Sen. Diane Feinstein to Introduce Gun Control Bill

[Sistrin]

Name one good reason why I need to own a Bushmaster .223 Assault Rifle in order to defend myself.

When the police are called to respond to a crime in progress how long does it take on average for them to arrive?

Technically semi-automatic rifles are not assault weapons. The term original applied to rifles capable of fully automatic fire but was expanded for political reasons.

All guns are assault weapons. The term assault weapon was one generated for political reasons, one being it can easily be expanded to include all weapons.

I'm especially loving the talk now that we need to have armed kindergarten teachers. That's brilliant.

We don't. Teachers are teachers, not police or military. What we need is someone in the school trained in the use weapons and licensed to carry them. As in the county where I teach, where an armed Sherriff's department deputy is on duty during the school day.

You want to tell me exactly why you need a clip with more than ten rounds in it?

A guy with ten 20 round clips or a guy with 20 ten round clips. It takes on average from 5 to 9 seconds to change a clip, depending on circumstances. The capacity of the magazine isn't much of a deterrent to some psychopath intent on killing.

But hey it isn't the psychopath's fault, right? The gun did it............

 

[stamperben]

Y'know, a line I just read from the owner of the Daily Kos who spent three years in the Army, and he pretty well summed it up for me. In writing about the upcoming debate that MUST take place he said "Learn how to freaking aim." Freaking wasn't the actual word he used, so I won't put up a link.

hey! Just think of the savings you'll get on ammunition and the taxes you'll be starving the government of.

 

[JCSr]

Ran and hid? 2 things:
#1 this obliterates the "wild west scenario" the left is constantly espousing will happen.
#2 had the gunman turned toward this man and his friends I have little doubt he'd have pulled the trigger. Even the small caption (which appears to be as far as you got) said that the civilian had the gunman in his sights and didn't fire because he feared hitting a bystander. What part of that says ran and hid?

You have no idea how far I got. I got to the CCW's own story on television

Meli took cover inside a nearby store.

That is running and hiding.

There we have a perfect example of a CCW on the scene with sights on the target, and still no shooter was taken down. This only hurts the fairy story which gun advocates espouse - that if only there was a civilian with a gun at the scene.

Oregon Mall Shooting Stopped By Licensed Gun Carrier | _

 

[MachZer0]

Technically they are both obvious strawmen.

The point is one side blames lack of gun control, which I don't think is true.

And one side thinks this is all happening because God is throwing a hissy fit about there not being mandatory prayer in public school.

It's all lunacy.

Just fr the record, God does not throw hissy fits

 

[BleedingHeart]

Just fr the record, God does not throw hissy fits

This isn't apologetics, so I'll leave this alone.

 

[Quincunx]

You do realize mass shootings are going down, right?

Criminologist says mass shootings show no pattern or increase - Tampa Bay Times

How can a system that shows no patterns be "going down"?

But I guess it's not a problem then, eh? Is that why no gun advocate on here will provide an answer as to what needs to be done?

Is the answer then: "nothing". We don't need to do anything to address this.

Is that what we are supposed to learn from this? Nothing?

OK.

Fair enough. I guess. That's the new normal in America. We can't learn so why even try.

 

[mpok1519]

In which case you are being overly selective with the statistics... Gun violence could be going down, but knife related violence could be increasing at the rate gun violence is decreasing.

How many mass stabbings have occurred here in the USA this past year that would warrant legislation?

 

[GarfieldJL]

How many mass stabbings have occurred here in the USA this past year that would warrant legislation?

You mean that happened in the US or just the number the media bothered to report?

 

[Eric Hibbert]

Gun control is not about making political capital out of a tragedy. It is about instituting greater protection for everyone, including children in school.

So, we need the federal government to "protect" us by taking away our liberties and undermining state sovereignty?

As I have said elsewhere, protecting the constitution does not rank higher than protecting little children and their teachers from being murdered in a classroom.

Actually, it does. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government giving the responsibility of protecting people, particularly not at the expense of taking their liberties away.

Something certainly has to be done

What's wrong with enforcing the laws we already have?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I realize that a lot of my liberal friends would choose acquiescence. As for me, I'll choose to fight for my freedom

Freedom to do what? You still haven't answered my question regarding what this imagined brutal government crackdown would even be about.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

They seem to believe that all methods are equal. "If he didn't have access to a gun, he would have found some other way." Yes, and perhaps he would have been less successful with that method. Guns rights advocates simply don't get it. It's the scale of destruction.

 

[QuiltAngel]

The man at the mall in Portland did not run and hide. Yes, he positioned himself behind something, but that is what you are taught to do when a shooting like this occurs. Position yourself in a place where you have cover, but yet are able to make the shot.

He stated that when the shooter saw his gun, he went off and then killed himself.

 

[MachZer0]

Freedom to do what? You still haven't answered my question regarding what this imagined brutal government crackdown would even be about.

It would be about power and control

 

[Glas Ridire]

There we have a perfect example of a CCW on the scene with sights on the target, and still no shooter was taken down. This only hurts the fairy story which gun advocates espouse - that if only there was a civilian with a gun at the scene.

The shooter stopped, retreated to a stairwell and took his life without threatening anybody else.

What do you think the objective is? We don't get to take their heads to the taxidermist like they were deer. The BEST case scenario is when we can stop an incident without firing a shot.

I frequently mention a story from my own life involving a gang rape I heard outside my home some years ago. I went out and gave the thugs a choice & they opted not to get shot. We don't shoot to kill, draw to kill, killing isn't the objective. Stopping the threat is the objective. In this case, just like my own situation, the threat was stopped without firing a shot & sane people recognize that is the ideal ending to such an event. It is regarded as unfortunate when we actually have to pull the trigger. You just got mixed up about what the goal of CCW is, but that is to be expected as I sense you don't have one & haven't any training of that nature.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It would be about power and control

Of what?

 

[utdbear]

I say let's talk about it. We can start with gun free zones, and how they were ineffective against this lunatic. Then we can go to Aurora and see that no guns were permitted there by law abiding citizens. Then, we can go to Columbine, and re-visit those pesky gun free zones again. In fact we can visit every public shooting since 1950(save Gabrielle Giffords shooting) where more than three people died, and see that citizens who were not crazy were not allowed to carry firearms to protect themselves.

Then, we can take a trip to fantasy land with Ms. Feinstein and she can tell us how this new law is really going to be the one that does it for us, especially considering its the exact same load of bull as the last 'assault weapons' bill that was put in place.

I'm more than willing to have this conversation, but libs are going to have to use their ears too and not just their mouths, which is going to be tough because that's never happened before.

 

[stamperben]

Y'all just can't even stand the idea of a discussion on the problem that just caused the deaths of 20 six and seven year olds.

That's sad.

 

[Glas Ridire]

Y'all just can't even stand the idea of a discussion on the problem that just caused the deaths of 20 six and seven year olds.

That's sad.

Of course we can talk about it. We should start with some logical ground rules . . .. like:

no knee jerk legislation.

no bans on things that aren't related in any way to any massacre to date (bayonet lugs, barrel shrouds, folding stocks, magazine size, you know the list)

no involuted tax schemes designed to price weapons such that only drug dealers and govt can afford them (1934 NFA)

Of course not an exhaustive list, but we should set some ground rules for an intelligent discourse on this topic.

 

[Eric Hibbert]

Y'all just can't even stand the idea of a discussion on the problem that just caused the deaths of 20 six and seven year olds.

That's sad.

No, we want to talk about the problem. We just disagree on what the problem is.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's not assumed.

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

Gun control does work.

Nice try...That's cherry picking...why don't people ever look at the full picture?

I know why, because it looks like this:

It's kind of hard to back up your position when the data looks like a random scatter plot isn't it?

Rather than looking at all of the data and admitting there is no pattern, it seems to be more convenient to look at 1 or 2 countries to prove your point, and throw out the rest of the data.