Gun owners fear blowback from police shooting

1. this crazy whacked out guy was a member of the extremist website http://www.pafoa.org Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association, they are denying ever knowing the guy even though he associated with the Moderators in public, they have banned his profile, made all his posts private and delete any post anyone adds referencing him, his name on the website was “rwhiteman”

2. Past the specifics of the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association, I think that in general a return to the Assault Weapon Ban is a perfectly reasonable reaction to the several tragedies we have had in the recent past, and those that came before. I personally would like to see it made a felony to carry a concealed handgun, with very few exceptions made for permits (I think the case can be made that handguns are made almost solely for killing other people, and that the benefit people have of carrying a concealed handgun for self defense is out weighed by the cost to society of other people who carry handguns concealed for the purposes of committing crimes). But Antonin Scalia thinks that handguns are the perfect weapon for self defense, so we are unlikely to see restrictions there. Still, I think a case can now be made (again) that the availability of military rifles with their high magazine capacities, even if they can not fire fully automatic, is too dangerous to police and civilians alike. Now, assault rifles were not taken away when the ban on new sales was in effect in the past, and they should not be taken away now. But reinstating the ban on new sales would send the right sort of message, that we are taking logical and calmly rational steps to try to protect our own citizens. If that makes gun owners feel they have to start shooting cops to resist some non-existent threat, well, then, I don’t know what to say. America has bent over backwards (so to speak) to accommodate gun owners whining, it has literally deleted the records of criminals gun purchases within a few hours to assuage their fears. We, in Pittsburgh, have literally sacrificed our police men because gun owners want to buy as many deadly weapons as they can afford. And still gun owners threaten to shoot us down.

3. The rifle used by the shooter fires a 7.62x39mm round That round is less powerful than .308 winchester, the most common huntin caliber. Every rifle banned under the assault weapon ban fired a round that was, at most, as powerful as common hunting calibers. As to high capacity magazines, you can buy 30 round magazines for .308 winchester the same as for 7.62x39mm. Magazine capacity has nothing to do with the gun or caliber, only with what manufacturers think they can sell. The guns that were banned under the AWB all had one thing in common, they “looked scary.” They didn’t fire some super high power round, they didn’t have some unheard of ability to send a bullet flying for miles, they weren’t capable of blowing up anything shot with them, they just looked scary.
   Gun bans make people feel good and thats it. Banning a gun (or guns) isn’t going to stop criminals from using them in crimes, they’ll just ignore the law the same way they ignored the AWB before. If we actually want to solve the problem we need to tell prosecutors to stop dropping firearm law violaions as part of plea bargains, we need to tell judges to stop giving criminals a slap on the wrist, and we need to tell parole boards to stop letting criminals out early.

4. “this crazy whacked out guy was a member of the extremist website http://www.pafoa.org Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association”

   Just as an update, the PFOA now includes a statement on their discussion forum acknowledging that “news sources indicate that [the shooter] may have been a registered user of the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association open discussion forum. PAFOA members firmly condemn criminal actions, and our thoughts and prayers are with the injured officers and the families of those who fell in the line of duty …

   “PAFOA will cooperate with any law enforcement investigations, though it appears that none of the posts or comments allegedly tied to the shooter violate any laws or indicate any intention to violate laws.”

5. Actually searching on Google for the phrase “30 round .308 caliber magazine” brought up advertisement for magazines for military assault rifles, such as the M14, the H&K 91 and what is apparently a modified M1. I will freely admit I am not that familiar with hunting rifles (beyond knowing the broad types of mechanisms and how magazines work), so I don’t about what types of clips are available for them. I also don’t know which specific weapons were banned under the assault rifle ban, although I am given to believe that there were lots of loop holes so gun owners could still essentially get their toys. And I would argue that even if there is a non-military type hunting rifle that can accommodate a thirty round clip, it would still be quite scary looking if it is pointed at you. A Yugo can still kill you if it hits you at twenty miles per hour, just as dead as if a Hummer hits you at the same speed.

   By the way, there are reasons why somewhat shrunken calibers are used in military rifles. It is easier to carry more ammunition when the bullet is a bit smaller, and the clips will be a bit smaller, lighter and thus easier to carry. Since combat usually takes place at 200 yards or less, it is not necessary or even desirable to have a more powerful round.

   mlfletcher appears to be arguing that the assault rifle ban was too limited. Are you saying we should not have one because it is too easy to get around? Then what would you suggest? Would you support a ban that was more inclusive, that included restrictions or an out right ban on the sale of clips larger than thirty rounds? I can’t help but notice that the PAFOA comments Chris cites include discussion of whether to kill more police (“resist”) because they think their guns are going to be taken away. And in case anyone wants to dismiss that as mere talk, I live six blocks from where Poplawski did. I don’t particularly want to be told I have to die to protect someone’s right to have a gun with a 30 round magazine. And I don’t care whether it is a scary looking AK-47 or a benign, peaceful looking H&K 91.

   Again, as I remember it, the assault weapon ban did not involve turning over military type weapons that people already owned. Of course illegal weapons (unlicensed fully automatic, for example) are a different matter. People who break the law should not expect the police to just let them be, even (or perhaps especially) if they threaten the police. But in general gun owners should at the very least wait and see, and stop talking about whether to “resist”. Unfortunately, what’s most likely to happen in the next few months is that nothing; the unrestricted gun ownership championed by Bush will continue.

6. I wasn’t arguing for a ban at all. Bans of any type serve no purpose except to make people “feel” good. Feeling good doesn’t stop criminals from committing crimes, feel good laws just turn law abiding citizens into criminals if they try to use something they bought legally. The actions of criminals should not result in more burdens being placed on the law abiding, nor should the law abiding be punished for criminals actions.

   You’re completely right that any gun pointed at someone looks scary, whether its a single shot bolt action, a hunting rifle with a 10rd magazine, or an AK with a 30rd magazine. The only difference between them is the first two, when just laying on a table don’t look scary and the last one does so the last was banned purely for its aesthetics because that made people feel safe. “The big scary gun is banned, cumbaya.” The fact that its less powerful than common hunting rifles didn’t matter because most people didn’t know that. The fact that “high capacity” magazines are available for those hunting rifles didn’t matter because most people didn’t know that. None of the actual facts mattered because most people didn’t know them. Politicians played on the fears of the ignorant to push an agenda of taking rights away and making people more dependent on the government for protection from the criminals that the government allows to walk the streets in the first place.

   We have repeat felony offenders walking the streets because they were given a minimal sentence through a plea bargain and then released early on parole, but instead of doing something about that our legislators instead pass laws that only affect the law abiding. Instead of putting felons in prison and keeping them there, we let them walk free and turn the law abiding into criminals by banning their legally owned firearms. When felons who served 1/4 of their sentence commit crimes the tool they used is blamed rather than the justice system that let them walk the streets after nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

   As to the quoted comment, there was no call anyone to shoot police, the comment he quoted is only a partial quote of a reply to another statement. Anyone can take a partial quote out of context to make it appear to say something it doesn’t. The statement he was responding to was “”They say he feared the Obama administration would take his guns. This is definitely a sign of our times. I mean the guy was clearly a nut job.”” His reply starts with the question “”How much longer till its not crazy to think that?”” From there he makes the statements that are quoted here, all but one of which are questions that are quite pertinent considering the current political climate. Nobody is discussing whether to resist, the question of how many would if the administration moves to take guns, but again, that is a very pertinent question. How many people will simply roll over and give up (any of) their rights rather than standing up and fighting (not necessarily violently) for them?

   Nobody has to die to protect anyones rights, but also, nobody should be told they have to give up their rights or accept severe limitations to them just so someone else can feel safe. Would you be willing to give up your 4th amendment right to freedom from illegal search and siezure so that the police can just walk into your house (or anyone elses) anytime they want to look for drugs or illegal guns just so your neighbors can feel safe? What about your 14th amendment right to due process? Would you (or anyone else) give that up so others can feel safe? Of course not, but when it comes to the 2nd amendment suddenly it becomes OK to take that right so people can feel safe. Our rights were enumerated in the Constitution for a reason, and it wasn’t so that we could “feel safe.” It was so that “We the People” (and through us the States) could maintain our independence and freedom from oppression by a government that our founding fathers knew would eventually become corrupt.

   A note on the “shrunken calibers” used by the military, the only thing that is “shrunken” is the powder charge packed inside the casing. The bullet and casing are the same size as the standard round sold at sporting goods stores, and the weight difference of the powder per round is so minimal that the weight of the brass , lead, and copper in each round would make it impossible to carry them long before the amount of powder became a factor.

7. While mjfletcher focuses on caliber, he/she neglects the real differences between assault rifles and semi-auto rifles designed for hunting:

   ***Assault rifles are designed to most easily fire off the largest number of rounds in the quickest and most indiscriminate fashion to hit multiple targets.***

   The difference, say, between using dynamite to catch a fish vs. a fishing pole — or more importantly — the difference between aiming at a deer or indiscriminately plowing down a group of people.

   Hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend on some accuracy of aim. Assault rifles have a pistol grip which helps to stabilize the weapon during rapid fire and allows the shooter to spray-fire from the hip position. Barrel shrouds on assault pistols also protect the shooter’s hands from the heat generated by firing many rounds in rapid succession.

   Moreover, the relatively light weight of assault rifles and the pistol grip means that the a shooter can hold one in each hand for maximum mayhem. Their light weight also means that a shooter can have all kinds of accessories attached, or parts changed, like collapsible butt stocks, forearms with rails on them, etc, that significantly increase their lethality.

   And then, of course, there’s the number of rounds one can fire in quick succession. Assault rifles have commercially-made magazines that can hold up to 100 rounds, though 20-30 is more common. Hunting rifles have 10 round magazines. Which would be more more helpful in a shootout? I know what you’re thinking, “Does he have an assault weapon which fires 30 rounds or only a huntin rifle which fires ten? Do you feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?”

8. Oops! I forgot to address the “scary” looking factor. Sorry, but when I had a chance to look at an assault rifle up close and personal earlier this year, I had to ask if it was a toy. It was so stripped down and light weight looking that it didn’t look like some BIG HEAVY scary gun — it looked like a plastic toy. But that may be just me.

9. I’ll start off by saying that while I am not in favor of broad stroke gun bans, I am a supporter that not all people should be allowed to own guns. There are millions of gun in the hands of responsible, law abiding citizens who use them for hunting, sport shooting and personal protection, not killing people or police officers.

   History has taught us, or perhaps not taught us that banning anything never makes the problem go away. Think back to the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s and the war on drugs we have been fighting for the last 50 years. Neither succeeded in solving the problem, the ban only created a greater criminal organizations in the sale and import of those banned item, in the 1920’s it was the mafia and today the drug cartels. Banning doesn’t work.

   There are over 2500 gun laws on the books, but few are enforceable or not enforced. An example of this is the PA gun law which mandated a mandatory 5 years imprisonment if you commit a crime using a firearm. While this looks really good on paper, the courts have neutered the law. The Supreme Court decided that possession of a firearm while committing a crime is NOT using a firearm, only if you discharge it. So if someone points a gun in your face and takes your wallet, he did not use a gun in commission of the crime. If he shoots you, then he “used” the firearm.

   What is the answer, I have no idea, but it lies somewhere in the middle.

10. Well, so, mjfletcher, “Bans of all type serve no purpose except to make people “feel” good”. Might as well bring DDT back. You say politicians have an agenda of taking rights away and making people more dependent on the government for protection against the criminals government apparently won’t incarcerate. You talk about how law abiding citizens are turned into criminals by these same evil politicians, who ban guns that were purchased legally, even though the politicians won’t do anything about putting repeat felons in jail and keeping them there. You say “there was no call anyone to shoot police” and how partial quotes can be taken out of context to make it appear to say something it doesn’t. You say no one is talking about whether to resist, yet all of a sudden that is a pertinent question, given the current political climate. In the last sentence of that paragraph you talk about rolling over versus fighting for rights “not *necessarily* violently” Then “Nobody has to die to protect anyones rights, but” You put in a qualifier. And your last two sentences (except for a technical note) “Our rights were enumerated in the Constitution for a reason, and it wasn’t so that we could “feel safe.” It was so that “We the People” (and through us the States) could maintain our independence and freedom from oppression by a government that our founding fathers knew would eventually become corrupt.”

    Your subtext is clear. You have guns, and so you will enforce your rights to own them without restriction. You have that right granted to you by the founding fathers, so when anyone comes to take your guns, you will do your patriotic duty and … Richard Poplawski.

    Except that no legally owned guns bought before the ban were seized from private citizens during the years the assault weapons ban was in place (at least, not for violations of the ban). And apparently there were large loopholes so a brisk trade in semi automatic weapons continued during the ban. Even if a new assault weapon ban is proposed, I am sure the gun lobby and people like you will threaten legislators and whip voters into a self righteous frenzy, and the new ban will also be toothless. Because it is always someone else’s fault; the legislators or the stupid, bleeding heart, know nothing liberals, who vilify the law abiding and patriotic gun owner and coddle the criminal.

    Except that we are the world leader in the rate of incarceration. In 2003 we had some 702 prisoners per 100,000 population, versus 139 per 100,000 in England. Must be a bloodbath there.

    Obviously you are the one with an agenda, which includes making vague threats to intimidate voters into supporting your causes. The fact that more innocent people will die because the gun control you oppose continues to be pushed to the back burner apparently means nothing.

    As regards bullet size, it was the military’s decision (whether Soviet or US or whomever) to go with reduced bullet sizes as well as different weapon configuration. I seriously doubt whether the weapon looks scary has entered into the discussion for a hundred years or more. As far as I can tell, the military decided the magazines would be smaller with smaller calibers or smaller bullet sizes, and the overall weight reduction would lend itself to an ability to carry more ammunition. But perhaps I am wrong about that.

11. Responding to multiple posts.

    Maria:

    All semi-auto rifles fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled. The faster you pull the trigger, the faster it fires multiple shots. Whether its a hunting rifle or an “assault rifle” makes no difference at all in regards to how rapidly shots can be fired. The grip used is determined by the stock you attach to the firing mechanism. Pistol grip stocks are readily available for “hunting rifles” and monte carlo stocks (no pistol grip) are readily available for “assault rifles.” Pistol grip or monte carlo is simply cosmetics and has nothing to do with the actual firing mechanism of the rifle. The Simonov SKS is labeled as an assault rifle, but the standard stock on it does not have a pistol grip. Legacy Sports M-1500 is a hunting rifle that comes from the factory with a pistol grip. On any rifle, whether semi auto or bolt action, a pistol grip changes the angle of the wrist to a natural one which imprives accuracy.

    The majority of the rifles labeled “Assault rifles” have solid hardwood stocks. Solid hardwood is not light. They also have primarily machined recievers, meaning they are carved on a CNC lathe from a solid block of metal which is also heavy. Hunting rifles primarily use medium weight wood stocks and recievers stamped from sheet metal making them far lighter than “assault rifles.”

    Collaspible (and all other) stocks are available for all rifles and are something that is installed on the firing mechanism but has nothing to do with how the rifle fires. You can buy collapsible stocks, rails, forearms, and anything else you want for any rifle. If you want to put a collapsible pistol grip stock with forearm, rails, tactical light, holographic sights, and laser on a remington hunting rifle you can order one from most any supplier of aftermarket stocks. The result will be a rifle that looks just as scary and is more powerful than an “assault rifle” but which nobody would consider banning because its “just a tricked out hunting rifle.”

    As stated in a previous post, commercially manufactured high capacity magazines are available for nearly any rifle. I have a hunter supply catalog here that has 100rd magazines in it for several hunting rifles that can be bought at any Dicks Sporting Goods store. The standard magazine that comes with “assault rifles” is 10rd, the same as with other magazine fed rifles. Aftermarket magazines are produced by aftermarket manufacturers for nearly all common rifles because there is a market for them, usually a market they created by manufacturing the magazines.

    Assault rifle and assault weapon are terms that did not exist in the firearms industry until the Violence Policy Center (owned by the Brady Campaign) used them in a press release. Their own internal memos (which were leaked) state those terms were created to describe any gun that looks like something the military would use to scare those who are not knowledgeable about firearms. They exist only to scare those ignorant of how firearms actually work.

    Bob:

    You hit the nail on the head.

    Ed:

    The discussion was guns, not pesticides. Twisting my responses to the discussion of guns by attempting to apply them to something else is disingenuous at best. It’s obvious from the next two paragraphs of your post that you have no intention to actually discuss the issue.

    There was no subtext in my statements, I do not play those games. I state exactly what I mean, if it is not stated it is not meant. Our founding fathers knew that all government eventually become corrupt and oppressive and enumerated our rights to both protect us from that and ensure that if the need arose the people would have the ability to defend themself from said corrupt government. That is simple fact, nothing more nothing less. My patriotic duty, and that of every american, is to do everything in my/our power to prevent that need from ever arising. Armed resistance is the absolute last resort, and we are still far from needing to resort to it.

    “””Then “Nobody has to die to protect anyones rights, but” You put in a qualifier.”””

    And yet you choose not to quote the qualifier. Why is that? Why did you choose not to quote the qualification that nobody should be expected to give up their rights as well? You wish to speak of “subtexts,” so lets. You’re decision to not quote the rest of the statement makes it clear that you feel others should be required to give up their rights just so you can “feel” all warm and fuzzy inside. So which of your rights will you give up so I can have that same “warm fuzzy feeling?” If I pointed out the documented fact that, as per the FBI annual crime report, the number one cause of interpersonal violent crime is religion and demanded the federal government either ban or severely restrict the exercise of religion to prevent those crimes would you say “OK, ill give up my freedom of religion?” Its common sense that if something is the number one cause of a major criminal issue it should be banned or restricted, so would you be willing to go along with that and give up your first amendment right so I can “feel” all warm and fuzzy?

    Yes, we do lead the world in incarceration. We also lead the world in apathy. Start looking at the stats in regards to the number of people who are willing to tell the police what they saw, you’ll find that as a nation we “don’t want to get involved.” People see someone committing a crime and just keep on walking like they didn’t see a thing. People see someone grab his chest and fall to the ground they don’t even bother to dial 911, they just cross the street and continue on their way. Those inclined to commit crimes know this, they know that even if 100 people see them there won’t be any witnesses, and even if 1 person does decide to do the right thing he knows that he’ll get a slap on the wrist, 3 square meals, food, clothing, shelter, cable tv, and a weight room all on the taxpayers dime. Those inclined to violate the law have no reason to fear the repurcussions of their actions because they know there isn’t likely to be any so they have no incentive to not commit the crime. The result is a large number of people incarcerated for short periods of time rather than a smaller number of real criminals incarcerated for longer periods of time.

    Nobody in the “gun lobby” threatens legislators, voters do exercise their right to be represented by someone who they feel best represents them by voting for, or not voting for their legislators, so if I (and the rest of the voters) feel someone is not representing me I won’t give them my vote. Thats how elections work.

    I’ve made no threats of any kind, they serve no useful purpose. I make no attempt to intimidate anyone, I state simple facts. If someone is intimidated by facts that is their issue, not mine.

    Gun control laws don’t stop criminals from committing crimes, the ’94 AWB proved that. During the 10 years before the ban was passed FBI stats showed that use of the firearms banned under the AWB was decreasing every year. Based on the rate of decrease, in 3 years time their use would have been under .001% of all firearm use in crime. Then the ban was passed and their use increased every year for the first 7 years of the ban before dopping off again. By the time the ban expired it had dropped down to where it was only 3 times higher than it had been in the last year before the ban. Instead of preventing crimes from being committed with those firearms, in increased the crime committed with those firearms. Since the ban expired, the number of crimes committed with those guns has continued to drop, and as of the 2008 FBI crime report it was back down to where it was in 1993. Under the AWB the decrease in use of the banned guns reversed itself for the first 7 years, then went back to decreasing and has continued to decrease since the epiration of the ban. It doesn’t take much to figure out why use of rifles by criminals was decreasing before the ban, they’re nearly impossible to conceals and unless you’re decked out in full military gear its nearly impossible to carry any more ammunition than is in the gun. Having everyone know you’re up to no good the moment you walk out your front door is not conducive to success in a life of crime.

    I’ll assume you aren’t familiar with what caliber refers to and explain it (ill also assume lack of knowledge of cartidge construction), please don’t take offense to it as this approach isnt intended to belittle, the easiest way to explain it is to use a “no previous knowledge” explanation. A cartidge consists of a bullet (the projectile), a casing (holds the powder charge), a powder charge (gunpowder that when ignited produces gas that expands and propels the bullet down the barrel) and a primer (struck by hammer/firing pin to ignite the powder charge).

    7.62x39mm means that the bullet is 7.62 millimeters in diameter and 39mm long. .308 caliber means that the bullet is .308 inches in diameter but doesn’t reference the length because with english system calibers a difference in length is referenced using another qualifier such as year of manufacture or designer name. ie .308, 30-06, and 30-30 all use a .308 inch diameter bullet, but the bullets vary in length, the 30-06 was introduced in 1906, the 30-30 in 1930.

    That said, the military does not use a smaller bullet, they use a smaller powder charge. Military grade 7.62×39/.308/.223/etc is identical to civilian grade 7.62×39/.308/.223/etc excpept for the amount of powder inside the casing. The military grade uses less powder resulting in lower recoil and less brusing to the shoulder of the person firing the gun as well as more control over the gun during repeat rapid firing. The trade off is decreased muzzle velocity resulting in decreased range, accuraccy, and foot pounds of force on impact (less power).

12. Good read here: http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/Gun-control-restricts-those-least-likely-to-commit-violent-crimes–42507652.html

    >>Gun control restricts those least likely to commit violent crimes

    By Don Kates
    Special to the Examiner 4/6/09
    The March 21 murder of four Oakland police officers by Lovelle Mixon, a convicted felon wanted for a recent parole violation, epitomizes the futility of “gun control,” or the banning and restricting of gun ownership for law-abiding adults. Using the officers’ tragic deaths to further an unrelated agenda — stripping away the Second Amendment rights of honorable citizens — is both harmful and distracting.

    Mixon was not an anomaly. Felons commit over 90 percent of murders, with the remainder carried out primarily by juveniles and the mentally unbalanced. The United States already has laws forbidding all three groups from owning guns, which, by definition, are ineffective against the lawless. “Gun control,” therefore, only “controls” those who have done nothing to merit such regulations.<<

13. Well, nice try, mjfletcher. You obviously aren’t interested in actually discussing gun control either, only in shutting down the discussion. My point in mentioning DDT was to illustrate the categorical nature of your statement, that “bans of all types serve no purpose except to make people “feel” good” Obviously a statement that all encompassing is false on a couple of levels.

    Look, I may be somewhat stupid, but I’m not that stupid, and I suspect most readers of City Paper’s online blog Slag Heap aren’t that stupid either. When you state “Our founding fathers knew that all government eventually become corrupt and oppressive and enumerated our rights to both protect us from that and ensure that if the need arose the people would have the ability to defend themself from said corrupt government.” and then say “That is simple fact, nothing more nothing less.” you are making a categorical statement about the future predictions of an ill-defined group of men. Without a citation as far as I or anyone else knows the first statement is essentially your opinion, or at best your opinion and interpretation of either some direct statement from a or several or perhaps all the founding fathers that you read or someone else’s interpretation of something a or some or all the founding fathers wrote or were quoted as having said that you then read. All of which is to say that, in my experience, all of us, myself included, express opinions or at best our opinions of facts. Your arguments may or may not be persuasive, but representing them as “simple facts” is not.

    Clearly you are well read on the subject of gun control. I don’t know the direction of the opinions you read, although I certainly have a suspicion. I will say that since you apparently have an interest in the subject, I may also wonder about you ability to dispassionately deliver simple facts, or to incorporate discordant facts (such as the actual rate of US incarceration) into your opinions.

    I will say I am aware of the dismal record of US gun control laws, so I certainly wouldn’t support a retread of previous policy. I would only advocate trying something new, like banning the sale of high capacity magazine for rifles. Obviously that would not stop crimes, but it might reduce the severity of some of these situations were an individual tries to kill many people at once. A limited goal, but not an unreasonable, in my opinion.

    Let’s be clear here, some people may read what is written here, think about it, and either write the Congressperson or base their vote partially on their opinion of the issue. Nothing more, nothing less. So it doesn’t hurt to actually be honest about what we are saying.

14. Re:Bob25

    I encourage people to read my blog,

    http://burghchair.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-are-we-ymptom-solving-society.html
    “We are a symptom-solving society.”

    I agree with Bob25. Not all people should own guns. How was Poplawski able to get legal guns in the first place after numerous domestic calls to his house; punching out a superior officer in the Marines and subsequently being dishonorably discharged; doing drugs; and on and on? He was clearly an unstable and mentally ill person, and yet, time after time, person after person, could not or would not intervene.

    Something I do not aaddress in my post are assault rifles. Although I am for the second amendment, I am still open minded for a ideas on assault rifles.

    I would offer up these thoughts on assault rifle and gun bans.

    If Obama were to stop making assault rifles here in America, how would he stop ilegal assault rifles from coming in from other countries?

    There are over 200 million privately-owned guns in America, according to the FBI. That does not include illegal guns, which is speculated to be in the hundred millions. There are over 300 million people in America. How exactly would a seizure of these guns go? Guns for Bicycles? Doubt it.

    How would you go about checking imports at the border, the thousands of crates and boxes and cargo with such a strain on the economy already?

    The US Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment was indeed an individual right to bear arms and not a state’s right. I believe they have suggested or ruled certain assault rifles were not a right, but with this recent ruling, how exactly, if a gun ban were to get through both chambers (if lightning strikes), do you think it would then get past the Supreme Court given this recent ruling?

    The logistics are insane. I think gun banners scream and scream about it all, but fail to think about the logistics and the sheer numbers out there, and how many illegal guns come into America each year.

15. Ed:

    Read the writings of our Founding Fathers, every single one of them discussed the inevitable corruption that occurs in any government, they all discussed the need of free peoples to be able to defend themself from a corrupt and oppressive government. The federalist papers would be a good start, as would the letters George Washington wrote to the men at the Constitutional Convention. In their own words, they all said that the people need to be as well armed as their government as a last line of defense against that government.

    I’m well read on more than just gun control, I take an active interest in the issues facing the country. Gun control happens to be a hot issue and as a supporter of the 2nd Amendment its one I put extra effort into. As far as the rate of incarcerations, look at some of the things we incarcerate people for as compared to other countries. You won’t find people in jail for child support or parking tickets in europe. Disorderly conduct/public disturbance gets a fine and community service in england but it can result in jail time here. I have yet to ever see any stats comparing incarceration rates that doesn’t exclude those crimes we incarcerate for that other countries don’t, we’re putting our apples up next to their oranges.

    The assault weapon ban did limit magazine capacities for all magazine fed firearms, not just rifles. It didn’t work, it takes only a second or two to change a magazine and that can be done while changing the firearms point of aim. I do agree that a change needs to be made, but adding more laws isn’t going to fix the problem. The article I linked has some interesting stats in it, such >>only 15 percent of all Americans have criminal records, yet more than 90 percent of murder suspects have a history of crime. Their criminal careers average six or more years’ length, including four major adult felonies, in addition to their often extensive juvenile records.<< Felons are prohibited from having firearms or ammunition, we already have laws banning the posession of even a single round of .22 caliber ammo yet it doesn't stop them from getting it. A law saying nobody can buy this type of gun, or a magazine that holds more than this many rounds is doomed to fail before its ever written. We incarcerate people for unpaid parking tickets and don’t let them out early, but we do let armed robbers out early. We lock up people who have unpaid child support and make them serve their full sentence, but we let rapists go after serving only a third of theirs. That’s the first thing we need to fix, stop incarcerating people for trivial stuff and keep those who’ve committed real crimes behind bars. Our incarceration rate would drop dramatically and the streets would be safer for everyone. Banning guns, wheter its one type, ones with certain features, or all of them won’t stop crime. England is a perfect example. In 1994 their Parliment convinced the people that because they had the lowest general crime rate, violent crime rate, and gun related crime rate in the world there was no need for anyone to own guns and successfully banned ownership of them. Every year since then their general, violent, and gun related crime rates have climbed and as of 2001 you’re just as likely to be the victim of a violent crime, and more likely to be the victim of a gun related crime in england than you are in the US. The AWB had the same result on crimes involving the banned guns here. Bans simply don’t work. According to the FBI, over 73% of homocides involving guns are committed by males age 16-24 against other males age 16-24 and are related to either involvment in a gang or drugs. Also according to the FBI, over 87% of homocides involving a gun were committed with a handgun. Gun related violence is a symptom, not the cause. Why aren’t our legislators working to fix the cause? Why aren’t there more special interest/lobbyist organizations trying to combat the cause? The answer to that is simple, when someone gets killed its easier to blame the gun than to actually deal with the real problem. Blame the gun, ban the gun, and everyone says “I’m so glad those guns are off the street” without anyone ever looking at the person that pulled the trigger. This shooting is a perfect example. Who cares that he was kicked out of USMC basic for assaulting his superior officer. Who cares that he was active in the white supremecist community. Who cares that he slept with body armor on every night. Who cares that he was conviced there was a global jewish conspiracy running the government. Who cares that he obviously had serious psychological issues that weren’t being treated. All that matters is the gun. When its gang members shooting each other its the same thing. Drug dealers, same thing. Repeat offese felons, again its all about the gun. The gun isn’t the problem, the man that pulled the trigger is, but as a society we demonize the object and ignore the perpetrator. Its long past time for that to stop.

16. LE:

    Unless charges were filed and he was found guilty of a prohibiting offense the domestic calls would have no bearing on his legal ability to purchase firearms. As for the marines, he was kicked out in basic so he would have been given an Entry Level Separation (with prejudice) which doesn’t prohibit anyone from purchasing firearms.

    Read my responses to find the origin of the term “assault rifle.” Theres no difference between a semi-auto .308 hunting rifle and a semi-auto 7.62x39mm AK-47 other than the shape of the stock and that is something that anyone who knows how to use a screwdriver can change in 5 minutes.

    The Supreme Courts ruling re:individual right didn’t include any comments about any kind of rifle, only handguns as the matter before them was the constitutionality of a handgun ban.

17. A good watch for anyone that wants to actually see a side by side comparison on semi-auto rifles done by a police officer (Officer Leroy Pyle, San Jose, CA.). He uses the political term “assault rifle” and breaks several safety rules, but its still a good watch. The military term for a full auto rifle is Main Battle Rifle.

    At 5:22 he does a side by side on the semi auto AK and the hunting rifle, he follows that by changing the stock on a rifle, adding a bipod, and a higher capacity magazine in less than 2 minutes using only a screwdriver.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30

18. I don’t know, mj, my first reaction is “irony”, and my second is God help us all.

Comments are closed.