So your guns keep you safe?

[Goofier]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Assault weapon is a term which has been given many different meanings. For example, some pistols are also classified as assault weapons, despite clearly not possessing the cosmetic features of an assault rifle, under both state and Federal laws.Another definition is any of various automatic and semi-automatic military firearms utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge...

blah de fucking blah...

You know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about anything other than a single-action non semi-automatic, if you want to get down to brass tacks.

Yes, but do YOU know what YOU're talking about?
Like someone else pointed out, for instance, the rifle that Lanza used was the same type that's been available to the American public for at least 50 years, and it's a semiautomatic rifle.
One of the big points being that there's nothing new to see here. Absolutely nothing new at all. But a whole lot of people want to knee-jerk like it's the latest fad that just appeared to threaten the tranquility of the Seas of Cheese.

[vaylorie]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This New York Times article researched the frequency of mass murders. It found during the 20th century there were about one to two mass murders per decade until 1980. Then for no apparent reason they spiked, with nine during the 1980s and 11 in the 1990s. Since the year 2000 there have been at least 27, including the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut.

It's not the guns, it's what type of guns they are.

According to experts (not you), Mass killings are not increasing in frequency. Here are some notes from the article:

• And yet those who study mass shootings say they are not becoming more common.
• There is no pattern, there is no increase,
• Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning.
• while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data.

Move past your alarmist mentality and put aside your emotion and fear and deal with facts. I get it, guns scare you, but the facts don't backup your reality. If they take away the guns in will be in spite of reason and not because of it.


Story from the AP:
http://news.yahoo.com/no-rise-mass-k...185700637.html

It's posted by AP and reported by all major news cycles.

[Hasbinlulz]

"mass killings reached their peak in 1929"

does this include or disclude gangland massacres?

[Hasbinlulz]

Also, the fact that something is reported on major news cycles does not make it valid.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Goofier [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yes, but do YOU know what YOU're talking about?
Like someone else pointed out, for instance, the rifle that Lanza used was the same type that's been available to the American public for at least 50 years, and it's a semiautomatic rifle.
One of the big points being that there's nothing new to see here. Absolutely nothing new at all. But a whole lot of people want to knee-jerk like it's the latest fad that just appeared to threaten the tranquility of the Seas of Cheese.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. And - sadly - you're absolutely right; there's nothing new to see here. But what's different is that a lot of gun owners - myself included - understand that the Newtown massacre is a tipping point...there's a line to be drawn in the sand. There's nothing "knee-jerk" about any of this; it's that more people who want reasonable gun legislation are going to stay much more vocal about it then ever before.

Gun regulation has never been effected properly. Too many loopholes and "grandfathered" rules existed to make any difference whatsoever. That's going to change. Your right to own a dangerous and unusual weapon doesn't exist, in fact it's precluded by law; however, the NRA has done a great job the last couple of decades in buying political support for a gun-crazy society.

[Goofier]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I know exactly what I'm talking about. And - sadly - you're absolutely right; there's nothing new to see here. But what's different is that a lot of gun owners - myself included - understand that the Newtown massacre is a tipping point...there's a line to be drawn in the sand. There's nothing "knee-jerk" about any of this; it's that more people who want reasonable gun legislation are going to stay much more vocal about it then ever before.

Gun regulation has never been effected properly. Too many loopholes and "grandfathered" rules existed to make any difference whatsoever. That's going to change. Your right to own a dangerous and unusual weapon doesn't exist, in fact it's precluded by law; however, the NRA has done a great job the last couple of decades in buying political support for a gun-crazy society.

Yes, it is a knee-jerk reaction, because there's nothing new here.
It's only a 'tipping point' because you're reacting that way.
My right to own a 'dangerous and unusual' weapon isn't the question here.
The kid used a run-of-the-mill AR. Very common, very legal, and has been for decades.
So I what makes this different? What makes Newtown so fucking special for you?

[Sollannix]

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

I live in Virginia and am a graduate of JMU, so I enjoyed reading what Madison and Jefferson had to say about an armed citizenry. The quotes above reflect the general attitude that the "right to bear arms" was meant as a safeguard for the citizenry against the bizzare tendency governments have to sometimes go rogue and no longer pursue the best interests of their people. That is the real reason they desired an armed citizenry, not so they could have the right to go hunting deer, etc.

I agree that using any data from our cities is a waste of time, the data will be so skewed because of all the gang violence there. The cities in this country have become shitholes...I live about an hour outside of Washington DC.....I can assure you that outside of the heavily policed NE/NW "tourist" sector of our Nation's capital is a dangerous ghetto...Richmond is even worse....

Sollannixx Mezzinwitu

[Humerox]

I really wonder what Madison, Jefferson and the rest would have thought about people being mowed down in elementary schools and movie theaters. They could not have conceived of it, and nothing they wrote or said can do anything to change it.

That's up to us.

[Goofier]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I really wonder what Madison, Jefferson and the rest would have thought about people being mowed down in elementary schools and movie theaters. They could not have conceived of it, and nothing they wrote or said can do anything to change it.

That's up to us.

So it's about the kids then, and not the guns?

[Humerox]

It's about nuts with easy access to assault-style weapons that mow kids down like bowling pins, among other things.

I'm not saying gun legislation is a panacea for gun violence. That's never been my position, nor will it ever be. It has been shown beyond reasonable doubt that proper gun legislation can remove the threat of mass gun killings. This we've seen in both Australia and Scotland.

The ready availability of assault-style weapons in this country is ludicrous. While it may be argued that it's not just the guns, the fact remains that stricter gun legislation is a good first step in addressing the problem. This alone will not save us, and any fool that argues otherwise is exactly that.

Just as any fool that argues that there is no causal relationship between assault-style weapons and mass murder in the US is also exactly that.

We are the only industrialized country in the world that still has this problem. The United States is responsible for over 80% of all the gun deaths in the 23 richest countries combined.

Talk about people with their heads in the sand. We are an easily frightened people and it is easy to manipulate us with fear. What are we so afraid of that we need to have 300 million guns in our homes? Who do we think is going to hurt us? Why are most of these guns in white suburban and rural homes?