Government Orders 7000 "Personal Defense Weapons."

[autigeremt 6,644]

While I'm not exactly sure what it means when posters are reduced to making ad hominem attacks in the form of posting cute cartoons, I have a pretty good guess.

[homersapien 11,388]

I agree the price of these weapons is determined more by availability than by manufacturing costs. That's exactly the point I have been making

That is exactly why existing regulations on automatic weapons make them more difficult to obtain and undoubtedly reduce the numbers of these types of weapons, both legal and illegal, in our society.

But I admit that I am not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that restrictions on automatic weapons have no effect on availability? Or are you suggesting that because fully automatic AK's can be bought illegally, we should not regulate them?

I was using satire to counter the argument that more gun control legislation is needed to regulate/control the price of restricted firearms. Clearly that's not the case with the price of AK-47s in CA, and $400/unit suggests to me that the supply is alarmingly high. Satire and/or sarcasm doesn't always work well on massage boards. My bad.

However, more laws & regulations don't mean a thing if current laws aren't going to be enforced. Consider the track record of prosecutions associated with current background check violations: http://freedomoutpos...kground-checks/

What's the point of new laws if there's no teeth in the current ones?

Well I agree that the law should be enforced, but on the other hand, I can also see why background checks might not get the priority they deserve because they are not universally required. Even strict enforcement would do little to limit availability when it is easy to by-pass the process altogether.

[autigeremt 6,644]

I agree the price of these weapons is determined more by availability than by manufacturing costs. That's exactly the point I have been making

That is exactly why existing regulations on automatic weapons make them more difficult to obtain and undoubtedly reduce the numbers of these types of weapons, both legal and illegal, in our society.

But I admit that I am not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that restrictions on automatic weapons have no effect on availability? Or are you suggesting that because fully automatic AK's can be bought illegally, we should not regulate them?

I was using satire to counter the argument that more gun control legislation is needed to regulate/control the price of restricted firearms. Clearly that's not the case with the price of AK-47s in CA, and $400/unit suggests to me that the supply is alarmingly high. Satire and/or sarcasm doesn't always work well on massage boards. My bad.

However, more laws & regulations don't mean a thing if current laws aren't going to be enforced. Consider the track record of prosecutions associated with current background check violations: http://freedomoutpos...kground-checks/

What's the point of new laws if there's no teeth in the current ones?

Well I agree that the law should be enforced, but on the other hand, I can also see why background checks might not get the priority they deserve because they are not universally required. Even strict enforcement would do little to limit availability when it is easy to by-pass the process altogether.

Getting back to being serious (I know...lol) this could also be said about any law, check, ban, etc. Correct?

[homersapien 11,388]

I agree the price of these weapons is determined more by availability than by manufacturing costs. That's exactly the point I have been making

That is exactly why existing regulations on automatic weapons make them more difficult to obtain and undoubtedly reduce the numbers of these types of weapons, both legal and illegal, in our society.

But I admit that I am not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that restrictions on automatic weapons have no effect on availability? Or are you suggesting that because fully automatic AK's can be bought illegally, we should not regulate them?

I was using satire to counter the argument that more gun control legislation is needed to regulate/control the price of restricted firearms. Clearly that's not the case with the price of AK-47s in CA, and $400/unit suggests to me that the supply is alarmingly high. Satire and/or sarcasm doesn't always work well on massage boards. My bad.

However, more laws & regulations don't mean a thing if current laws aren't going to be enforced. Consider the track record of prosecutions associated with current background check violations: http://freedomoutpos...kground-checks/

What's the point of new laws if there's no teeth in the current ones?

Well I agree that the law should be enforced, and there's no point in new laws if you don't intend to inforce them, but on the other hand, I can also see why background checks might not get the priority they deserve because they are not universally required. Even strict enforcement would do little to limit availability when it is easy to by-pass the process altogether.

Care to answer the two questions I posed?

[AUloggerhead 2,238]

(1) Are you suggesting that restrictions on automatic weapons have no effect on availability? (2) Or are you suggesting that because fully automatic AK's can be bought illegally, we should not regulate them?

Care to answer the two questions I posed?

Sure. (1) On law-abiding citizens -- without question. Of course, they aren't really the problem now are they? (2) It's not just AK-47s. I only used that as my example because it's the most iconic submachine gun in the world. I am in favor of automatic fire weapons being regulated as an entire class, yes. But I have a two-part answer: I'm also in favor of more aggressive prosecution towards the illegal trade & usage of these weapons because without that, any gun laws you pass will effectively be meaningless.

[homersapien 11,388]

(1) Are you suggesting that restrictions on automatic weapons have no effect on availability? (2) Or are you suggesting that because fully automatic AK's can be bought illegally, we should not regulate them?

Care to answer the two questions I posed?

Sure. (1) On law-abiding citizens -- without question. Of course, they aren't really the problem now are they?

Actually, I am pretty sure that most, if not all, of the mass shootings have been caused by people without a criminal record, much less being wanted at the time. And again, the argument that criminals can always find a way to break the law doesn't mean laws have no value.

(2) It's not just AK-47s. I only used that as my example because it's the most iconic submachine gun in the world.

I understand. I was also using it in a representational sense.

I am in favor of automatic fire weapons being regulated as an entire class, yes. But I have a two-part answer: I'm also in favor of more aggressive prosecution towards the illegal trade & usage of these weapons because without that, any gun laws you pass will effectively be meaningless.

I agree completely.

Thanks for responding directly to my questions. We don't sound that far apart.

[AUloggerhead 2,238]

Clarification on my answer to (1): On sane, non-Kamikaze acting law-abiding citizens -- without question.

[homersapien 11,388]

Clarification on my answer to (1): On sane, non-Kamikaze acting law-abiding citizens -- without question.

Well if you have a way to positively identify them prior to the fact, the problem is solved.

[alexava 6,973]

Clarification on my answer to (1): On sane, non-Kamikaze acting law-abiding citizens -- without question.

Well if you have a way to positively identify them prior to the fact, the problem is solved.

this is why i would like to ban to most lethal weapons. if these guys are gonna go off the rails i would like to have a fighting chance against them. we cant predict who this will happen to or when. i know people now who fit the template of what we have read about adam lanza. obvious mental issues but not violent, yet.

[autigeremt 6,644]

Clarification on my answer to (1): On sane, non-Kamikaze acting law-abiding citizens -- without question.

Well if you have a way to positively identify them prior to the fact, the problem is solved.

this is why i would like to ban to most lethal weapons. if these guys are gonna go off the rails i would like to have a fighting chance against them. we cant predict who this will happen to or when. i know people now who fit the template of what we have read about adam lanza. obvious mental issues but not violent, yet.

Who decides that? Do we install an agency to regulate possible criminal acts? That's not a job for me in this country.

[alexava 6,973]

Thats what i said. You cant predict when or who. So lets get the military artillery off the streets and take our chances against against guns that actually have other legitimate uses than killing large groups of people in a few seconds.

[autigeremt 6,644]

Thats what i said. You cant predict when or who. So lets get the military artillery off the streets and take our chances against against guns that actually have other legitimate uses than killing large groups of people in a few seconds.

How do we do that? Buy back programs? I don't know if we could get the artillery out of the hands of the thugs even if the law abiding gave into a program like that. Then we'd have to send in the National Guard. Then what? We are where we are and I don't think a new law will fix anything like this.

[Weegle777 78]

Thats what i said. You cant predict when or who. So lets get the military artillery off the streets and take our chances against against guns that actually have other legitimate uses than killing large groups of people in a few seconds.

How do we do that? Buy back programs? I don't know if we could get the artillery out of the hands of the thugs even if the law abiding gave into a program like that. Then we'd have to send in the National Guard. Then what? We are where we are and I don't think a new law will fix anything like this.

Exactly. And these thugs are the main ones who want legislation pushed through on gun control. Criminals are in no way going to give up their guns, but they sure do want legal gun owners and ordinary citizens to. A disarmed citizenry is very easy to gut by criminals. Plus it makes them less likely to put up a fight against the government if there ever comes a reason to.

[AUcivE09 582]

Clarification on my answer to (1): On sane, non-Kamikaze acting law-abiding citizens -- without question.

Well if you have a way to positively identify them prior to the fact, the problem is solved.

Laws and restrictions will not completely do away with all gun related deaths. The mass shooters are like Muslim Terrorists. Nothing will stop stupid. These nut jobs would just assume to make a pipe bomb out of all legal parts as take a gun with them.

The part we can focus on are the other 99% of gun related criminal related deaths. Chicago had over 500 homocides - and not one mass shooter. Focusing on Sandy Hook is the wrong approach.

[AUloggerhead 2,238]

Clarification on my answer to (1): On sane, non-Kamikaze acting law-abiding citizens -- without question.

Well if you have a way to positively identify them prior to the fact, the problem is solved.

We do. They're called family members, psychiatrists, and/or acquaintances that come in contact with them personally & professionally. We must ultimately change the laws to permit dangerous & mentally ill people to be committed to institutions on a much simpler basis than what we have now. Take a look at all the recent mass shootings and you'll find all the evidence you need that their mental states of the shooters were well known and didn't just suddenly materialize out of thin air. Nancy Lanza had warned people visiting her house not to ever turn their backs on Adam. James Holmes was supposedly under the care of a psychiatrist at the U of CO where he was studying. Choi's family had him in therapy as early as middle school.

[homersapien 11,388]

Thats what i said. You cant predict when or who. So lets get the military artillery off the streets and take our chances against against guns that actually have other legitimate uses than killing large groups of people in a few seconds.

How do we do that? Buy back programs? I don't know if we could get the artillery out of the hands of the thugs even if the law abiding gave into a program like that. Then we'd have to send in the National Guard. Then what? We are where we are and I don't think a new law will fix anything like this.

Apologies to Alexava for butting in, but they have a saying in the army, that when you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging. (I started to say take away the shovels, but I don't want to imply I am recommending we take away the guns.)

As I see it*, the choices we have are 1) institute regulations/restrictions designed to halt or at least stem the proliferation of military-purposed weaponry in our society, or 2) do nothing.

What, if anything, to do about the weapons already out there is really a different question. In other words, they don't constitute a reason to allow the problem to get worse.

*as I see it, means I am presuming things which you may not agree with, such as AR/AK type weapons belong in the same class as the fully automatic versions and other weapons like RPG's. It also presumes a problem associated with having millions and millions of these sort of weapons "readily available" (i.e.: the way they are now). If you want to take issue with those presumptions, fine. Maybe we'll just agree to disagree. My point in this post is to respond to the logic of doing nothing because there are already 1.5M(?) out there.

Likewise, IMO, getting these weapons out of the hands of "thugs" is side issue that should not determine whether or not we do nothing. In other words, I don't see how having 30, 50M - or more - of these weapons out there would help address that issue.

[autigeremt 6,644]

Thats what i said. You cant predict when or who. So lets get the military artillery off the streets and take our chances against against guns that actually have other legitimate uses than killing large groups of people in a few seconds.

How do we do that? Buy back programs? I don't know if we could get the artillery out of the hands of the thugs even if the law abiding gave into a program like that. Then we'd have to send in the National Guard. Then what? We are where we are and I don't think a new law will fix anything like this.

Apologies to Alexava for butting in, but they have a saying in the army, that when you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging. (I started to say take away the shovels, but I don't want to imply I am recommending we take away the guns.)

As I see it*, the choices we have are 1) institute regulations/restrictions designed to halt or at least stem the proliferation of military-purposed weaponry in our society, or 2) do nothing.

What, if anything, to do about the weapons already out there is really a different question. In other words, they don't constitute a reason to allow the problem to get worse.

*as I see it, means I am presuming things which you may not agree with, such as AR/AK type weapons belong in the same class as the fully automatic versions and other weapons like RPG's. It also presumes a problem associated with having millions and millions of these sort of weapons "readily available" (i.e.: the way they are now). If you want to take issue with those presumptions, fine. Maybe we'll just agree to disagree. My point in this post is to respond to the logic of doing nothing because there are already 1.5M(?) out there.

Likewise, IMO, getting these weapons out of the hands of "thugs" is side issue that should not determine whether or not we do nothing. In other words, I don't see how having 30, 50M - or more - of these weapons out there would help address that issue.

No but it still doesn't address the problem. Guns in the hands of criminals.

[AUGradinTX 0]

Thats what i said. You cant predict when or who. So lets get the military artillery off the streets and take our chances against against guns that actually have other legitimate uses than killing large groups of people in a few seconds.

How do we do that? Buy back programs? I don't know if we could get the artillery out of the hands of the thugs even if the law abiding gave into a program like that. Then we'd have to send in the National Guard. Then what? We are where we are and I don't think a new law will fix anything like this.

Apologies to Alexava for butting in, but they have a saying in the army, that when you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging. (I started to say take away the shovels, but I don't want to imply I am recommending we take away the guns.)

As I see it*, the choices we have are 1) institute regulations/restrictions designed to halt or at least stem the proliferation of military-purposed weaponry in our society, or 2) do nothing.

What, if anything, to do about the weapons already out there is really a different question. In other words, they don't constitute a reason to allow the problem to get worse.

*as I see it, means I am presuming things which you may not agree with, such as AR/AK type weapons belong in the same class as the fully automatic versions and other weapons like RPG's. It also presumes a problem associated with having millions and millions of these sort of weapons "readily available" (i.e.: the way they are now). If you want to take issue with those presumptions, fine. Maybe we'll just agree to disagree. My point in this post is to respond to the logic of doing nothing because there are already 1.5M(?) out there.

Likewise, IMO, getting these weapons out of the hands of "thugs" is side issue that should not determine whether or not we do nothing. In other words, I don't see how having 30, 50M - or more - of these weapons out there would help address that issue.

Those are the only two choices we have? Can we not acknowledge the fact that a gun did not commit any of the crimes sparking this conversation? All of them were mentally ill. What I take from the highlighted portion of your post is that we shouldn't help the crazies, just take away ONE of the tools SOME of them used to kill. That just doesn't make any sense. Any reasonable person with half a brain knows these guys would still have killed if they didn't have access to an AR. This is undeniable by simply looking at the weapons they took with them. Pistols, shotguns, etc. They would have killed anyway. Even if they wouldn't have been able to kill as many people, which is debatable (see Va Tech killer), many people still would have died. Maybe more, maybe less. That's beside the point, however, and ignoring the basic CAUSE of these crimes.

[homersapien 11,388]

Clarification on my answer to (1): On sane, non-Kamikaze acting law-abiding citizens -- without question.

Well if you have a way to positively identify them prior to the fact, the problem is solved.

We do. They're called family members, psychiatrists, and/or acquaintances that come in contact with them personally & professionally. We must ultimately change the laws to permit dangerous & mentally ill people to be committed to institutions on a much simpler basis than what we have now. Take a look at all the recent mass shootings and you'll find all the evidence you need that their mental states of the shooters were well known and didn't just suddenly materialize out of thin air. Nancy Lanza had warned people visiting her house not to ever turn their backs on Adam. James Holmes was supposedly under the care of a psychiatrist at the U of CO where he was studying. Choi's family had him in therapy as early as middle school.

First, I need to clarify my post. It was intended to be more or less sarcastic. (Like you said, that sometimes doesn't come across very well in just writing). I didn't mean to imply that I thought it was actually possible.

I do agree that more needs to be done in diagnosing and treating mental illness but I do not think it will ever be possible to screen all of the mentally disturbed persons who probably shouldn't have firearms. There is a continuum of mental issues that may ebb and flow with circumstances. It is impossible for family members, etc. to determine if someone is reaching a crisis. (How many times have you heard family and acquaintances express their total surprise that _____ went off the rails?) Some people could acquire firearms before their mental illness progressed to the point of diagnosis. Lots of people lack the sort of friends or family to intervene in the first place.

Finally, there are plenty of people who have no business having access to weapons who would still fall way short of the sort of criteria that would require imprisonment before the (potential) fact of doing something.

So bottom line, the idea we need to get more people "committed" is too simplistic. In fact, one could argue such an approach is a much more radical proposal regarding the threat to individual liberty than a general restriction on the availability of military-purposed weapons.

So while I do think you are on to something, it would address only a tiny part of the potential problem. I don't think it represents a substitution for doing nothing on the availability front.

[autigeremt 6,644]

"In fact, one could argue such an approach is a much more radical proposal regarding the threat to individual liberty than a general restriction on the availability of military-purposed weapons.

So while I do think you are on to something, it would address only a tiny part of the potential problem. I don't think it represents a substitution for doing nothing on the availability front."

Individual Liberty should be iron-clad. The Bill of Rights was written so that the American society build their laws around them, not drive right over them.

How we address certain situations is one thing, but to consider a .223 or .308 or.22 AR "framed" semi-automatic firearm as military purpose is something I see as a slippery slope (even though I support a well written, easily administered individual firearms license with background and training similar to a states hunter safety requirement) into a future restriction on all semi-automatic firearms. Why doesn't the military use the same firearm as you see in the store? They don't. Theirs has fully automatic and three round burst capabilities. I know, because I've had them assigned to me.

I DO understand the reaction of those who want more restrictions. The shootings we have seen over the last year provide a lot of "ammo", if you will, to more gun control. My point is this.....what about the all the handgun crimes/shootings that far out number these incidents?

I am certainly suspicious of our political leadership. I have been for several years. We have very few individuals in DC who are brave enough to actually represent the people as intended. My ignorant .02 worth but I stand firm on the principal. Call me what you want. I don't care.

[homersapien 11,388]

Thats what i said. You cant predict when or who. So lets get the military artillery off the streets and take our chances against against guns that actually have other legitimate uses than killing large groups of people in a few seconds.

How do we do that? Buy back programs? I don't know if we could get the artillery out of the hands of the thugs even if the law abiding gave into a program like that. Then we'd have to send in the National Guard. Then what? We are where we are and I don't think a new law will fix anything like this.

Apologies to Alexava for butting in, but they have a saying in the army, that when you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging. (I started to say take away the shovels, but I don't want to imply I am recommending we take away the guns.)

As I see it*, the choices we have are 1) institute regulations/restrictions designed to halt or at least stem the proliferation of military-purposed weaponry in our society, or 2) do nothing.

What, if anything, to do about the weapons already out there is really a different question. In other words, they don't constitute a reason to allow the problem to get worse.

*as I see it, means I am presuming things which you may not agree with, such as AR/AK type weapons belong in the same class as the fully automatic versions and other weapons like RPG's. It also presumes a problem associated with having millions and millions of these sort of weapons "readily available" (i.e.: the way they are now). If you want to take issue with those presumptions, fine. Maybe we'll just agree to disagree. My point in this post is to respond to the logic of doing nothing because there are already 1.5M(?) out there.

Likewise, IMO, getting these weapons out of the hands of "thugs" is side issue that should not determine whether or not we do nothing. In other words, I don't see how having 30, 50M - or more - of these weapons out there would help address that issue.

Those are the only two choices we have? Can we not acknowledge the fact that a gun did not commit any of the crimes sparking this conversation? All of them were mentally ill. What I take from the highlighted portion of your post is that we shouldn't help the crazies, just take away ONE of the tools SOME of them used to kill. That just doesn't make any sense. Any reasonable person with half a brain knows these guys would still have killed if they didn't have access to an AR. This is undeniable by simply looking at the weapons they took with them. Pistols, shotguns, etc. They would have killed anyway. Even if they wouldn't have been able to kill as many people, which is debatable (see Va Tech killer), many people still would have died. Maybe more, maybe less. That's beside the point, however, and ignoring the basic CAUSE of these crimes.

Well, "any reasonable person with half a brain" would recognize that having alternative options is no reason to make a more lethal class of weapons (say grenade launchers) more easily available.

Now if you insist that semi-auto rifles with high capacity magazines are no more lethal (effective) in mass shooting demonstrations, then we will just have to agree to disagree. Weegle thinks four pistols(!) would be just as efficient as an AR with taped 30 round mags. I say, what would you choose to "clear" a building by yourself?

Finally, it's not "beside the point". The proposition that we would be better off restricting the availability of certain classes of weapons (like we already do) does not preclude doing other things, including addressing whatever you consider to be the "basic cause". Or if you prefer, it's in addition to "the point".

[autigeremt 6,644]

I would choose both the AR as a primary entry/clearance weapon and the side arms as backup.

[AUGradinTX 0]

Thats what i said. You cant predict when or who. So lets get the military artillery off the streets and take our chances against against guns that actually have other legitimate uses than killing large groups of people in a few seconds.

How do we do that? Buy back programs? I don't know if we could get the artillery out of the hands of the thugs even if the law abiding gave into a program like that. Then we'd have to send in the National Guard. Then what? We are where we are and I don't think a new law will fix anything like this.

Apologies to Alexava for butting in, but they have a saying in the army, that when you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging. (I started to say take away the shovels, but I don't want to imply I am recommending we take away the guns.)

As I see it*, the choices we have are 1) institute regulations/restrictions designed to halt or at least stem the proliferation of military-purposed weaponry in our society, or 2) do nothing.

What, if anything, to do about the weapons already out there is really a different question. In other words, they don't constitute a reason to allow the problem to get worse.

*as I see it, means I am presuming things which you may not agree with, such as AR/AK type weapons belong in the same class as the fully automatic versions and other weapons like RPG's. It also presumes a problem associated with having millions and millions of these sort of weapons "readily available" (i.e.: the way they are now). If you want to take issue with those presumptions, fine. Maybe we'll just agree to disagree. My point in this post is to respond to the logic of doing nothing because there are already 1.5M(?) out there.

Likewise, IMO, getting these weapons out of the hands of "thugs" is side issue that should not determine whether or not we do nothing. In other words, I don't see how having 30, 50M - or more - of these weapons out there would help address that issue.

Those are the only two choices we have? Can we not acknowledge the fact that a gun did not commit any of the crimes sparking this conversation? All of them were mentally ill. What I take from the highlighted portion of your post is that we shouldn't help the crazies, just take away ONE of the tools SOME of them used to kill. That just doesn't make any sense. Any reasonable person with half a brain knows these guys would still have killed if they didn't have access to an AR. This is undeniable by simply looking at the weapons they took with them. Pistols, shotguns, etc. They would have killed anyway. Even if they wouldn't have been able to kill as many people, which is debatable (see Va Tech killer), many people still would have died. Maybe more, maybe less. That's beside the point, however, and ignoring the basic CAUSE of these crimes.

Well, "any reasonable person with half a brain" would recognize that having alternative options is no reason to make a more lethal class of weapons (say grenade launchers) more easily available.

Really? Grenade launchers again? Are we denying the obvious differences between grenade launchers that are much more destructive and cause unintended collateral damage unlike a semi-auto rifle? The class of weapon under discussion is semi-automatic rifles, not stuff that goes boom, shoots shrapnel, and ends with stuff burning to the ground.

Now if you insist that semi-auto rifles with high capacity magazines are no more lethal (effective) in mass shooting demonstrations, then we will just have to agree to disagree. Weegle thinks four pistols(!) would be just as efficient as an AR with taped 30 round mags. I say, what would you choose to "clear" a building by yourself?

I would agree that rifles, in general, are more lethal that forks, knives and spoons accomplishing that. Does that mean we should just get it over with and ban all rifles? You are trying, first of all, to fix a problem that you can't. The fact that more people are killed by hands and feet than by rifles (of any kind) and shotguns combined tells me that. Second, you are trying to stop murders by banning something that is very rarely used to commit them. How does this make sense to you?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

Finally, it's not "beside the point". The proposition that we would be better off restricting the availability of certain classes of weapons (like we already do) does not preclude doing other things, including addressing whatever you consider to be the "basic cause". Or if you prefer, it's in addition to "the point".

The point you're missing is that you are wanting to take away something that millions of Americans use everyday without indecent to prevent murders when the percentage of murders committed with that something happens 10x, maybe 20x (that's a generous estimate), less than people being struck by lightening. Do a little research and get back to me on how many lives would be saved every year by banning AR-15s. I'm willing to bet just as many, if not more, people used one to save their lives rather than take one from the innocent.

[alexava 6,973]

Thats what i said. You cant predict when or who. So lets get the military artillery off the streets and take our chances against against guns that actually have other legitimate uses than killing large groups of people in a few seconds.

How do we do that? Buy back programs? I don't know if we could get the artillery out of the hands of the thugs even if the law abiding gave into a program like that. Then we'd have to send in the National Guard. Then what? We are where we are and I don't think a new law will fix anything like this.

Apologies to Alexava for butting in, but they have a saying in the army, that when you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging. (I started to say take away the shovels, but I don't want to imply I am recommending we take away the guns.)

As I see it*, the choices we have are 1) institute regulations/restrictions designed to halt or at least stem the proliferation of military-purposed weaponry in our society, or 2) do nothing.

What, if anything, to do about the weapons already out there is really a different question. In other words, they don't constitute a reason to allow the problem to get worse.

*as I see it, means I am presuming things which you may not agree with, such as AR/AK type weapons belong in the same class as the fully automatic versions and other weapons like RPG's. It also presumes a problem associated with having millions and millions of these sort of weapons "readily available" (i.e.: the way they are now). If you want to take issue with those presumptions, fine. Maybe we'll just agree to disagree. My point in this post is to respond to the logic of doing nothing because there are already 1.5M(?) out there.

Likewise, IMO, getting these weapons out of the hands of "thugs" is side issue that should not determine whether or not we do nothing. In other words, I don't see how having 30, 50M - or more - of these weapons out there would help address that issue.

Those are the only two choices we have? Can we not acknowledge the fact that a gun did not commit any of the crimes sparking this conversation? All of them were mentally ill. What I take from the highlighted portion of your post is that we shouldn't help the crazies, just take away ONE of the tools SOME of them used to kill. That just doesn't make any sense. Any reasonable person with half a brain knows these guys would still have killed if they didn't have access to an AR. This is undeniable by simply looking at the weapons they took with them. Pistols, shotguns, etc. They would have killed anyway. Even if they wouldn't have been able to kill as many people, which is debatable (see Va Tech killer), many people still would have died. Maybe more, maybe less. That's beside the point, however, and ignoring the basic CAUSE of these crimes.

Well, "any reasonable person with half a brain" would recognize that having alternative options is no reason to make a more lethal class of weapons (say grenade launchers) more easily available.

Really? Grenade launchers again? Are we denying the obvious differences between grenade launchers that are much more destructive and cause unintended collateral damage unlike a semi-auto rifle? The class of weapon under discussion is semi-automatic rifles, not stuff that goes boom, shoots shrapnel, and ends with stuff burning to the ground.

Now if you insist that semi-auto rifles with high capacity magazines are no more lethal (effective) in mass shooting demonstrations, then we will just have to agree to disagree. Weegle thinks four pistols(!) would be just as efficient as an AR with taped 30 round mags. I say, what would you choose to "clear" a building by yourself?

I would agree that rifles, in general, are more lethal that forks, knives and spoons accomplishing that. Does that mean we should just get it over with and ban all rifles? You are trying, first of all, to fix a problem that you can't. The fact that more people are killed by hands and feet than by rifles (of any kind) and shotguns combined tells me that. Second, you are trying to stop murders by banning something that is very rarely used to commit them. How does this make sense to you?

http://www.fbi.gov/a.../10shrtbl08.xls

Finally, it's not "beside the point". The proposition that we would be better off restricting the availability of certain classes of weapons (like we already do) does not preclude doing other things, including addressing whatever you consider to be the "basic cause". Or if you prefer, it's in addition to "the point".

The point you're missing is that you are wanting to take away something that millions of Americans use everyday without indecent to prevent murders when the percentage of murders committed with that something happens 10x, maybe 20x (that's a generous estimate), less than people being struck by lightening. Do a little research and get back to me on how many lives would be saved every year by banning AR-15s. I'm willing to bet just as many, if not more, people used one to save their lives rather than take one from the innocent.

ive asked and no one has a link to this happening. someone posted a link where an unloaded AR was used to scare away a home intruder, nothing else. and you are right not a huge # of people are killed with assault weapons but we cant ignore the ones that are and for no reason. the other gun deaths you mention are with guns that have justifiable purposes and that is being addressed in other ways. the assault weapon imo is not justified, its a killing machine, period.

[alexava 6,973]

Thats what i said. You cant predict when or who. So lets get the military artillery off the streets and take our chances against against guns that actually have other legitimate uses than killing large groups of people in a few seconds.

How do we do that? Buy back programs? I don't know if we could get the artillery out of the hands of the thugs even if the law abiding gave into a program like that. Then we'd have to send in the National Guard. Then what? We are where we are and I don't think a new law will fix anything like this.

Apologies to Alexava for butting in, but they have a saying in the army, that when you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging. (I started to say take away the shovels, but I don't want to imply I am recommending we take away the guns.)

As I see it*, the choices we have are 1) institute regulations/restrictions designed to halt or at least stem the proliferation of military-purposed weaponry in our society, or 2) do nothing.

What, if anything, to do about the weapons already out there is really a different question. In other words, they don't constitute a reason to allow the problem to get worse.

*as I see it, means I am presuming things which you may not agree with, such as AR/AK type weapons belong in the same class as the fully automatic versions and other weapons like RPG's. It also presumes a problem associated with having millions and millions of these sort of weapons "readily available" (i.e.: the way they are now). If you want to take issue with those presumptions, fine. Maybe we'll just agree to disagree. My point in this post is to respond to the logic of doing nothing because there are already 1.5M(?) out there.

Likewise, IMO, getting these weapons out of the hands of "thugs" is side issue that should not determine whether or not we do nothing. In other words, I don't see how having 30, 50M - or more - of these weapons out there would help address that issue.

when i said "get these off the street" i didnt mean literally go round them up and take them away now. i dont recall any legislation that favors that either. but like homer said we have to stop the bleeding before you clean up the blood. i know we will not take them away and we will not see a huge difference in our lifetimes. i have said this before if this was done 30-40 years ago they would not be available now. so our kids and grandkids will reap the benefit. but pumping these things into scociety at the rate we are now is not the way to go. in 30 or 40 years they will be collectors items and too expensive for idiots to get that easily.