Skip to main content

AR-15 silhouette
The two top legislative items on President Obama's list of what to do about gun violence both have the support of substantial majorities of Americans in most polls on the subject. But one of them, the universal background check, has a very good chance of passing the Senate, while passage of the other, a renewed assault weapons ban, will require a miraculous change of mind from several senators on the Democratic side of the aisle. Some prodigious but cautious arm-twisting will have to be done for that to happen and the chief arm-twister, Majority Leader Harry Reid, is himself opposed to reinstating some version of the old ban, which expired after 10 years in 2004.

Just how contentious the ban debate already is can be seen in the fact that not only is the effectiveness in preventing gun violence of that first ban widely doubted, but the definition of "assault weapon" is also disputed. Some foes of the ban claim the very use of the term emerged from an attempt by "gun grabbers" to scare Americans into believing weapons designated as "assault" were something that they are not. "Assault," they say, should be only applied to fully automatic military rifles capable of firing multiple bullets with one squeeze of the trigger—a kind of weapon strictly controlled for nearly eight decades—not to lookalike semi-automatics that can fire only a single bullet with each squeeze of the trigger.

But as Erica Goode points out in The New York Times, it wasn't gun-control advocates who began applying the term "assault" to rifles available to civilians, it was the marketing end of the gun industry:

“Assault rifle” was first used to describe a military weapon, the Sturmgewehr, produced by the Germans in World War II. The Sturmgewehr—literally “storm rifle,” a name chosen by Adolf Hitler—was capable of both semiautomatic and full-automatic fire. It was the progenitor for many modern military rifles.

But the term “assault rifle” was expanded and broadened when gun manufacturers began to sell firearms modeled after the new military rifles to civilians. In 1984, Guns & Ammo advertised a book called “Assault Firearms,” which it said was “full of the hottest hardware available today.”

“The popularly held idea that the term ‘assault weapon’ originated with antigun activists, media or politicians is wrong,” [Former gun dealer and author Philip] Peterson wrote. “The term was first adopted by the manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearm owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun.”

Got that? The Brady Campaign and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence didn't apply the term "assault" to grab guns, the industry applied it to sell them. Good enough for the marketers, good enough for the gun-control advocates, one would think.

This doesn't mean there aren't problems with defining what constitutes an assault weapon for purposes of the ban. The first ban in 1994 listed what put a firearm —rifle, shotgun or pistol—into the proscribed category. If a firearm had two of certain features, it met the criteria. For a rifle, these included a folding or telescoping stock, a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher. As noted, it wasn't hard to retool existing firearms to comply with the ban without changing the weapon's effectiveness.

The just-based New York ban, the most restrictive prohibition of "assault" weapons passed so far, puts a rifle into this category if it has just one of these features, say a pistol grip. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who was instrumental in getting the 1994 ban passed, is crafting a tougher federal ban that she will introduce next week. While designating the same combination of features that would make a firearm illegal, her proposed ban will specifically name 120 prohibited firearms while specifically naming 900 that aren't outlawed.

Like the previous ban, the new one is expected to include a limit of 10 rounds in the capacity of magazines that feed semi-automatic firearms. Or the limit may be introduced as separate legislation. One reason for doing that is because some gun owners who oppose the firearms part of the ban are more flexible on the matter of a hi-cap magazine limitation. Which means such a limit would presumably face less opposition in the Senate and House.

Tell your senator to back President Obama's gun-reform measures. If you hear back from any senators, please let us know with this form.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:00 AM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and Daily Kos.

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

  •  Here is an example of how fast... (48+ / 0-)

    ...the best-known civilian version of an assault rifle—AR-15—can be fired semi-automatically (one squeeze of the trigger per bullet) and reloaded. I'll let you count the rounds discharged in less than 80 seconds:

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:06:04 AM PST

    •  the clackamas mall shooting (34+ / 0-)

      the murderer used an ar-15. he took it from the house where he was temporarily staying, where it obviously wasn't secured. he had been telling friends he wanted to get out of town, and needed a gun, but that didn't tip off the guy he was staying with to at least keep the gun out of the way. and this was in a quiet bedroom community type neighborhood. why would anyone need to keep an ar-15 in a quiet bedroom community type neighborhood?

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:11:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Chuck Norris's Neighbor nt (10+ / 0-)

        As the Elites Come Together to Rise Above to Find a Third Way to do Rude things to the 99%

        by JML9999 on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:19:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Or a herd of deers tries to rush you . (6+ / 0-)

          "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

          by indycam on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:40:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Now even deer have black helicopters. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lyvwyr101

            ... which proves that Jimmy Carter banned black helicopters.
            (/LaPerp)

            ♥ Repeal the Capital Gains, Carried Interest & Dividends Entitlements bequeathed to 'more special' taxpayers.

            by in on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 05:51:52 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  That's what the toaster's for. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          inclusiveheart, Matt Z, lyvwyr101

          202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

          by cany on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:58:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  ??? Do you throw the toaster at the ants? nt (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cany, Matt Z, lyvwyr101
            •  No you whack people with it. It goes along with (5+ / 0-)

              the cars=guns routine by RKBA supporters. It seems everything is a weapon EXCEPT guns, which obviously don't kill people.

              202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

              by cany on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 02:14:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Assault rifles are used in less murders than (3+ / 0-)

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 03:27:18 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  But they ARE associated with mass shootings. (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  AdamR510, cocinero, Laconic Lib, lyvwyr101

                  You know frank, changing the subject doesn't really help.

                  202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                  by cany on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 03:54:48 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  oh, really? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Laconic Lib

                  it turns out that "personal weapons" in turn account for less than half of homicides for "firearms, type not stated."

                  Interesting that you left that out.

                  And while we're on the subject, I also note that you neglected to include that handguns accounted for 8.5 times the number of "personal weapons" homicides.

                  Because the ratios of these things are what's really important, right? That video up at the top that MB posted has a guy rattling off (by my count) 14 clips worth of ammo in just over a minute. Do "personal weapons" confer that kind of power? Could someone so inclined rob a bank (or kill a dozen people in five minutes from a distance at a mall, a school, or a theater) with "personal weapons?"

                  Do you have statistics for how many of those homicides with "personal weapons" were actually multiple homicides? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess not very many....

                  Views Differ On Shape Of Planet

                  by nota bene on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 04:36:07 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  This is a discussion of the AWB. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PavePusher, Otteray Scribe

                    Hence, I am focusing on 'Assault Weapons' 'Assault Weapons' (all rifles combined, actually) are used in less than half the amount of murders than bare hands are.

                    "video up at the top"
                    That man has done no crime. So why are we talking about banning a rifle, (that is responsible for less than half of  the murders that bare hands are) for innocent people?

                    I come to this debate in the same manner I did with warrantless wiretaps. Innocent Americans should not have their liberties taken because of the actions of murderers.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 04:52:10 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  .... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Laconic Lib

                      1) you don't need to spam the link. That's three times in one thread. Yes, I have it open in a new tab.

                      2) You didn't even bother to respond to any of the questions I asked. Par for the course.

                      3) I didn't accuse the guy in the video of committing a crime. Don't put words in my mouth.

                      4) We're talking about banning these things because they allow for the projection of lethality at a distance, which "personal weapons" do not allow. (Do you disagree?) Finding some sort of constitutional way to curb, reduce, or mitigate that power is in society's best interest, is it not?

                      And since you brought it up, maybe we should also be talking about what we can do to reduce the lethality of handguns. Since the link you yourself posted demonstrates that they are responsible for many times more homicides than the "personal weapons" which you have suddenly become so exercised about.

                      5) If you've got any solutions for reducing homicides with bare hands, other than the usual lip service about mental health and other ancilliary issues--which Responsible Gun Owners(tm) have done fuck-all to address--we're all ears.

                      But it seems to me that you're more interested in smugly scoring bullshit rhetorical points than harm reduction.

                      Views Differ On Shape Of Planet

                      by nota bene on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 05:12:58 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  .... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        PavePusher

                        1) You don't need to worry about how I choose to link. And if I don't link it, it is inevitable someone accuses me of lying and asks for a link.

                        2) What questions? Your hypotheticals? Why don't we stick to objective fact? Such as--all rifles combined are responsible for less than half the murders that bare hands are.

                        3) I realize you didn't call that man a criminal. I didn't imply that you did. However, you did point out that man as an example of why we need the AWB. If he isn't a criminal and he has committed no crime, then why should he be banned? Generally, I think we shouldn't infringe on the liberties of innocent Americans.

                        4) The 9/11 terrorists used phones to coordinate their attack. Do we 'as a society mitigate' that ability to communicate with warrantless wiretaps?

                        5) I'm not inclined to limiting the liberties of innocent Americans for perceived security, so I will let you decide if it would be in 'societies best interest' for everyone to wear boxing gloves at all times
                        I am in favor of better mental healthcare. It would be more effective & would be far better for 'society'.
                        I have voted for Dems hoping for more access. Quite frankly I have no-fucking-idea what you expect me to do about it, seeing as how we've probably done about the same-fucking-amount, so why don't we drop the 'fuck-all' bullshit?

                        "It seems to me you're more interested in smugly scoring bullshit rhetorical points than harm reduction"
                        And it seems to me you're more interested in limiting any liberty that you don't utilize, for perceived security....no matter how demonstratively false  it may be.

                        On a side note, if you want this discussion to continue to be snide & rude, go for it....I am happy to follow suit.
                        Otherwise, you can keep your opinions about me or what you may think I am 'interested in'  to yourself.

                        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                        by FrankRose on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 06:10:30 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  You might want to properly attribute "assault" (0+ / 0-)

                      to the manufacturers that began using the name. That would be accurate.

                      202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                      by cany on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 12:46:17 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

      •  Well (6+ / 0-)

        The last pro-gun DKos'er i engaged about that claimed he needed to keep the wild hogs from overrunning his farm.

        yessiree hee-haw.

        facepalm

        "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

        by nosleep4u on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:55:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's not so far-fetched, actually. I heard a guy (6+ / 0-)

          call into (I believe) the Stephanie Miller show recently -- pretty sure he was from Arkansas -- and he mentioned occasions where scores of wild pigs around his farm would get a bad attitude en masse.

          He didn't seem concerned with anyone taking his guns or overthrowing the gummint or hoarding bullets or any of the other fact-free NRA-induced fund-raising hysteria...  he just didn't want to get caught short-handed out in the field when a couple tons of flying pork decided to bum-rush his ass.

          That guy? Yeah - he probably needs more than a 10 round mag. But the needle-dick jackwagon down the street who wants to send a message to the kids who sometimes cut across his lawn on their way to school?  Hell no. Fuck that shit.

          ...and after we get your guns, we're coming for your dildos.

          by here4tehbeer on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 03:26:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  yes feral hogs are a big problem in some parts of (4+ / 0-)

          the country and they are a tough animal. Most use a larger round though, I think a semi auto in 308.

          Hogs are such a bad invasive that many places have abandoned all normal rules and laws for hunting. Ariel gunning, night shooting by lights, abandoning edible meat, all acts that are illegal many places for many species.

          How big is your personal carbon footprint?

          by ban nock on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 05:29:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Anti-Rural bigotry, much? (5+ / 0-)

          Wild hogs are a non-native, problem pest species in a number of areas.

        •  Ever been treed by a feral hog? (8+ / 0-)

          I stumbled across an sow with a bunch of little pigs while squirrel hunting in northwest Arkansas.  I was armed with a single shot .410 shotgun, which is not good for much other than squirrels and rabbits.  That sow chased me up a tree while she went around and around the base of the tree trying to figure out where I went.  My dad came looking for me and chased her off with a couple of 12 gauge rounds of squirrel shot to her backside.  That hog would have killed me if there had not been a climbable tree handy, because I sure as hell was not gong to dissuade her with that little .410.  

          The Arkansas Razorback football team did not get their mascot namesake by accident.  A feral hog is one of the most dangerous animals on the North American continent.  

          I have never ventured into the woods since then, age of 14, unless I had some serious firepower with me.

          The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

          by Otteray Scribe on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 08:51:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well, this shows your ignorance. (4+ / 0-)

          Wild hogs cause many thousands of dollars of damage every year -- we had an entire season of growing ruined a couple of years ago.  That's a significant portion of my yearly income gone.

          Yeah, "yessiree hee-haw" indeed.

          Not to mention, I hope that no one ever has to see what a sounder of hogs will do to a calf and cow while that cow is trying to deliver that calf.  Truly horrifying.

          Facepalm, indeed.

          But, it doesn't affect you directly, so it doesn't really count, does it?

          Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

          by theatre goon on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 03:38:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Need vs. want (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ER Doc, fuzzyguy, PavePusher

        Obviously, there is a difference between "need" and "want".    Why should we assume that the gun owner "needed" to have the gun?     Unless it's illegal to possess the gun, "wanting" is all that is required.  

      •  Having talked to wingnuts over the past few weeks. (8+ / 0-)

        Having talked to wingnuts at work, as well as some surprisingly unhinged high school friends, the answer is as follows:

        They need the automatic rifles to kill American Soldiers and Police Officers.

        Ok, so there's obviously more to it than that.  But not much more, sadly.

        Specifically, the general theme, which I heard from several different cliques that were not connected in any way that I know of (other than they knew me by happenstance), is that there is a Civil War coming.  Or at least, these types think there is.

        These people dream of it.

        According to this particular fantasy, when the illegitimate current government -- because after all, only "moochers" like Black and Brown people voted for Obama, not "real Americans" (read: white men), so he's not legitimate -- when Obama finally goes "too far" they're going to rebel and take over the country by force.  Or "save" the country, as they like to put it.

        You can see this in all the dog whistles the far right uses in media.  Outright falsehoods claiming Obama's not a "real American," heard-it-from-a-friend rumors that Obama stole the election, the 1950s Cold War name calling, you name it.

        It all works together to create this insane group delusion:  That Obama is the head of some secret conspiracy to steal the country away from "real" Americans, that he's actively running around committing horrific atrocities that the media doesn't report because they're corrupt, et cetera.

        In these people's warped minds, the US is 5-10 years away from the revolution.

        And that's why they cling to this military hardware.  Because in the back of their minds, they feel that in a few years, they're going to need to start killing "corrupt" police and soldiers to protect the "real" America.

        "But KiTA," you ask with an incredulous look on your face, "Don't these guys realize that the military is huge?  That the police and ATF and the like would put them down?  That they're actually just a bunch of ignorant, overweight rubes that couldn't run a football field's length, yet alone fight in a military engagement?"

        Ah, but they have an argument for that.  All truly deranged people do, after all.

        Remember, in their minds, the Military and Police exist for them.  Not for "others," or "socialists," but they exist for the sole purpose of their own use, enjoyment, and protection.

        It's cognitive dissonance, maybe with a bit of projection:  Since the Military and Police are made up of "good guys," and since they themselves believe themselves to be "good guys," in their minds that means that the Military and Police will join in on their revolution.  It's the only sane thing "good guys" do, after all.

        And the ones that don't?

        The "corrupt ones" that the "illuminati" got to and were "re-educated in secret FEMA concentration camps?"

        Well, obviously, that's why they need the military hardware.

        To kill cops and soldiers.

        You can see this in the Gun Fetishist literature, the ads, the subculture of Gun Worship.  It was cynically latched on to by the far right and the NRA as a marketing tool, and upon doing so basic Economics took off -- if you can sell X number of papers by getting people Y afraid and Z paranoid, if you double Y and Z you can almost quadruple X.

        The problem is, we're dealing with violent, scared, paranoid, and above all else, stupid and ignorant people.

        The NRA and the marketplace it represents, as well as the GOP and the "marketplace" of voters it represents, are waging a dangerous game:  That they can get these morons riled up just enough that they spend ungodly amounts of time and resources on things the NRA and GOP can profit on, but NOT to the point that they actually start acting out their deranged shared delusions.

        Unfortunately, as we've started to see -- remember, Sandy Hook's killer was the homeschooled son of a "Prepper," which is the name these particular nuts call themselves.

        While some Preppers are just survivalist fans, a far, far greater number of people use the term as a codeword -- they are prepping for the upcoming revolution and fall of the United States.

        God help us if they get tired of waiting.

      •   ...because you might need to tell (3+ / 0-)

        the Postal Carrier --dirty, stinkin', union dues payin' representative of the nanny state that's destroyin' our freedom doncha know?-- to get off of your lawn

        ???

        Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

        by a gilas girl on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 03:02:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm a little slow. (15+ / 0-)

      Are you telling me that that equipment is legal for any civilian to own?

      •  Yep. Perfectly legal in the vast majority... (24+ / 0-)

        ...of states.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:28:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  MB, I have fired an un-modified AR-15... (7+ / 0-)

          and I emptied a 10 round clip in 2.5 seconds (slow on the finger).  My second eldest who owns the rifle did his in less than 2 seconds.  What you were showing was a "standard" run that I have seen at the gun range I was visiting.

          OBTW, I put 9 out of 10 in the size of a old silver dollar, my son did 10/10 in the size of a quarter.  They can be that accurate.

          "Death is the winner in any war." - Nightwish/Imaginareum/Song of myself.

          by doingbusinessas on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:17:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  MB, why ban these firearms though? (11+ / 0-)

          I'm heavily pro-RKBA, but I'll freely concede that the gun control crowd can make a legitimate argument about magazine size.  What's the point of banning the firearms themselves though?  Is an AR-15 with an eight round magazine any deadlier than my M1 Garand with eight round en-bloc clips?  The M1 is actually more powerful, based on its cartridge, but the Federal Government literally sells them to any qualified buyer through the Civilian Marksmanship Program, and I haven't heard a single gun control advocate fret about this program.

          Frankly, I don't own any firearms with magazines >8 rounds (I own a 1911 pistol and the aforementioned M1), and I'm skeptical that magazines >10 rounds provide any added benefit for self-defense, so I'm perfectly willing to discuss legislation about magazine size.  I honestly don't understand the point of banning any type of firearm though, it strikes me as feel good legislation that will accomplish nothing.

          There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

          by Crookshanks on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:34:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  All suicides by firearm never use more than one (13+ / 0-)

            bullet.

            Most murders by firearm involve from one to three shots.  In forty years of forensic work, the biggest single mass murder I ever came across was seven people dead.  The perpetrator shot all his family members in the head while they were sleeping, and did it with a .22 squirrel rifle.  

            There was one mass murder when the perpetrator went into the hardware store where his father worked and killed four people with a Remington pump action shotgun designed for bird hunting.  Most of the proposals will have zero effect on the suicide rate and probably not a measurable amount of effect on the murder rate.  As one trained in statistics, think of it as a decimal followed by a lot of zeroes before you get to any real numbers.  

            As for accidents, you cannot fix stupid, they have been with us forever, and will still be with us forever.

            The kerfuffle over the big mags is all due to folks seeing too many action movies and a small handful of crazies.  The Virgina Tech shooter used a standard handgun with standard magazines. He just kept reloading.

            The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

            by Otteray Scribe on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:57:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Very interesting, thanks nt (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Otteray Scribe, BlackSheep1

              When someone is impatient and says, "I haven't got all day," I always wonder, How can that be? How can you not have all day? George Carlin

              by msmacgyver on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 02:14:13 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  a Solution (0+ / 0-)

              The design of ALL newly manufactured rifles and shotguns should be restricted to prohibit ANY detachable magazines or clips.

              •  Very few shotguns have detachable magazines. (8+ / 0-)

                (Clips are not magazines)  The aforementioned shotgun has a tube feed that holds a maximum of five cartridges.  Many rifles, such as my deer rifle made in 1896 has a tube feed.

                That guy's little squirrel rifle had a tube feed.  

                You will get absolutely nowhere with the proposal for prohibiting detachable magazines.  They are a common feature on pistols, except for revolvers. And, do you have any idea how fast a revolver can be reloaded?  Many civil war soldiers carried a revolver, but a number of pre-loaded cylinders they could snap in and out easily.  And those were muzzle loaders. Any congresscritter that proposed that would be looking for a real job come the next election.  

                The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

                by Otteray Scribe on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 02:58:25 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Something tells me that (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  salamanderempress

                  pre-loaded cylinders are a lot more onerous to carry around in a backpack than standard magazines... plus there is the added bonus that they only carry 6-8 bullets (usually?  I might be wrong, but that is what I have seen).

                  If there is nothing that can be done to limit the rapid fire of guns, whether in the speed the weapon fires or during the reloading process, then we have to accept any solution we pass will be cosmetic.  That is pathetic.  

                  Well, we have seen a hugely successful regulation in terms of automatic weapons.  Maybe we should be focusing on just making semi-automatic weapons incredibly difficult to acquire.  Not banned outright, just heavily regulated.

                  •  This: All it takes is practice. (4+ / 0-)

                    The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

                    by Otteray Scribe on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 03:25:18 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  True though that may be, (0+ / 0-)

                      I doubt that many people in Adam Lanza's wannabe mass murderer demographic are that skilled.  

                      It's certainly not as easy to be that good with that weapon as it is to be good at firing and reloading an AR15.

                      •  This is an example (0+ / 0-)

                        Of what one can do with practice.

                        However even without much practice one can fire and reload a revolver rather quickly.

                        In a mass shooting situation the shooter gets to choose the timing and location of his reloads. Tucson aside it doesn't really matter if the shooter has a rifle with 30 round magazines, revolvers, or a double barrel shotgun.

            •  They were semi-autos (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              orlbucfan, salamanderempress
              The Virgina Tech shooter used a standard handgun with standard magazines. He just kept reloading.
              with ten to 15 rounds of ammo in the magazines.  He reloaded as he went between classrooms.  He still had a ton of rapid fire capability that allowed him to rapidly shoot a ton of people in a very short period of time.  I don't see why the capability to do that can't be banned, including in handguns.  Put requirements in new handguns going forward that you can't have 15 round magazines, and you can't have easily changeable clips.  Make the shooter vulnerable because he can't reload so fast and because he has to reload more.  Of course, I have thought from the beginning that even ten rounds is too many to be legal.

              With respect to accidents, you can't fix stupid, but you should be able to require knowledge and training before ownership (i.e., licensing that requires proficiency and knowledge of the law and proper storage techniques).  That could fix some of the stupid, or at least keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of stupid (sometimes, at the very least).

          •  Regarding mass shootings, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JayBat, salamanderempress

            ...I agree that the magazine capacity is far more pertinent than the type of semi-automatic firearm used.  Both the VA Tech and Tucson shootings used standard semi-automatic pistols, IIRC, but with extended 30-round clips.  In Tucson, it was when he had to reload that they stopped him; if he had to do so after 10 rounds instead of 30, some more people might have lived.

            GOP Agenda: Repeal 20th Century.

            by NormAl1792 on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:58:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  magazine size & universal background cks (8+ / 0-)

            would both stand a chance
            without the AWB2

            Who is mighty ? One who turns an enemy into a friend !

            by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:59:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'm with you. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            43north

            I think if you limit clip size it would be better than banning the assault weapons.

            Plus I really think that in order to get a lot of the positive effects of any gun control you are going to eventually have to have federal registration.

            As long as there is the idea of banning them then there will be a huge amount of resistance to registration.

            However you say we aren't going to ban them we are going to ban the production and future sale of big clips you aren't taking guns and maybe the eventual registering of guns will be more accepted once people don't feel it will be an excuse to get a list to round them up.

            But to speak to a difft issue, I think as far as the mentally deranged and these guns - that the LOOK of these guns similar to the guns used in the military and in violent movies doesnt' help one bit.

            Also some of the advertising for these things is WAY over the top.

            You know they have done it SOME, now but when we were starting to try to crack down on cigarettes because they kill people the tobacco companies were in denial.

            I kept thinking rather than being in denial, why dont' the tobacco companies start pushing cigars and pipes and products that do not lend themselves as much to habitual use as a cigarette??

            The gun companies need to dial back some of these type guns and start promoting other models.

            I really think and advertising ban on military style semi autos would be a really good idea.

            •  Its the reload speed. (0+ / 0-)

              The design of ALL newly manufactured rifles and shotguns should be restricted to prohibit ANY detachable magazines or clips.

              •  This is where I'm at (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                orlbucfan

                It's not enough to limit magazine capacity.  They should pass a law requiring guns publicly sold to be literally incapable of that kind of rapid changing of ammunition sources.  If you limit bullet capacity to ten AND make changing the magazine seriously onerous, suddenly for a new wannabe mass murderer looking to acquire the weapons necessary, he'll have a hell of a time carrying it out.

                If that isn't possible, which I have read some gun people state, then anything rapid fire (semi-auto) should be off the table.  There is just no reason for any random person to be able to get their hands on that much rapid fire power.

                •  Never heard of the "New York Reload" I see. (4+ / 0-)

                  For every iteration you can think of, Bad Guys are always one step ahead.

                  Why is that?  They have their livelihood dependent on the success of their tactics.  They have all day to think about it.  You, on the other hand, probably have demands on your time.

                  So, what is the New York Reload?  Just carry as many revolvers as you can.  5 or 6 shots per revolver.  2 revolvers is sort of the minimum for a bad guy in this situation.

                  Or use speedloaders to up the round count without the additional weight.

                  You can out-legislate a bad guy, but you won't out-think him.

                  •  I disagree (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    salamanderempress

                    Most "bad guys" (at least the mass murders of late) have used easily acquired weapons.  When it's easy to commit the crime, the crime happens more often.

                    •  Not a valid observation. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      BlackSheep1

                      It is "easy" for a good guy to commit a crime.  He does not.

                      There is no evidence that the recent mass murders are more than a cluster of occurrences that happen every so often.

                      •  Not every criminal is a maniacal genius. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        salamanderempress

                        Adam Lanza wasn't.  All it took him was the time necessary to open his mother's cabinet.  He didn't even have the patience to wait out a waiting period for a gun.  The Oregon mall guy wasn't.  He just grabbed his roommate's weapon.  Columbine kids sent their friends to buy them legal weapons.  The Virginia Tech shooter bought his guns legally, easily.  The list goes on and on.  Who knows how successful these guys would have been if it hadn't been so easy.

                        We can weed out idiots that would be happy to inflict a lot of harm if/when the opportunity presents itself, or if they can easily plot their scheme.

                        The idea that massacres are statistical anomalies that we are stuck with and should just come to accept honestly makes me nauseous.  Massacres are preventable.  Every other civilized society works to prevent them, and is more successful at it than we are.  That alone is evidence that "mass murders are more than a cluster of occurrences that happen every so often."  In China a man tried to commit a massacre of children with a knife.  Not one child died.  

                        If we had this attitude about other forms of massacre, dynamite would be available at corner markets.  Our society rejects people having access to weapons capable of mass murder in every other instance.  Hell, it could be argued that knives are at least as regulated as guns, which obviously makes no sense.  

                        I do not accept that I have to just live with a few massacres a year and otherwise shut up about them.

                        •  Anecdotes. Are you aware that just previous to (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Otteray Scribe

                          the knife incident you mention, another Chinese lad killed 6 and wounded 7 severely...with a knife...because he had a fight with his girlfriend.

                          I'm tired of anecdotes.

                          You are not going to get rid of semi-automatic firearms in America in this generation.  The bus has left the station.  I won't argue or debate the topic.  It isn't fruitful.

                          What I would suggest, respectfully, is that you adjust your expectations to the political and social reality of the USA of today.

                          •  Fine, let's talk probability (0+ / 0-)

                            Is someone more likely to die by bullet or knife?

                            How about statistics that show more guns = more gun deaths?  The idea that crimes being easier to commit means that more crimes will be committed is "not a valid observation" is silly and refuted by statistics worldwide... not anecdote.  What dropped the number of bank robberies?  Not guards with guns, but cameras and hidden alarms.  Society actually can get closer to solving problems, even if it can never solve them completely.  Societies do it all the time.  Look at the impact heavy regulation of automatic weapons had on the violence caused by automatic weapons.

                            I am not clueless about political reality in America.  Doesn't mean simple observation doesn't apply, and it doesn't change my opinion on the best way forward.  It also doesn't change how wrong you are about massacres being nothing more than inevitable clusters of occurrences that are just going to happen from time to time.  While we can never rid society of massacres completely, it is absolutely wrong that our policies can't affect how often they occur and how "successful" they are.  America's pathetic showing on the world stage is proof of that.

                          •  I leave you with this. (0+ / 0-)

                            I really don't want to debate statistics, but according to FBI uniform crime reporting data:

                            From 1990 to 2007, the number of bank robberies in the U.S. has fluctuated between a high of 11,876 in 1993 to a low of 8,193 in 1999. In 2007, there were 9,252 such robberies. This is not a very lucrative crime, as the average bank monetary loss in 2007 was $4,201.
                            It seems that cameras, guards, etc., have had little effect on bank robberies, which seems to refute your hypothesis.

                            WRT firearms, homicides have reduced substantially from the early 1990's yet the population and guns in circulation have increased quite substantially.

                          •  I notice there is a lot you don't want to debate (0+ / 0-)

                            or acknowledge.  Interesting that the small decrease in bank robberies in your stats isn't tempered by the increase in population or guns in circulation, but those things are of course super relevant when it comes to firearm homicides.

                            I love how when it comes to guns, simple logic goes out the window and double standards are the norm.  Stupidity really reigns as talking points take over.  Do we think giving all kids bats to defend themselves against bullies would lower bullying in schools?  Do we fight anthrax threats by handing out to everyone anthrax?

                            The homicide via gun rate in America has more to do with inner city violence and attempts to curb that.  Those cities tend to be liberal, so if they are tackling that problem and reducing the violence, yay for them, but it has nothing to do with the presence of more guns.  That is in no way a vindication for the gun industry.

                            You criticize anecdote, yet the only place that guns can be shown as good tools of self defense is via anecdote.  Yes, there are anecdotal accounts of people defending themselves successfully with weapons.  It is also true that in America, a person is more likely to accidentally injure themselves or someone else with a gun that to successfully defend themselves with one.  It is also true that there is no statistical correlation between higher success of self defense and possession of a gun used in self defense.

                            People can talk all they want about fluctuations in crime over ten to 30 year periods, or however they want to talk about it.  The fact remains that America is always toward top of the list when it comes to rates of crime and murder in developed countries (and really, our rates our nothing impressive compared to the rest of the world generally either).  Numbers that roughly stay the same over time are nothing to brag about.  

                            Just in general, googling it and looking at assortments of charts from many different sources, the only stat that I could find where America wasn't toward the top (i.e., toward the most incidences per 100,000 people) was assault.  I wonder how much that has to do with the number of assaults in America that are completed in the form of homicides.  Then I see gun advocates brag that our guns everywhere are deterrents to burglaries and the like.  Unfortunately, that really isn't born out either, because there are dozens of countries with no guns (or fewer guns, and less powerful guns) that have lower burglary rates.  There is really no international criminal stat that America excels at... save for our incarceration rate.  Yay America!  Only clearly there is plenty of room for improvement.

                          •  I don't want to talk about it any more, because (0+ / 0-)

                            positions are relatively hardened.  Facts get in the way of emotions on both sides.

                            I'm not going to convince you that taking guns away from good guys is a bad idea.  You've formed a position and that is just fine.  I happen to think your position is wrong.

                            Ronald Reagan, not one of my favorite presidents, said that civilization is only one generation away from extinction.  Based on my own experience in natural catastrophes here in the USA and war zones overseas, I believe that civilization can disappear in the blink of an eye.  At least locally or regionally.

                            Without the means to defend oneself and family leaves you vulnerable to any bad guy out there.  And, believe me, there are plenty of bad guys.

                          •  mass shootings have happened (0+ / 0-)

                            In countries with much stricter gun laws than the US.

                            You can argue that they are more rare and it is because of the gun laws in those countries, but there are a host of other factors that come into play as well.

                            The reality is the US has a very high rate of gun ownership and the majority of owners aren't going to easily give them up.

                            The likelihood of passing gun control laws as strict as those of Australia, England, or Japan any time soon in the US (especially on the Federal level) is zero.

                            Passing restrictions on the type of guns one can purchase or own on a state or local level is largely pointless as criminals seem to have no problem crossing jurisdictional boundaries. It simply is a method of harassing those who wish to be law abiding.

                            Things I think would actually make a difference:
                            1. Making mental health treatment at least as easy to get as a firearm.
                            2. Strengthening the background check system to ensure those who have a history of mental illness, criminal histories, no contact orders, or a history of domestic violence (IOW all of the reasons current Federal law says you can't buy a firearm)
                            2a. Any such database needs to be prevented from becoming some sort of scarlet "A". Particularly in the case of people who were involuntarily committed for doing something stupid while teenagers.

                    •  Not exactly true (0+ / 0-)

                      The shooter in Norway went through a lot of planning to acquire his weapons.

                      In many cases those committing mass killings have spent a lot of time on the range and acquired their weapons over a number of years.

                •  Google the following term.... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Otteray Scribe, BlackSheep1

                  "stripper clip"

                  Also, please learn the difference between a magazine and a clip.  It's going to be rather important to your proposed legislation.

              •  That is impractical (0+ / 0-)

                magazines and clips generally have to be removable to allow cleaning, clearing jams, and replacement if damaged.

                At that point you run into problems of how to define "easily removed". California tried to require a tool to remove magazines so gun makers came up with the "bullet button".

          •  I am not a gun person (3+ / 0-)

            But I looked up the M1, and apparently it is a semi-automatic weapon.  I barely care that it is more powerful because the AR15 was clearly powerful enough, but in terms of capability to shoot a shit ton of bullets in a few seconds, I don't see why that one is more acceptable than the AR15.

            Personally, I disagree that the focus should only be on magazine clips.  Watching the video above convinced me of that.  I am definitely pro getting rid of high capacity magazines, but people can change them in seconds.  The real problem is anything that is capable of that kind of rapid fire.  

            The public, unfortunately, is desensitized to suicide and murder using one or a few bullets.  Guns will never be regulated to affect those statistics.  The public is, however, sick of massacres, and therefore there is motivation to regulate guns to prevent massacres.  That makes sense, because society regulates explosives for the same reason.  Highly destructive products capable of tons of death in a very short period of time should be regulated, monitored, tracked, and in most cases, banned.  

            Honestly, it seems like the only way to affect someone's capability of committing a massacre is to ban not just assault rifles, but any rapid fire, semi-automatic weapon with an easily changeable magazine (or at least keep them confined to shooting ranges from now on, which honestly I don't see why anyone has a problem with that).  

            Yes, the Tuscan guy was stopped attempting to change a magazine, but basically there we are hoping for shooter incompetence.  That's fine, in general I would support anything making massacre more difficult, including an assault ban that is largely cosmetic, but if we want to be serious, then banning the sale of anything capable of that should be on the table.

          •  As I've noted here and elsewhere... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            43north, BlackSheep1

            ...I am skeptical that the assault weapons ban will even clear the Senate, much less the House. But a magazine limitation might.

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 03:37:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  There's a run on assault weapons (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NormAl1792, msmacgyver

        Here is an interesting articlein today's paper.

        The president's proposal is what many in the gun industry expected.

        They've seen shortages for a while of items that could be affected.

        "Speculation has already impacted business. People are afraid they are going to permanently take law-abiding citizens' rights away," said Eric Walsh, owner of Elk Castle Shooting Sports. "People are stocking up. We have inventory shortages.

        "We were sold out of high-capacity magazines last month."

    •  My guy if faster (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pompatus

      "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

      by indycam on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:37:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Shooting at silhouettes with anything is gross. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gentle Giant

      If he was shooting at watermelons and milk jugs full of colored water, it would be a lot of fun. But guns are very lethal and scary. I understand why people who don't shoot have trouble with those who shoot for recreation or as a hobby.

      "Live as if you will die tomorrow. Learn as if you will live forever.", Mohandas Gandhi

      by Bubbatoby on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 12:24:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  In the late 70s, in my early 20s, I (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        msmacgyver, orlbucfan

        had a roommate who worked for Pinkerton under cover. He was upfront and showed me his one pistol and how to load and use it in case I ever needed to. All I did was keep an eye on where he kept it when he wasn't home.

        Anyway, our walls were blank save for myriad houseplants. He tacked an unused silhouette target on one wall, which I thought was kinda cool. Then he taped a passport-sized photo of his face in the center of the head of the silhouette.
        That, I thought was a bit disturbing. He had a great sense of humor and was a superb roommate. Beautiful girlfriends whom I got along with beautifully, though platonically.

        Every time I see a silhouette target live or in media, I see that "art" on my wall with his face in miniature on it.

        Maybe that was his intention, thinking I'd take a dislike to such targets. No problem with cans or any inanimate target that doesn't leave a mess. No silhouettes for me.

        I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I’m proud of it. - Paul Krugman

        by Gentle Giant on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:25:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I prefer the term Military Grade Weapon. (7+ / 0-)

      All guns assault when we think about it but the military only chooses certain weapons because of their ability to kill large numbers of people at a time.

      Maybe these politicians would have an easier time if we gave them a term they could support.

    •  Mag size doesn't matter... (0+ / 0-)

      Even if this guy had 5 round magazines... would it matter?

    •  that was *semi*-auto? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Vote4Obamain2012

      holy shit, yo

      Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

      by nominalize on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:41:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  DAMN! (0+ / 0-)

      That might as well be full auto, he was that fast.

      I thought this Slate headline was appropriate

      Speed Kills
      What’s the lesson of the Connecticut school massacre? The faster the weapon, the higher the body count.
      Forget magazine size, how about limiting how fast a gun can fire.  If there was 5 seconds between every bullet, it might make a huge difference in the body count.  (Not that I have any idea how that could be achieved).

      I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

      by tle on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 02:14:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed (0+ / 0-)

      The design of ALL newly manufactured rifles and shotguns should be restricted to prohibit ANY detachable magazines or clips.

    •  So what? One well-trained shooter taking out a (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PavePusher, BlackSheep1

      static target.  Impressive as shit to you rubes who don't know squat about firearms.

      If you focused solely on his ability to reload his magazines, good for you.  A well-trained shooter can reload quickly.

      This may make you drizzle your drawers, but most of us who shoot competitively would generally say:  so what?

      •  I'll be happy to match my "rube" knowledge... (0+ / 0-)

        ...about guns, which I've owned since I was 6, with yours. The point of the video is how fast he could shoot and reload vs. the claim that these don't count as assault weapons.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 03:47:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Fine. I'm an FFL, gunsmith and professional (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PavePusher, BlackSheep1

          shooter. I also served in the military and shot every small arm available along with a 106mm recoilless rifle.

          Match away.

          It's a scare tactic, disinformative and speaks to a common denominator that I thought you were slightly above.

          •  You obviously got me on.. (0+ / 0-)

            ...the knowledge front. Doesn't, however, make me a rube. And the point still stands about the lethality involved with the capability of loading and shooting rapidly with hi-cap magazines.

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 04:25:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sorry. Foto and video overload. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher, BlackSheep1

              I've seen and heard way too much over the last 2 weeks that added nothing toward a solution.  Just hype on both sides.

              As you can expect, I'm more interested in what we are going to do to reduce violence and bad guys out and about than I am about a particular small arm.  They are all lethal in the right hands.

              •  maybe part of the problem is the way the (0+ / 0-)

                focus is on "bad guys", while for the nation as a whole that's not the issue, gun violence is???

                Gun violence by "good guys", gun violence by "bad guys", gun violence by "bad judgement", gun violence by the mentally and/or emotionally unstable, gun violence by those highly skilled with guns, gun violence by "accident", opportunistic gun violence, purposeful, planned gun violence, and even gun violence as desirable and a viable solution.

                If you (the generic you here, I should probably add for clarity's purpose, not you individually)  are more concerned and focus on preserving the gun part of the gun violence problem than you are looking at the violence part of the gun problem, and you seek to redefine the gun violence problem as a bad guy problem, then it's going to be really hard to contribute something productive to solving the gun violence problem.  But you can probably contribute something positive to the maintaining gun rights discussion, which seems to be the only one that gun rights advocates ever really want to have.

                Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

                by a gilas girl on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 09:43:43 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Is the guy in the video... (0+ / 0-)

      Is the guy in the video above wearing a gun aficionado uniform?  Blue jeans, wife-beater or sleeveless t-shirt to better show off the "guns", a shaped ballcap...

      Where are the aviator sunglasses, the badass-look sunglasses?

    •  I put this video on full screen and zoomed in (7+ / 0-)

      as much as I could. I watched it a half dozen times. If that is a semi-auto, I am a Cabbage Patch doll.  There was no discernible finger movement other than the first pull with each burst.  The rate of fire was very regular and even, unlike semi-auto that tends to be a bit ragged, no matter how good the shooter. Very few people can accomplish that kind or fire rate.  The only ones I can think of are Travis Tomasie and Jerry Miculek. Bob Munden can exceed that rate, but only for two to six shots...and I am not sure that Bob is even from here...he may be an alien life form.  

      I believe that is a full auto weapon being presented as a semi-auto. It won't be the first time dishonesty has been used to make a political point. Shades of P.T.Barnum.

      The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

      by Otteray Scribe on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 08:41:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good, I'm not the only one. (7+ / 0-)

        I have some experience with full-auto weapons, and this certainly seemed full-auto to me.

      •  It's not me who was snookered, OS. So this IS you: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Otteray Scribe, navajo
        I have personally fired a Colt AR-15 purchased in 1976 at about 7/8s this speed.

        The shooter is NOT firing a fully automatic weapon.

        But since you didn't believe the first video, and viewed ME as the sucker, I contacted him. Here is another video he sent me  firing a different semi-auto at a timed speed, burning through just one 30-round mag. His repeated finger travel is clearly visible even before the 30-second slow-motion version at the end. And the firing is perfectly smooth.

        For the record, THIS is automatic fire. And THIS. Much faster.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 12:38:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  OK, ya got me. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Meteor Blades

          I am a born skeptic.  However, this guy probably belongs in the same class of folks as Bob Munden and Jerry Miculek.  BTW, Jerry has been clocked at 600 rounds per minute, which is about the same as an AK-47.   As several people have pointed out, this is almost superhuman skill level.  Bob Munden could get off two shots at two different targets in less than 1/10 second.  

          Now excuse me while I go get the egg off my face.

          The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

          by Otteray Scribe on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 03:30:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  i'm personally fine (20+ / 0-)

    with an opponent of the ban being a member of the democratic caucus. i'm not okay with an opponent of the ban being leader of the democratic caucus. and i will let my senators know.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:07:15 AM PST

  •  My only issue with this is the idea that simply (23+ / 0-)

    limiting magazines to 10-rounds is enough.

    You yourself have stated that the Aurora shooter could have fired off more rounds with a 10-round magazine than the drum.

    Although I am all about limiting magazine size, because it will make it harder for the shooter to carry more rounds---i.e. 3 30-round magazines easier to store and carry than 9 10-round magazines.

    However, 10-round magazines can be exchanged really fast as you have yourself stated.

    Thus, there should be some way to make it harder to change out magazines in this legislation. Merely pushing a button and slapping in the new one is not good.

    A poster yesterday said that AR 15s that are legal in California require a tool to change out magazines. I would like to learn more about that.

    "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

    by ranger995 on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:10:02 AM PST

    •  I agree, but kind of hard to get around the... (5+ / 0-)

      ...fact that the law was and is called that officially.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:29:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, it makes true machine guns and military (9+ / 0-)

      style weapons off limits to civilians without going through a hell of a lot of hoops.  These items are restricted under the NFA.  In order to get one you need to have special permission from law enforcement, pay a tax, register it, and get fingerprinted.  You need a permit to take them across state lines and it also can't be passed down to others.

      The politicians are using a terminology game to scare people.  As the diary pointed out, "assault weapon" was a made up term to generate sales.  If calling them Framistats or Smurf-loogies sold them better, they would be called that instead.

      They are little different than any other gun available to the general public, except for the fact that they look like military equivalent weapons.   I have also seen demonstrations done with standard handguns where people who have trained are able to put a lot of rounds down range and change magazines very quickly.  One of them was a 14 year old girl who happened to be a competition champion.

      •  A smurf-loogie (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        msmacgyver, noway2

        is strangely-colored phlegm hocked up by small, blue cartoon characters. But I'm fine with "framistats", which could be sold at framistations, framistands and framistatmats in your neighborhood and mine.

        I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I’m proud of it. - Paul Krugman

        by Gentle Giant on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:30:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe I should have used the classic (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gentle Giant

          do-hickey instead?

          •  do-hickey (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            noway2

            or don't-hickey. It's all the same to me.

            I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I’m proud of it. - Paul Krugman

            by Gentle Giant on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 01:59:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Don't Hickey thats a new one to me. (0+ / 0-)

              It could also make a slogan for teenagers :)

              My grandfather used to use the term do-hickey and this thread reminded me of that.  It also reminds me of a funny story.  When I was about 6 years old, one of my uncles took a vacation and when he came back he was talking about and started telling my mom about some "jerk" throwing his luggage around in the baggage area.  At 6 I had no idea what a "jerk" was but I envisioned it being some hairy ape like creature with the face of my school gym teacher.

    •  The NRA can't figure out why criminals© (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lyvwyr101

      aren't always acquiring machine guns and thermonuclear weapons.
      The bad gummint unconstitutionally infringes on the second amendment rights of those weapons, so certainly all criminals© have them tucked into every possible location...

      ♥ Repeal the Capital Gains, Carried Interest & Dividends Entitlements bequeathed to 'more special' taxpayers.

      by in on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 05:48:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  That dippy girl S.E. Cupp on MSNBC (22+ / 0-)

    took issue with the term "assault" choosing instead to insist that these weapons are "useful".  

    Although, when asked to list ways in which they were useful, she was unable to produce a single example.

  •  Now ass-plane it to Lardbutt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ranger995, msmacgyver

    As the Elites Come Together to Rise Above to Find a Third Way to do Rude things to the 99%

    by JML9999 on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:17:09 AM PST

  •  Maybe "assault weapon" will be like "obscenity" (16+ / 0-)

    and it can be recognized when you see it.  (snark)  

    I like the term "military style."  Even people who are being coy about the term "assault weapon" know which weapons are military knock-offs.  It's usually the reason they want them.  

    Metaphors be with you.

    by koosah on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:17:47 AM PST

    •  Indeed. (5+ / 0-)

      (also, I love your sig line - it always makes me smile.)

      Babylon system is the vampire... ~Bob Marley

      by sfinx on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:22:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe we can get it on the list of words and (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      koosah, LinSea, Gentle Giant, lyvwyr101

      phrases that get bleeped out on TV.  

      Has anyone else picked up on this theme of infringing on the 1st Amendment as a means to expanding the 2nd Amendment?

      Note: I say "expanding" because that's what the NRA and the other gun lobbyists try to do even when their sector is under attack.  

      In any case, the gun lobbyists suggest that instead of focusing on limiting guns, we should focus on limiting video games (free speech).

      Now they don't want people to use the term "assault" when referring to their rifles even though they created the phrase "assault rifle".

      They have long prevented the CDC from tracking gun violence data and publishing it - limiting speech there.

      We could go on and on, but I think it is interesting - and even more interesting in a way that the American public is more flexible on limiting speech than they are on guns - that is actually pretty fucking weird given the differences between each in terms of bodily and societal harm.

    •  An assault weapon . (8+ / 0-)

      A weapon designed to kill fast and easy on the operator .

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

      The Germans were the first to pioneer the assault rifle concept, during World War II, based upon research that showed that most firefights happen within 400 meters and that contemporary rifles were over-powered for most small arms combat. The Germans sought to develop a select-fire intermediate powered rifle combining the firepower of a submachine gun with the accuracy and range of a rifle. This was done by shortening the standard 7.92x57mm cartridge to 7.92x33mm and giving it a lighter 125 grain bullet, that limited range but allowed for more controllable automatic fire.
      Like the Germans, the Soviets were influenced by experience showing most combat happens within 400 meters and that their soldiers were consistently outgunned by heavily armed German troops, especially those armed with the Sturmgewehr 44 assault rifles. The Soviets were so impressed with the Sturmgewehr 44, that after World War II, they held a design competition to develop an assault rifle of their own. The winner was the AK-47. It was finalized, adopted and entered widespread service in the Soviet army in the early 1950s. Its firepower, ease of use, low production costs, and reliability was perfectly suited for the Red Army's new mobile warfare doctrines.
      Its not designed for home defense or hunting .
      Its designers were thinking of armed battle on a battlefield , they sought to give their side , their customers , every advantage in killing people the other side .

      "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

      by indycam on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:55:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's why police need them, right? n/t (0+ / 0-)
      •  Military Assault rifles (0+ / 0-)

        are already very tightly controlled and licensed due to their selective fire capability. In other words they have a switch on them that allows firing full-auto or bursts of more than one round on a single trigger pull.

        An "assault weapon" is a made up term for certain semi-automatic (that means you only shoot 1 shot each time you pull the trigger) firearms that resemble fully automatic military weapons. From a functional standpoint they are no different than other semi-automatic firearms marketed for hunting or target shooting.

    •  "Style" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fuzzyguy, lyvwyr101

      Style shouldn't be a legal issue.

  •  thank you for being a voice of reason during (6+ / 0-)

    this debate.

    and I must apologize for reccing a comment yesterday where the user accused you of being a naysayer in this debate...I did not understand the user was referring to your diary...I do believe some in this debate have been overly negative towards reasonable gun control laws...you are not one of them.

    peace and sorry.


    We are not broke, we are being robbed.

    by Glen The Plumber on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:23:42 AM PST

  •  Semantics are a defensive tactic. (17+ / 0-)

    As long as they can get you arguing about what "EXACTLY" a rifle is, or what a submachine gun is, or whether that's really a battle rifle, not an assault rifle you're talking about...

    How bout this:  If it can shoot a lot of bullets, really fast...

    It's a "Secondhand Bullet" spreader.

    Sure, you might want to have it to shoot one thing, but an awful lot of secondhand bullets seem to impact on people around you.

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:25:34 AM PST

  •  "assault" is a tricky term. (4+ / 0-)

    Simple assault is typically considered a misdemeanor and has to be witnessed by an officer of the law to merit an arrest and a charge.
    "aggravated assault" can be considered a felony, but only if there is material evidence -- broken bones, broken skin, serious visible damage. That's why the interrogators were taught to inflict pain without leaving an marks. When one of their "subjects" ended up dead, it was a mistake, because those weren't the directions they'd been given.
    An officer of the law, having special protection, can consider rude language to be an assault.
    So, if they picked the terms "assault weapon" it was probably because it was presumed to be able to threaten without significant negative results.
    I suspect most of the people who acquire these things aim to brandish and impress and intimidate to get whatever they want (including the feeling of power). Killing people is counter-productive 'cause dead people can't give you no respect.
    If we were serious, we'd prohibit the industrial manufacture and sale of people shooters. But, Congress is in the protection racket and, if they're not verbalizing against some threat, people will expect them to do some real work and most of them aren't up to that.
    If we can't target discrete segments of the population for threats and protection therefrom, then we'll just have to be equitable and threaten everyone. And that means a whole lot of sick bastards are needed.
    The gun nuts are sort of like those small pox infected blankets the early European explorers handed out.

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:29:44 AM PST

  •  I responded to a gun nut on HuffPo (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil, lyvwyr101

    who was spouting the latest defense, "No difference between AR-15 and hunting rifles".  I asked for him/her to elaborate and the response was typical rage/confusion.

    This is not a particularly good linked source, but I did learn a few more details from the comments to add to my very limited knowledge.

    http://answers.yahoo.com/...

    When someone is impatient and says, "I haven't got all day," I always wonder, How can that be? How can you not have all day? George Carlin

    by msmacgyver on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:38:31 AM PST

    •  That isn't the "latest" response. The... (14+ / 0-)

      ..."action" of the gun, the semi-automatic action, is, in fact, the same. And some people use an AR-15 chambered for the .223 military round for hunting. But others use one chambered for a heavier round that is good for longer range shooting and preferred by some hunters for big animals. This is one of the toughest arguments for those who want a ban to get past. It's one reason a hi-cap magazine proscription is not as off-putting to many gun-owners. Good hunters don't fire anywhere near 30 rounds to take down a deer or elk, so they don't need larger capacity magazines.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:51:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If they are hunting for food, I'd think (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        msmacgyver, NormAl1792, lyvwyr101

        fewer rounds in the meat would be preferable, too.

      •  Yes, I mind quibbled over "latest" but (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        88kathy, PavePusher, lyvwyr101

        figured it was one of those arguments that continue to surface each time "gun control" is introduced.

        The gun nut with whom I'm having a back and forth has settled down and is giving some very good info which is laced with RW paranoia, but good info nevertheless.

        I am seeing how important it is to focus more on the magazine capacity which does appear to have support.  I think it might be a point of pride for hunters who don't want to be seen as bad shots who need 30 rounds to take down a deer.  

        When someone is impatient and says, "I haven't got all day," I always wonder, How can that be? How can you not have all day? George Carlin

        by msmacgyver on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 12:21:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  My lord, at least get educated (3+ / 0-)

          Deer hunting can't use an AR-15 because the bullet size of a .223 caliber rifle is much too small.

          I use my AR-15 for coyote hunting and varmint hunting.  It is the perfect choice for that type of hunting.

          Reducing clip size I am more than fine with.  Taking away our hunting tools like my AR-15 I am completely against and is a vote loser for me.

          •  So you're a perfect example of what I am... (7+ / 0-)

            ...talking about. However, lots of people hunt with factory-made .223 ammo that is perfectly fine for deer-hunting. Personally, before I gave up hunting, I only ever took deer with a lever-action .30-30, the Model 1894 Winchester inherited from my grandfather.

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:32:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Kills adults, but it's "too small" for deer? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            msmacgyver, lyvwyr101

            What a stupid thing for you to say.

            "Your opponent can't talk when he has your fist in his mouth." - Bill Clinton

            by MethuenProgressive on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:46:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, it's entirely accurate (4+ / 0-)

              A .22 can kill people. Hell, a BB can (and has) killed people.

              Try hunting anything larger than a fox with one.

              Or, to put it another way, there's a difference between killing something and stopping something. To use an extreme example, if I'm being charged by a polar bear, I need something to stop it right now, not something that will eventually cause it to die five minutes from now.

              •  I suppose I should elaborate... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PavePusher

                What hunters (and those responsible for hunting laws) want is for the animal to die (ie, be stopped) as quickly as possible, both for benefit of the hunter (so they don't have to follow a wounded animal, and possibly even lose it so it ends up being wasted and killed for nothing) and for mercy, and to minimize the suffering of the harvested animals. Granted, mostly for the first reason, but the second is a moral side-effect.

                In Nunavut, Canada, for instance, it's illegal to hunt large game like caribou with anything smaller/less powerful than a 5.56mm (.22) center-fire cartridge, and there's been discussion about raising that to a minimum .243 calibre. The reason is that too small or weak a round may only wound the animal. They may die...eventually...but the rules are meant to reduce the possibility.

                The problem is that many people buy into the Instant Kill Bullet as seen in countless TV shows and movies where someone gets hit with a round and they're dead, so really, what's the difference between a .22 and a 9mm or a .45, right?

                That can happen. It often doesn't.

                The 1986 FBI Miami shootout is the main counterexample.  Look it up to learn what's the difference between killing something and stopping something, be it human or animal.

          •  Trust me, I'm working on it (0+ / 0-)

            I'm 60ish and never held a gun in my life.  I don't know anyone who hunts and have never lived in a home with guns.  But, I am making every attempt to understand this issue.

            This is the link I posted and an excerpt from a hunter who apparently uses his/her AR-15 for deer hunting and is very satisfied with the results.

            http://answers.yahoo.com/...

            Additional Details

            I hunt deer fine with my ar-15 .223 ballistic tips sever its spine right at the neck every time. Then again with a 24 inch barrel it makes it much harder to miss with it.


            When someone is impatient and says, "I haven't got all day," I always wonder, How can that be? How can you not have all day? George Carlin

            by msmacgyver on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 02:04:19 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  A .223 is considered to be too small for deer. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              msmacgyver, PavePusher

              It is illegal in most states.
              I believe it is legal in TX & Arizona, but deer in the southern states are much smaller than deer farther north.

              If the bullet is put in the right place, it will work, but there isn't much room for 'uh-ohs'.

              It simply isn't a big enough cartridge for deer.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 04:23:47 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thanks (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lyvwyr101

                So, it is not true that an AR-15 is the same as a hunting rifle.  It is a phony argument, correct?

                When someone is impatient and says, "I haven't got all day," I always wonder, How can that be? How can you not have all day? George Carlin

                by msmacgyver on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 05:21:12 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  An AR-15 can be used as a hunting rifle. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  msmacgyver, PavePusher

                  It is the bullet size, not the rifle that is the issue with deer, and AR-15 are also made with larger bullets.

                  In it's standard .223 size, it is still used as a hunting rifle, just not a deer hunting rifle. For instance, it is the preferred coyote hunting rifle in my neck of the woods.
                  It also can be chambered for using larger rounds.

                  Trying to separate rifles into 'hunting' and 'non-hunting' rifles really doesn't work because any functioning rifle can be used for hunting.

                  On a side note, I find it amazing you don't even know hunters. I live in a rural area, and firearms & hunting are very widespread here.
                  This is where the difference in the Gun Debate is at...not 'right vs left' or 'dem vs GOP', it is 'rural vs urban'.

                  This is a big part of why the idea of an AWB is absurd (and insulting) to me; After all, I am surrounded by people with guns, and crime is so low here, I often times don't even lock my house doors.
                  The problem isn't the tool. The problem is the murderer.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 05:34:58 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Thanks, as I've said many times, I'm (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FrankRose, PavePusher

                    learning about guns and ammo and not at all apologetic about it.

                    I live in WV so you would think I'd know at least one person who hunts.  I don't.  My friends are all animal welfare people, rescue group members and in some cases like me, vegetarians.  

                    As I've also said, I'm 60ish so I've been down this road before, albeit more from a knee-jerk reaction point of view.

                    I want to understand this issue and contribute positively.  I'm learning and that's what counts.

                    This is helpful.

                    Trying to separate rifles into 'hunting' and 'non-hunting' rifles really doesn't work because any functioning rifle can be used for hunting.

                    When someone is impatient and says, "I haven't got all day," I always wonder, How can that be? How can you not have all day? George Carlin

                    by msmacgyver on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 05:50:39 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  West Virginia!? STOP NOT BEING A STEREOTYPE!!! (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      msmacgyver, PavePusher

                      Its been nice having a non-pie fight discussion over this. A strange change-of-pace, to be sure, but I can get used to it. ;)

                      If you have any other questions I will be glad to answer them to the best of my ability.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 06:33:36 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Yes, West-By-God-Virginia and (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        FrankRose, PavePusher

                        I'm a transplant from...Connecticut :)  I've got enough time-in-grade (1988) to not feel defensive or tell you first thing that I do have indoor plumbing.

                        I am serious about learning enough about guns and ammo to get into non-pie fight discussions here on DK and be able to hold my own in what passes for my day-to-day life.

                        I will definitely hunt you down on DK to ask you more questions and know that you will answer in a way I can understand.  Thanks.  

                        When someone is impatient and says, "I haven't got all day," I always wonder, How can that be? How can you not have all day? George Carlin

                        by msmacgyver on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 07:05:18 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                •  An AR15 can be chambered in larger calibers than (0+ / 0-)

                  the standard .223/5.56mm.  Many of them are excellent for medium-to-large game animals.

                  Someone posted a list in another diary recently of several dozen chamberings one can get for AR-pattern rifles.

                  The original design (the AR-10) was in .308/7.62mm NATO.  It is still widely available, and that caliber is perfectly adequete for any game animal in North America.

              •  Depends on the deer and the region. (0+ / 0-)

                Marginal-to-adequete for white-tail, depending on size, but I'd certainly prefer .240 or .270 or 6.5mm or 6.8mm.

                I've hunted deer with my AR.  I did pass up shots I'd have taken with a larger caliber.

          •  The AR-15 has a lot of chamberings. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher

            Including .45 ACP, 5.7x28mm, 6.5 mm Grendel, .338 Lapua, 6.8 mm Remington SPC,  .50 Beowulf

            And .223 AR-15s are the preferred coyote hunting rifles in my neck of the woods as well.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 04:14:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  One shot: humane and a practical necessity (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fuzzyguy, lyvwyr101

          Deer aren't quite stupid enough to wait around to be shot at again.

        •  Firstly, it's illegal almost everywhere... (0+ / 0-)

          to hunt game animals with a magazine larger than 5 rounds.

          Secondly, even where not, I've never heard of anyone loosing a full 10 or 20 or 30 rounds into a deer.

          Possibly it happens, but I've never heard anyone admit to it.

      •  Mediocre hunters don't fire anywhere near 30 (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        msmacgyver, PavePusher

        (raises hand in  self-identifying embarrassment)

        When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

        by Egalitare on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 02:03:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I think the Gun Nut has a point. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      msmacgyver, winsock, jung123, PavePusher

      the Ruger mini14 is the same caliber, .223, and can shoot just as fast but doesn't have the pistol grip or the military style trappings. It is every bit as lethal and wouldn't be banned.

      "Live as if you will die tomorrow. Learn as if you will live forever.", Mohandas Gandhi

      by Bubbatoby on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 12:16:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yes, I've already seen that here: (5+ / 0-)
    Even the term 'assault' is under fire in assault weapons ban debate
  •  what I want to know is how do you (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happy camper, FrankRose, PavePusher

    determine what weapons you would not ban?

    I realize that the ultimate goal is to take all firearms away from everybody but the military and cops, but I object to that on principle.

    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 Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:49:00 AM PST

    •  That's not MY goal. And no national... (12+ / 0-)

      ...gun-control advocacy group is pushing for anything like, say, the Australian model mandated a buy-back with a deadline of all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. (Even there, all firearms were not banned, although handguns have been extremely difficult for private citizens to acquire since the '60s.)

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 12:01:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The creation of a national registry (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PavePusher, lyvwyr101

        ... would however make mandated fire arm buy-back programs possible though.  In addition to implementing additional taxes on gun owners, mandating 'gun insurance', etc.

        •  At least you freely admit that registration = (5+ / 0-)

          confiscation. Australia's buyback was a precursor to a ban.

          I see what you did there.

          by GoGoGoEverton on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:22:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly. (0+ / 0-)

            And I think that anyone arguing that these types of legislation would not immediately follow the creation of a federal registry is not arguing in good faith.

            I personally think that the national registry is necessary, as states have absolutely and utterly failed to prevent fire arms from getting into the hands of people who should not have them (criminals, those with mental health issues, etc..) and enforcing laws that mandate the proper and safe ownership/storage of semiautomatic rifles and handguns.

            That said, I am thoroughly against the use of the registry for what many on the left are calling for; forced buybacks and bans, gun insurance, and the like.

            I see it as an essential tool that (unfortunately) could be easily used to implement policies that I strongly disagree with.

      •  Not exactly true (0+ / 0-)

        There are gun control groups who want to ban private ownership of handguns, force registration of shotguns and rifles as well as severely restrict the types of long guns available to civilians.

        The best example is probably the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

    •  See, now, that's ridiculous hyperbole. (7+ / 0-)

      I HATE guns - like really HATE them.  

      But I am not even remotely interested in repealing the 2nd Amendment.

      I do want to balance that right against my right to feel reasonably safe knowing that there are tons of guns out there.

      I believe that the community of people who like guns and like to keep them around have a responsibility to not only themselves, but also the rest of us to keep their hobby, business or whatever gun weaponry means to them safe for our society as a whole.

      The current lawless approach is not working well for anyone, IMO.

      •  Lawless? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rockhound, PavePusher, BlackSheep1

        There are plenty of laws and regulations on the books concerning firearms and who may possess them, carry them and where and how they may be used.

        "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

        by happy camper on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:45:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you can buy a gun with less oversight (3+ / 0-)

          than it takes to buy antihistamines - and you can in an estimated 40% of transactions (not counting the transactions that are completely private between friends, etc.) - then the laws to which you refer are basically null and void.

          We won't even get into issues of laws being meaningless because they are not appropriately funded like when even when there is a background check involved in a gun sale, the funding to make those checks meaningful is simply NOT there.

          Responsibilities come with the rights we enjoy.  The gun lobby and some of the gun owners in this country want all of the rights and none of the responsibilities.  It doesn't work that way.

           

          •  Hardly (0+ / 0-)

            Any dealer is going to require a lot more paperwork than it takes to buy antihistamines in to buy a firearm. You simply have no idea what you are talking about.

            For that matter the "gun show loophole" really isn't one. Every gun show I'm aware of requires passing a background check prior to being able to buy or sell anything at the show.

            Sure private sales don't currently provide background checks but I see little evidence that they are a major problem or that those who are a problem would follow the law.

      •  How shall I respond? Will anyone care? I'll try: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fuzzyguy, PavePusher

        I trust Meteor Blades. I'm pretty sure he's as wary of a nation where the only people legally allowed arms are the cops and the military as am I -- and I'm an ex-cop, as well as a military vet. If Meteor Blades says HCI isn't out to take privately owned firearms away from the American people, I'll believe him. I know he's aware of all the facts, too, but I'll say this anyhow: HCI is a lobbyist outfit, a fundraising outfit.  

        I don't believe there's a current lawless approach to gun control.

        There have been laws on the books since the 1830s. It's not popular to remind people in the current climate, but the earliest of these were in fact efforts to keep firearms out of the hands of black people ('black codes,' ultimately found unconstitutional).

        One novel approach seems to have been pretty effective, by requiring every household in Kennesaw Georgia to own at least one firearm:

        The Georgia town of Kennesaw, a quiet suburb of Atlanta, agrees. Since 1982, city law required every household to have at least one gun. Officials say that crime plummeted since the law took effect. Recent crime statistics show the city is well below the national average for both violent and property crime - reporting no homicides.
        Crime remained low even as the population grew from 5,000 to 30,000. The top crime today: theft under $100 value. In the last five years, Kennesaw has seen three murders.Contrast that with the nearby, similar-sized town of Anderson that's seen 21 murders since 2006.
        Nationally, the Congressional Research Service report that from 1993 to 2011, gun-related murders have been cut in half. In 1993, there were 17,073 gun kills, for a rate of 6.6 per 100,000 people.
        On the opposite side of that scale DC banned handguns in 1976, completely.  Firsthand observers who worked as prosecutors in DC say we must remember the law of unintended consequences, too.
        The gun ban had an unintended effect: It emboldened criminals because they knew that law-abiding District residents were unarmed and powerless to defend themselves. Violent crime increased after the law was enacted, with homicides rising to 369 in 1988, from 188 in 1976 when the ban started. By 1993, annual homicides had reached 454.
        The Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department also waged a war on firearms by creating a special Gun Recovery Unit in 1995. The campaign meant that officers were obliged to spend time searching otherwise law-abiding citizens. That same year, the department launched a crackdown called Operation Cease Fire to rid the District of illegal firearms. But after four months, officers had confiscated only 282 guns out of the many thousands in the city.
        Civil liberties were endangered. Legislative changes empowered judges to hold gun suspects in pretrial detention without bond for up to 100 days, and efforts were made to enact curfews and seize automobiles found to contain firearms. In 1997, Police Chief Charles Ramsey disbanded the unit so that he could assign more uniformed officers to patrol the streets instead, but the police periodically tried other gun crackdowns over the next decade—with little effect.
        Ultimately the USSC found that ban unconstitutional.
        That's just one of the reasons I find proposals such as this one by NJ state legislator Angelica Jimenez disturbing.  I think it's in conflict with several Amendments besides the 2nd.

        I applaud the President and Vice President for the plan they unveiled day before yesterday.

        Not only are they working toward keeping our schools safer, they're working toward fixing the cracks in the existing sytem through which such notorious offenders as the Virginia Tech shooter slipped. It's comprehensive, it's well-thought-out, it's not in conflict, that I can see despite not being a lawyer, with the Constitution, and like everything else I've ever seen Joe Biden craft as a legislator, it seeks to do the most good possible for the greatest number of constituents.

        It pains me that we can't get VAWA back because of the cowardly House: this is another of Joe Biden's well-crafted pieces of legislation. He does good work. I hope they fix the quibbles I had with the original AWB in the final version -- overall capacity and rate of fire are way more important factors in the danger a criminal can pose with a given weapon than whether it's got a bayonet lug or a pistol grip, IMNVHO. But for the plan they outlined to work we have to have more than the plan.

        Congress has to pass the parts the President asked them to, and more to the point, fund the enforcement with a mandate that those funds go to that enforcement ONLY -- and the support for it. You can't rely on a database if the data isn't entered, because there's no money for data entry staff.

        Something odd is happening:  we're seeing an overall reduction in crime, particularly gun-related murders, except for incidents like Aurora / Clackamas / Newtown. Our own Baculum King wrote a diary  after Newtown that brings up a salient point. Something is different now than before. Someone else has noticed, and posits maybe the rise in incidents like Clackamas, Aurora, and Newtown comes out of the increased notoriety available in our 24/7 non-stop media, or maybe it's the drastic cuts in mental health programs -- including institutionalization of severely disturbed individuals -- or maybe it's the big "gun-free zone" signs that make a particular kind of criminal more likely to target a particular location.

        Distasteful this admission must be, if we protected every American schoolchild as well as the First Family is protected, Adam Lanza never could have set foot inside Sandy Hook Elementary.
        That's not a dig at the First Family, and it's not a statement of support for the NRA. It's a simple, cold, highly uncomfortable fact.
        So I support the President and Vice President's plan to provide emergency plans and resource officers to all schools.

        Right here on DKos the selling points for gun control include the Fort Hood shooting -- even Kos has mentioned it -- and  the Newtown shooter's use of firearms registered to his mother in his rampage. The turncoat at Fort Hood opened fire in a clinic where he had the only firearms present; and the Newtown shooter murdered his mother first, to get access to the car and weapons with which he continued his rampage. People here wrote she had no business owning firearms, or keeping them in her home.  People here wrote that had she not been killed she should have been prosecuted for arming him. People here wrote that his rampage was her fault. Those comments sickened me that day. One sickened me last night. That "blame the victim" mentality sickens me still.

        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 Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 04:12:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  you nailed it (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        inclusiveheart, lyvwyr101

        "responsibility."

        I don't see a hell of a lot of responsibility being exercised on the part of gun advocates. They talk, talk, talk about it, and I see no initiative, no concrete action being taken.

        Views Differ On Shape Of Planet

        by nota bene on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 05:28:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Goals (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      orlbucfan, Dogs are fuzzy

      Here are some goals that fall far, far short of taking everyone's weapons:

      (1)  Conduct real research on gun ownership and risk.  The GOP managed to shut down epidemiological research in this area, but you should know what risks you face by owning weapons.  You are welcome to have a handgun at home, just know that you are many times more likely to kill yourself or a family member than an intruder.

      (2)  Maintain hunting and ranching culture in the United States.  That means permitting appropriate weapons and assuring that people use them appropriately. I'm not anti-hunter; few of us are.  

      (3) Register guns - not to take them away - but to make it more difficult to transfer guns wholesale to criminals, including narcotrafficantes in Mexico or the pattern of guns being sold with little control in suburbs of major urban centers. Have a system, nationwide, so people can't exploit jurisdictional differences to acquire and transport guns for criminal purposes.

      (4) Prevent domestic sale of weapons designed not for legitimate self-defense or hunting, but for rapidly killing lots of people.  We can argue about legitimate self-defense, but there's got to be a way to limit the lethality (rather than focusing on the aesthetics) of assault weapons.

      I'm pretty far out on the gun-control/anti gun end of things even for a democrat. I live in a metropolis with one of the highest murder rates in the country (Chicago) with a big problem of unregulated and unaccountable suburban gun sales.  Once upon a time I had to carry a weapon for protection and realized how little actual protection it really offered.  I would hate for my city to turn into Kirkuk or Baghdad and have to depend again upon the illusory protection of a 9mm. My freedom depends upon my right not to have to put up with concealed carry in my house, workplace or streets.  I don't want frickin' assault weapons around me except in the hands of police. But am I interested in taking away everyone's gun?  No.    

      “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

      by ivorybill on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:48:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Research especially (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ivorybill, BlackSheep1

        I agree with your making that your first point.

      •  The Second Amendment is not about hunting. n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlackSheep1
        •  And here we have a disagreement (0+ / 0-)

          The second amendment is actually about a well-organized militia.  The Supreme Court seems to have decided that this clause is no longer relevant, at least with their expansive view on personal ownership.

          I think the underlying philosophy on the right is that the second amendment is really about preserving the capacity of the American people to overthrow their government.  This resonates right now because we are undergoing a gradual political reallignment and demographic changes.  But that wasn't the actual intent of the second amendment.  Many 2nd Amendment purists, who ascribe to this misreading, feel that they have the right to carry openly and intimidate people.  Won't fly.

          “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

          by ivorybill on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 07:30:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The militia clause is not a limiting condition... (0+ / 0-)

            on "the right of the people".

            No matter what rules of grammar you use.

            Nor is there historical precedent for such an interpretation.

            And the mere act of openly exercising a Constitutional Right does not equate to "intimidate people".

    •  The ultimate goal is to stop having guns in such (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      msmacgyver, lyvwyr101

      easy access that anyone wanting to blow the brains out of a kindergarten class wouldn't find brain blasters in his mothers' basement.

      Your gun is never going to get into the wrong hands.

      Drop the paranoia.

      Sign my White House Petition Enforce the KEEP in the Second Amendment We don't have a problem with gun control, we have a problem with gun owners controlling their guns.

      by 88kathy on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:54:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Keep pushing that crap. (0+ / 0-)

      Go ahead.

      It's what got you in this position in the first place.

      "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

      by nosleep4u on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 02:09:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ever notice that the "the Second Amendment means (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dogs are fuzzy

    we can't regulate that" people really never try to bring back full on machine guns for every one, or even sawed off shotguns? I wonder if that's because the SCOTUS has already upheld those bans.

    There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

    by oldpotsmuggler on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:54:37 AM PST

  •  While I fully support what the President is doing (5+ / 0-)

    I do not agree on terminology.

    "Assault Rifle" was originally a class of weapons with several characteristics.

    First, it used a smaller round than the standard battle round, allowing troops to carry more rounds to make up for increased usage through automatic fire and to reduce barrel climb from auto fire. The standard battle round from WWI through WWI was 7-8 mm. We used the .30-06, 7.62 mm in diameter, the British used the .303, only slightly smaller, Russians the 7.56, and the Germans used the 8mm, slightly larger. The shells were longer and held a lot of powder.

    The first assault rifle was actually not German. It was the Soviet "avtomat," a selective-fire (automatic or semi-automatic) rifle using the smaller Japanese 6mm round with a cut down cartridge. The first successful one was the German weapon mentioned above. It kept the caliber, 8mm, but cut the cartridge way down to reduce climb and increase the number of shells that could be carried.

    After WWII (and Korea, fought mostly with WWII surplus), we wanted a selective fire gun. The old Garand was modified to the M-14, using the 7.62 cartridge and a large clip. It was heavy and the round was far too powerful for anything but wild fire by most troops. It also ran through rounds very quickly.

    The US and the Soviets went in two different directions. We went with a smaller caliber full-power round, the .223. They went with a larger caliber low-power round, the 7.62x39 (the standard battle round was 7.62 width by 54 length, so you can see how the shorter cartridge held less powder). Both, though, were selective-fire weapons with higher capacity and reduced power rounds as compared to the previous standard battle round.

    That was the meaning of "assault rifle." It was later used to market similar looking rifles knocked off from the military weapons.

    As for what it means today, who knows? More important, who cares? The whole argument about pistol grips, flash suppressors, handles, laser sights, etc., indeed the whole cosmetic argument, is just plain silly. What really matters is capacity. The question isn't "can Bob have a weapon that looks like G.I. Joe's?" The question is, or should be, "can Bob have a weapon that can shoot 30, or 50, 0r 100, rounds before reloading?"

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

    by dhonig on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 12:01:31 PM PST

    •  I don't see any disagreement ... (5+ / 0-)

      ...between us about terminology here. The point is how some folks who oppose new restrictions have tried to make it appear that it was gun-control advocates who chose "assault weapon" as a means of propaganda for disinforming the debate and that the term is malarkey. They didn't. They just adopted the industry's term.  

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:40:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  At best a quibble, not (0+ / 0-)

        a disagreement. No big deal.

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

        by dhonig on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:55:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  What difference does it make if the word (0+ / 0-)

        was invented by politicians or advertisers if it was used as a means of propaganda for disinforming?

        In either case it is still a means of propaganda for disinforming.

        I take some issue with the phrase "assault weapon" because it is fairly arbitrary & hard to define.
        If a word lacks a clear & understood definition it useless for public discussion.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 04:37:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The issue is that people are LYING about... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          a gilas girl

          ...its origin in an attempt to smear individuals who think their should be tougher restrictions on guns. If it were a mere dispute over terminology, that could be easily sorted.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 10:20:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Terminology and framing are important (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ranger995, lyvwyr101

    in winning contentious debates such as these... as I attempted to point out in your diary yesterday regarding the terms "gun advocates" and "gun rights".

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 12:05:12 PM PST

  •  Call it a military or combat weapon (3+ / 0-)

    That would be more accurate

    Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity. Horace Mann (and btw, the bike in kayakbiker is a bicycle)

    by Kayakbiker on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 12:05:32 PM PST

  •  With the possible exception of a grenade (4+ / 0-)

    launcher, for which having grenades would be prohibited anyway, how do any of these items:

    For a rifle, these included a folding or telescoping stock, a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher
    Make a gun any more lethal?
    •  They don't (5+ / 0-)

      Under that law, my shotgun I use for slug hunting deer would be banned due to the pistol style grip and the fact it is a semi-auto.

      The whole idea is just terrible.  Stick to reducing clip size and we have a winner.  Otherwise you lose many of us hunters quickly.

      •  I agree that the whole idea is terrible (5+ / 0-)

        Where I disagree with you is the in regards to the part about stick to reducing magazine size and it becomes a winner.  Unfortunately, that may work for you but it IS still stepping on a lot of other innocent people's toes; people whose right to own those guns stems from the very same principles that gives you the right to own yours for hunting.

        Also, if these restrictions are imposed and upheld are you certain, I mean absolutely certain, that this is where it would stop?  If these restrictions, should they be imposed, don't stop the carnage, which they wouldn't, and when the next mass shooting occurs, is it going to be your gun that is up for restriction and confiscation?

        •  Mrs. Lanza's gun wasn't restricted or confiscated (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          msmacgyver, lyvwyr101

          it was used.

          Sign my White House Petition Enforce the KEEP in the Second Amendment We don't have a problem with gun control, we have a problem with gun owners controlling their guns.

          by 88kathy on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:44:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So just because a few people out of 311 million (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose, PavePusher, happy camper

            Americans are crazy and might do something like that, I and every other citizen of the nation need to be restricted.  Sorry, that is a complete and total non sequitur.  How about instead we take away your cell phone, GPS, and radio from your car, rig it up so that it requires 2 hands on the wheel at all times, prohibit you from having passengers, and rig it with a governor so that it can't exceed the speed limit?  We should do these things because you and your car are a bigger risk to public safety than I am with my guns.    Now, wait you might, say, I am a safe and courteous driver.  Well, someone else on the road may not be.  

            •  Yes. How about you take off your shoes to get on (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lyvwyr101

              an airplane?  How about you dump all your shampoo to get on an airplane?  How about you get a passport to go to Mexico or Canada?

              The RkBRers here on Dkos are so useless.  You are no help at all.  

              Point out to me one thing an RkBRer has ever contributed to the effort to get something done except "that won't work".

              RkBRers just holler, it's all about me, it's all about me.  Get a grip, lose the paranoia and contribute your expertise to this.

              Sign my White House Petition Enforce the KEEP in the Second Amendment We don't have a problem with gun control, we have a problem with gun owners controlling their guns.

              by 88kathy on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 02:25:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh where to begin (0+ / 0-)

                Let me first say something about the crap you mention about airplanes.  I think it is mostly theater, not security.  I think we should have reasonable physical screening to stop blatant contraband and use a more interview based approach, as in talking to the people.  We should learn from what other countries, like Israel has done and figure out what works and what doesn't work.

                The RkBRers here on Dkos are so useless
                I am sure many of the appreciate that.  I've been a reader of DKos for quite a long time and became a register member a few weeks ago.  The honest truth was that I found it very refreshing to learn that believing in gun rights was not the sole domain of the conservatives.  However, the truth is that the screaming from the hill tops for bans is not productive, nor is it likely to succeed, and there are many who don't agree with it.   We haven't even had a chance to even attempt to work on real solutions before getting screamed at.  In order for us to be able to even start doing something, people need to be ready to listen and we're not there yet.  The conversation has been stopped due to the actions of both sides before it even got started.

                If you are willing to have a dialog, I would be pleased to do so.  Please feel free to comment publicly or message me off line.  With that I will start:

                I believe we need to reduce the overall level of violence, prevent crime, and start providing proper health care in this nation, including but not limited to mental health.   A lot of changes need to happen in the home.  Unfortunately it isn't that simple.  Economic conditions and societal changes have altered that dynamic.  As a society we need to start focusing on personal responsibility, respect, and honest rewards for hard work.  (Note, i did not say return to religious values or turn to God).  Part of this is a culture change on not glorifying violence in so many ways.   Part of this is solving the economic issues that lead to crime.  We are always going to have a parasitic element and we need to recognize it, but also minimize it.   And yes, some individuals are just too sick to be allowed to be in society and they either need to be locked way or made DRT.  

                With respect to guns, I wholly endorse stopping trafficking.  I support a permit system and think a multi tiered system is a good way to proceed to ensure that people get the proper training and certification.  I think we can require permits for weapon purchases and ammo purchases.  I think we need to deal with crime.  At the same time we need to realize that we can't prevent all tragedies.   We need to recognize that there are good people who posses guns and not all of them wear a badge.  Those who don't carry guns need to respect those who do and the same the other way.  

                I carry one not because I am paranoid, but because I am prepared and I have chosen not to let my fate rest in the hands of a criminal should the unlikely happen and I have a choice.  Would I be able to make a difference,  The Deities only know, but i sure would try.  

                •  Everyone knows you can't prevent all tragedies. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  noway2, lyvwyr101

                  It is nice to hear you say something is needed.  I never thought a RkBRer would say anything of the kind.  Keep to what can be done and you will get my respect.

                  I grew up with guns in my house, but there are many people who don't understand guns or want to take responsibility for guns.

                  If you need a gun to protect yourself, OK, just don't protect me.  You want to talk increasing the cops, I'll talk.  I've always had neighbors with guns.  I have always found it creepy.

                  I really wish the RkBRers around here would make some comments besides, that won't work.  Thank you for yours.  I think RkBRers are here for that reason, but, I personally, have found them useless, whiny, name calling bunch.  Sorry.

                  Sign my White House Petition Enforce the KEEP in the Second Amendment We don't have a problem with gun control, we have a problem with gun owners controlling their guns.

                  by 88kathy on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 02:25:09 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Thank you for sharing your view (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    88kathy

                    I appreciate it.  I also understand where your coming from as I grew up in a household where guns were hated.  Now that i think back on it, though it seems like ages ago, when my wife's uncle came to visit with his and carried while we went out to dinner I was a bit wigged out by the idea too, so I think I understand when you say you found it creepy.  I no longer do.  I actually wrote a diary post for the RKBA group and part if it discusses this but it hasn't been scheduled yet.  

                    Your signature line says, "we have a problem with gun owners controlling their guns".  This is also something I can relate to and have wondered about, especially with the explosion in the number of people obtaining their permits in the last few years.  While most of them will undoubtedly take their responsibility seriously, undoubtedly some will not and they need to be dealt with.

                    You also mention, "If you need a gun to protect yourself, OK, just don't protect me".  This is actually a topic of great debate within the gun community.  Some believe that they carry to protect themselves, their families, and no one else.  Others believe that they do have a moral obligation to intervene.  It is usually discussed around the scenario of an armed robbery that you are witness and present to.  In most states, you are allowed to use lethal force in the defense of another when that person would have had just cause to use such force.  However, things aren't always what they seem.  For example, what appears to be a hold up could actual be a sick joke played by a family member.  On the other hand, if one could have done something to prevent an innocent from getting murdered and didn't they will have a tremendous amount of guilt to live with.

                    Personally, I have no desire to play cop or superhero.  I am not John Rambo and I probably didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express the night before either.  I have decided that I most likely would not intervene and would just try to be a good witness.  With two exceptions.  One, the threat became to me directly, which is an obvious game change.  Two, the situation changes from armed robbery to one that says that they aren't after stuff anymore and plan to eliminate witnesses.  In other words, unless the situations makes it unequivocally clear that unless something is done, someone absolutely will get killed.  In either case, I would only take action if it could be done so safely.   One who fires a gun is responsible for every bullet that comes out of it.  This applies both to civilian and police.

                    •  I messed up, I must have said it wrong. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      lyvwyr101

                      Guns were not hated in the house where I grew up.  My dad was a hunter and we ate very well.  No one touched the guns.  

                      I think I know where they are now, and will probably never see them again. Through a strange and long turn of events they were removed from my mom's house because she lacked the mental capacity to own them.  But they were taken by in-laws of my daughter.  Supposedly they are my son-in-laws' property.  He has never taken possession.  I don't know what they are doing with them as they always come up with an excuse for not transferring possession.

                      Guns last forever.  The hands that hold them come and go.

                      The reason I am creeped out by neighbors that have guns is they have revealed to me they have guns.  That is creepy.  

                      Sign my White House Petition Enforce the KEEP in the Second Amendment We don't have a problem with gun control, we have a problem with gun owners controlling their guns.

                      by 88kathy on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 03:49:41 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  This is a great comment. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                88kathy

                I have never understood---either---why gun-owners do not support gun-laws that would stop gun-violence.

                Surely---shooting and killing someone---or shooting and killing many people--- is considered criminal conduct?

                We live with restrictions every day in this country because of specific people who cannot---or will not----obey the law.

                Because of that--aren't we---all of us---being restricted---every day----on a daily basis--- because a (hopefully) small group persists in breaking the law?

                Why would gun-owners be an exception---when it comes to restrictions in place to reduce gun-violence?

                The Onion says----scholars have discovered---the Mayan word for "Apocalypse" in fact---translates more accurately as: "Time of pale obese gun monsters."

                by lyvwyr101 on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 08:27:11 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Like I told your NRA friend (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lyvwyr101

          It's simple you're just a gun nut. All you're doing is sounding like the un-American NRA idiots and the Fox News idiots.

          "it IS still stepping on a lot of other innocent people's toes" A gun nut.

      •  I agree about the pistol grip, but the folding or (0+ / 0-)

        telescoping stock should be outlawed. It's only function is to make the weapon smaller and more easily concealed.

        That would not make hunting rifles or shotguns illegal.

        "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

        by ranger995 on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 02:27:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  False (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PavePusher

          One of my Ar-15's has a telescoping stock and I find it very useful when I am tromping through a thick cattail swamp or thick woods.  Being about to reduce the stock size while I walk means less stuff to get me hung up in thick brush and cattails.  Being able to slightly shrink the stock is a very nice feature of the AR-15 style firearm.

          •  Right, that same exact feature also (0+ / 0-)

            makes it concealable and more maneuverable in tight spaces where lots of people may be.

            I feel that inconveniencing you a little while walking through the cattails is of little importance. Sorry.

            "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

            by ranger995 on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 07:53:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't think you realize (0+ / 0-)

              what a telescoping stock really means.  It certainly doesn't make an AR more concealable as it only shrinks the entire gun down about 3 1/2".  It isn't like you can hide one in your pants or something.  These are long rifles afterall.  Have you actually held an AR style rifle or are you just making assumptions?

        •  Wrong. (0+ / 0-)

          Try concealing a folding-stock rifle.  Good luck.

          And the telescoping stock?  That's only about adjustability.  The max shortening I've seen is about 5 inches.  This does not make any rifle remotely "concealable".

        •  Telescoping stocks (0+ / 0-)

          Are also useful to adjust the weapon for different shooters or for Summer vs. Winter clothing.

          And as pointed out below they are useful for hunting in certain kinds of terrain.

          Frankly you aren't going to conceal anything that doesn't qualify as a short barrel rifle or shotgun easily anyway even if it has a folding or telescoping stock.

          Someone who really wants to conceal a rifle or shotgun isn't going to be stopped from fitting it with a short barrel, or removing the stock simply because the law says they can't do that.

    •  Your definition of 'lethal' (0+ / 0-)

      in this context, seems to be limited to the action of the gun and the properties of the bullet it fires. Perhaps even more limited than that. I would suggest that, if this is the case, your definition is too narrow.

      There is nothing so ridiculous that some philosopher has not said it. -- Cicero

      by tytalus on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 02:03:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  i wonder if there was a national buy back (0+ / 0-)

    program for assault weapons whether there would be an argument over what assault meant.

  •  I'm very interested to see (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happy camper

    ... what their criteria is for those 120 prohibited firearms that makes them different from the 900 that all legal.

    Case in point: you don't need a folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash suppressor, or grenade launcher to enter a school and kill a bunch of children without reloading.  All you need is a semi-automatic rifle, a semi-automatic handgun, or a pump action shotgun.

    If the laws they are proposing do absolutely nothing to combat the problem they are supposedly being written to address ... then what is the point?  

    The answer is, to make it look like the politicians are doing something ... while they realize that laws that would actually address the problem would not be able to become law.

    I prefer Obama's implementation of a federal registry, enforcing the laws on the books, and closing of loopholes that allow weapons into the hands of felons/crazies.

  •  New Term (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PavePusher

    I prefer to refer to Assault Weapons and Regime Change Rifles.

  •  Regulate ammo capacity and rate of fire (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tytalus, ranger995, Dogs are fuzzy

    as well as speed of reloading. If you regulated those three things and required independent testing by an approved standards organization IMO that would better define assault weapons.

    Listen to Netroots Radio or to our pods on Stitcher. "We are but temporary visitors on this planet. The microbes own this place" <- Me

    by yuriwho on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:09:55 PM PST

  •  It's not an "assault" rifle - it's a Manhood Card! (0+ / 0-)
  •  So change name from "assult" gun to "Crowd killing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy

    machine."

  •  Put Ronald Reagans (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    megisi, msmacgyver, nota bene

    name in the final bill name.. " The Ronald Reagan Gun Safety Bill", or something like that.
    Create a real dilemna for the right wing.... use his name a lot while selling the bill to the people.

  •  Rifles involved in shootings (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PavePusher

    Just how many of these rifles have been used in crimes in the last 50 years?  Far more deaths occur from pistols, hands/feet, hammers, cars, drownings, etc.

  •  I think that "assault" rifle is not a good term, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    msmacgyver, Dogs are fuzzy

    because the place to focus is on high-capacity magazines. That's a more important factor. I also think 6-shot magazines are a better policy than even 10-shot.

    One other suggestion I have is to take ATF away from Treasury - dumb place to have it anyway - and put it in Department of Homeland Security. That Department is a real law enforcement entity and already has the resources to devote to this issue. I will add too that legislating that licensed gun dealers be the ONLY way a weapon's ownership can legally be transferred would make management of private gun sales a much simpler proposition. If the dealer was paid the small transfer fee, I feel sure such gun legislation would acquire their support, since 40% of all gun sales are private. Nice increase in business.

    For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life. - Albert Camus

    by Anne Elk on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:24:16 PM PST

  •  OK then, I repeat: Let's call them Homocide Rifles (1+ / 2-)
    Recommended by:
    cany
    Hidden by:
    GoGoGoEverton, 88kathy

    They are not "Assault Rifles," they are "Homicide Rifles."

    Again and again and again we told weapons like the Bushmaster XM-15 Adam Lanza used to slaughter women and children with are not technically "assault rifles". As though the term offends the sensibilities of those who deal in and buy these weapons that are designed to kill people.

    OK, then. Let's use the most accurate term possible for such weapons. Going forward call them what they are - Homicide Rifles.

    They have one purpose. Homocide.

    "Your opponent can't talk when he has your fist in his mouth." - Bill Clinton

    by MethuenProgressive on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:24:37 PM PST

    •  Sorry, I know it's a typo, but should be hidden. (5+ / 0-)

      I have made mistakes like that too and asked for other TU's to hide it. You repeated the mistake in the comment content too.

      I see what you did there.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:29:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Seriously? (0+ / 0-)

        For the innocent mistype of "homicide" as "homocide"?

        We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

        by raptavio on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 02:29:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's not punitive. I think my mistake was a slur (0+ / 0-)

          against gays too (might've been a racist term, but i forget and it was awhile ago). It needs to be hidden so non-TU's don't see it and associate it with the site. It's seemingly innocent mistake but this is the only way to fix it.

          I see what you did there.

          by GoGoGoEverton on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 02:37:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think you're overreacting. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Catte Nappe

            We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

            by raptavio on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 03:00:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not going to uprate, but (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            raptavio

            I do think you are overreacting. Especially since you can't even explain why it might be offensive under certain circumstances. Depending on context, yes, it could be taken as a slur against gays ("homos"), but I haven't seen anything that would suggest racism. And in this case it's a spelling error and doesn't even suggest an anti-gay viewpoint.

            "No one life is more important than another. No one voice is more valid than another. Each life is a treasure. Each voice deserves to be heard." Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse & Onomastic

            by Catte Nappe on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 04:27:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's a spelling error x2 that says 'homocide'. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Catte Nappe

              I never said anything about it being racist; i was referring to my own mistake that I asked others to HR because you can't edit comments.

              I see what you did there.

              by GoGoGoEverton on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 05:16:38 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  x 2 - Yeah, spelling errors work that way (0+ / 0-)

                It's not like a typo - accidently hitting the wrong key once. It's an inability to correctly spell the word at all. Consistently spelling it "homocide" rather than "homicide", over and over. If you read the mis-spell phonetically, try it with a short "O" (hah-ma-side) rather than the long "O" (hoe-mow-side). If the first 'o' in the word sound like "hah", it would follow for many that the next "ma" sound would also use an 'o'.

                "No one life is more important than another. No one voice is more valid than another. Each life is a treasure. Each voice deserves to be heard." Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse & Onomastic

                by Catte Nappe on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 05:33:46 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I just think you're misunderstanding (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Catte Nappe

                  why I thought it should be hidden. Some rando uprated it so it's moot now. I didn't do that because I thought the user was 'bad' or did it on purpose, but if I misspell the name of a West-Central african country in a comment, the word is still there and not editable, and it's a slur.

                  I see what you did there.

                  by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 07:39:27 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  "Homocide"... (6+ / 0-)

      ... where gulag meets fabulous, or something.

      Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

      by MBNYC on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 02:20:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This diary shows plainly how ill-considered the (4+ / 0-)

    "assault weapons" ban is. We are actually retrogressing from the 1994 law banning scary guns to one banning even less scary guns. How does a flash suppressor or a folding/telescoping stock make the weapon more deadly in killing unarmed civilians?

    By all means, ban high-capacity magazines and see if we can ban firearms that accommodate these magazines. But banning "scary guns"makes gun control advocates look stupid.

    And before you ask, no, I don't own any guns and have no intention of doing so.

  •  Defining one's terms is always a (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy, megisi

    good idea, especially in a debate such as this. So, I propose that weapons that can fire bullets of .22 caliber or greater at a rate of fire of 10 rounds in 10 seconds be designated as a "mass murder weapon, or MMW" and all such weapons should be banned.

    This means that if a skilled gunman could fire a single-shot pistol, reload, and repeat, and maintain a rate of fire of 10 rounds in ten seconds that that pistol should be banned. But if the reload process would take three seconds or longer, and the magazine could hold no more than three bullets, then the gun would not be banned.

    Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

    by hestal on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:28:26 PM PST

    •  Do you have (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fuzzyguy, PavePusher

      any proposals that would have a chance of becoming law, or even being brought up for a vote?

      "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

      by happy camper on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:52:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of course I do. I am not a child. But (0+ / 0-)

        this is not the place to discuss serious matters. This is a dorm room in which everyone is eager to show how smart and how righteous he is. Nothing gets done here. But egos get indulged.

        Any attempt at advancing ideas is quickly greeted with remarks like yours. How does one move the ball when everybody else on the team wants to tackle their own teammates?

        So, I use it to look for good ideas and then I take them some where else, to a place where they might have some chance of seeing the light of day. Where people are serious and are joined together in a common purpose: to build a better world.

        Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

        by hestal on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 02:16:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  You realize (0+ / 0-)

      your proposal would ban most firearms? That includes many common hunting, target shooting, and self-defence weapons.

      For example no revolver and most bolt action rifles would not meet your criteria.

  •  Rename them brain blasters. Legally. (0+ / 0-)

    Sign my White House Petition Enforce the KEEP in the Second Amendment We don't have a problem with gun control, we have a problem with gun owners controlling their guns.

    by 88kathy on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:31:24 PM PST

  •  We'll make this easy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy, bewareofme

    Ban all semiautomatic firearms for civilians. These are only designed to kill lots of people in short order, not for hunting or target shooting.

    And ban clips larger than five rounds. Again, if you're hunting this is more than enough.

  •  Lets go for substance over form this time (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BeerNotWar, megisi, orlbucfan

    Almost any semi-automatic firearm can deliver a devastating rate of fire so the fact that the firearm looks like one used by armed forces somewhere is rather beside the point if the main concern is about preventing massacres.  The previous assault weapon ban was ineffective since gun manufacturers/importers changed the form of firearms so that they were equally effective but not within the parameters of the ban.  To accomplish something rather than merely "do something", two approaches should be considered.

    1) Ban weapons with high rates of fire.  That would pretty much require banning all semi-automatic weapons and probably pump and lever action firearms as well (this is what the Australians ended up doing).  This would include a huge percentage of all firearms in this country including many which are not likely to be used in a massacre.

    2) Restrict the effective ammunition capacity of weapons by banning completely (i.e., no grandfathering but a limited buyback period and then criminalize possession)  large magazines, fixed or detachable (fixed magazines might be allowed a bit larger capacity).  A ban on detachable magazines would be even more effective but would again affect an awful lot of firearms.

    Banning high-capacity magazines would seem to be the optimal approach and would also be more likely to pass.  No guns would be banned (except perhaps for some existing weapons which have huge internal clips) which would take away the "gun grabbing" accusations ("magazine grabber" just doesn't have the same ring).  Since there are no practical need for huge magazines—being prepared for millitary-style firefights is not and hopefully will not come under "practical"—no users will be disadvantaged.

    The magazine ban will go a lot further towards limiting the carnage than an assault weapons ban.  It's a good first step and after wrangling over the assault weapons ban for a bit would be a good "compromise" which would be harder to vote against and produce better results.


    My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.—Carl Schurz
    Give 'em hell, Barry—Me

    by KingBolete on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:34:59 PM PST

  •  Stop gun brats from making stupid arguments: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nosleep4u

    ban all the goddamn guns.  Stop this cowardly sucking up to the NRA and the Mafia on the SCOTUS  and follow the strict meaning of the Constitution by limiting firearms to the official Armed forces and States' militias.  

  •  How to reduce killings (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    megisi, orlbucfan, Dogs are fuzzy

    I'm going to use some terms that may be unfamiliar to those not well-acquainted with firearms.

    Its time to prohibit certain firearm designs. Just as fully automatic weapons and modification kits for firearms (which transform auto-loading to auto-firing), produced after 1986, may not be sold or possessed by the general public, the design of "long guns" (and possibly pistols) should now be restricted.

    The design of ALL newly manufactured rifles and shotguns should be restricted to prohibit ANY detachable magazines or clips.

    Instead, new firearms would be limited to the use of either  internal ammunition storage (bolt-action box magazines or tubular feed magazines for pump or lever action firearms) or single-shot designs. That internal storage would limited to a small number of cartridges, e.g., three or four.  Pistols could be limited as well. Some states already have these restrictions on cartridge capacity for hunting, i.e., PA.

    While not restricting the  right to "bear arms", it would eliminate high rate-of-fire weapons and their large capacity magazine counterparts thereby preventing loopholes centered on cosmetic characteristics.

    This solution would work for those concerned with actual home defense, traditional hunters (not camo-clad wannabes), and true marksmen. If would be opposed by those most concerned with gun commerce as opposed to gun rights (NRA) and the "prepper" community whose main concern is armed engagment with our democratically elected government.

    Your thoughts?  

  •  Universal background check & the devilish details. (3+ / 0-)

    Surely everyone reasonable person should be firmly in favor of universal background checks, right?  Well, maybe.  Before I join in in the cheering, I want to know one thing;  what are the criteria by which a purchase is disallowed?

    Consider the "terrorist watch list", a term I've heard bandied about quite a lot recently.  The fact that, currently,  people who are on that list can buy guns does not lead me to outrage, but to ask, how does someone get on that list?  AFAIK, it works like the no-fly list;  you get put on it based on criteria that are held secret.  You certainly do not have to have been convicted of any crime.  And good luck getting off it.

    So what can we expect to see as criteria for allowing a gun purchase?  The current criteria are

    To legally purchase a gun in the United States, you must pass a background check. The guidelines for passing are set forth by the federal government in compliance with the Brady Act. The Brady Act prohibits the sale of firearms to anyone with these criteria: anyone who is under indictment or been convicted of any crime punishable by more than 1 year in prison; anyone who is a fugitive; anyone who is an unlawful user or addict of a controlled substance; anyone who has been committed to a mental institution or adjudicated as a mental defective; any illegal alien; anyone dishonorably discharged from the military; anyone who has renounced citizenship to the United States; anyone who is the subject of a protective order citing stalking, harassment or threats to an intimate partner or child; and any person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Other guidelines include age limits of 18 to purchase a long gun and 21 to purchase a handgun.
    (per both Wiki and esortment.com, a google result).

    That sounds eminently reasonable to me, except for the fact that someone who has smoked marijuana - and been arrested - will probably be forever banned from buying a gun.  Stupid drug laws.

    But the big concern I have is, what will be added to the law regarding background checks?  Any criteria that allows for someone to be rejected arbitrarily, (such as, the no-fly list), is criteria regarding which I would join even the NRA in opposing.

    I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

    by tle on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 02:01:43 PM PST

  •  The science is questionable (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dogs are fuzzy, PavePusher

    The science is definitely questionable.  

    It makes sense to me, that in a situation where a gun is used, that a slower firing gun might result in each target being hit by a lesser number of bullets, possibly slightly increasing the possibility of survival.  However, one bullet at close range is enough to kill a child.   Also, if the shooting is slower, kids might have time to run out of a room or dive under a desk.   Many of these shootiers bring multiple weapons, and 3 or 4 guns with ten rounds, in an elementary school, still chills my heart.

    It also makes sense to me that a shooter will find some guns, and this ban and these measures will do nothing to stop that.

    We still need programs to help at risk kids so they don't develop into shooters.

     

  •  Most of the 'gunsters' claim their assault weapons (0+ / 0-)

    are for their personal or home defense.

    Wait a minute...that's an oxymoron (as are they, generally).

    The saying in football is that the best defense is a good offense but I don't think you can stretch that to weaponry, i.e., an 'assault' rifle is really a 'defense' rifle. It just doesn't compute.

    And, if you are really seeking a good home defense weapon, a shotgun is better. If someone is breaking into your home in the dark of night, a scattergun that holds 3 or 4 shells and spreads out the buckshot is going to do you more good than a rifle.  

    When atlatls are outlawed, only outlaws will have atlatls.

    by wheeldog on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 02:08:42 PM PST

  •  I don't wanna base federal law on a marketing term (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fuzzyguy, Dogs are fuzzy, PavePusher

    Nor on irrelevant design details like the type of grip or the material of the stock.

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 02:11:11 PM PST

  •  Anything Congress does that is not (0+ / 0-)

    1) Retroactive

    2) Confiscatory or having a penalty including jail time

    3) Classing semi-automatic weapons with a less restrictive version of requirements to own fully-automatic weapons

    Is window dressing. Basically bullshit. Literally cosmetic changes.

    I don't hold out much hope that they can pass anything that will be effective. That's okay. Just don't try to tell us the bullshit you DO pass IS effective.

    And I know the reaction to the word "Confiscatory" around here. Won't fly. Well, there are already confiscatory laws for firearms in place, that have been in place for decades. Those seem to have been passed by Congress at one point or another.

    Those flew.

    It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

    by Fishgrease on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 02:27:56 PM PST

  •  Assault Weapon construction (3+ / 0-)

    "people know it when they see it"
    That refers to the cosmetics (handle, elevated sight, ect.) but a real issue about a ban is correctly identifying a military weapon from one which bears a close relation but is a legitimate hunting rifle - semi-automatic, limited magazine, comfortable to aim carefully and shoot accurately.

    If the "ban" attaches to the wrong group of weapons it will fail.

    Aside from the cosmetics, there is one distinguishing feature of a military assault rifle - Since it was designed if needed for automatic fire (even though tactics discourage that these days), The physics of an automtaic fire weapon take into account the problem with barrel / aiming point rise under auto/ rapid fire. So real assault rifles have the shoulder stock (or a portion of it) in line with the centerline of the bore to prevent or diminish barrel rise under auto fire. it's a force triangle problem.

    Hunting rifles are not built that way because, while the semi-auto feature is useful in certain circumstances while hunting, there is a presumption that each shot will be aimed carefully. Accuracy is more important than rate of fire. There are shooters that don't do that, but they are not real hunters :).

    An Assault rifle firing either automatic or 3 shot burst is designed, during an assault, to provide covering fire in sufficient quantity to suppress enemy response while you move forward. They are not intended to be accurate long-range weapons.

    So the "Look" of assault rifles like AR-15 or M16A2 or M4, the pistol grip, the carrying handle, forward grip, the elevated sights are all derived from the need for weapons control by making the recoil taken straight back to the stock and shoulder, If fired from the shoulder. The sight plane (iron sights) is compromised by parallax issues, being so high, but telescopic sights or Laser sights circumvent that anyway.

    An assault weapons ban needs to NOT impact semi-automatic small magazine hunting rifles or it will be defeated or be a laughing stock, as was the original.

    Metrics can be developed to state, say, that the butt plate of the stock (at the shoulder) must be 1 1/2 inches below the barrel bore line and maybe that the stock must encompass the trigger and guard.

    It is possible to distinguish current, perfectly useable semi-automatic hunting rifles from Rapid fire assault rifles. Yes, there will always be a grey area, and yes, customizers can always build their own special version.
    But it's mostly not the "gun nuts" experts we have to worry about, they know what they're doing. it's the crazies who are attracted to the look, and that look and underlying functionality can be limited.

    We want current owners of hunting arms to be on our side - they are being made to look bad as it is. So a careful writing of any weapons ban needs to be smart and effective, and the fundamental design of real assault rifles is that opportunity.

    My son, just back from Afganistan as an Army Special Forces Green Beret, carried an M4 Carbine all of last year. I taught him to shoot, and weapons safety, when he was 10.

    Without geometry, life is pointless. And blues harmonica players suck.

    by blindcynic on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 02:27:56 PM PST

    •  Agree, sort of (0+ / 0-)

      Sorry, this is a repeat.

      Its time to prohibit certain firearm designs. Just as fully automatic weapons and modification kits for firearms (which transform auto-loading to auto-firing), produced after 1986, may not be sold or possessed by the general public, the design of "long guns" (and possibly pistols) should now be restricted.
      The design of ALL newly manufactured rifles and shotguns should be restricted to prohibit ANY detachable magazines or clips.
      Instead, new firearms would be limited to the use of either  internal ammunition storage (bolt-action box magazines or tubular feed magazines for pump or lever action firearms) or single-shot designs. That internal storage would limited to a small number of cartridges, e.g., three or four.  Pistols could be limited as well. Some states already have these restrictions on cartridge capacity for hunting, i.e., PA.
      While not restricting the  right to "bear arms", it would eliminate high rate-of-fire weapons and their large capacity magazine counterparts thereby preventing loopholes centered on cosmetic characteristics.
      This solution would work for those concerned with actual home defense, traditional hunters (not camo-clad wannabes), and true marksmen. If would be opposed by those most concerned with gun commerce as opposed to gun rights (NRA) and the "prepper" community whose main concern is armed engagment with our democratically elected government.
      Your thoughts?  

      •  I take your point (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        orlbucfan, Meteor Blades

        and the point I am making is, to get anything started, we have to not alienate the 99% who do no harm and feel themselves attacked, or can be persuaded in that direction.

        The last "assault weapons" ban just showed the gun community that we who want reasonable restrictions on guns had no clue how they work and the idea that we would ban the "look and feel" was simplistic nonsense. Lumping all semi-automatic weapons under one umbrella is counter-productive, IMHO.

        So I'm trying to identify design factors that distinguish real assault weapons and their derivatives from sporting weapons so as not to alienate potential allies in the gun community who are themselves persuadable.

        Rate-of-fire and magazine capacity are other issues, and I agree much conversation can take place in those arenas.

        I don't hunt anymore but that's almost all I did in my teens (marksmanship varmit hunting and a little bigger game, and Bowhunting and amateur gunsmithing). People like me (and I'm not NRA) we need for support as reasonable helpers to construct intelligent gun laws.

        There are design aspects of real assault rifles that can be identified and restricted to military arms. Not making that distinction is short sighted, and will doom a wider bill. Later on, it can be refined. But let's not throw the NRA red meat, so to speak...

        and there's certainly precedent for limiting magazine size... I hunted upland game with double barrel or single shot shotguns, but many of my friends used pump or automatic shotguns. and almost all of them had a "plug" in the tubular magazine to reduce magazine capacity from 5 to 3 shotgun shells, primarily for duck hunting, I think (I didn't hunt ducks, I grew them). But no one I knew cared. if they couldn't get a pheasant in three shots it "weren't gonna happen".

        And I carried a double because it was faster and shorter than heavier pumps and automatics - and I always got the first shot when we jumped a quail in close quarters.....

        Without geometry, life is pointless. And blues harmonica players suck.

        by blindcynic on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 04:09:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  You know (0+ / 0-)

      That all this will do is cause people who make semi-auto versions of military assault rifles to do is to change their weapons to conform to whatever cosmetics are mandated.

      So you will see stocks for AR-15 type weapons that aren't in-line with the barrel. For that matter there are already stocks like that for the AR-15

      Past that the stock design has little or nothing to do with how "deadly" a weapon is.

      Also pistol grips are a nice ergonomic feature in some guns, I really don't want that taken away.

  •  OK, so it's not an assault weapon (0+ / 0-)

    let's just call them what they are - weapons of mass destruction.

    "The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little. " --Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by jg6544 on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 02:28:40 PM PST

  •  The perfect is the enemy of the good. (0+ / 0-)

    There is no "one solution" to any, serious problem. But, to refuse any attempt at progress because 100% effectiveness is required is either extremely dishonest, pathologically cynical, or simply dim-witted.

  •  This...just this...a million times this: (0+ / 0-)
    Got that? The Brady Campaign and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence didn't apply the term "assault" to grab guns, the industry applied it to sell them. Good enough for the marketers, good enough for the gun-control advocates, one would think.
    Everyone read this.  Then read this again.  Then share it with everyone you know and even people you don't know whom who hear using the word "gun" in a sentence.

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 03:07:19 PM PST

  •  Coulda fooled me, the term 'Debate' (0+ / 0-)

    seems to be more under assault these days than any of the others terms in this diary title.

    "I'll press your flesh, you dimwitted sumbitch! " -Pappy O'Daniel

    by jakewaters on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 03:25:28 PM PST

  •  def of "assault weapon" should be functional (0+ / 0-)

    If a weapon has been used by a single person to deliberately kill  several unrelated people in a short period of time, it's an assault weapon and needs to be prohibited.

    And if it can be shown to be effectively equivalent to an assault weapon, it's also an assault weapon, even if the manufacturing details are totally different.

    We can quibble about whether "several" is five or ten people, and whether a "short period" is seconds or minutes, but the basic concept is sound.

  •  No matter what you call the fire arms (0+ / 0-)

    make it law that they must be indelibly painted cute pink and decorated with pretty flowers and Hello Kitty kittens.

  •  look out for the pepper grinder weapons (0+ / 0-)
    “Assault rifle” was first used to describe a military weapon, the Sturmgewehr, produced by the Germans in World War II. The Sturmgewehr—literally “storm rifle,” a name chosen by Adolf Hitler—was capable of both semiautomatic and full-automatic fire. It was the progenitor for many modern military rifles.
    But the term “assault rifle” was expanded and broadened when gun manufacturers began to sell firearms modeled after the new military rifles to civilians. In 1984, Guns & Ammo advertised a book called “Assault Firearms,” which it said was “full of the hottest hardware available today.”

    “The popularly held idea that the term ‘assault weapon’ originated with antigun activists, media or politicians is wrong,” [Former gun dealer and author Philip] Peterson wrote. “The term was first adopted by the manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearm owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun.”

    Warning - some snark above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ “If someone has a tool and is trying to negate your existence it would be reasonable to reciprocate in kind with your own tool.” - Dalai Lama XIV (sic)

    by annieli on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 03:55:53 PM PST

  •  There should also be some (0+ / 0-)

    thought given to the fact that our culture has an unhealthy appetite for violence and bloodletting.

    Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.

    by orlbucfan on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 04:32:40 PM PST

  •  Why not just call them what they are... (0+ / 0-)

    ...military/police grade (semi)automatic weapons.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site