....A Well-Regulated Militia.....

[flip]

Not yet, all they would have to do is change the rhetoric and everything would turn right back around. Since you can just about make these rubes believe anything, you could tell them things that build up their sense of Nationalism, their sense of individuality, a sense of morality. Instead, they tell them their all just a bunch of high-functioning monkeys, not at all dis-similar to actual animals. The recent thread about the people in the elevator is a perfect example. Whatever example gets set by the crowd, most will follow suit.

[Will Robinson]

Will, how convenient of you to leave out my words,"what folks who pay attention understand"

I'm calling total bullcrap on that one slick!
I quoted you directly and completely!
You said in rebuttal of my point that uninformed voters won't see a difference between the two: "

I think most folks get the difference, Will."

You clearly implied that I was wrong, that people will make the distinction.

You went on to say:
"

Also, they get the potential for large capacity magazines in a mass killing situation, and they understand in many cases velocity of fire, nature of ammo, etc. You might be surprised what folks who pay attention understand. And, please, again, tell me who wants to confiscate anything?

At that point, in context, the reader would have no reason to think you were contradicting your self, attempting to disqualify your own previous assertion based on an unstated position you hold silently! They would infer that their "paying attention" coincides with 'their getting it'.

Only later, in separate post, to a different person, do you pull the qualifier out that you think the average person doesn't pay attention:

note that I said 'those people who pay attention' in the above. Don't let that be confused with my longstanding observation that the average citizen of the US is as dumb as a brick.

So according to your spin we should have known that when you said 'you think most people will "get it"' your real belief is most people are too dumb to pay attention, however, for the purposes of telling me I'm wrong we should accept your assertion that you think most people will pay attention...

so you voted for them to be dumb as a box of rocks before you voted for them to be smart enough to get it but you still believe they are as dumb as a box of rocks. Well played Senator.

You are so full of crap.

[woodchip]

Slick thinks he is a Jedi and waving his hand around he can use mind tricks on us. He forgets some of us are like Watto.

[Will Robinson]

My question is 'How are guns different in urban areas? I assume he doesn't mean the physical nature of the weapon is somehow different, and since the murder rates are as much as 20x higher in some of those urban areas, what is this difference he sees? And how do any of his proposals deal with those differences?

guns serve a far different purpose in urban areas, in several ways, and I think that's what he was getting at.

Guns don't serve on their own. The gun operator is making different choices if the results of using them in the urban environment is an unwanted result.

... First off, in most urban areas police coverage and response is faster, so less purpose in warding off in-home burglers and such.

If the violence is greater in the urban area I don't think the police are reducing the need for protection...."response time" indicates a reaction after the fact so no matter how quick it is it, by definition, has failed to prevent. Level of presence is obviously not enough, proven, in part, by the need for this very conversation...

... Second, there are a ton of illegally obtained weapons on the streets, and far more often guns are used in crimes as opposed to 'sporting use', than in rural areas.

If the percentage of illegally obtained items is greater then arrest the criminals please. Don't go tell Mr. and Mrs. America they can no longer have their possessions because criminals are stealing them!

... I've always said that certain magazines and certain types of ammo benefit criminals(ie gang types) far more that the average law-abiding citizen.

Well, any benefit ammo has is there to be realized equally by anyone who uses it. Armor piercing ammo is already outlawed, I guess criminals might like to have that where a sport shooter might not...unless the criminals start wearing armor. Since armor piercing ammo is already outlawed what other ammo still needs to be taken from the law abiding to prevent the criminals from using it?

And how many bullets do you think I should have to have in a magazine and based on what 'metric of need' would you justify the new regulations?

... Like I state, I'm not sure the reasoning, you might have to inquire more deeply of the people making the regs, I'm not a spokesperson.

No, you are quite outspoken however about how you think the law abiding citizens need to give up a great deal of their choices for defense and sporting uses though. And face it. Obama doesn't have the balls to answer these questions so at least we have you

[Top Gun]

That's certainly one aspect of it, but the context I was thinking of was that, at least in most states, all registered vehicles have to undergo some sort of annual inspection, which ensures that the vehicle isn't spewing out toxic levels of smog, and isn't about to fall apart while traveling at highway speeds. In order to use your vehicle on public roadways, it has to meet certain minimum standards, so that it doesn't physically become an issue for the rest of the driving public. As you point out, unfortunately it's not nearly so easy to do that for the driver...

Other than taking a test initially to get your drivers license, what other inspection of the driver is there. Last I heard there is no background check.

That was my point...the only testing the driver undergoes is for their license exam, which at least in my state is laughably simple and doesn't convey any of the real skills involved in being a good, responsible driver.

[woodchip]

Well, it seems we found something to agree on.

[woodchip]

After slicks assertions that Obama and company were going to pull out all the stops to pass gun ban legislation it further looks like his attempts will be met with failure:

"Reid told ABC on Sunday that he backed expanding background checks to private gun sales at shows and other steps, but he refused to endorse a ban on what are called assault-style rifles modeled after military weapons"

So much for the NRA not having any clout.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Slick thinks he is a Jedi and waving his hand around he can use mind tricks on us. He forgets some of us are like Watto.

Heh.

...How much like Watto?

[woodchip]

In your case...fairy wings.

[callmeslick]

After slicks assertions that Obama and company were going to pull out all the stops to pass gun ban legislation it further looks like his attempts will be met with failure:

"Reid told ABC on Sunday that he backed expanding background checks to private gun sales at shows and other steps, but he refused to endorse a ban on what are called assault-style rifles modeled after military weapons"

So much for the NRA not having any clout.

if I recall, I said the assault weapons ban would be the dicey one, but that the rest would pass, in my estimate. Seems you are confirming that assessment, via Reid.

[woodchip]

Yes you did. I'm merely showing that the crown jewel of the anti-gunners looks like it will not pass. This was what was most vociferously presented by the President on down with even you jumping on the band wagon. Even the ridiculed suggestion about armed guards at schools by the NRA now looks to be generally accepted and touted by both sides. Way too much histrionics by the left for a effective plan.

[callmeslick]

Yes you did. I'm merely showing that the crown jewel of the anti-gunners looks like it will not pass. This was what was most vociferously presented by the President on down with even you jumping on the band wagon. Even the ridiculed suggestion about armed guards at schools by the NRA now looks to be generally accepted and touted by both sides. Way too much histrionics by the left for a effective plan.

if I am supposed, as painted here, to be an 'anti-gunner', then the assault weapon ban is the last of the reforms on the legislative list I care about. What I do care about is universally mandated background checks, expanded to mental health documentation. But, that reflects my priorities only.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Just because you're pro-low-shot-count-blunderbuss doesn't mean you aren't anti-gun, Slick. If it makes you feel better to chastise woody for his generalization and clarify that you are only anti-pistol and anti-rifle, then you probably have an argument. But since these are the only firearms immediately in jeopardy at the hands of the anti-gunners, I think the distinction would only serve to help you believe you're more cultured than everyone else who needs to back the ★■◆● away from my firearms and my rights.

[callmeslick]

Thorne, you need to either get reading glasses or a grip.....I suspect the latter.

[woodchip]

Another brilliant strategic reply learned at the feet of Saul Alinsky:

RULE 13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

It would seem comrade, there is more than one on this board not buying into your flip flopping explanations.

[callmeslick]

buy yourself a mirror, Woody......'nuff said.

oh, and gawd, I love a good Alinsky reference.....it's always evidence that the debater has come up empty, when he resorts to Glenn Beck ran ts.

[woodchip]

Pot meet kettle

[Will Robinson]

Slick, you showed us something in another thread so I'll put it here and you can ignore it if you like...

... I merely questioned whether the original intent was relevant, and later wondered if it should be scrapped if people are going to continue using it for ends that lead to an unsafe society. ....

So much wrong with your logic and position is illustrated right there!

The original intent is always relevant, at least until men stop using force to control others...which means always!

To claim the 2nd is 'used for ends' that make us unsafe is ridiculous in many ways.

First, criminal intent disregards the law so the criminals and looneys will come at you armed regardless of the law. Also, the 2nd doesn't inspire or enable crime with guns, it isn't a catalyst, and without a complete, magical, ban on all guns it's implimentation is irrelevant to the problems causing you to seek changes. So you must call for complete ban or seek real solutions! If not your logic is empty. For example, lunatics are already banned from firearms yet they sometimes get them and use them. Magically take away the guns is one solution that would work. You need to find one that doesn't need magic.

Second, under the protection of the 2nd, law abiding citizens in America are able to use weapons, almost all of them defined as "assault weapons" by the newest definition, to defend against violent attacks. These are not rare occasions that don't justify the use of the 2nd to enable us to stop those violent attacks! At a minimum 120,000 times per year average, we use guns to stop a violent offender. On the average, for every 4 justifiable homicides executed by police in America, 3 more are carried out by law abiding gun owners.

Your narrow and curiously politically polarized perspective on just what the 2nd amendment provides all of us is starving for legitimate substance.

[callmeslick]

Slick, you showed us something in another thread so I'll put it here and you can ignore it if you like...

... I merely questioned whether the original intent was relevant, and later wondered if it should be scrapped if people are going to continue using it for ends that lead to an unsafe society. ....

So much wrong with your logic and position is illustrated right there!

The original intent is always relevant, at least until men stop using force to control others...which means always!

but, as I've patiently tried to state here, very competent legal minds, INCLUDING the SCOTUS, are, to this day, not clear of the intent. You are, but if you have a law degree, I'm unaware of it.

To claim the 2nd is 'used for ends' that make us unsafe is ridiculous in many ways.

First, criminal intent disregards the law so the criminals and looneys will come at you armed regardless of the law. Also, the 2nd doesn't inspire or enable crime with guns, it isn't a catalyst, and without a complete, magical, ban on all guns it's implimentation is irrelevant to the problems causing you to seek changes. So you must call for complete ban or seek real solutions! If not your logic is empty. For example, lunatics are already banned from firearms yet they sometimes get them and use them. Magically take away the guns is one solution that would work. You need to find one that doesn't need magic.

oh, I'd say the issue is around regulation of sales, background checks and much stronger requirements around securing weapons. Just the sorts of regulations that get fought by gun loons under the guise of '2nd amendment rights'. Hence, my statement quoted.....

Second, under the protection of the 2nd, law abiding citizens in America are able to use weapons, almost all of them defined as "assault weapons" by the newest definition, to defend against violent attacks. These are not rare occasions that don't justify the use of the 2nd to enable us to stop those violent attacks! At a minimum 120,000 times per year average, we use guns to stop a violent offender. On the average, for every 4 justifiable homicides executed by police in America, 3 more are carried out by law abiding gun owners.

and, for this, you need limitless firepower? Now, Woody and others are fond of me saying that all people should be allowed to own is shotguns. That is never what I said(hell, the run on shotguns would make duck hunting too pricey!). However, a simple, always-legal shotgun, WOULD cover the situations above quite nicely, as would a handgun. How many examples can you dig up wherein a high-capacity, high-velocity military style weapon has been needed, or even demonstrably even USED for self-defense?

Your narrow and curiously politically polarized perspective on just what the 2nd amendment provides all of us is starving for legitimate substance.

sadly, others might read that I've fed you plenty of 'substance', which generally gets deflected with more strawmen and bizzare 'what-if' scenarios by the likes of you,, Flip, Thorne, et al.

[Will Robinson]

Slick, you showed us something in another thread so I'll put it here and you can ignore it if you like...

... I merely questioned whether the original intent was relevant, and later wondered if it should be scrapped if people are going to continue using it for ends that lead to an unsafe society. ....

So much wrong with your logic and position is illustrated right there!

The original intent is always relevant, at least until men stop using force to control others...which means always!

but, as I've patiently tried to state here, very competent legal minds, INCLUDING the SCOTUS, are, to this day, not clear of the intent. You are, but if you have a law degree, I'm unaware of it.

I don't think any one on the Supreme Court has tried to suggest that because the federal government has an army the 2nd amendment is no longer needed! You, however, did make that suggestion. It is a ridiculous argument. You don't need a degree to figure that out!
So trying to associate your self with legal scholars who have issues with the decision of the MAJORITY of there peers doesn't really give you the credibility you seem to think it does!

To claim the 2nd is 'used for ends' that make us unsafe is ridiculous in many ways.

First, criminal intent disregards the law so the criminals and looneys will come at you armed regardless of the law. Also, the 2nd doesn't inspire or enable crime with guns, it isn't a catalyst, and without a complete, magical, ban on all guns it's implimentation is irrelevant to the problems causing you to seek changes. So you must call for complete ban or seek real solutions! If not your logic is empty. For example, lunatics are already banned from firearms yet they sometimes get them and use them. Magically take away the guns is one solution that would work. You need to find one that doesn't need magic.

oh, I'd say the issue is around regulation of sales, background checks and much stronger requirements around securing weapons. Just the sorts of regulations that get fought by gun loons under the guise of '2nd amendment rights'. Hence, my statement quoted.....

And if that was all you railed on about I wouldn't be calling you out.

Second, under the protection of the 2nd, law abiding citizens in America are able to use weapons, almost all of them defined as "assault weapons" by the newest definition, to defend against violent attacks. These are not rare occasions that don't justify the use of the 2nd to enable us to stop those violent attacks! At a minimum 120,000 times per year average, we use guns to stop a violent offender. On the average, for every 4 justifiable homicides executed by police in America, 3 more are carried out by law abiding gun owners.

and, for this, you need limitless firepower? Now, Woody and others are fond of me saying that all people should be allowed to own is shotguns. That is never what I said(hell, the run on shotguns would make duck hunting too pricey!). However, a simple, always-legal shotgun, WOULD cover the situations above quite nicely, as would a handgun. How many examples can you dig up wherein a high-capacity, high-velocity military style weapon has been needed, or even demonstrably even USED for self-defense?

I need whatever firepower I need at the time, I'd rather carry the extra home with me than die wishing I had more and because I don't believe the people who would shoot at me have any concern for your limits I find them to be dangerous and anyone who would force them on me is a fool!

Why do you think you need to limit the number of rounds in my magazine? Do you really think the shooter in Connecticut would have stopped in his tracks because he only had 10 round magazines for his weapons? You think he wouldn't have carried 2 ten rounders for every 20 rounder you stop him from having? In the zones these mass shooters operate in a reload is easy. If I face multiple, sane but motivated killers, reloading becomes a problem, especially if they aren't operating under the same restrictions!
Go take away their weapons and/or limit their capacity FIRST. Then we'll talk about mine...

Trickle down gun control won't work.

Your narrow and curiously politically polarized perspective on just what the 2nd amendment provides all of us is starving for legitimate substance.

sadly, others might read that I've fed you plenty of 'substance', which generally gets deflected with more strawmen and bizzare 'what-if' scenarios by the likes of you,, Flip, Thorne, et al.

I've gone back and looked at both of our comments and I'll use your characterization. It would be sad if anyone thought you provided adequate substance or thought I had used "strawmen and bizzare 'what-if' scenarios" type arguments because neither example is there to be found.

[callmeslick]

I don't think any one on the Supreme Court has tried to suggest that because the federal government has an army the 2nd amendment is no longer needed! You, however, did make that suggestion.

I'm no expert, and likely didn't phrase it perfectly, but that is one of the issues which make intent murky.

So trying to associate your self with legal scholars who have issues with the decision of the MAJORITY of there peers doesn't really give you the credibility you seem to think it does!

as cited several pages back, even Scalia seems to think that SUBSTANTIAL regulations are perfectly legitimate. And he does have a law degree....

I need whatever firepower I need at the time and because I don't believe the people who would shoot at me have any concern for your limits I find them to be dangerous and anyone who would force them on me is a fool!

Why do you think you need to limit the number of rounds in my magazine? Do you really think the shooter in Connecticut would have stopped in his tracks because he only had 10 round magazines for his weapons? You think he wouldn't have carried 2 ten rounders for every 20 rounder you stop him from having?

you sound like nothing less than a frightened little girl, or a truly paranoid individual....yet, I don't think you really are either one. Like I said, CITE ME ONE EXAMPLE where a semi-auto military style weapon was used for self defense by a private citizen, and even better, where one was crucial to the situation. Go ahead, I dare you. In a situation like Sandy Hook, the problem was very poor storage, and likely sale to a person housing an individual with known mental issues. What that shooter, and also the recent killing of that famed sniper in Alabama show is this: the crazed gunman almost always prevails, because they have the element of surprise on their side.

[Will Robinson]

...you sound like nothing less than a frightened little girl, or a truly paranoid individual....yet, I don't think you really are either one. Like I said, CITE ME ONE EXAMPLE where a semi-auto military style weapon was used for self defense by a private citizen, and even better, where one was crucial to the situation. Go ahead, I dare you.

Ok loudmouth: a semi-auto military style weapon was used for self defense by a private citizen

[Sergeant Thorne]

but, as I've patiently tried to state here, very competent legal minds, INCLUDING the SCOTUS, are, to this day, not clear of the intent. You are, but if you have a law degree, I'm unaware of it.

What Will said, but I just want to point out that the same could be said of the Bible. You can go around saying that a lot of people "aren't sure" of the meaning of various texts, but it isn't rocket-science, it's written language combined with an understanding of history. The problem in both cases is not that meaning of the text is unknowable, it's that it is foreign to the would-be scholar. The 2nd amendment is relatively straightforward. But just like people trying to take a legal perspective on the Bible to see just how far they can go before they are technically sinning, you have to wonder what is motivating this testing of the boundaries. The spirit of both is easily/naturally grasped unless you are at odds with it. "Shall not be infringed". So stop looking to nullify the reason for it, and in the absence of any good argument to push these boundaries (and none has been put forward), respect it for what it is at the very simplest--a guard for individual liberty. Being defenseless is unAmerican. Had we been disarmed and defenseless, there would be no America--the abuses of the crown would have continued, and who knows where it would have ended (probably with a very different people occupying this country, under the heel of the British monarchy).

It's a limit on Federal power/authority, Slickster. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

[Will Robinson]

...
as cited several pages back, even Scalia seems to think that SUBSTANTIAL regulations are perfectly legitimate. And he does have a law degree.... ...

Yes, but the restrictions he agrees with don't infringe on our rights the way some of your proposals do and and he would laugh at your questioning the need for the 2nd based on the federal government having an army!
You are blowing smoke trying to hide behind Scalia's comments.

PS: you like him here when you think you can use him as a shield but what did he say about the ACA ruling... do you like him there? do you respect his law degree there? lol!

[callmeslick]

...you sound like nothing less than a frightened little girl, or a truly paranoid individual....yet, I don't think you really are either one. Like I said, CITE ME ONE EXAMPLE where a semi-auto military style weapon was used for self defense by a private citizen, and even better, where one was crucial to the situation. Go ahead, I dare you.

Ok loudmouth: a semi-auto military style weapon was used for self defense by a private citizen

good, you found one. Now, for the second part, was it crucial to the situation? In other words, could the kid have done as well with any other weapon?

[callmeslick]

...
as cited several pages back, even Scalia seems to think that SUBSTANTIAL regulations are perfectly legitimate. And he does have a law degree.... ...

Yes, but the restrictions he agrees with don't infringe on our rights the way some of your proposals do and and he would laugh at your questioning the need for the 2nd based on the federal government having an army!
You are blowing smoke trying to hide behind Scalia's comments.

PS: you like him here when you think you can use him as a shield but what did he say about the ACA ruling... do you like him there? do you respect his law degree there? lol!

of course I respect his knowledge and education....I don't have to agree with him to respect him.

[Will Robinson]

...you sound like nothing less than a frightened little girl, or a truly paranoid individual....yet, I don't think you really are either one. Like I said, CITE ME ONE EXAMPLE where a semi-auto military style weapon was used for self defense by a private citizen, and even better, where one was crucial to the situation. Go ahead, I dare you.

Ok loudmouth: a semi-auto military style weapon was used for self defense by a private citizen

good, you found one. Now, for the second part, was it crucial to the situation? In other words, could the kid have done as well with any other weapon?

I don't know, hitting a target with an AR-15, or similar weapon, is substantially easier than most other weapons so it probably played a big role in his success. But what the heck, lets roll back time and keep reducing his chances to prevail until he and his sister are dead and then we'll have an answer!

You are a real piece of work.

[Will Robinson]

...
as cited several pages back, even Scalia seems to think that SUBSTANTIAL regulations are perfectly legitimate. And he does have a law degree.... ...

Yes, but the restrictions he agrees with don't infringe on our rights the way some of your proposals do and and he would laugh at your questioning the need for the 2nd based on the federal government having an army!
You are blowing smoke trying to hide behind Scalia's comments.

PS: you like him here when you think you can use him as a shield but what did he say about the ACA ruling... do you like him there? do you respect his law degree there? lol!

of course I respect his knowledge and education....I don't have to agree with him to respect him.

and you don't have to hold him up as an expert that shares your opinion as if you and he are on the same page when clearly, on both issues, you are not. But of course you will.

[CobGobbler]

So then we're good with the mass casualty events because every so often someone saves a life with the same rifle? Nice to know.

I'm sure the parents of the kids and the people in that theater are happy to know that at least someone somewhere else was saved by that weapon. I'm sure they feel better about it now.

How many kids died in sandy hook? 20? Find me 20 stories where someone was saved with that rifle then. Then find me however many more with the theater shooting.

[Krom]

It might be a case of something like that happens often enough that it doesn't make the news anymore.

[Sergeant Thorne]

So then we're good with the mass casualty events because every so often someone saves a life with the same rifle? Nice to know.

Slow down there, Pierce Morgan. Let's try to state that a little more fairly. Let me take a crack at it...

So we're O.K. with the possession of the weapon used by a small number of criminally-insane persons to kill a large number of people, because it is used in successful home-defense to save the lives of law-abiding citizens and is further protected by our constitution?

I think the real question is whether or not these bastards in office should be looking for any and all answers to these terrible events which hold the 2nd amendment of the constitution they're sworn to uphold as sacred, and doesn't conveniently fit 20-year-old, liberal anti-gun legislation. It should also be asked why they're going after private sales when none of these attacks were linked to private sales.

I've got a progressive idea for you--why don't we "demand" that the current administration stop the bull★■◆● political charade, and the hollywood tears, and pretend like they're up there to do the business of the people and run a responsible government?

[Will Robinson]

So then we're good with the mass casualty events because every so often someone saves a life with the same rifle? Nice to know.

No, we arent ever happy with any innocents being killed. But banning the AR-15 because it looks scarier than other guns is not any kind of a solution to the problem of innocents being killed! It might make a convenient scapegoat for politicians to prop it up as a target and knock it down for idiots to be impressed with but it doesn't make the next school full of potential victims any safer! At the same time, the two kids in my example could very well be dead since their father would most likely have obeyed the ban and a hunting rifle or shotgun might not have been enough gun for that teenager to fight off the attackers.
The AR-15 is a fast to use, lightweight, relatively small for close quarters work but an all purpose kind of weapon. It fires a tiny bullet smaller diameter than a .22 by just a fraction and a little heavier but flies fast..accurate as hell. It doesn't have heavy recoil, you can get back on target for a second and third shot and I'm sure that young man was much more confident using it than a heavy hitting 30-30 rifle or a .40 cal handgun or any other common firearm. It is designed for taking on multiple dangerous targets. His father did him right making that the weapon to use!

I'm sure the parents of the kids and the people in that theater are happy to know that at least someone somewhere else was saved by that weapon. I'm sure they feel better about it now.

I'm sure if I was one of those parents I'd trade every one of your freedoms for my child's life to be returned to her! I would personally lock you up forever!
But would my grief authorize me to make such a trade?

Lets start sliding that hypothetical toward reality...

Does my grief allow me to offer just one of your freedoms in a fruitless gesture that helps not at all other than to illustrate how much I'm hurting?

Does the grief of those parents justify letting some dickheaded politician trade one of our freedoms for nothing more substantial than a photo op and some political hay?!?

How many kids died in sandy hook? 20? Find me 20 stories where someone was saved with that rifle then. Then find me however many more with the theater shooting.

The current 'assault weapons ban' bill includes pistols as well as shotguns along with the scary black rifles.

Sen. Feinstein, showing her true intentions to eliminate civilian weapons, has changed the language of the original bill to include any firearm that possesses any "single characteristic" similar to a military weapon.
One of the listed attributes is "a pistol grip". That puts almost every other rifle and shotgun and every pistol inside the ban criteria....and it is written so vaguely, on purpose that once it is law they can easily add more to it!

So, accepting your premise even though you have no constitutional grounds to force me to... assuming your requirements of matching innocents lost with innocents saved:
There are over 120,000 times per year that an innocent is saved by the weapons she proposes to outlaw. I think the net result would be more innocents dead. And the resulting rising crime rates in some places would make you ★■◆● your pants.

I don't have the numbers on scary black rifles only, they are hardly used in crimes compared to pistols and they aren't broken down in the statistics separate from bolt action deer rifles for example.
You yourself can probably list all the times they have been used by mass killers...that is how seldom that takes place.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that they are narrowly used for 'good' more than 'bad' by only a small margin.
Just bear in mind, the scary black rifle is the image they want you to have in mind when they talk about banning "assault weapons"....but the definition in the law is quite different than the picture they paint in your mind!

[woodchip]

The following is for all you complete twits that think banning "assault" weapons like AR-15 will cut down on massacres. When you peruse the top massacres around the world you'll notice one glaring omissions, no AR-15 type assault rifles, no AK-47's were used. So I think for peeps that want to keep pressing the issue, one doesn't need a assault weapon. The crazies, especially the guy that used a homemade flame thrower, will figure out a way to kill loads of people with what ever tools are at hand. Once again I hate to burst your liberal angst ridden psyche that is supersaturated with fear mongering by your low information liberal in the dems pocket news caster but assault weapons are not the weapon killing the most people.


March 13, 1996 : Dunblane massacre. Unemployed former shopkeeper and Scout leader Thomas Hamilton walked into Dunblane Primary School armed with two 9 mm pistols and two .357 Magnum revolvers. He killed sixteen small children and a teacher.
Weapons used: 4 pistols

"June 11, 1964: Cologne school massacre. Armed with an insecticide sprayer converted into a flamethrower, a lance and a homebuilt mace, 42-year-old Walter Seifert entered the Katholische Volksschule and opened fire on the girls playing in the courtyard. He then knocked in classroom windows with his mace and fired inside. Eight children and two teachers died, twenty children and two teachers survived with very severe burns. "
Weapons used: Self made flame-thrower, a lance and mace/

August 1, 1966 : University of Texas Clock Tower Shootings. After killing his wife and mother, Charles Whitman pointed a rifle from the observation deck of the University of Texas at Austin’s Tower and began shooting in a homicidal rampage that went on for 96 minutes. He killed fifteen people and wounded 31 others before being shot dead by police.
Weapons used: M1 carbine, semi-auto shotgun, 6 mm hunting rifle and 3 pistols

March 13, 1996 : Dunblane massacre. Unemployed former shopkeeper and Scout leader Thomas Hamilton walked into Dunblane Primary School armed with two 9 mm pistols and two .357 Magnum revolvers. He killed sixteen small children and a teacher.
Weapons used: Pistols

April 26, 2002 : Eighteen people died when an expelled former pupil went on a shooting spree at his school in the eastern German city of Erfurt. Masked and dressed in black, the gunman walked through classrooms killing 14 teachers, two schoolgirls and one of the first policemen on the scene before taking his own life.
Weapons used: 9mm Glock and a pump shotgun

The Virginia Tech massacre was a school shooting comprising two separate attacks about two hours apart on April 16, 2007, on the Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg, Virginia, United States. The perpetrator, Seung-Hui Cho, killed 32 people and wounded many more, before committing suicide, making it the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history.
Weapons used .22 pistol and a 9mm Glock pistol

May 18, 1927 : In the deadliest mass school murder in United States history, former school board member Andrew Kehoe set off three bombs in Bath Township, Michigan killing 45 people and wounding 58. Kehoe killed himself and the superintendent by blowing up his own vehicle.
Weapons used: Bombs


March 21, 2005 : At Red Lake Senior High School in Minnesota, 16-year-old student Jeff Weise opened fire, killing five fellow students, a teacher and a security guard. Prior to the rampage, he had shot his grandfather and his grandfather’s girlfriend. It later became apparent that Weise had visited neo-Nazi Web sites prior to the shooting.
Weapons used: .22 pistol, .40 glock pistol and a 12 gauge pump shotgun

[Sergeant Thorne]

Stop trying to obfuscate the issue, Woody. We're talking reality here, not history! The point is that AR-15s are all the rage with random psychos during Obama's tenure for some reason, and we need to address this by instituting new[ly dusted-off] legislation which specifically vaguely targets [some of] these problems. Meanwhile our wonderful media will lavish attention upon the shooters, sympathy upon the parents of the victims, praise upon our leaders, admiration upon the deceased, and confusion upon the events themselves!

[Top Gun]

Are we allowed to acknowledge that AR-15 type weapons aren't necessarily the weapon of choice in multiple-target shooting incidents, while still wondering why the hell your average civilian needs one lying around the house?

And woody, every time you use "liberal" as an invective, God kills a kitten. Think of the kittens!

[Krom]

If I were facing a home invasion (and that is a big "if" since the police department is barely over one block away from my house), what sort of weapon would I want to defend myself? Would I want a knife? A single shot breech loading musket? Or a highly accurate and mobile semi-automatic rifle? Yeah, I don't have to think too long about that, I'd obviously want the best weapon available.

It would be a much harder decision if it was between an AR-15 and an AA-12 though.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Are we allowed to acknowledge that AR-15 type weapons aren't necessarily the weapon of choice in multiple-target shooting incidents, while still wondering why the hell your average civilian needs one lying around the house?

Yes "we" are! In fact, that's covered under the 1st amendment of the U.S. constitution! My right to own the AR-15 that you're wondering about is covered in the 2nd amendment, in case you hadn't heard. Also, no one leaves them "lying around the house".

[CobGobbler]

No Thorne, the 2nd Amendment says you have the right to bear arms, it does not say you have the right to anything under the sun. Hence why you can't buy a tank, missile-launchers, or anything else like that. There are limits to every freedom we enjoy in this country. I don't dispute that you're allowed to own a gun, but I do dispute the idea that you can own any type of weapon you desire. Something tells me that some of the people on this board would be very nervous driving through a Muslim neighborhood where they all have RPGs and assault weapons on their backs. Or would you be completely ok with that?

[Will Robinson]

No Thorne, the 2nd Amendment says you have the right to bear arms, it does not say you have the right to anything under the sun. Hence why you can't buy a tank, missile-launchers, or anything else like that. There are limits to every freedom we enjoy in this country. I don't dispute that you're allowed to own a gun, but I do dispute the idea that you can own any type of weapon you desire. Something tells me that some of the people on this board would be very nervous driving through a Muslim neighborhood where they all have RPGs and assault weapons on their backs. Or would you be completely ok with that?

That totaly depends, what am I driving?

[Sergeant Thorne]

No Thorne, the 2nd Amendment says you have the right to bear arms, it does not say you have the right to anything under the sun. Hence why you can't buy a tank, missile-launchers, or anything else like that. There are limits to every freedom we enjoy in this country. I don't dispute that you're allowed to own a gun, but I do dispute the idea that you can own any type of weapon you desire. Something tells me that some of the people on this board would be very nervous driving through a Muslim neighborhood where they all have RPGs and assault weapons on their backs. Or would you be completely ok with that?

That totaly depends, what am I driving?

LOL!

Why a Muslim neighborhood? They're just automatically going to start taking pot-shots and I'm supposed to the unarmed schmuck driving by? I think if I were that sure of a threat I would snipe the bastards before driving through, or drive through in an armored vehicle and finish the war they are hypothetically bent on instigating. Also, part of your fantastic picture seems to be open-carry of assault weapons high-capacity automatic or semi-automatic rifles and RPGs, which is absurd (though not nearly as dangerous in a society of just laws as in a part of the world where might makes right). An armed society is a polite society. People do not automatically lose their minds when they come into possession of an effective weapon, and more importantly one that is owned by their fellow citizens/neighbors and law enforcement. The 2nd amendment says I have the right to keep and bear "arms". That is military weapons of the day, not bows and arrows. If you limit the 2nd amendment to non-military weapons, it becomes absurd. In America, right now, you can own a rocket-launcher after obtaining a class 3 weapons permit (not entirely certain whether that covers RPGs or not). You can also own a machine gun (fully-automatic).

I'm not interested in carrying a rifle or shotgun of any kind around town. A pistol is much more realistic, and it's concealable. I wouldn't mind keeping a rifle in my car. The second amendment is clearly speaking in terms of "bearing" arms for specific, lawful purposes, not just to accessorize a Rambo outfit. Any law enforcement (or concerned citizen) would have the right (the responsibility) to confront the carry of a war-time weapon in peace-time for no apparent purpose...