Why Not Renew the "Assault Weapons" Ban

[MDM4AU 337]

Very good read with excellent points made. It's a long article but worth reading if you are truly serious about this topic...

http://kontradiction...l-ill-tell-you/

[japantiger 4,077]

Good read...too bad it actually uses facts and logic. This is about feelings, not effectiveness...this is about taking guns away from people...as the article points out...it's a 1st step to something broader..

[Weegle777 78]

This is the quote that we need to focus on:

“No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”

– Washington Post editorial, September 15, 1994

Didn't happen the first time, but way more people are in an uproar now. Hopefully it won't happen this time around.

[Ouchyfish 67]

This is what I kept harping on in my posts. I just don't trust the government to handle this properly.

[AUGradinTX 0]

"But the ban was far more concerned with the way guns looked than their ability to actually assault anything."

Love this quote from the author after he compared two of the exact same rifles that simply had different grips and stocks. All roads lead back to the appearance of these rifles...

[CCTAU 3,369]

If they bring the ban back exactly like it was, then go ahead. As a gun owner, I laughed at the ridiculousness of it. It accomplished nothing then and it will do even less now. But if it makes the looney left feel good, it is just the joke needed!

[Bottomfeeder 244]

That's exactly what they wish to do. They don't wish for us the have the ability to shoot down drones.

In the spirit of Patriots’ Day — the 237th anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord that launched the American Revolution — we inventory a series of recent outrages.

Every new automobile sold in the United States come 2015 must be equipped with a “black box,” under the same odious legislation that links your passport to your back taxes.

(It’s called the “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act,” or MAP-21 for short. Congressional aides get six-figure salaries to come up with this stuff.)

This way, if you’re involved in a crash, investigators will know, at minimum, the speed of the vehicles before impact… and whether everyone was wearing a seat belt.

“Coupled with GPS systems, the devices could provide the police with the ability to monitor private citizens’ movements in real-time,” says the law firm O’Reilly Collins in an analysis of the bill.

Want to just hide out in your home instead? Good luck. You always run the risk of police shooting your dog. That’s what happened to Michael Paxton of Austin, Texas, last weekend.

An officer was responding to a domestic disturbance call. “The 911 caller mistakenly gave the wrong address,” reports KVUE-TV. Paxton, getting something out of his truck parked in the driveway, had the ill fortune of being the first person the officer saw.

The officer gets out of his squad car with his gun drawn. First he tells Paxton to put his hands up. Then Paxton’s dog — a blue heeler named Cisco — comes out from the backyard. So the officer tells Paxton to control his dog.

Paxton, understandably reluctant to move his hands to perform that task, says frozen. Seconds later, Cisco lies in a pool of blood.

No one keeps national statistics of how often police shoot dogs. But “puppycide” is an almost daily fixture at the blog of Reason and Huffington Post writer Radley Balko. Records show one large Florida agency, the Broward County Sheriff’s Office, has shot five dogs so far this year, and 12 last year.

Remarkably, Mr. Paxton managed to avoid arrest for “disobeying a lawful order.” And because he kept his cool despite his instant grief, he also steered clear of “disorderly conduct.”

“Lucky” for him. Many of the accused inside the US criminal justice system discover that they are guilty until proven innocent…and are on the hook for the legal fees…even after proven innocent!

If you happen to run afoul of the law and for whatever reason cannot pay your fine, you run the risk of being thrown in a modern-day debtors’ prison.

Actually, you can be thrown in debtors’ prison even if you’re innocent.

“In some states, public defender, pretrial jail and other court fees can be assessed on individuals even when they are not convicted of any crime,” writes George Mason University economist Alex Tabarrok.

“Failure to pay criminal justice fees can result in revocation of an individual’s driver’s license, arrest and imprisonment.

“Many of these charges,” he goes on, “are not for any direct costs imposed by the criminal, but have been added as revenue enhancers.” In Pennsylvania, for instance, a $5 fee supports the County Probation Officers’ Firearms Training Fund, an $8 fee supports the Judicial Computer Project, and a $250 fee goes to the DNA Detection Fund.

And these are the outrages we’ve collected from the last three days alone.

“The state is always inclined toward oppression, division, conquest and bloodshed, because these are its tools of trade,” writes the Independent Institute’s Anthony Gregory in an essay marking a rather different anniversary. It’s titled “We’re All Branch Davidians Now.”

“In the 19 years since Waco,” writes Mr. Gregory, “we have seen the police state explode in every direction, and now we are all ensnared.

“The prisons have swollen to the largest detention system since Stalin’s gulags. The police conduct 3,000 SWAT raids a month. The war on terror has made a total mockery of what remained of the Fourth Amendment. Torture has lost its taboo. So has indefinite detention. The feds irradiate and molest airline passengers by the millions…

“Every major police department has tanks and battle rifles and drones that are being used for surveillance and God-knows-what else. Each federal department has enough firepower to conquer a small third-world country. The Department of Homeland Security, alone, has ordered enough ammo to shoot every American man, woman and child. The president claims the right to kill American citizens anywhere on the planet on his say-so alone. And he exercises that power.”

http://dailyreckoning.com/feral-drones-and-other-invasive-species/

[japantiger 4,077]

The new bill proposed by Feinstein has the following provisions:

• Ban the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing or 120 specifically named rifles, shotguns and handguns
  
• Ban the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of ALL firearms with a detachable magazine and at least one "military characteristic" -- which means just about anything that makes a gun "look scary."
  
• Bans the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of magazines holding more than 10 rounds
  
• Force owners of ALL "grandfathered" weapons to undergo a background check and fingerprinting
  
• Force owners of ALL "grandfathered" weapons to federally register their guns after obtaining permission slip from local law enforcement showing their guns are not in violation of state or local law.
  

Forget this....this is where confiscation starts....

[cptau 169]

The new bill proposed by Feinstein has the following provisions:

• Ban the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing or 120 specifically named rifles, shotguns and handguns
  
• Ban the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of ALL firearms with a detachable magazine and at least one "military characteristic" -- which means just about anything that makes a gun "look scary."
  
• Bans the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of magazines holding more than 10 rounds
  
• Force owners of ALL "grandfathered" weapons to undergo a background check and fingerprinting
  
• Force owners of ALL "grandfathered" weapons to federally register their guns after obtaining permission slip from local law enforcement showing their guns are not in violation of state or local law.
  

Forget this....this is where confiscation starts....

The federal bureaucracy needed to manage this would be huge. More government jobs is what they want and the politicans looking like they are doing something.

I think what we will wind up with is reinstatement of the original ban law that expired.

[autigeremt 6,970]

I think they want to use their authority to abuse or even circumvent the 2nd Ammendment.

[3rdgen 2]

The new bill proposed by Feinstein has the following provisions:

• Ban the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing or 120 specifically named rifles, shotguns and handguns
  
• Ban the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of ALL firearms with a detachable magazine and at least one "military characteristic" -- which means just about anything that makes a gun "look scary."
  
• Bans the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of magazines holding more than 10 rounds
  
• Force owners of ALL "grandfathered" weapons to undergo a background check and fingerprinting
  
• Force owners of ALL "grandfathered" weapons to federally register their guns after obtaining permission slip from local law enforcement showing their guns are not in violation of state or local law.
  

Forget this....this is where confiscation starts....

Anything to satisfy the sheeple.

[japantiger 4,077]

Yep...never thought I would see anything like this in my lifetime. Not setting on the political sidelines any longer...

[cptau 169]

This is an interesting video. Hollywood types that want stricter firearm laws with added in violent scenes from their own movies or them just shooting guns.

[alexava 6,974]

The new bill proposed by Feinstein has the following provisions:

• Ban the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing or 120 specifically named rifles, shotguns and handguns
  
• Ban the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of ALL firearms with a detachable magazine and at least one "military characteristic" -- which means just about anything that makes a gun "look scary."
  
• Bans the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of magazines holding more than 10 rounds
  
• Force owners of ALL "grandfathered" weapons to undergo a background check and fingerprinting
  
• Force owners of ALL "grandfathered" weapons to federally register their guns after obtaining permission slip from local law enforcement showing their guns are not in violation of state or local law.
  

Forget this....this is where confiscation starts....

besides cost of enforcing this i see no problem with any of this.

[AUGradinTX 0]

The new bill proposed by Feinstein has the following provisions:

• Ban the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing or 120 specifically named rifles, shotguns and handguns
  
• Ban the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of ALL firearms with a detachable magazine and at least one "military characteristic" -- which means just about anything that makes a gun "look scary."
  
• Bans the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of magazines holding more than 10 rounds
  
• Force owners of ALL "grandfathered" weapons to undergo a background check and fingerprinting
  
• Force owners of ALL "grandfathered" weapons to federally register their guns after obtaining permission slip from local law enforcement showing their guns are not in violation of state or local law.
  

Forget this....this is where confiscation starts....

besides cost of enforcing this i see no problem with any of this.

The first 2 are the only ones I take issue with.

1. This isn't constitutional. You can't just tell companies A, B, and C, "sorry, we no longer allow you to sell these guns" unless you specify what it is about these guns that make them illegal. They are scary isn't a reason. There has to be something about how they operate that make them "bad."

2. The ban of 1994 did just this, but stipulated the gun had to have 2 "military characteristics." What happened? The gun manufacturers eliminated said "military characteristics" and continued to sell the same guns. They will do the same and continue to sell them. This will not prevent the sell of a gun that "looks" like an M4A1.

I agree with limiting the number of rounds a cartridge can hold, but it seems to me you need to eliminate ANY "rifle" that has a detachable clip in order to get rid of the guns they want to get rid of. Other than that, the only argument they have is that it LOOKS like a military rifle.

[alexava 6,974]

agree TX, you make good points. i stopped in a new gun store in town yesterday, less than 2years its been there. this place was packed. they had about 2 or 3 dozen "military looking" rifles. im not a gun guru but most were .22cal smith$wesson with 30 round clips.the gun was mostly plastic or something because it was very light weight. 499$ them things looked very military and might be fun to shoot. at what? i dont know but if not for the 499$ and not really knowing what on earth i would do with it i would have bought one. and of course they had the larger caliber too. with clips of all capacities. this is a very small store in a small town and there was probably 30 customers or tire kickers in there at once. you just never know when the next guy who walks in the door of this shop has a mental breakdown and is planning the next massacre. he is looking to kill as many defenseless people as possible before help arrives. he is not military trained but any idiot knows the less he has to reload the more damage he can do. all he needs is $ and a semi-clean criminal record and he is in business. this is too easy for the nutt jobs to get armed. and as intrigued as i was with these guns and the urge to own one.... i just see no damn legitimate use for them. i did almost buy a 9mm Tuarus. it was a slick looking, compact, gun 9rounds i think. my concern is it was 299$. that seems cheap and i dont know if it is a good gun or not.

[japantiger 4,077]

agree TX, you make good points. i stopped in a new gun store in town yesterday, less than 2years its been there. this place was packed. they had about 2 or 3 dozen "military looking" rifles. im not a gun guru but most were .22cal smith$wesson with 30 round clips.the gun was mostly plastic or something because it was very light weight. 499$ them things looked very military and might be fun to shoot. at what? i dont know but if not for the 499$ and not really knowing what on earth i would do with it i would have bought one. and of course they had the larger caliber too. with clips of all capacities. this is a very small store in a small town and there was probably 30 customers or tire kickers in there at once. you just never know when the next guy who walks in the door of this shop has a mental breakdown and is planning the next massacre. he is looking to kill as many defenseless people as possible before help arrives. he is not military trained but any idiot knows the less he has to reload the more damage he can do. all he needs is $ and a semi-clean criminal record and he is in business. this is too easy for the nutt jobs to get armed. and as intrigued as i was with these guns and the urge to own one.... i just see no damn legitimate use for them. i did almost buy a 9mm Tuarus. it was a slick looking, compact, gun 9rounds i think. my concern is it was 299$. that seems cheap and i dont know if it is a good gun or not.

The fact that you don't see a problem with the proposed new legislation is what worries me. Not only now can the Fed now force people to buy a product or face fines; but we can go into peoples homes and force them to re-register a product they purchased legally previously and subject them to local law enforcement "certification" and registration in a federal database. This is how governments get out of control....no, this government is out of control. This is precisely why our constitution was written the way it was...to prevent any government from going into your home and restricting your right to own a gun. They were afraid of all governments; not just the British government.

As I said in another post; the fact that you don't understand or agree with it is irrelevant....I don't think anyone needs a Corvette...it's a plastic car with no trunk, but I hardly believe anyone should be restricted from owning and driving it. I do know what to do with one of these "mean" looking weapons. I use it on my farm. I also shoot it recreationally and in 3 gun competitions. That, and my constitutional rights, trumps your concerns about how these weapons look mean. Also, if you are really concerned about safety, where is your outrage over accidental poisonings of young people. More children are accidentally poisened each year than killed wth "mean" looking rifles in nearly 300 years. When I see outrage over this; I will really believe this is all about "safety" and not about confiscating weapons. The old legilsation, required 2 military characteristics (whatever that is)...the new proposal only one....this will never end until the government can disarm the populace. Don't believe it can happen here? Read what the proponents of the legislation say is their real goal....they want "all" guns banned.. ..

If that is what you want; then let's have a Constitutional convention and see where the 2nd Amendment falls ...if you don't think you can convince everyone that the right to keep and bear arms is not really relevant and should be stripped from the Constitution, then stop trying to do it this way...it just wastes a lot of time and productive resources.

[alexava 6,974]

1. corvettes are usless but are not designed to rapidly kill multiple people. you made no point with that one!

2. i never said a damn thing about any gun being banned based on looking mean. you put words in my mouth.

3. accidental poisonings are ACCIDENTAL. when some a**hole purposely poisons 20 kids then i will show outrage to ban his poison. you know like arsonic, cyanide, etc, already illegal. why are you not outraged that you cant but cyanide at walmart?

4. i havent seen, read or heard any legitmate lawmaker or official propose or mention that they want "ALL" guns banned. you havent either. this shows you are afraid of a myth.

5. you will always have the right to bear arms. those rights have limits and need more, for good reason. you choose to not understand or you may not be capable of it.

6. the government has the power to amend any part of the constitution that it sees fit and has done so to all our advantage. the 2nd amendment is not a blanket for anarchy. neither is the 1st amendment. are you outraged at the laws created to prevent Westboro baptist church from picketing funerals? because they are protected to do so under the 1st amendment.

7. you might just be concerned that you will not be found mentally fit to keep the guns you have? i dont see why else you are so opposed to an effort to control them.

[Weegle777 78]

Do you know what it means to get a "foot in the door"?

The people who I worry about are the ones that say, "What is so bad about our government limiting gun sales on scary looking military type weapons?"

"Why do you need these high capacity clips?"

Here is a clue for you: The government knows that if they impose a gun ban all at once, there will be an uprising. So what do they do? They begin to play on the outrage of the public's fear of assault rifles.

"Ban clips that hold ten or more rounds!"

"Ban military style attachments!"

After a while, then it will be, "Why manufacture rifles that used to hold these high capacity clips? They are really useless now."

The government first gets its foot in the door, then slowly takes away until it accomplishes its true motive: rid the public of guns altogether.

It's the "frog in the warm water then slowly increase the heat until he is boiled to death." strategy.

And don't ask me to provide a link on how the government has done this in the past because I have no time to find one, but some of you need to get your heads out of the sand and realize that this gun banning stuff isn't about the government wanting to make your lives easier, it's about having a disarmed population.

[japantiger 4,077]

1. corvettes are usless but are not designed to rapidly kill multiple people. you made no point with that one!

2. i never said a damn thing about any gun being banned based on looking mean. you put words in my mouth.

3. accidental poisonings are ACCIDENTAL. when some a**hole purposely poisons 20 kids then i will show outrage to ban his poison. you know like arsonic, cyanide, etc, already illegal. why are you not outraged that you cant but cyanide at walmart?

4. i havent seen, read or heard any legitmate lawmaker or official propose or mention that they want "ALL" guns banned. you havent either. this shows you are afraid of a myth.

5. you will always have the right to bear arms. those rights have limits and need more, for good reason. you choose to not understand or you may not be capable of it.

6. the government has the power to amend any part of the constitution that it sees fit and has done so to all our advantage. the 2nd amendment is not a blanket for anarchy. neither is the 1st amendment. are you outraged at the laws created to prevent Westboro baptist church from picketing funerals? because they are protected to do so under the 1st amendment.

7. you might just be concerned that you will not be found mentally fit to keep the guns you have? i dont see why else you are so opposed to an effort to control them.

Wow, overpowered by your logic. That intellectual masterpiece on my mental capacity is a rhetorical tour-de-force....

I'll address your points 1 by 1:

1 - More people have been killed by Corvettes than by assault weapons...if you're really interested in saving lives; go there 1st.

2 - You're right...you said "military looking"...I took the words from other posts that equate the term "scary looking" and "military looking"...sorry to the juxtaposition and attributing it specifically to you.

3 - but the point is one results in more deaths than the other...if you are really concerned about public and children's safety, you should crusade to stop accidental poisonings....doesn't matter that they are accidental; a child gets access to a poison it shouldn't and died....analogous to what you claim is the goal of an AWB....to keep a deadly weapon/substance away from those that shouldn't have them...there are likely many more restrictions that could be put on the sale, importation, etc., of household poisons...penalties for the parents that leave the poisons out, etc...you know, all the things governments do to protect the citizenry. That is where child-proof caps came from by the way....so if you are really concerned about saving lives, here's a great place to get involved that might have a material impact on public safety....and as near as I can tell, the Constitution is silent on this.

4- Congressman William L Clay, Missouri...."eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns"...there's one...he said this speaking about the Brady Coalition proposals.

5 - The men who wrote the Bill of Rights did not include the Second Amendment as an oversight or a rhetorical flourish; the history of the right to bear arms was real, vivid and a life-or-death matter to them and one they saw as necessary to the security of a free State. Madison in Federalist No. 46 explicitly argued that an armed citizenry would protect even against our own federal government...not a foreign government...any government....our Federal government....In the days of the revolution, that amounted to muskets.. since that was the military weapon of the day.....today, it is logical that it now requires something more. If the 2nd amendment is to be a deterrent to government abuse; it makes little sense to allow the government to have all the good weapons. As to my capacity to understand your argument; you state that we need more limits, but don't provide a basis or a logic for it...Why do we need more limits? Because you said so? Let's assume it is to actually reduce crime...Hawaii has had liscensing and registration for nearly 50 years. According to police there, they cannot point to a single crime solves as a result....in spite of how cool Hawaii 50 makes it look to pull up any info about anyone instantly...given Hawaii's geography, this should be the ideal place to prove the point. If registration is going to work, it should work on an island...how about Chicago? DC? They've even gone so far as to register hunting rifles...neither can point to crimes solved as a result of registration. And their crime rates? Oh, inconvenient truth I guess...criminals still get guns....So if registration doesn't solve crime, why have it? History provides an answer....Australia, England, Nazi Germany, USSR, etc...registration creates a list of guns that can be confiscated. Finally, the original ban lapsed due in large part to a Justice Department study that said it did nothing to reduce crime.

6 - The Government does not have the power to amend any part of the constitution...a constitutional amendment must be ratified by a super majority of state legislatures...seriously dude...and that hasn't been done in a while..., this is no way to begin an argument trying to equate constitutional gun ownership with 1st amendment rights. As for the Westboro Baptist group picketing funerals; objectionable, poor taste; low down mean...but hardly the stuff that should require new Federal restrictions. If I was going to ban hateful speach, I think just about anything Pierce Morgan says is worse than what the Westboro guys did...but the 1st Amendment is pretty clear.

7 - already spoke to this...seriously, try facts..I think my argument is supported by the majority opinion, the constitution....and the awful truth that even-though what happened was truly awful, the proposed solution will do nothing to stop what happened anywhere else. There was an AWB already in Ct....and these events have happened before, during and after the previous ban...and in countries with much stricter gun laws like Norway, Finland, etc.

Done on this one...it seems we are at an ideological impasse; and I tend to not want to debate those that try cheap insults vs meaningful dialogue.

[alexava 6,974]

you got me on #6. #4 i was not aware of the missouri congressman mentioning handguns being barred but my post was "ALL" guns. it will never happen and i think you know it. you have one quote from and sitting congressman mentioning banning handguns and you say the "government" wants to ban all guns. the rest i must claim as easy wins. its been fun. i appoligize for the cheep insults i should have worded those parts better. we are at an impasse so i will try to retire from this discussion. as far as " ...and the awful truth that even-though what happened was truly awful, the proposed solution will do nothing to stop what happened anywhere else." you are right that the previous bans didnt help and wont again if done the same. i would hope for something stiffer and more enforcable. i have heard this before recently and agree that we cant accept these mass killings as just a part of our culture, there is more to it than guns but that is the tool.

[japantiger 4,077]

Stiffer and more enforceable: during the majority of WW2, the military's of the rest of the world used predominantly bolt action rifles...with clips or detachable magazines. In fact, when WW2 started, the 1903 Springfield was still the standard US military issue...the best info I can find has the 1903 (and similar rifles) delivering 15 rounds per minute downrange in a 24 inch target at 200 yards regularly...the best performance I've found was 38 rounds per minute by an instructor...now, that is using 5 round clips...bolt action rifle and carefully hitting a 24 inch silhouette target at 200 yards...so, just firing randomly from the hip at close range would result in (conservatively) 30-35 rounds per minute (probably more with someone who practices). Think this would take out 20 children in a classroom? That is from what is today the basic 30.06 hunting rifle owned by conservatively 60m Americans (can't get an exact number on this one - working backwards from the 90m total households owning guns in the US).

So just what restrictions do you propose to place or what weapons would you propose to eliminate again? We've stepped from military grade, fully auto, semi auto and now pretty much every bolt actions seems out of the question as well....and for good measure....a child will be just as dead with a .22 round...so whether 30.06 of 22 sr or lr; a determined nut can fire a lot of these in a short time in a confined space. Oh, and as for handguns, with a standard 9 round magazine or with speed loaders and a 6 round revolver you get the same result...... this is where all these "good intentioned" proposals fall apart. There is no place to draw the line that will be effective in stopping an insane person from doing something like this,,,.countries that have tried to implement stricter controls (e.g., Norway, Germany, etc) still have these kinds of incidents....and they already had far less gun violence per 100k population than the US before they implemented these restrictions....hhuummm.... Also, you have to go back to #5 above. The 2nd Amendment is there for a reason.... unrestrained government is a far bigger and ever present threat than the likelihood of a Sandy Hook incident. I would welcome a real dialogue on the real causes of these types of incidents...not ineffective-expensive-knee-jerk-feel-good-based proposals that allow further unwelcome intrusions into our liberty.

As for #4, you said there wasn't "any"...so I just stopped at one....there are more; but you set a low bar.

[jj3jordan 2,125]

you got me on #6. #4 i was not aware of the missouri congressman mentioning handguns being barred but my post was "ALL" guns. it will never happen and i think you know it. you have one quote from and sitting congressman mentioning banning handguns and you say the "government" wants to ban all guns. the rest i must claim as easy wins. its been fun. i appoligize for the cheep insults i should have worded those parts better. we are at an impasse so i will try to retire from this discussion. as far as " ...and the awful truth that even-though what happened was truly awful, the proposed solution will do nothing to stop what happened anywhere else." you are right that the previous bans didnt help and wont again if done the same. i would hope for something stiffer and more enforcable. i have heard this before recently and agree that we cant accept these mass killings as just a part of our culture, there is more to it than guns but that is the tool.

When you state "all guns...it will never happen", you are incredibly naive. You cannot make that statement since you don't know what will happen in the future. If you allow small victories today for gun controllers, then yes, it will eventually be all guns. It is astounding that you can't see where these small steps are taking us. It is people like us who fight for our rights under the constitution that will prevent gun confiscation from occurring. BTW some 'great' rulers were in favor of gun control...Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Castro, and Obama. Great company.

[alexava 6,974]

Stiffer and more enforceable: during the majority of WW2, the military's of the rest of the world used predominantly bolt action rifles...with clips or detachable magazines. In fact, when WW2 started, the 1903 Springfield was still the standard US military issue...the best info I can find has the 1903 (and similar rifles) delivering 15 rounds per minute downrange in a 24 inch target at 200 yards regularly...the best performance I've found was 38 rounds per minute by an instructor...now, that is using 5 round clips...bolt action rifle and carefully hitting a 24 inch silhouette target at 200 yards...so, just firing randomly from the hip at close range would result in (conservatively) 30-35 rounds per minute (probably more with someone who practices). Think this would take out 20 children in a classroom? That is from what is today the basic 30.06 hunting rifle owned by conservatively 60m Americans (can't get an exact number on this one - working backwards from the 90m total households owning guns in the US).

So just what restrictions do you propose to place or what weapons would you propose to eliminate again? We've stepped from military grade, fully auto, semi auto and now pretty much every bolt actions seems out of the question as well....and for good measure....a child will be just as dead with a .22 round...so whether 30.06 of 22 sr or lr; a determined nut can fire a lot of these in a short time in a confined space. Oh, and as for handguns, with a standard 9 round magazine or with speed loaders and a 6 round revolver you get the same result...... this is where all these "good intentioned" proposals fall apart. There is no place to draw the line that will be effective in stopping an insane person from doing something like this,,,.countries that have tried to implement stricter controls (e.g., Norway, Germany, etc) still have these kinds of incidents....and they already had far less gun violence per 100k population than the US before they implemented these restrictions....hhuummm.... Also, you have to go back to #5 above. The 2nd Amendment is there for a reason.... unrestrained government is a far bigger and ever present threat than the likelihood of a Sandy Hook incident. I would welcome a real dialogue on the real causes of these types of incidents...not ineffective-expensive-knee-jerk-feel-good-based proposals that allow further unwelcome intrusions into our liberty.

As for #4, you said there wasn't "any"...so I just stopped at one....there are more; but you set a low bar.

ok,i did set it low, but your arguments seem to prove my points. a trained, skilled killer could take out more than 20 kids with a single shot .410gauge. i am not worried about trained, skilled military, law enforcement professionals. its these wack jobs that have no training and very little common sense that need the high capacity guns and multiple magazines that are dangerous. the same wack job with a bolt action or semi auto 30-06 is much less lethal as far as numbers of potential victims. can you at least agree to that? if the older style weapons with less capacity reloading capability are just as lethal then why does anyone want the assault weapons anyway? a 9 round clip or revolver is not just as leathal than a 15 or 33 round glock that is why you and others want the freedom to own the higher capacity guns. are you aware of the shooting of the congresswoman in arizona. that nut had a glock with a 33round clip and another in his pocket. he was tackled when he was reloading he dropped the 2nd clip. perhaps if lanza had to reload more often there would have been a window of opportunity to disarm him. gun violence will never go away. deaths will never stop. but we can minimize the carnage with some common sense adjustments. these nuts are not well calculated people, they need more fire power and we are making it too easy for them to get it. for what? unrestrained government? i really dont get it, but i will refrain from insults.

[alexava 6,974]

you also are comparing accidental deaths to mass murders. we cannot eliminate accidental deaths but the government does continually study, analize, and legislate to try to ruduce them.