Philly dot com
After years of writing about gun issues, I developed a plan to reduce the risk of gun violence. Neither side will love it all.
* Mandatory instant background check for everyone, for every gun sold.
* One gun purchase a month. This is aimed at slowing the multiple straw purchaser.
* Increase prison time to 10 years for straw purchasers (who buy a gun to pass along to someone who can't pass a background check).
* Lost or stolen guns must be reported, to thwart straw purchasers who may claim the guns they sold illegally were lost or stolen.
* No "assault weapon" ban. It was tried for a decade to little effect, and the Washington Navy Yard maniac used a shotgun. In 2011, the FBI reports, shotgun homicides (356) outnumbered rifle homicides (323). Both were dwarfed by handguns (6,220), the biggest problem.
* Make carrying a gun in a crime a federal offense, 10-year mandatory, added to the sentence for the original crime.
* No clips with more than 15 rounds. If you can't hit a target with 15 chances, you shouldn't be packing. (Limiting ammo negates a "need" to ban "assault rifles.")
* States must report people with mental illnesses to a federal database, as they are required to do. Most lag behind.
* Hollywood should reduce violence - in films, recordings, video games.
* No more "gun-free" zones. They don't stop gunmen; they provide defenseless targets.
Will my plan end all gun crime? Of course not. Will it stop some? You make that call.
" No "assault weapon" ban. It was tried for a decade to little effect" They didn't care before when this was brought up. The stock answer of "it just needs more time" gets used. I'm thinking that the sunset clause such as was used on the AWB should be tacked onto all laws the first time around.
ReplyDelete* No clips with more than 15 rounds. If you can't hit a target with 15 chances, you shouldn't be packing. Can we apply the same logic to Law Enforcement also? In all seriousness, running out sucks just as badly for citizens as for police.
"* States must report people with mental illnesses to a federal database, as they are required to do." Are we talking better data transfer of adjucated mentally ill? Or are we talking up side-stepping the whole due process thing? Yes to the first, no to the second.
"* No more "gun-free" zones. They don't stop gunmen; they provide defenseless targets." Are we talking, dare I say, constitutional carry? Likely not. Believe it or not, I'm against this because it would involve removing people's property rights. Private entities get to control their stuff because its just as much theirs as my home is mine. Government property is a different matter though. I helped pay for it, so its at least partially mine.
That's bullshit, ss. The AWB was extremely effective. What you do is cherry pick surveys and reports that say otherwise. Our position isn't that it needs more time, it's that it was extremely effective and things like mass shootings worsened afterwards.
DeleteSo your contention is that selling an AWB compliant AR-15 with the bayonet lug removed was not a "loophole"- and that bayonet lugs were directly responsible for deaths in mass shootings?
DeleteI don't think anyone ever singled out the bayonet lug as a particularly dangerous element of the rifle. It was one item on a fairly long list of "cosmetic features" which would identify the weapons in question.
DeleteOnly you singled it out in order to make the whole thing sound ridiculous. That's spinning the argument beyond what's true and right.
People in your camp told us that manufactures took advantage of "loopholes" by making the same gun without bayonet lugs. You're telling us that the removal of these lugs was extremely effective. You've also complained about the same loopholes, have stated "we have never tried gun control in this country" before, and have complained that allowing a period of time before a ban goes into effect allows buyers to stock up- defeating the purpose (which the 1994 ban allowed). So I'm confused regarding your position on the effectiveness of AWBs
DeleteNo one ever spoke about the bayonet lugs in and of themselves. They were always a part of a list of features. Only you single them out for the reason I said. You're a trickster who's trying to ridicule an entire argument by picking out one minor part of it and focusing on it.
DeleteMikeb, listing bayonet lugs as a feature that makes a rifle worthy of being banned just shows the desperation of gun control freaks to remove as many guns as possible from the public. Since a bayonet lug or a forward grip or a flash suppressor doesn't make the gun any more dangerous in terms of shooting, why even list those features?
DeleteThe answer is that you aren't willing to admit the truth, namely that you want to ban all semiautomatic firearms.
No "assault weapons" ban and no gun-free zones are good ideas. Everything else is just a rehash of failed ideas. Let's note that he's also going after the First Amendment, though he seems willing to make it only a polite suggestion.
ReplyDeleteYou should be in jail. You promote death and law breaking. Would not expect less from a lying fuck head hillbilly, traitor to America.
DeleteWhat a well reasoned response Jim.
DeleteIt is, thank you. Given this lying fuck head hillbilly supports breaking the law and celebrating death
DeleteSimilar behaviour is exhibited by all members of western society.
DeleteIf you pitiful commoners where not afflicted with such porcine gluttony that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was compelled to feed you rabble through an magnanimous act of generosity compelled by the teachings of Juche, it might seem better for Jim to stick around and continue to enlighten the savages.
As an intelligent person such as Jim would wish to escape northbound to freedom the walls of the 38th parallel and enter the only truly free society, free from the western decadence polluting our precious bodily fluids with the solitary curse of onanism, which festers in such depravity as violence, lawlessness, murder, and -horror of horrors- insubordination to your rightful proletarian masters. Sane people like him wish to free themselves from the shackles of such depraved notions as "individual liberty" or "freedom of expression".
We shall inevitably emerge victorious. Your people will soon cast off their chains and take their place among the armies of the Great Successor.
Thus spoke space cockroach the third.
DeleteThat's a great response coming from a lying fuck head hillbilly.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry, forgot the cite.
Delete"That's bullshit, ss. The AWB was extremely effective. What you do is cherry pick surveys and reports that say otherwise."
Mike, I just took that part right from the article. Why is it ok for the author of the article you posted and if you think I said it, its BS? But just for fun lets look closer.
"The Task Force on Community Preventive Services, an independent, non-federal task force, examined an assortment of firearms laws, including the AWB, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence." [12] A 2004 critical review of firearms research by a National Research Council committee said that an academic study of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes." The committee noted that the study's authors said the guns were used criminally with relative rarity before the ban and that its maximum potential effect on gun violence outcomes would be very small.[13]
In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.[14] That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders. However, they concluded that it was "premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun crime," and argue that if the ban had been in effect for more than nine years, benefits might have begun to appear."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
Later on, it includes that the only people that seemed to find the ban effective was, wait for it, The Brady Campaign and Senator Feinstein.
Your contention that mass shootings went up after the ban was allowed to die cant be proven as one causing the other, which is common when talking about gun control issues.
"What we found in these studies was that the ban had mixed effects in reducing crimes with the banned weaponry due to various exemptions that were written into the law. And as a result, the ban did not appear to effect gun violence during the time it was in effect. But there is some evidence to suggest that it may have modestly reduced shootings had it been in effect for a longer period."
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/
And while not necessarily proof, we can throw in the right in the middle of the ban, we had Columbine.
You can "throw" Columbine right in the middle of the ban, but then, to be honest about it, you'd have to show how the number and frequency of mass shootings accelerated and worsened after the ban ended.
DeleteMikeb, we've discussed this before. The idea that mass shootings have "accelerated and worsened" is your side's lie.
DeleteNo, that is fact, you lying fuck head hillbilly idiot. Can you read hillbilly? Read the facts instead of listening to your lying fuck head hillbilly buddy Ted Nugent.
Delete