Feinsteins Gun Control Bill

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

You DON'T see a score of Kindergarteners killed with multiple gunshots in a matter of minutes is a huge national crisis? That's disturbing to me.
As for the rest of your post -- maintaining control, not caring about mass murder, this being a means to an end, arguments based on fear, teaching fear . . .
Are you talking about the NRA?

I agree with Peregrino, I don't view this as a national crisis but a national tragedy.
If killing children is a such a national crisis tell me how many were killed the past year in car accidents and using cell phones while driving? If you're going to place the "blame" on guns you might want to include Ford, GM, Dodge, Verizon, AT&T, etc on that list of things that kill our children.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Ummm - NO, I don't. To be blunt, while it is an incredible tragedy for those directly involved and my prayers go out to those families, it's a pimple on an elephant's ass when looked at from a national perspective. It isn't a symptom of "out of control guns", it's a symptom of a disasterously inadequate mental health system.

Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control. And this tragedy is another opportunity for the Left to exploit a crisis, whipping up their base into a frenzy to advance their control agenda. I don't need the NRA to explain Soviet population control methods to me; the Army was kind enough to teach me everything required 30 years ago. The technology may have advanced making it easier to identify and oppress dissent; however, the base principles have not changed.

Personally, I'm tired of having my rights stripped from me by statists, sheep, and assorted physical/moral cowards who want to stick their heads in the sand and ignore the real problems.

Well said, brother.

The nanny state is raising its ugly head.

The UK had a similar tragedy and enacted similar legislation to what has been proposed.

Predictably, the crime rate and incidence of tragedies has not declined there either.

TR

[craigepo]

I had assumed that massacres were a relatively new phenomenon. This article argues otherwise.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...rles-c-w-cooke

[Old Dog New Trick]

Originally Posted by craigepo

I had assumed that massacres were a relatively new phenomenon. This article argues otherwise.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...rles-c-w-cooke

That's an interesting read.

[ZonieDiver]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

Has the actual problem really been identified and is it really gun related?

The more recent mass shootings were perpetrated by individuals with documented psychological issues. Why not question the manner in which the mental health industry is regulated to default patient privacy over public safety?

Why does the NRA have to offer a solution rather than the American Psychological Association?

Now there's a news conference that might have gone somewhere! LaPierre standing there with someone from the APA (or other org. dedicated to battling mental illness) and announcing that the NRA was opening its 'warchest' to help fund research and facilities for said battle that the Feds and other levels of government have ignored for years, which "contributed to this most recent tragedy, and many others that came before.'

But, Nooooooo! He trots out the same-old, same-old (and Charles Heston he ain't), and gets the same-old reaction from the same-old quarters. The guy (and others) can't 'think outside the box' - hell, he (they) don't even know what the box looks like!

[Dozer523]

Yup.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

Yup.

Cute.

Did that come from Huffpo or the Brady Campaign?

Do you really think taking my guns away will prevent this from happening again?

TR

[koz]

If gun control works, why is Chicago approaching 500 murders this year?

[ddoering]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

Yup.

ZAV and stupid. Congratulations.

[ZonieDiver]

Originally Posted by koz

If gun control works, why is Chicago approaching 500 murders this year?

"They" say it's because firearms are so readily availabe in other parts of the US, and easily transported into their peaceful fiefdom to lure their innocent citizens into acts of mayhem that only evil firearms can cause. Hence, "their" desire to ban them (in the end) throughout the US (ignoring completely the millions of tons of drugs and millions of illegal immigrants that have crossed our porous borders through the years - and still do).

That said, I have to agree with Dozer's original point (he does have one sometimes), which was not to ban firearms (he expressly stated that), but to have the NRA, et al come up with something NEW to counter "their" continual braying about banning evil "large capacity 'clips'" and those evil looking "Assault Rifles"!

"Babies" are dead. Drums are beating among each group's faithful. "They" can just repeat "their" continual refrain, adding only a "See, we told you so!" Those amongst the masses (sheeple, if you must) who were on the fence or undecided before, will be much more easily swayed now. If "we" - and I put myself in "we" - just do the "same-old, same-old" (as I said in Post #148), "we" will lose... this time. Maybe lose BIGtime. Again! (2nd time in a month and a half - not looking good for the "Home Team"!)

[cbtengr]

This did not come from Wikipedia and in trying to ascertain as to how reliable factcheck.org is I came to the conclusion that they were fairly reliable. It's a long read but worth it. We are being spoon fed a crock of crap by those who want to take away our guns not control them. Below the link is a mere excerpt of the entire article.

http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

Is Gun Violence Rising?

On “Face the Nation” on Dec. 16, Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign, used the number of daily gun murders as proof that “gun violence rates are not” going down. But the rate of firearm homicides committed with the intent to kill or injure is at its lowest point since at least 1981: 3.6 per 100,000 people in 2010. The high point was 7 in 1993.


Gross, Dec. 16: … every day in our country, 32 people are murdered by guns. So while violence rates might be going down, gun violence rates are not.

There are two issues here: gun violence in general and gun murders in particular. Let’s first look at the number of murders committed with guns.

We called and emailed the Brady Campaign to ask about Gross’ statement on gun violence but we did not receive a response.

However, the group’s “gun violence facts” site lists “12,179 people murdered” as one of its facts — which would work out to 33 per day, supporting Gross’ claim. But that figure is from 2008, according to a footnote. It comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control database. (Check the boxes for “homicide” and “firearms” and select 2008, and you will get 12,179 “Homicide Firearm Deaths.”)

The CDC’s most current data show there were 11,078 homicides committed with guns in 2010 — or about 30 per day. The CDC data also show gun homicides have declined each year since 2007, falling from 12,791 in 2006 to 11,078 in 2010, even as the nation’s population grows. In fact, the homicide rate in 2010 (3.6 per 100,000 people) was the lowest since at least 1981 — which is as far back as the CDC’s online database goes.

The FBI collects murder data, too, but academic researchers we consulted said the CDC data is the more accurate measure of gun murders. CDC gets its data from the National Vital Statistics System, which collects death certificates that are required to be filed in every state. But the FBI relies on the voluntary reporting of law enforcement agencies that results in under-reporting. (For the record, the FBI’s 2011 Uniform Crime Report says there were 8,583 murders committed with firearms last year — that’s about 24 per day.)

Even so, the CDC homicide data is not a perfect measurement of murders in the U.S., which suggests the number of gun murders is somewhere between 24 and 30 per day.

CDC homicide data, by its definition, is supposed to include only “injuries inflicted by another person with intent to injure or kill.” But Catherine Barber, at the Harvard School of Public Health’s Injury Control Research Center, said some local coroners and medical examiners “take a more literal definition of homicide,” so some accidental shootings are included in the CDC data. Also, the CDC data, by definition, includes “justifiable homicides,” which also are not murders. Barber said the CDC’s reporting issues may overstate U.S. murder statistics by “a couple of hundred” — but its data are still “more reliable” than the FBI’s voluntary system of reporting.

By either measure, the number of gun murders is going down.

The 2011 and 2006 FBI crime reports show that firearm murders have declined each year since 2006. There were 10,177 such murders in 2006 and 8,583 in 2011 — a drop of 1,594 or nearly 16 percent in five years, even as the nation’s population continued to rise.

As for overall gun violence, the FBI tracks the use of firearms in three types of violent crimes (murder, robbery and aggravated assault), and the use of guns has declined in all three cases. From 2006 to 2011, robberies committed with guns declined 21 percent and aggravated assaults committed with guns declined 12.5 percent, according to the FBI reports. In both cases, the number of violent gun crimes dropped each year since 2008.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Cute.

Did that come from Huffpo or the Brady Campaign?

Do you really think taking my guns away will prevent this from happening again?

TR

Facebook, retired SF Col posted it. The Ale Party, I think it's some sort of counter to the tea party. As far as beverages, The Ale Party gets my vote.
Brady? He was the guy who got gunned down on the street during the near murder of President Reagan.

Where have I said I want your guns? TR. I don't want your guns. guys like you can have all the guns they want. I think you're probably smart about it and they are secure.
Here is what i think so you know and stop telling me what I think.

I think weapons designed for military use have no business being on the streets of America. Someone want to pack an M-4, enlist.
I think it's bullshit to claim that a weapon that can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger is not dangerous -- that because it isn't full automatic it is somehow safer.
I think military style magazines have no place on the streets of America.
I think many Americans are not going to continue to accept the NRA position that being armed to the teeth to the exclusion of the safety of others is IAW the framers of the Constitution.

I'd like to think reasonable gun-owners will view this mass murder as something more then unavoidably sad.
I'd like to think their participation in the conversation will be more then "no change" or "arm more people".
I'd like to think they could get behind something like a mandatory security system for every gun.
I'd like to think they could get behind something like limiting the size of magazines.

[Streck-Fu]

What, exactly, does all that accomplish. Truthfully. What does that accomplish?

What, actually happens when you ban any semi-auto rifle? Remember that FA weapons built after 1986 are not transferable, therefore, not available to public so the M4 is not real issue.

M4 clones are all semi-auto so what is the difference that necessitates a M4 clone ban but permits a Mini-14 in .223?

What you proposes, accomplishes nothing excepts to cater to emotional reactions perceived threats.

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

Here is what i think so you know and stop telling me what I think.

I think I'll keep my freedoms. You can surrender yours for the illusion of security if you want. I also think you either lack any understanding of the purpose behind the 2nd Ammendment or you are convinced that it "is outmoded and doesn't apply to today's circumstances". Personally, I'm having a very difficult time understanding how anyone who would swear to uphold and defend the Constitution would be willing to risk their life for something they don't understand or agree with.

ETA: NC has mandatory storage requirements for firearms. Only the law abiding adhere to them. The 1994 AWB accomplished NOTHING, and it had everything you're asking for. CDC, DOJ, and several universities conducted studies as it was sunsetting, they didn't find anything and ALL of them had an agenda that would have benefited if they could have proven its efficacy.

[TXGringo]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

I think weapons designed for military use have no business being on the streets of America.
I think military style magazines have no place on the streets of America.

Who's bringing these weapons and magazines into the streets?

Mine stays in the garage, except when we're at the range or in the woods...