Sen. Diane Feinstein to Introduce Gun Control Bill

[Glas Ridire]

Good. And I would venture to guess the citizen didn't need a twenty round magazine or semi-automatic weapon to achieve the desired effect.

He had a semi-automatic weapon. . . . the difference between 17 rounds and 20 is what? 3, yes but what was your point?

 

[Rion]

There's no one solution to the problem of gun violence in America. Part of it is gun access, part of it is attitudes, mental health services, social services, poverty, drug laws, media response.. the list goes on. But admitting it's a complex issue, doesn't mean it can never be dealt with. It just means working on a lot of areas.

If high end guns were10% harder to get your hands on and it caused a 10% reduction in mass killings then wouldn't it be worth it? The gun lobby is extremely powerful in the US and gun attitudes are fueled by a right wing paranoia.
Obama mentions guns - Gun sales go up.
Obama doesn't mention guns - It's a trick! Gun sales go up.
School Massacre - Gun sales go up.
This is as indicitive of the attitude problem as it is of the prolifferation problem.

I don't know that the answers are for this but it's worth trying something. Other countries don't have this problem. Sadly many of the really strong gun advocates overlap with the group that can't accept that the US doesn't do everything better than everyone else.

And as an even grimmer final note, I suspect that if fascism ever comes to the US, it will be a lot of those same 2nd Amendment supporters helping the government track down and get rid of all them damn libruls and godless athiests.

When fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be with jack-boots. It will be Nike sneakers and Smiley shirts.

And no, it wouldn't be the 2nd Amendment supporters, it'll the be Progressives, just as it happened in Germany and Italy.​

 

[Rion]

Well, I do not think you have to be paranoid about it. Certainly you can see that your country will never allow any type of gun control to be passed; it is too much a part of your psyche. I LOVE that a discussion is taking place but it is pretty clear that the gun lobby is such that we would never ever ever see legislation limiting your guns.

I highlighted the important section. You have a presumption that people would normally find SOME type of gun control undesireable.

I would agree that restricting guns is not really going to solve your problem. America has a cultural problem.

We already have some gun control. Just because we do not have the level you desire us to have, doesn't mean we have none.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Protecting people cannot be done at the expense of the Constitution.

We dare not exchange or liberty for an assumed security

Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither

 

[Illuminaughty]

The only way gun prohibition would have a real noticeable effect would be to go all the way with it like some of the European countries have done. Thats not going to happen though. Instead we will get some pointless feel good legislation like the last assault weapon ban. A ban that made no noticeable impact while it was in place other than making gun enthusiasts angry. Going the gun control route is a waste of energy.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The government would be no match for millions of gun owners.

Agreed. I don't care how well our 1.3 million trained combat troops are...they wouldn't be able to hold off 10 to 1 odds.

Not to mention the number of combat troops that would probably fight on our side. If a armed revolt ever happened, it'd be silly to think that 100% of the military would remain on the side of government.

 

[mpok1519]

Protecting people cannot be done at the expense of the Constitution.

We dare not exchange or liberty for an assumed security

It's not assumed.

England had .06 murders per 100,000 in 2008 whereas the USA had 3.0.

Gun control does work.

 

[stamperben]

Now for some edumacation for you non-gun users.
In an adrenaline-pumping situation (i.e. any time you're not just shooting at a practice target), your accuracy could suffer because of the following:

• The target is likely going to be moving.
• The target might be behind another object.
• Emotional factors/adrenaline.

Also, you have to be trained to not empty a standard clip into a target when you fire. Cops are trained to stop at three. No, I'm not going to empty ten rounds into an animal or criminal, but if there are multiple threats (i.e. more than one robber, wild dog, etc.) then if I only have ten rounds, I may not have enough. If they know they simply have to wait for my ten rounds to go, in the case of human threats, that creates a disadvantage to me.



I could use my three-section staff to kill people too, but if they had a gun, I'd be all sorts of crap out of luck.

Of course we're going to insist on using it to kill people who are a threat to us or our loved ones. You have a grand-daughter, do you not? If you had to chose between shooting some thug who was threatening her or waiting for the police and hope they get there before the guy kills her, which would you chose?

In your first scenario you forget the fact that the common criminal is a COWARD and will likely run as fast as they can when your first shot rings out. This exemplified in the school when the low life took his own life rather than wait to be confronted by the police.

In the second scenario it's not as easy a choice as you seem to make it. Is she held hostage? Or is someone at my doorway trying to break in to threaten her? That's why I DO have a shotgun. Point and fire, no exact aiming needed. Pellets ripping through a door will defuse most situations like that. No need for 17 rounds in a clip. Now if she's being held hostage then yes, I wait for the trained sniper to gain her freedom. And I'd advise you the same thing in that situation.

Life isn't easy. Taking a life isn't either.

 

[Quincunx]

The government is changing and there are no guarantees that it won't move to brutalize the citizenry.

So the fact that there isn't any evidence that the government won't brutalize the citizens is a sign we need more guns to defend us from this possible non-scenario's failure to happen? OOOooookay.

Moreover, healthcare laws demonstrate the government's willingness to exert power and control over our lives. When the day comes, some people will be prepared to defend their freedom, others will be prepared to acquiesce.

So ensuring that more Americans have access to healthcare is a sign that we need to get more guns to protect ourselves from the government?

Ooooooookkkkkaaaaaaayyyy.....

(Backing away slowly....slowly)

 

[Glas Ridire]

T
This is as indicitive of the attitude problem as it is of the prolifferation problem.

I have been waiting for this day! Correlation does not equal causation! Bwahahahahhaaha! There, I said it.

 

[Quincunx]

Thing is, the guy could have waited until the kids were leaving the school and just as easily had used his mom's car to run down as many kids as possible as they were walking to the school bus, should we ban cars now?

But he didn't. In fact there are vanishingly few cases where someone sets out to murder tens of people by running them over in a car. But we now have case after case after case where guns were used. Guns also work at distances, cars not so much.

So, again, what's the answer? No more "excuses" as to how this or that could have been, what's the answer?

He could have gone on a rampage with a chainsaw,

Again, rather different from guns, and again, almost no cases of this happening (because it would be harder than killing lots of people with a gun.)

What's the answer?

He could have gone on a rampage with a sword or a knife

Unlikely he would have been able to kill as many as quickly, so again, different. And, of course, that isn't what usually happens in these spree killings now, is it?

So what's the answer?

, should we ban those (heck there was a guy in China whom stabbed/slashed 20 kids (thankfully the it seems guy didn't know much about anatomy cause nobody got killed, but it could have easily resulted in a similar body count)).

And you don't have to know much of anything about anatomy to make an efficient killing with a gun.

What's the answer?

If you want to see a shining example of gun bans, maybe you should look at Chicago, because it shows just how stupid gun bans are.

So is that the answer? MORE GUNS? Just commit to an answer! Maybe people can try it out.

But we need an answer.

I know of several people whom are Autistic/Aspergers whom own firearms and none of them would even contemplate going on a shooting spree in a school, let alone actually going on a shooting spree in a school...

Indeed! So we can't really use mental illness factors as indicative of gun violence.

But guns are 100% present in all cases of gun-violence.

If only there was some way to ensure that gun violence was less common. Maybe it's more guns?

What's the answer?

 

[GarfieldJL]

It's not assumed.

England had .06 murders per 100,000 in 2008 whereas the USA had 3.0.

Gun control does work.

Are you talking actual murders or just murders with firearms, cause that number you are giving for England sounds pretty low, which it was if you look at the numbers...

The murder rate in England and Wales is the lowest it has been for 20 years, according to annual crime figures released today.
There were 136 fewer homicides – including murder, manslaughter and child killings - in 2008/9 compared to a year earlier, a fall of 17 per cent.

Murder rate hits 20-year low - Crime - UK - The Independent

Also I'm not sure England is actually reporting all the crimes that are occurring....

I plan to put a much fuller version of this scandal on my blog in the next few days, drawn from the jaw-dropping report by the Magistrates’ Association which should by now have been on every newspaper front page in the country.

When you read – as you often do – that ‘crime is falling’, you must understand what this really means. It means that large numbers of wicked acts are no longer considered as crimes by the authorities. If we had the standards of 60 years ago, half the young people in the country would be locked up.

If the police and courts of that era had judged crime by our standards, their prisons would have been empty.

It is not crime that has fallen, it is partly our own moral standard, our expectation of good, considerate, honest behaviour from our neighbours that has fallen.

But it is also that the police and the Government, seeking a quiet life, have found it easier and cheaper to ignore wrongdoing until it gets out of control.
Like all appeasement of evil, this policy invites a reckoning in the future.

PETER HITCHENS: Crime ISN'T falling, it's just that we've given up trying to combat it | Mail Online

 

[Rion]

In your first scenario you forget the fact that the common criminal is a COWARD and will likely run as fast as they can when your first shot rings out. This exemplified in the school when the low life took his own life rather than wait to be confronted by the police.

While criminals will off themselves to avoid being taken by the police, that's generally not the first option. If people have broken into a house to rob it, and you see their faces, that cowardice that drives them to off themselves could drive them to murder you so that you can't tell the cops what they look like.

In the second scenario it's not as easy a choice as you seem to make it. Is she held hostage? Or is someone at my doorway trying to break in to threaten her? That's why I DO have a shotgun. Point and fire, no exact aiming needed. Pellets ripping through a door will defuse most situations like that. No need for 17 rounds in a clip. Now if she's being held hostage then yes, I wait for the trained sniper to gain her freedom. And I'd advise you the same thing in that situation.

...a shotgun? So, if a man was going towards your grand daughter you'd use a shotgun?

Or is it another case where you'd wait for a police sniper? Because every city has it's own sniper division, right? Yet, as Panzer always reminds us via sig:

But there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.
-Bowers v. DeVito

Life isn't easy. Taking a life isn't either.

So the people in my life who have actually had to do it have told me. Then again, they've also never said it shouldn't be done in self defense of yourself or your loved one either.

 

[Rion]

So the fact that there isn't any evidence that the government won't brutalize the citizens is a sign we need more guns to defend us from this possible non-scenario's failure to happen? OOOooookay.



So ensuring that more Americans have access to healthcare is a sign that we need to get more guns to protect ourselves from the government?

Ooooooookkkkkaaaaaaayyyy.....

(Backing away slowly....slowly)

That wasn't what the bill did. It simply made it a legal requirement that you have insurance.

 

[Quincunx]

That wasn't what the bill did. It simply made it a legal requirement that you have insurance.

Not to quibble but:

1. It moderated many of the more onerous insurance practices like lifetime caps and pre-existing conditions

2. And you can't do that sort of thing and keep the insurance companies in the loop without a mandate. That's kind of how the market works. Otherwise the market would have grown bloated with higher and higher risk and the insurance companies would have ultimately dropped out destroying the market overall.

(Just an fyi... even the conservatives at Heritage Foundation who came up with the mandate understood this simple, simple fact.)

 

[MachZer0]

Guns were easier and more effective than all the other scenarios you posted. He could have lined them all up and strangled each one, but he didn't....he used an assault weapon.

Guns are the problem.

Assault weapons are illegal in Connecticut

 

[Rion]

Not to quibble but:

1. It moderated many of the more onerous insurance practices like lifetime caps and pre-existing conditions

2. And you can't do that sort of thing and keep the insurance companies in the loop without a mandate. That's kind of how the market works. Otherwise the market would have grown bloated with higher and higher risk and the insurance companies would have ultimately dropped out destroying the market overall.

Actually, you could, but then I don't think all pre-existing condition rules are onerous. I think the market would keep it going better than this set up the progressives have saddled us with will.

(Just an fyi... even the conservatives at Heritage Foundation who came up with the mandate understood this simple, simple fact.)

Leftists keep repeating that like we should suddenly jump on board with something because a conservative group came up with it. We don't care who came up with it. We base our beliefs on our ideals, not on who came up with something.

Anyhow, it's not the thread topic, and we have plenty of threads on the subject. Reply if you want, but I'm done discussing that here. I'm not being snooty, btw, just saying you can have the last word but don't expect a response.

 

[JCSr]

Assault weapons are illegal in Connecticut

Sorry, you must have missed my point. I was not discussing the legality of assault weapons.

 

[Glas Ridire]

Sorry, you must have missed my point. I was not discussing the legality of assault weapons.

Ah, but you were incorrectly stating that an assault weapon was used.

But hey, if you keep saying a cat is a dog, because they are both mammals it will change species won't it?

 

[Cjwinnit]

You mean the same government that currently controls the largest military force on the planet?

I think that was the reasoning in 1776.