Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 1122992)

I watched the POTUS speech last night in response to the campus shooting in Oregon.


He thinks that changing laws would lesson or stop this kind of awful event.


I don't.


I think only good people would comply. There are enough guns in circulation that bad people would get them and use them for their nefarious causes. AND that people who need to protect themselves could not protect themselves. If I were the person who had to carry cash to the bank for a business, I would want to have a gun. If I lived in a high crime area, I would want to have a gun.

Originally Posted by AJ32162 (Post 1124611)

Actually, I think the correct name for this legislation is, "The Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as "assault weapons," as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity."

Source: Wikapedia

Originally Posted by Don Wilson (Post 1124661)

http://rense.com/1.imagesG/newlog_o.gif
A Little Gun History Lesson
3-7-8 * In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. This doesn't include the 30 million 'Uncle Joe' starved to death in the Ukraine. * In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, leaving a populace unable to defend itself against the Gestapo and SS. Hundreds of thousands died as a result. * China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. The total dead are said to be 2-3 million * Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1-2 million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million at a bare minimum. * Gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results: Australia-wide, homicides went up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults went up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies went up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent) In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns. It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too. While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady DECREASE in armed robbery with firearms, that changed drastically upward in the first year after gun confiscation...since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late. The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson. With Guns...........We Are "Citizens". Without Them........We Are "Subjects". During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED. Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard University 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor and our Army had been deprived of funding and was ill prepared to defend the country. It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. and knew that almost all households had guns. If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all your friends. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http:/www.yahoo.com/r/hs>

Originally Posted by Cedwards38 (Post 1124594)

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was implemented by the US Congress in 1994 and expired in 2004. Several attempts were made to renew it, but each failed, therefore there is no ban. What am I missing?

For Lives and Liberty: Banning Assault Weapons in America | The Institute of Politics at Harvard University

Originally Posted by Elklake2 (Post 1124612)

Just returned from Ireland. Traveled to several cities. Morning news never had shooting report. Walked streets at night enjoying Pubs, entertainers, lots of people young and old. Safe environment, no guns, breath of fresh air!
But USA has an organization that wants to protect the right to have assault weapons and minimal if any background checks. Sorry, but it will only get worse.

Originally Posted by Elklake2 (Post 1124612)

Just returned from Ireland. Traveled to several cities. Morning news never had shooting report. Walked streets at night enjoying Pubs, entertainers, lots of people young and old. Safe environment, no guns, breath of fresh air!

But USA has an organization that wants to protect the right to have assault weapons and minimal if any background checks. Sorry, but it will only get worse.

Originally Posted by MDLNB (Post 1124678)

It would help the debate greatly if some of you knew the difference between an assault weapon and any other weapon. If you are referring to an automatic, machine gun type weapon, then there is an existing law banning civilians from purchasing them. If you are talking about a semi-automatic weapon such as a pistol that loads a round into the chamber, one for every pull of the trigger, then you are barking up the wrong tree. You will never/NEVER remove semi-automatic weapons from Americans. I have a russian made bolt action rifle that comes with a bayonet. It fires one bullet at a time, is over a hundred years old and has a wooden stock that I can replace with a modern plastic stock if I so desire. Some would call it an assault weapon. It is a Russian military surplus weapon. I have never fired it, but originally was going to use it for deer hunting.

Liberals consider ANY weapon that is used against another to be an assault weapon. Therefore, an old fashioned revolver/six shooter would be considered an assault weapon.

In California, you can not purchase semi-automatic pistols with magazines of over 10 round capacity. Anywhere else you can purchase the standard 16 round capacity magazine. Apparently, marksman in CA are worst shots than anywhere else so mass shootings are non-existent due to restrictions on magazine capacity. What a wacko world we live in.

Originally Posted by billethkid (Post 1124583)

Excellent question for which I have a very strong opinion.
Alcohol of course has many strings attached to too many levels of politics, industrial and corporate America.
So too many in the so called right places have too much too lose, hence there is little or no actions cried for to reduce the alcohol related carnage.

We are a very hypocritical society. Another example?
We have all heard of MADD (mother's against drunk driving). Has anybody ever heard of MACD (mothers against cell phone deaths)? Of course not. What is the difference? The mothers have little invested in or not involved in the use of alcohol to a level that matters. However, cell phones, they are all addicted to and anything that threatens to take them away is not acceptable. Hence we will never ever see or hear of any action from these same mothers against the death toll caused by cell phone use while driving.
Because they are invested in the issue. A cause of death the easily equals drunk driving!!!

It is, has been and always will be about special interests groups.

Originally Posted by tuccillo (Post 1124676)

What you are missing is the implicit assumption, on the part of many people, that semi-automatic rifles, such as AR-15s, are military assault rifles. They are not. Military assault rifles, such as the M-16 and AK-47, are fully automatic and cannot be bought (with the exception of some collectors, I believe). Many guns are semi-automatic including many pistols and shotguns. Any meaningful discussion regarding firearms should start with an accurate and honest description of what is available. Trying to flame the discussions with misleading terminology is pointless as it detracts from the real issue of mental health.

Originally Posted by MDLNB (Post 1124763)

Getting back to the subject of the thread, "what if gun control laws were changed" I would like to submit this question. What if any change to the existing laws would you make that would actually make a difference in violence in America? I am really interested but will not consider banning guns as a safe alternative.

Point: The UK banned all handguns and they have more than twice the violence we have per capita. Statistics also seem to indicate that there is less crime in areas that have concealed carry laws. SO, the question still remains what would you change that would have a positive effect?

Are you going to give the gov nanny more charge over deeming who and who's not mentally stable?

How about we just quit jumping the shark every time there is an incident?

Originally Posted by billethkid (Post 1124783)

I cannot adress the changes that could affect gun violence until it is acknowledged that we have a societal problem that results in and or contributes to violence that incorporates a gun.

Without adressing the permissives we have in our society there will be no impact on the violence. Using the hypothesis no more guns in the USA with no availabilty, with no changes to the so called entertainment business that portrays rampant rape, murder, disemboweling, dismembering and general chaos regularly there will be no impact on the violence except it will be done with other than guns!

There will have to be a major change in the rules of enforcement and rules of engagement for law officers and the courts.