Automatic Weapons
 

I am not against guns, I own 2 shot guns. I am against automatic wepons ! We need to call them what they are, "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION" and ban them! :rant-rave:

If GM built a car whose SOLE purpose was to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, it should be banned.

there were 32,000 auto related fatalities last year, yes let's go back to horse and buggy days

........

To own Automatic weapons you must have a class 3 Federal Firearms license.

................

.............

This is my first ever post on TOTV. I have been a regular reader since the first time I visited TV a couple of years ago. May I recommend that that you read the book called More Guns, Less Crime? It is written by an economist named John Lott. It is based on years of research of gun related statistics plus interviews.. You will be shocked at what the statistics and evidence shows.

There are some recent interviews with John Lott on various news shows.

Maryland Mall Evacuated & Locked Down
 

Maryland Mall Evacuated & Locked Down After Sneaker Fight « CBS Baltimore


It looks like we may have to ban Air Jordans next.
It's only a matter of time before someone gets hurt.

John Lott, really. You can't be serious. LOL Please spare me.


:loco:

The info is out there. Some will do their homework, look at evidence, and become informed. Others will choose to ignore the evidence.

One person's "evidence" is another person's junk science. Comparing weapons of war with gasoline and sandals and spouting bromides such as "guns don't kill people, people kill people", and the old standby, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns", does nothing to critically evaluate the problem and seek common sense solutions. This thread has fallen off the tracks and is no longer of value IMO. I'm out..

Logic and compassion defies most.

So, I'm hearing when things don't go your way " you are out"!
Did it occur to you my "bromides" might be correct?

Gracie is right, no solution here so no need to argue! I'm out!:wave:

There was another mass shooting attempt last week in a mall in Portland. After two innocent people were shot, a citizen with a concealed carry permit pulled his gun. He didn't shoot the assailant because he didn't have a clear shot and others were near the line of fire. The assailant saw him. His next shot took his own life. This was not on the mass media for some strange reason.

A similar event happened in a Salt Lake City mall except an off duty police officer shot the assailant (who had enough ammo to kill lots of people).

The gunman in CT also killed himself when the police got close.

The gunman in Aurora drove past theaters (that were also showing the Batman movie) that weren't gun free zones to a theater that was a gun free zone. Statistically, in the other theaters, between 2 and 4 people would have had guns.

We can't know exactly will happen in all situations but we can look at the commonalities and make smart decisions.

The fabric of our society has changed dramatically. I think if any meaningful dialog is to take place about this and many other "tragic" recent events, we have to address the very core of our current beliefs.
All of us "mature" adults remember the good-ole-days.
1. Respect for ourselves and others. We would address others by Mr. Smith etc.
We would dress properly: no pj's in the mall etc.
Halloween is the place for black fingernails and goulish faces.
2. Schools were a place for education and teachers were respected (refer to #1)
not babysitting. Parents respected teachers and backed them up. You HAD to
go to school.
3. Marriage, family values, living small but happy.
4. Drug problems you read about in the newspaper-not in your home, family or
school.
5. Faith was an intregal part of your family life.
6. We had paper routes or babysitting for spending money. Parents didn't just "pop"
for everything we wanted.
7. Don't get mad at me but: there was a Mom in the house. Mom wasn't out working
so we had 2 cars, name-brand jeans, boat, 4-wheeler etc. Dad lived in the
home, had a job, was married to mom, we were all his children, did the outside
chores and paid us a small allowance to help with chores.
8. We had goals: Doctor, lawyer, indian chief...whatever. And our parents were
part of that discourse. What we would be in life was not left to the whims of the
school or government. Parents had a role in who we became.
9. Living was pretty safe: police had guns, nobody had too much $ so theft was
fairly rare. The worst you had to worry about was drunks but they would just beg
for your change for a bottle and most of the time the policemen would hustle
them away.
10. There were no video games. Disney was the movies you could see at the show.
You couldn't hold-hands at high school.
There are many more examples of how our lives have changed. But to discuss gun ownership, illiteracy in schools, violence, teen pregnancy, drug use, and a host of other ills, we must look to the ways our society as a whole has changed over the years and if those societal changes need to be addressed.

Mexico has strong gun control laws and , apparently, only one gun store which is run by the police. It seems that the gun control laws there take away the right of ordinary citizens to defend themselves which make it a piece of cake for the criminal, drug gangs and the like to get away with horrendous (multiple) murders.

Many ordinary citizens who realize they may have occasion to protect themselves own guns illegally.

Mexico Shows That Tight Gun Control Laws Don't Guarantee Compliance - Hit & Run : Reason.com

I have yet to hear anyone talk about a total ban on guns here in the US.

I just read an article about gun control in Japan. Apparently, ALL handguns are banned. You can get a rifle or air gun but before you do you must take a course on gun safety, be trained at a shooting range, have psychological testing and also have medical tests done. In 2008 there were 11 deaths attributed to guns and that was a huge amount for that country. If we don't ban guns what is wrong with requiring proof of the ability to handle them? The writer of this article also mentioned the fact that the constitution allowed the right to bear arms to enable citizens to protect themselves against government tyranny. He went on to say that at that time, both government soldiers and civilians had muskets. If you think having a handgun or any other weaponry is going to protect you from the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines should the government decide to turn on it's citizens...you are Crazy..and definitely should not be allowed to handle weapons of any kind!

And Canada, UK, Australia, France, Germany etc etc which are much better examples of countries with strong governments, non-corrupted police and military, first world nations, like the USA have strong gun regulations and miniscule gun murder rates. Please, if you are trying to make comparisons to other countries, picks ones most like ours for this issue at hand.

Intent On Killing Use What Is Available
 

To those who discounted guards at Columbine the fact is that upon seeing the armed guards the assliants rushed to the library where they killed themselves thus many more lives were saved.

to those who seek gun control remeber all it will do is create an underground much like Prohibtion and like illegal drugs now and to boot run by the criminal element.

Consider:

On the same day as Sandy Hook a armed man ,Min Yinjung stabbed and killed twenty elementary students in china and wounded 50 more.In 1999 a man, Sreven Abrams in California drove his car onto a playground killing two children. i could cite you more but you get the point

I said on another thread devoted to this tragedy that the underlying cause dates back to the 1960's when the news media educational intellectuals judges etc condoned people's lack of self restrained and discpline.

Its kool to be bad kids see it in all forms of the media. Jane Fonda made it kool. Lindsey Lohan made it kool, We have seen so much of it for the past 40 odd years that we think it is normal.

Gun control is the politically expedient answer because people only emote/react today they don't think and reason because that's what our educational system has taught us.

How many people living here today could go westward and open up new frontiers?

Where have all the rugged individuals gone? GG is right it won't get solved because american are too reactive too emotional today and unwilling to dialogue all because of that thing called poltical corectness.

Where do you get your information? All the reports I read said that none of the children stabbed in China died.

so much for intelligent discourse, John Lott bring more to the table and Piers Morgan.

With all due respect - there is not just one pat answer to this problem - be it pro or anti gun. someone hell-bent on harming - killing - someone or many will find a way.

[QUOTE=senior citizen;598069]A merchant has to protect themselves. No one else will/QUOTE]

To use part of your quote above, this is very true. What happens if someone breaks into your home? Yes, of course you call the police. However, in the minutes it takes to respond a lot of damage could be inflicted. Not trying to sway anyone here - seriously!

Personally, I have been target shooting for years and have instructed many people. Quite frankly I don't know how I would react - never having been trained such as a police officer. My "gut" tells me that I would grab my handgun and react by protecting my family. If it is him or me - I certainly hope it will be him !

Said it before - there are just NO EASY ANSWERS !

Wish there were !

janmcn: My apology I errored and unfortunately it seems it is even worse. what the article stated was that Min Yingjun stabbed 22 elementary children so you are right none died. However the article when on to report that in similar assaults using knives killed 20 children and wounded 50 in china last year. (WSJ 12/19/12) so we have multiple attacks in china with knives. so apparently copy cats copy.

John Lott!?!?!??! seriously?? He was proven to be a complete fraud when he was completely unable to prove the existence of the "study" that was central to his premise of more guns = less crime.

Why is the media rehabilitating John Lott? - Salon.com

John Lott is a dangerous misguided Fool. I think he actually believes the garbage he spews; however, he is so wrong in his views on guns in America I find him pitiful and embarrassing to listen to. I base my opinion on watching him speak and reviewing the content of his website. Scary and deranged. That is my opinion and I am sticking to it.

I have read the quoted post a few times, but sorry, I still can't seem to get an accurate understanding of what you are trying to say.

Perhaps where you have lived or currently reside in the US one does not have corruption, high crime rates or have to press one for English as I do.

I grew up in New Mexico which is pretty darn crime ridden and corrupt. Being a border state and over 44% Hispanic it has a culture in many ways not much unlike that of Mexico. I now live in Southern California which is 37% Hispanic and has a huge number of people from Mexico. I have spent time in Arizona. My brother lived for many years in Key Biscayne in a very expensive oceanside high rise condominium. When we ate dinner in the restaurant at the complex we were almost always the only people speaking English and I observed several tables with body guards present. These areas of the United States are heavily influenced by the lifestyles, values and mores immigrants from Mexico and other Latin American countries bring with them. Ever notice the bars over the windows in many of the homes in Southwestern cities?

I have spent time in various parts of Canada, the UK, NZ, Germany and Scandinavia. They do feel somewhat like our Northeast and Midwest culturally so perhaps that is whereof you write. Actually France reminds me of Mexico in many ways. They share Napoleonic Code backgrounds. By the way, the French and Germans just love the Southwest US. Friends of mine in France own six shooters and even dress up as cowboys, big hat, boots, wide belt with a huge buckle, low riding holsters, and have quick draw contests in addition to more conventional shooting contests. They just love to shoot guns. I have taken a couple of them cowboy boots, quick draw holsters and such as house gifts.

I just find it interesting that the NRA has no problem suggesting all mental health patients be put on a list but refuses to consider that for NRA members. Why are NRA rights more important than people who may have a mental condition? Most of these people are non-violent, law abiding citizens. It will be interesting to see the video game lobby go up against the NRA lobby.

I believe everyone has a right to be able to defend themselves. I just don't think they need military assault type weapons to do so, nor huge ammunition clips. There was a ban in place once and the NRA survived, another ban won't hurt them. Will it guarantee no more violence? of course not, all the weapons out there will be grandfathered in. But anything that can be done to lessen the chance should be done.

Plus, everyone thinks that all people who have gun permits are always in control. At my son's school, a student in a fraternity was showing off his assault type weapon and "didn't realize" it was loaded and killed his girlfriends sister. He had been drinking and using drugs. He's now serving a long sentence for manslaughter. He owned the gun legally and he's not "mentally ill". You can't stop stupid.

When I was in college one of my fraternity brothers, a licensed driver, was taking a carload of sorority girls home in his car after heavily drinking at a party. He drove the car off a bridge! He was not mentally ill either, but indeed, you cannot stop stupid.

Sometimes the right question is, are we asking the right question. Abraham Lincoln.

In the discussion of teachers being armed or armed Police/Guard at our schools, the right question is will the local school board approve such an arrangement??? They will have the last say IMHO. A few might but most will not. Will Congress ban "assault weapons"??? I believe they will ban certain types of guns and the President will sign it into law in 2013. But not without much discussion and a "fight" with the NRA.

Really like your logic. Believe a Constitutional Amendment is needed though...
 

...that would very carefully define what kinds of weapons should be banned from the United States except for in the hands of serving military and those weapons should be kept on base and locked under guards and other security measures.

I did a paper for a Legal History Class at the University of Minnesota Law School (Class of 1989) of the various Minnesota appellate decisions on the Prohibition laws against liquor and every case I looked at involved a lawyer pushing another hole through the Minnesota and US Prohibition laws. It was very hard for the lawmakers to write any law that forbad liquor that some lawyer in Minnesota could not find a loophole to allow his or her client to get off of the fine and/or jail sentence. The law makers kept on revising the law while the lawyers kept on finding a new technicality to work to absolve their clients.

It is going to take some very astute lawyers to write some kind of Constituitional Amendment at the Federal and State levels to ban certain types of weapons.

I also expect that there is going to be a lot of political machinations to get any kind of meaningful ban in place.

That's scary that the NRA wants to mental health laws back to what sounds like the dark ages of human rights for those with some kind of mental illness. The stigma is bad enough now without lists of those with mental health problems showing up on the Internet. The NRA should look at how many people have been committed just in Florida. Florida's Baker Act: Involuntary Exams for Mental Health | Suite101


"Provisions of the Baker Act require reporting of statistics regarding the operation of the law. According to data collected by the Department of Mental Health Law and Policy at the University of South Florida, there were more than 70,000 involuntary examinations in 1997. By 2009, the most recent year for which statistics are available document 136,120 involuntary examinations initiated, nearly twice as many as 1997."

Read more at Suite101: Florida's Baker Act: Involuntary Exams for Mental Health | Suite101 http://suite101.com/article/floridas...#ixzz2FogOSWGo
Follow us: @suite101 on Twitter | Suite101 on Facebook

Assault Weapons ban of 1994 approved by Congress and signed by President Clinton in September 1994 had a 10 year life and expired on September 2004. Since that time a ban has been unable to make it to the House of Representives.

I post this not to defend the NRA - I post this just because:


COLUMBINE STUDENT'S FATHER 12 YEARS LATER!!

Guess our national leaders didn't expect this. On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful.
They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness. The following is a portion of the transcript:

"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good &evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.
"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.
"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent
I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage,
You've outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!

"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact.
What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws.
Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him.

To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!
My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"
- Darrell Scott

We need some kind of Federal Constitutional Amendment that empowers each state to set up bans of all sales of any kind of military or para-military weapon while also saving to the Federal Government certain kinds of duties towards removing these kind of weapons from circulation.

This should be on the Ballots of each State as well as at the Federal level so that we can work with and around whatever politicians block or support these Constitutional Amendments.

There are some states which I would guess that would probably never get through this kind of Constitutional Amendment.

Automatic weapons are already banned and have been for years. You would need a very special and expensive license to buy one. What was used was a semi-automatic weapon. On a semi-auto you must pull the trigger for each and every shot. On an auto you pull the trigger once and hold it and it will keep firing until empty. This is what the military uses and cannot be legally owned.

Do not blame the National Rifle Association and their brow-beating Congress to allow modified assault rifles such as the AR-15 to be sold as well as high-capacity magazines (twin banana clips taped back to back) - but put the blame on a ban on prayer in school?

I think not.

This happened on Thursday May 27, 1999The rest of the story can be found here;
snopes.com: Darrell Scott Testimony

From Snopes................
As transcripts of the proceedings demonstrate, Darrell Scott did make the statement attributed to him in the account reproduced above, but virtually everything framing his statement in that account is false. Mr. Scott wasn't speaking to national leaders present at a "special session of Congress," people who were "not prepared for what he was to say" and "did not receive it well." He was simply one of eight people who presented statements to a small House subcommittee meeting in an office building; his statement wasn't received differently than any of the others and didn't prompt outrage from an unreceptive audience. Moreover, unlike the other persons who testified before the Congressional subcommittee that day, Mr. Scott presented no facts or statistics relating to the issues of gun control and gun law enforcement; he merely gave his opinion that gun control laws wouldn't have stopped the Columbine High School shootings and that those shootings were somehow related to a lack of religion in schools (repeating along the way the mistaken claim that prayer has been "outlawed" in schools). Another parent who lost a child to a school-related shooting, Byrl Phillips-Taylor, testified after Darrell Scott and offered the opposite opinion: a lack of controls on the sale of assault weapons, Ms. Phillips-Taylor maintained, had led to the shooting death of her son.

Finally, contrary to the coda of the e-mailed account, the "media" did not prevent anyone from hearing Darrell Scott's words. The subcommittee hearing at which he spoke was covered by the Associated Press and reported in several big-city newspapers; in fact, due to intense media interest regarding everything related to the then-recent Columbine shootings, the event actually received much more general media coverage than a House subcommittee hearing typically would have.

This young killer spent hour after hour playing video games in his basement. Have you seen what they are like? Heads chopped off, blood spurting, etc. This gives the viewer a feeling of power and life has no meaning. He has been built up to think he is in one of those games and winning it. It was as if he was striking back at society because he had so few friends. He will use anything to accomplish his goal. Thats why he picked an elementary school, easy pickings, and not a police station. As soon as he saw signs of the swat team he killed himself. Nobody wants to research banning these games, just the one tool he used. He could have used knives, bombs, gasoline, SUV, etc.
Think back to when we were kids. None of this ever happened. Guns were just as prevalent and so were semi-auto's with the end of WWII. The most violent things we saw was cowboy and gangster movies.