `(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

                            `(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

                            `(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

                            `(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

                            `(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

                            `(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

                        `(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--

                            `(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

                            `(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

                            `(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

                            `(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'

                So, if it hadn't been built before 1993, the AR-15 imitator (Bushmaster) used in the Newtown shootings would have been illegal to own.

                Bushmasters are said to closely mimic the M-16A1. I shot M-16s and M-16A1s (what a piece of junk) in the military.
                 US Air Force, peacetime, working very proudly for a Commander in Chief named Jimmy Carter on a Strategic Air Command base in Louisiana. So you're wrong about me, too; I qualified with the rifle and the Smith & Wesson .38 revolver sidearm, and I passed my qualification with the M-60 7.62 belt-fed machine gun first go-round in 1979.

                I don't do FPS video games. Do you?

                LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                by BlackSheep1 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:27:35 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Gun enthusiasts will say anything (4+ / 0-)

      Keep in mind that the reason the gun laws are not being properly enforced is because gun enthusiasts (not the non-gun owning public) are interfering with the swift enforcement of those laws.  This is the trick of good republicans: you get in the way of gov't operations, and then say "look, the gov't doesn't work".

      Gun enthusiasts will say anything - use any excuse - to avoid any legislation regarding guns.

      You are correct that there is a long list of things we could be doing (things that would not prevent people from own and bearing arms) that we do not do - and every one of those things we could be doing has been opposed by gun enthusiasts.

      Here is a list of things we could be doing to reduce gun injuries that do not prevent people from bearing arms that gun enthusiasts have opposed:
      1 - repeal the PLCAA giving legal immunity to gun manufacturers and sellers
      2 - repeal the funding ban on public health research into gun injuries
      3 - require all gun owners to register all guns with county/state authorities
      4 - require all gun owners to carry liability coverage
      5 - require gun owners to enroll in gun safety educational classes and pass a certification exam
      6 - mandate waiting period between purchase and taking possession of a gun, to allow background checks and an important "cooling off" period for "second amendment remedies" hot-heads (we're looking at you James Yeager).
      7 - have gun manufacturers and gun distributors to contribute to public information campaign to raise public awareness of the dangers of gun use and to promote safe gun use
      8 - have gun manufactures and gun distributors to contribute to a fund to help pay for costs of healthcare, first responders, police, and court costs arising from gun use and misuse (currently paid for by tax-payers only)
      9 - add state fees to gun and ammo sales to help recoup costs of healthcare, first responders, police, and court costs arising from gun use and misuse (currently paid for by tax-payers only)

      So here is a long list of things we could be doing.  None of these things involve taking guns away from anyone (except people who shouldn't have them).  None of these things stops anyone from the right to bear arms (except those people incapable of safely exercising their rights).  ALL of these things have been opposed by gun enthusiasts, including some of the "liberal" gun enthusiasts here at dKos.

      If you oppose the reasonable measures, then you can expect the "extreme response".

      Gun enthusiasts and the gun industry have sown the wind, and now we all will reap the whirlwind.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 08:17:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hugh, you post is brilliant (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SilentBrook

        Thank you for reading my Diary and thank you for posting such a well thought-out comment.

      •  I've advocated several of your suggestions (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TeamSarah4Choice

        and you left out a biggie, perhaps THE biggie (unless I'm reading crosseyed and missed it): ending undocumented transfers between private individuals.

        But liability coverage? Rly? This is a constitutional right, and you would impose means testing on its exercise.

        So would you also require people who vote for Republicans to take out liability insurance or pay a penalty to help offset the cost of unnecessary wars and war profiteering by government contractors? God knows the people who voted Bush into office have cost our nation untold thousands of deaths and injuries, and well north of $1 T since 2001.

        Would you force a person under criminal indictment and who has been sued in civil court to buy insurance that will pay the state's prosecution costs if the person is convicted?

        Would you compel someone who intends to plead the Fifth, in hopes of evading conviction, to pay a penalty to a victims' fund?

        Should political commentarists with more than [pick a number] thousands of listeners/readers/viewers be required to buy liability insurance that will pay out if a preponderance of the evidence shows their incautious or inflammatory speech is linked directly or indirectly to violence against person or property?

        YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

        by raincrow on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:07:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Gun enthusiasts will say anything II (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TeamSarah4Choice, Crazycab214

          I agree with you on the undocumented transfers.  I think all gun sales should be registered with county/state authorities.  I should have included that idea in my list, but forgot.

          Liability coverage is not means testing.  It is liability coverage: it is putting the "responsible" in the phrase responsible gun owners.

          Civil court costs are applied to the person bringing the suit.  State prosecuters prosecute criminal cases, not civil suits, and the state prosecutors incur no state costs in civil court matters.

          Currently, all tax-apyers pay for the injuries, investigations, prosecutions, and incarcerations that result from gun use/misuse.  Including those people who take the Fifth.  I am suggesting the gun industry and those consumers who support the gun industry be asked to pay more than those people who are not gun owners, and are not the cause of gun use/misuse.  You are still allowed to buy and carry a gun.  You can easily avoid these extra fees by choosing to not use/purchase a gun (or ask the gun industry to sponser you).  The right, and the choice, is yours.

           

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:30:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, it is means testing (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            raincrow

            Unless the liability insurance is free.

            •  Guns and ammo are not free! (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TeamSarah4Choice, raincrow

              You pay the gun industry for purchase of the gun and ammo.  So it gun industry is infringing on your RKBA.

              And while you complain that any additional fees (licensing, insurance or liability ocverage, safety training and certification, etc) are infringing on your RKBA, and are therefore unconstitutional, by the same argument, it is unconstitutional for the gun manufacturer or seller to charge you for purcahse of the guns and ammo.

              Yet strangely, I have NEVER heard a gun enthusiast tell me the gun industry is unconstitutionally blocking the RKBA.

              "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

              by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 11:34:58 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It has always been the voter's burden (0+ / 0-)

                to get to and from voter registration and to and from the polls. Those have been judged to be reasonable costs of exercising a right. I would argue that buying a gun (or receiving one as a gift) and ammunition is analogous to the voter's burden. Not all guns are fancy or expensive, and .22 and .38 rounds are reasonably affordable.

                Given that a citizen has shouldered her/his reasonable costs of exercising a right, it is left to the state to impose as little as possible on that exercise, i.e., by providing a reasonable geographical distribution and number of voting machines, reasonable hours for registration, reasonable polling hours, no intimidation, no poll taxes, no literacy tests, etc.

                The argument is almost always about what constitutes "reasonable."

                YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

                by raincrow on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 05:17:01 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You are gored on the horns of a dilemma (0+ / 0-)

                  You HAVE to acknowledge one of two mutually contradictory things:

                  1 - A fee imposes a restriction your free exercise of a right, and therefore it is unconstitutional for the gun and ammo makers to charge you for your gun and ammo.

                  2 - Or citizens are required to bear the costs of exercising their rights, in which case fees for licensing, insurance, safety certifications, etc., are all part of what you have to pay to own and carry a gun.

                  You started out arguing 1, but now you seemed to have switched to 2.

                  Or you could try and take the conservatives' way out, and argue that gun owners should only pay those fee the gun owners agree to pay, and all fees the gun owners don't want to pay are unconstitutional.  As an argument, this is of course, lazy and intellectually dishonest.  And far beyond what is described in the 2nd Amendment.

                  "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                  by Hugh Jim Bissell on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 06:38:31 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  I would go further on private transfers (0+ / 0-)

            I think they should be mediated by a licensed dealer, who would take possession of the weapon for the waiting period, if any, perform the standard background check, etc.

            The other part of such legislation would be to require gun owners to timely report the theft of a gun, with a monetary/civil penalty for noncompliance. Without that, someone legally buying guns and reselling to ineligible buyers could just say, "Well gosh, officer, whaddaya know? That gun was stolen out of my car 5 years ago." This requirement would inhibit such strawman purchases and give ATF some idea of how a particular crime gun was trafficked; and it perhaps could expose noncompliant sellers to civil liability and perhaps criminal conspiracy charges.

            YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

            by raincrow on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 05:05:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Your key point is correct (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlackSheep1

        Anything, absolutely anything, is opposed by the "slippery slope" people.

        Point 3, though: how does it help? A bullet from a registered gun is just as dangerous, and the act of registering a gun doesn't make a person more stable or improve their judgment.

        •  My list of suggested fixes (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TeamSarah4Choice

          There is nothing in my list of suggested fixes that will actually stop a person from shooting another.  That requires the sound thinking and good judgement of the gun owner.

          ALL the items in my list of suggested fixes act to reduce injuries for the nation as a whole - not for any specific instance of gun injury.

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 12:07:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  "Assault weapons" are involved in less than (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, raincrow, rockhound, BlackSheep1

    a hundred homicides a year, probably closer to 30.

    this makes them used in murders less than a tenth as frequently as hammers or fists.

    No rational person would consider them a high priority for a ban, especially once Constitutional issues are considered.

    Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

    by Robobagpiper on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 07:29:55 AM PST

    •  Assault Weapons are used in 100% of Mass Murders (4+ / 0-)

      I find the NRA talking points you give deceitful.

      You are intentionally deflecting the use of Assault Weapons in mass murders and intentionally trying to re-direct the conversation.

      Robo, when it is YOUR CHILD's Funeral we are reading about because someone with an Assault Weapon used it on your child and many others

      ... please tell me how insignificant that so-called "30 person" figure you posted is to you then.

      Oh, you are wrong.  Last year more than 30 people were murdered in mass murder sprees with gunmen unloading their assault weapons.

      12 killed in Aurora
      26 killed in Newton

      Are you saying mass murders are ok, because not enough people are murdered so why should we bother trying to reduce the number of deaths caused by Assault Weapons used in mass murder.

      •  TeamSarah - in another diary Harry Reid (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Robobagpiper, BlackSheep1

        was quoted on three associated topics. First, he isn't going to bring any bill to the floor of the Senate that couldn't pass the House. Second, he thinks it's highly problematic that an AWB could pass the Senate. On a personal note Reid, a long time gun rights advocate, does not support an AWB.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 08:14:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Stop being an asshole (4+ / 1-)

        accusing somebody you disagree with of pushing NRA talking points is bullshit.

        pulling out the "you'd agree with me if your child died" is an unfair appeal to guilt and has nothing to do with what he said.

        You're wrong. Sorry, you're just wrong. Unless you define mass murder as "murders done with assault weapons," you're wrong.

        Jeffrey Weise murdered 9 people and injured 5 others with two handguns and a shotgun.

        Andrew Engeldinger killed 5 people with a handgun.

        Wade Michael Page killed 6 people with a handgun.

        Ian Stawicki killed 5 people with handguns

        T. J. Lane killed three students and injured 2 more at his high school with a .22 handgun.

        Jared Lee Loughner shot 18, six dead, with a handgun.

        The bottom line? You're out of line. Just as people need to treat you with respect in your diary, you need to treat others the same way.

        Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Palate Press: The online wine magazine.

        by dhonig on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:22:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Wrong. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Robobagpiper, BlackSheep1

        Mother Jones (hardly a right wing source) reports that the weapons used in the 142 mass shootings in this country between 1982 and 2012 were:

        68 semiautomatic handguns
        35 assault weapons
        20 revolvers
        19 shotguns

        Notice that 68 of 142 is just under 48%, which is less than 50%. Less than 50% is not the same thing as 100%.

        The Citizens Crime Commission of NYC offers an overview of significant mass shooting incidents from 1986 to Sandy Hook, a useful resource for the interested. The Chronicle of Higher Education has a good article separating myths about mass shootings from facts/reality.

        If we're going to have this discussion - and I think everyone here agrees that we must - then it's best to stick with facts as opposed to assumptions, myths and flat-out falsehoods.

        •  It's even worse - you quoted the number (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Joieau, BlackSheep1

          of semi pistols, not "assault weapons".

          The number of assault weapons used comes in just under 25% of the 142 mass shootings in the last 3 decades.

          25% is even further from 100% than 48%. The diarist is fact-challenged.

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 12:22:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're right. Thanks for the correction! n/t (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Robobagpiper, BlackSheep1
          •  Robo, so 25% being murdered is not enough to (0+ / 0-)

            warrant changing laws so that the number goes closer to 0%?

            Is that so.

            I think parents who have actually buried their children who had someone's "assault weapon" unloaded on them would think your nonchalance regarding them is pathetic and despicable.

            Lung cancer is the number 1 killer among all cancers, should  we stop looking for a cure for other cancers because not enough people die from them?

            Hey, Robo, I also noticed that you uprated the poster whose post called TS4C an "asshole" did you know it was against DKos policy to uprate a comment that insults someone?

            Read Under:

            Appropriate use of Hide ratings
            Any and all insults are HRable. Although users are never required to uprate any comment, it is considered a violation of site policy to uprate a comment with an insult in it.
            In my opinion if someone calls someone else an asshole just because they disagree with them, then that person who called the other an asshole is acting like a bully, and those who 'cheer' the bully on with upratings are bullies to.

            It seems to be a habit for some to hijack a diary when they disagree with the content.  Apparently some people think calling others "assholes" is one way to hijack a Diary.

            •  Way too many people (0+ / 0-)

              are murdered. The ones who get to die alone are no less 'important' in the scheme of things on this issue than those who get to die along with a dozen others.

              The diarist asserted - strongly and in complete disregard of the easily-confirmed facts - that 100% of mass murders are committed with assault weapons. The truth is that not all mass murders are committed with guns (of any description), and that of those which are committed with firearms, under 25% involve an assault weapon.

              It was my point that in this discussion it would be good to stick to facts rather than toss emotionally-invested falsehoods that just weaken arguments. This falsehood was asserted more than once despite having been previously corrected - and this time it was asserted more forcefully, as if that somehow makes it true. Along with personal insults - NRA talking point, intentional deception, spurious straw men (making up a position out of whole cloth so you can falsely attribute it). A falsehood doesn't become truth just because you call the person who points out the truth a 'liar'.

              Why, repeated assertions of known falsehoods might result in someone thinking of the asserter as an 'asshole'.

      •  No, they're present in only something like (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joieau, BlackSheep1

        1/4 of the mass killings of the last three decades, according to the stats published in Mother Jones (which were themselves massaged to exclude gang shootings and the like).

        The existence of year-to-year fluctuations does not disprove annual average values. It doesn't change the fact that mass killings in general, and killings with assault weapons, are extremely rare events, especially as compared to casualties caused by non-firearm weapons, and that the shrillness of the calls for their ban has nothing to do with the actual harm they cause.

        As for your assertion that I am claiming that "mass murders are okay", I expected that sort of demagogic retort.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 12:10:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The fact that they are used at all (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          keepemhonest

          and is the issue for me.  The primary function of those kinds of weapons is to kill people.  There are other kinds of firearms you can use to hunt and defend yourself.

          I would say the best way to measure it (and I don't have the data, so if you know of any please share) to compare the number of times assault weapons have been used in defensive situation where other alternatives wouldn't have been effective versus the number of times assault weapons have been used in mass murders.

          There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

          by slothlax on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 02:07:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So the actual harm is not the issue (0+ / 0-)

            It's the scary mean thoughts you assign to them you want to ban.

            That always ends well.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 02:37:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, ther is actual harm (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              keepemhonest

              You have to weigh the benefits of assault weapons against the fact that they are used in mass murders.  What benefit is there to allowing people to possess these types of firearms?

              I don't know of situations where assault weapons were used in defense where another type of firearm wouldn't have been enough.

              There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

              by slothlax on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 02:57:45 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Robo, so 25% being murdered is too low a percent (0+ / 0-)

          for you to care?

          Do you not want that 25% number to go closer to 0%?

  •  .223 is OK enough for deer up to ~100 yds (0+ / 0-)

    especially the hotter loads. But it was designed as a wounding round -- wounding being more debilitating and resource intensive for the enemy -- and hotter loads do cause more tissue damage.

    Still, if you are an ethical hunter, i.e., if you practice diligently with various scenarios, and (unless you're using open sights) your scope is properly sighted-in, you should be able to get a clean 1-shot kill with a heart shot, and there shouldn't be unacceptable damage to skeletal muscle (might zigzag around in the peritoneal cavity and wreck some of the organ meats).

    I much prefer .308 fwiw, but my hunting rifles are notably heavier than an AR-15 or Mini-14.

    YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

    by raincrow on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 08:19:07 AM PST

    •  it is against the law in most states to use a .223 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SilentBrook

      With all due respect, I am confused by your comment, "it was designed as a wounding round"

      ... I don't know a single hunter who would say they hunt "to wound" the animal.  I've never known anyone to go hunting with the intention of merely wounding their target.  Wounding your target does not benefit anyone.  Personally, I think only a morbid person would want wounded animals to be walking around in the woods -- and most states agree with me which is one reason why those states ban hunters from using a .223 AR.

      The .223 AR was also specifically designed to hunt people and to kill people that were being hunted.  That's why the military had the .223 AR designed --- it was not designed to merely "wound" people -- and it was certainly not designed so people could go 'wounding' animals in the woods.

      •  No, it was designed to wound. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Paul Ferguson, BlackSheep1, raincrow

        The thought being that, well, if you KILL an opposing soldier, he or she can be left on the ground till cessation of the firefight. You've nullified one soldier.

        If, instead, you wound said soldier, it will take at least one and probably more soldiers to clear the injured soldier. So by wounding, you've nullified more than one soldier.

        Cold calculus, but that's how it works.

      •  Not sure where to begin with your comment (0+ / 0-)

        What is all this about wanting to wound animals? Why would you want to do that?

        YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

        by raincrow on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:13:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  .223 is a legal hunting round in ~36 states afaics (0+ / 0-)

        and I can't make heads or tails about all your "wounding" stuff. Why would you want to wound animals??

        YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

        by raincrow on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:19:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  raincrow - (0+ / 0-)

          I mentioned "wounded" in response to your comment:
          YOU> "But it was designed as a wounding round"

          Which is why I replied> "I am confused by your comment, "it was designed as a wounding round"

          Looks like you confused me ... and ... in my confusion, confused you.

      •  Again, you're wrong (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dogs are fuzzy

        the .223 was designed with many different factors in mind. The most important, though, was the amount of ammunition that could be carried. It replaced the much larger and heavier .308 round, itself a shorter version of the .30-06. The goal was to allow troops to carry more rounds to put out a higher volume of automatic fire. Only then were changes made to attempt to match the STOPPING POWER (not killing power) of the larger round. That was done my making the smaller faster round tumble on contact.

        Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Palate Press: The online wine magazine.

        by dhonig on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:26:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I heard a different Creation Story than you did (0+ / 0-)

          The .223 Remington/5.56x45mm was born of ArmaLite engineers scaling up the .222 Remington varmint round. They started with a varmint round precisely because varmint rounds are designed to maximize wounding. Such rounds are designed to yaw/tumble and disintegrate in soft tissue so as to cause a lot of damage. That degree of damage will reliably kill small to medium-size animals (i.e., varmints), but in larger animals such as deer and humans, if you don't make a clean killing shot, you end up with a significantly wounded target. On the battlefield this translates into a high incidence of wounded rather than dead soldiers. Wounded soldiers require either the diverson of substantial resources for caretaking or leaving the wounded behind, which is very hard on esprit de corps.

          Hideous business.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          ammo.ar15.com/project/AmmoOracle_061808.pdf

          YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

          by raincrow on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 04:47:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  "parents are so distraught...even in Texas" (4+ / 0-)

    Thanks so much for painting with the broad brush.

    What is the EXCEPTION that "even parents in Texas are distraught"?  Please listen to yourself/read what you wrote.

    This guy was acting as a jerk, dangerously so, but to then express surprise or maybe it's confirmation, that things are so bad, EVEN TEXANS are distraught is just B.S.

    As if it is EXCEPTIONAL, heavens forfend, that EVEN in TEXAS parents have actually been affected by gun violence to the point that EVEN THEY are distraught.

    Parents everywhere, including gun owners (I am not one), and even those who want nothing to do with guns, in ALL FIFTY STATES, fer cryin' out loud, think something should be done.

    I challenge you to come to Texas, and observe how we are no exception, and that the broad attitudes in the country prevail, yes, EVEN HERE IN TEXAS!

    Why, are parents distraught EVEN in YOUR CITY and STATE?  Please tell us all how it is there, and how different than in Texas.  We'd like to know and understand.

    All 320 million + of us, pretty much, in this country are in this together.  It would be nice if attitudes reflected this reality.

    Bleh.

    I'm part of the "bedwetting bunch of website Democrat base people (DKos)." - Rush Limbaugh, 10/16/2012 Torture is Wrong! We live near W so you don't have to. Send love.

    by tom 47 on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 08:56:15 AM PST

    •  Tom: I am sorry -- I did think about what you (0+ / 0-)

      pointed out before writing my Diary.

      Your points are accurate and I have changed the wording.  

      •  Thanks,TS4C for being willing to edit. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        keepemhonest, Brown Thrasher

        It's just that the Texas-bashing gets old.  I wasn't born here (in Texas), and I've lived elsewhere, and I'm a U.S. citizen first.

        It would be great if folks would bring that attitude.  Or, you're welcome to come here to help change things.  It kind of needs it everywhere, however.

        I'm part of the "bedwetting bunch of website Democrat base people (DKos)." - Rush Limbaugh, 10/16/2012 Torture is Wrong! We live near W so you don't have to. Send love.

        by tom 47 on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 10:27:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Rambling (0+ / 0-)

    TeamSarah, your heart is in the right place, but there is so much factual fail and abject ignorance in the diary that it hurts.

    The father was an idiot. I agree with that. Everything else you said about guns was both irrelevant to the father's actions and pretty much wrong.

    •  Shamash - prove it. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      keepemhonest

      Prove my comments about guns are "wrong"

      I stand by every single 'gun' comment I made in my diary.

      You think I am 'wrong" then prove it.  Anything less from you would show that you are only commenting on this Diary to deflect from the facts I posted in my diary.

      •  TS4C - Expect *crickets* from Shamash (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TeamSarah4Choice

        I've noticed that often times when people accuse others of being "ignorant" and "wrong" without backing up their reasons, they are usually just blowing smoke.

        Fox viewers do that a lot.

      •  Let's see... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlackSheep1

        My statement was intended to be a fairly gentle notice that you were speaking about things you clearly have a superficial knowledge of at best, and which other commenters have pointed out to you. A smart person would realize when they were wrong and learn from it. Other people would double-down on the stupid.

        high-capacity assault ammunition
        You use this term several times, so it was not just a fluke. In gun terms, that phrase makes about as much sense as saying a "extra large pint-quart". Every gun owner who read that phrase would be scratching their heads and marveling at your ignorance.
        the .223 AR will not put down a deer - or any other animal bigger than human
        Contrary to the ill-informed opinions of people who have apparently never hunted deer, they are not armored alien creatures capable of absorbing vast amounts of damage. A 180lb deer is exactly as easy to kill with a bullet as a 180lb human. I cannot speak for the human side, but since I have probably been hunting deer longer than you have been alive, I have a pretty good handle on that side of things.
        many states, including "Red States" prohibit hunting with the AR-15 due to its .223 caliber
        States that prohibit  the .223 for deer hunting do so not because of the 5.56mm round, but because they do not want people using the low-power .22 rimfire for hunting, and the easiest legislative way to do that is to say that bullets have to be at least .23" or .25" in diameter. Other states base the minimum deer hunting rifle on muzzle energy, and the 5.56mm round can meet those requirements in many states. It is in my opinion as a hunter, marginal for the task and requires more skill at shot placement, but I have used the ballistically identical .222 Magnum on deer just fine.

        Second, the AR-15 is not in and of itself banned for hunting in many states, as you state. States with magazine limit restrictions for hunting may limit an AR-15 to 5-round magazines. Though I guess to use your terminology, this is still 5 rounds of "assault ammunition".

        many states, including "Red States" prohibit hunting with any type of rifle
        I am not sure there are any states, let alone many states that prohibit hunting with any type of rifle. There are individual localities and areas and types of game where rifles may not be used, but no state-wide bans on all rifles for all hunting.
        many states, including "Red States" that do allow hunting with a .223 caliber also prohibit hunters to use anything bigger than a 6 round mag
        Again with the word "many", which in the context of 50 states is certainly more than "a few". States with magazine capacity limits generally have specific and different limits depending on what is being hunted. For instance, if you are hunting varmints, for which the 5.56mm is perfectly suited, there are generally no limits on magazine size.
        The reason many states, including Red States, ban hunting with a .223 AR-15 is due twofold:

            1) the danger of innocent people being killed by them.  You see, some Red States are flat and such terrain increases the potential for missed shots from a rifle to strike unintended targets, like people.

        How silly of me. That's why these states allow hunting with weapons more powerful than the .223. Really? Isn't that a facepalm statement and not one you should be saying "I stand by every single 'gun' comment" on?

        So, you know so little about guns that you have not yet made it to the level of confusing "magazine" and "clip" (which personally I do not care about), but instead use meaningless gibberish like "high-capacity assault ammunition". You have clearly never hunted deer, yet seem quite confident that they are supernatural creatures not bound by the normal laws of mass and energy and physics that us mere humans live under. You do not understand the reasoning behind why states have certain gun laws the way they do. You know nothing of comparative ballistics or the history of the 5.56mm round. You use the term "many states" like it is a lot of them rather than a minority, and conflate local ordinances against rifle hunting (mainly because of nearby homes) with state-wide bans.

        So yeah, stand by every single one of those comments. You give yourself a bad name, you look like the most mocking stereotype of liberals that a conservative could imagine, and you alienate the 25-40% (depending on the poll) of Democratic households that own guns.

        Does being wrong and digging your heels in on being wrong actually help either side in the debate or advance the discussion in any way whatsover?

        •  well-written, Shamash. Thanks for being (0+ / 0-)

          more eloquent and graceful than I was in addressing the diarist's factless claims.

          LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

          by BlackSheep1 on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 01:28:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Shamash, the NRA might say you are WRONG (0+ / 0-)

          You mocked TS4C for saying that some states ban the .223 because they have flat land;

          The reason many states, including Red States, ban hunting with a .223 AR-15 is due twofold:
              1) the danger of innocent people being killed by them.  You see, some Red States are flat and such terrain increases the potential for missed shots from a rifle to strike unintended targets, like people.
          ~Teamsarah4choice
          You mocked TS4C with this:
          How silly of me. That's why these states allow hunting with weapons more powerful than the .223. Really? Isn't that a facepalm statement and not one you should be saying "I stand by every single 'gun' comment" on?
          ~Shamash
          Yet Shamash, read what J.R. Robbins of the NRA wrote when a Virginia County banned rifles for deer hunting:
          Much of the county’s land is flat (hence the 10-foot above ground rule), and there was great concern that such terrain increases the potential for missed shots to strike unintended targets.
          ~J.R. Robbins NRA employee for over 27 years
          Now, putting what TS4C wrote side-by-side with waht the NRA employee wrote --- that you mocked
          The reason many states, including Red States, ban hunting with a .223 AR-15 is due twofold:
              1) the danger of innocent people being killed by them.  You see, some Red States are flat and such terrain increases the potential for missed shots from a rifle to strike unintended targets, like people.
          ~Teamsarah4choice
          Thus, you have not proven TS4C wrong.  In fact, you have shown that TS4C knows more about what he/she is talking about than you do.  

          At least TS4C comment reflected what the NRA employee J.R Robbins wrote.

          So to answer the question you mockingly asked TS4C:

          Isn't that a facepalm statement and not one you should be saying "I stand by every single 'gun' comment" on?
          ANS: No, it is not a facepalm statement and it is one TS4C can stand by as the NRA even stands by it ... but your comment Shamash, to TS4C is definitely a facepalm statement.

          Nothing you wrote proved TS4C was wrong and apparently TS4C comments are supported by the NRA.

          By the way, just because you do not know of a state that bans rifles for hunting does not mean you are correct.

          •  You are not illiterate (0+ / 0-)

            So there must be some other problem. First, why should I give a rat's ass what the NRA says? Not a member, never have been one, they've been loony since the 70's. Unless you are going to be quoting them as a credible source, in which case you're on the wrong web site.

            Let's recap:

            The reason many states, including Red States, ban hunting with a .223 AR-15 is due twofold:
                1) the danger of innocent people being killed by them.  You see, some Red States are flat and such terrain increases the potential for missed shots from a rifle to strike unintended targets, like people.
            Note the text in bold. Read it a couple times until it is clear. She did not say "rifles", she did not say "high-powered rifles", she said hunting was specifically banned state-wide for one particular rifle in one particular caliber, a rifle which she singles out in multiple followup comments as not being powerful enough for deer hunting, despite the first-hand contradictions of multiple deer hunters (including myself). Why does she contradict actual deer hunters? She heard it on the internet, so it must be true!

            There is absolutely no mention or even the implication by her of states banning rifles more powerful than this or even banning other rifles using the exact same caliber. Maybe she is a poor writer. Maybe she is just obsessed with a particular caliber. Maybe she will come back and say "hey, you were right, I should have written that more clearly and not been so knee-jerk defensive about my perfect accuracy on all things "gun".

            And maybe pigs will fly.

            Second, I believe I did mention that localities (which last I checked, are not states) have banned rifles for hunting for exactly the reason I mentioned.

            So:
            1) She picked out a specific weapon and specific caliber for its danger
            2) Even though she also claims it is underpowered, then
            3) Ignores everything that is more dangerous, and
            4) Misrepresents local prohibitions as state-wide bans

            Then you step in and double the idiocy, by supporting her claim of a state-wide ban on all hunting with a particular caliber by conflating it with a local ban on one type of hunting with a type of weapon.

            And that intellectual misadventure is the best response you generate against my entire long comment? Are you sure you're not just a conservative who wandered in here by accident and was too dim to realize he was on the wrong web page?

            By the way, just because you do not know of a state that bans rifles for hunting does not mean you are correct.
            I would presume you accept then that just because she states that there is such a ban somewhere, that it does not mean she is correct, either. It's her diary, if she can show me many state-wide bans on "hunting" with "rifles", I will cheerfully retract that statement and apologize for doubting her. Remember, the statement that she insists is accurate is (parentheses mine)
            many states, including "Red States" prohibit hunting(generic) with any(generic) type of rifle(generic)
            There's your challenge. Pass it on to the entire internet for all I care. Get a pro-RKBA person to apologize. All you have to do is find something like "many of 50 states" that ban all hunting with all rifles. And FYI, even tiny Rhode Island allows some rifles for hunting, including the .223 for use against coyote, so begin your search elsewhere.

            Her diary was well-meaning, just riddled with errors. You took it up a notch. It is comments like yours that make me long for the days when you needed an IQ of 130 just to figure out how to send an email. We had contentious political discussions back in the 110 baud days of teletype machines and paper tape readers, just like we do now. Except you knew that the person on the other side of the debate wasn't a moron.

            •  Shamash, TS4C is correct some states do ban .223 (0+ / 0-)

              AR-15 and/or any other .223

              first:
              It sounds like you don't know much about the AR-15 because TS4C is correct, some states do have a state-wide ban on hunting with an .223 AR15 and any other .223

              I can't speak to all the states and I don't know which states TS4C was talking about but here are just a few states that I know of that have a state-wide ban on hunting with a .223 AR15 and/or any other .223: Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Indiana, Virginia (some counties in Virginia ban any rifle)

              second:
              You mocked TS4C for a comment that was nearly identical to a comment an employee of the NRA said ... sounds like you need to give yourself a facepalm on that one.

              third:
              If you think TS4C is the only person who says a .223 is not big enough to put a deer down effectively then you don't know many hunters.  Plenty of people agree with the stance TS4C has and plenty don't.

              Here's what Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Deer Project Coordinator Matt Knox says on hunting a deer with a .223 and why there is a state-wide ban on hunting with a .223:

              “We could argue ‘til the cows come home, but we err on the conservative side of achieving humane and ethical kills,”
              ~Matt Knox
              Are you going to call him up and tell him he's wrong and you are right?

              fourth:
              Maybe, TS4C does not mention any state-wide ban on rifles more powerful than a .223 because there are none?  Perhaps, the states TS4C is referring to, like the ones I listed above do not ban rifles more powerful than a .223 because a more powerful gun can put down the deer effectively.

              fifth:
              I notice you conveniently left out the comment TS4C wrote before she wrote the one you are harping on (even though you've been proven wrong on the one you'r harping on)

              - many states, including "Red States" prohibit hunting with the AR-15 due to its .223 caliber.

              ~Teamsarah4choice

              It is very evident to anyone who can read that TS4C clarified why the AR-15 is banned, "due to its .223 caliber"

              Then TS4C went on to explain the reason for the ban is twofold and both 1) and 2) have been substantiated.
               1) was substantiated by the NRA employee, J.R. Robbins, and
              2) was substantiated by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Deer Project Coordinator Matt Knox.

              sixth:
              The reason I gave you the NRA employee's comment on the VA county ban was because you mocked TS4C for saying the same dang thing the NRA employee said.

              Much of the county’s land is flat (hence the 10-foot above ground rule), and there was great concern that such terrain increases the potential for missed shots to strike unintended targets.
              ~J.R. Robbins NRA employee for over 27 years
              Now, putting what TS4C wrote side-by-side with what the NRA employee wrote --- that you mocked
              The reason many states, including Red States, ban hunting with a .223 AR-15 is due twofold:
                  1) the danger of innocent people being killed by them.  You see, some Red States are flat and such terrain increases the potential for missed shots from a rifle to strike unintended targets, like people.
              ~Teamsarah4choice
              seventh
              I have no idea if TS4C is correct about there being any state that does not allow hunting with any rifle.  But, that seems to be the only illegitimate question there is ... however, you did not question TS4C as to which state(s) don't allow rifles you, instead, pretended like you actually knew more than you apparently do and you wrote:
              there is so much factual fail and abject ignorance in the diary that it hurts.

              ... Everything else you said about guns was both irrelevant to the father's actions and pretty much wrong.
              ~Shamash

              Fact is, Shamash, you are wrong.  There is not "so much factually wrong" as even I have proven that you are the one was wrong.

              And "everything else" TS4C wrote about guns is not wrong -- you were wrong.

              eighth:
              You, Shamash, were blatantly wrong when you falsely wrote that "everything else" TS4C "said about guns is wrong."

              And You, Shamash, were blatantly wrong when you falsely wrote that there is "so much" about what TS4C wrote that is "factually wrong"

              You tossed out your false accusations when, as it turns out, you had no idea what you were talking about.

              It boils to:
              There is one comment TS4C has in her diary that is questionable -- that neither you nor I know if it is true -- but just because there is one questionable comment does not take away from the fact that you seem to have no idea what you are talking about.

              I suggest that the next time you say someone is "factual fail and abject ignorance in the diary that it hurts." that you actually do some research so you don't end up looking " ignorant " by showing you do not knowing what you are talking about.

              •  I take it back (0+ / 0-)

                Wow.
                You are illiterate, or suffer from some other cognitive disorder. You either cannot understand what you read, or suffer from an ideological bias that blinds you to things you do not want to see. There is no point in engaging in a fact-based debate with someone who is incapable of understanding, let alone accepting facts. I've dealt with young-earth Creationists who have a better grasp on reality.

                Though all you've done is waste my time and make yourself look foolish, I'm sure that in your mental Bizarro-land you will congratulate yourself for your intellectual prowess and putting me in my place.

                Good luck with the rest of your life. You're going to need it.

  •  Hunting isn't really the issue (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shamash, keepemhonest

    Since whether or not a type of gun is useful or even legal to use for hunting is not the standard we use to determine whether a type of gun is legal or not, this is kind of a moot point.

    There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

    by slothlax on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 02:10:04 PM PST

  •  This guy wasn't hunting (0+ / 0-)

    He was being a jackass. He really is lucky someone didn't take a fire axe to him during that stunt. All those who are asking for limiting the capacity of rifle and pistol magazines to 10, 7 or 5 rounds (that last is my own preference) is a fighting chance against these monsters. Some people really are courageous and unselfish enough to take a bullet, or two, or three, or four, or five, for a classroom full of little kids (as the murdered staff at Sandy Hook proved -- I wonder if Mr. $900K a year Wayne LaPierre or anyone else on the NRA board could do that?). This whole debate is B.S. We need to ban the possession of high cap magazines for both rifles and pistols and be done with them. Purchases of ammo should also be registered, and subject to reasonable limits (e.g. not 1,000 rounds in a single visit). If someone gets up over a certain amount in the aggregate over time they should be investigated. 500 rounds to share with friends on a weekend trip to the range might be within reason, but 5,000 rounds under the floorboards is an insurrection. Maybe offer $10 or $20 per mag and the retail price for the excess ammo in a buy-back program. That would probably cost less than Congress pisses away in a single day on the F-35 program, and save the DoD the trouble of procurement for a few years. Oh, and as for gun regulation  not making a difference -- one thing I know for sure, if Congress hadn't allowed the assault weapons ban to lapse most if not all those kids would be alive today. As far as I'm concerned everyone who had a hand in that, including the NRA, has blood on their hands. Oh, and anyone who talks about "Second Amendment remedies" either needs to be prosecuted for terroristic threats or committed as a danger to themself and others.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site