It takes only 5 people to end gun violence in America.

[Lamplighter]

It takes only 5 people to end gun violence in America.

Banning gun sales to those with mental illness is not effective enough
Background checks on criminals are not effective enough
Banning the sale of assault guns is not effective enough
Limiting the number of shells in gun magazines is not effective enough
Fences and locked doors on every public facility are not effective enough
Armed guards/teachers/doctors/salespersons/clergy in every public place is not effective enough

We rationalize limits on the 1st Amendment Right to Free Speech in the greater good.
- children's exposure to pornography
- adults shouting "Fire" in a crowd

We can rationalize limits on the 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms.

The US Supreme Court has made mistakes, and their decisions have been re-evaluated, and even reversed.

Our Forefathers envisioned domination by a foreign government's military.
Our Forefathers envisioned a "well regulated militia" for the common good.
Our Forefathers envisioned guns as flintlocks and muskets, not our modern guns.

Limiting gun possession to flintlocks and muskets is a "conservative" view.
Limiting gun possession to the maintaining of a militia is a "conservative" view

It only takes 5 Supreme Court Justices to end gun violence in America.

[DanaC]

Y'know, I totally get that people wouldn't want a total ban on guns. Too many cultural associations, too much a part of growing up in some communities, and too necessary as a survival tool in some parts of the country.

But assault weapons? If you need a battlefield weapon that pumps out mega quantities of bullets to hunt a deer or a bear than ur doin it rong.

If all that lad had been abe to acquire was a simple shotgun or hunting rifle the death toll would have been significantly lower.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by DanaC

But assault weapons? If you need a battlefield weapon that pumps out mega quantities of bullets to hunt a deer or a bear than ur doin it rong.

Please define "assault weapon" and explain the substantial differences with non-"assault weapon"s.

If all that lad had been abe to acquire was a simple shotgun or hunting rifle the death toll would have been significantly lower.

How so?

Originally Posted by tw

Gun shows are where one buys the most deadly weapons and ammunition without even a background check.

I snipped the portion of your post designed to elicit an emotional response but left one of your "facts". What types of weapons are we talking about here? Were you at this gun show to see them? How often do you attend gun shows?

For the record, I am adamantly opposed to semi-automatic firearms, and I think gun ownership requirements in this country are looser than lax. A bolt action rifle with a four round clip is all one needs for hunting.

What exactly is a semi-automatic firearm? Why 4 and not 6? Is 10 too many? Why?

[footfootfoot]

I'll take a stab at answering some of these.

I think by "assault weapon", Dana means an A-10 Warthog. I confirmed this with the inch who said, "The A-10 can shoot, like 300 million 700 caliber rounds a second." He is only nine and prone to exaggeration but he does have "the Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft" Though we can't really be sure he is actually reading it and not just looking at the pictures.

Merriam Webster defines Assault:
1
a : a violent physical or verbal attack
b : a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces
c : a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary)
2
a : a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact — compare battery 1b

My suspicion is that non-assault weapons would be soft cushions, stern looks, and an angry letter to the New York Times.


Re: reduced death toll, How so?

Simple shotguns, (like the Benelli that Tom Knapp used to shoot) are only used for hunting geese and shooting clay pigeons, hunting rifles are used for small, medium, and large game and none of those things were present at the shooting therefore the shooter wouldn't have had occasion to use either type of firearm.


Gun Shows with most deadly weapons and ammo. Again, a quick glance in Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft shows that once again, Lockheed Martin has pulled another winner out of the bag with its F-22 Raptor. As for the deadly ammo, I would discount the missiles as being "ammo" and would vote for 20mm DU rounds as being the deadliest ammo.

I was not at a gunshow to see thse things, I lack any sort of security clearance. I have never been to a gun show.


A semi-automatic firearm is a firearm that extracts the spent shell, chambers a new round and cocks the firing mechanism every time the trigger is pulled and a round is fired. A fully automatic firearm does this with a single trigger pull (or squeeze or press) until the magazine is emptied or the trigger is let off. Selective fire firearms can switch from fully auto to semi auto.

My Marlin 60 is a semi auto .22 tube magazine. The government can have it when they pry it from my warm living fingers with a generous buy-back check that would cover the purchase of a sweet bolt action .22 like a volquartsen.That would apply sufficient leverage upon my fingers to release my grip on my semi-auto Marlin.

Why 4 and not 6 or 10? I just pulled that number out of my ass since 4 is the max # of rounds you can have in your gun during hunting season here in NY. Actually, I think it's 5. One in the chamber in 4 in the mag. So yeah, 10 is too many as far as the DEC is concerned. Big fines, loss of hunting privileges, peepee smacking. So 4 is the number.

Originally Posted by lookout123

Please define "assault weapon" and explain the substantial differences with non-"assault weapon"s.

How so?
I snipped the portion of your post designed to elicit an emotional response but left one of your "facts". What types of weapons are we talking about here? Were you at this gun show to see them? How often do you attend gun shows?


What exactly is a semi-automatic firearm? Why 4 and not 6? Is 10 too many? Why?

[bluecuracao]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

My Marlin 60 is a semi auto .22 tube magazine. The government can have it when they pry it from my warm living fingers with a generous buy-back check that would cover the purchase of a sweet bolt action .22 like a volquartsen.That would apply sufficient leverage upon my fingers to release my grip on my semi-auto Marlin.

You are awesome, foot3.

[Adak]

What we need are more gun control laws in this country, because clearly, we know the criminals never get their hands on guns, once those laws are passed:

A perfect example from the killer/arsonist last week.

Authorities do not know how Spengler obtained the Bushmaster rifle, .38-caliber revolver and 12-gauge shotgun he used, Pickering said. As a convicted felon, Spengler was not allowed to legally possess weapons.

Spengler killed two firemen who responded to the home fire he started. He wounded two others,

AND WOULD HAVE KILLED SEVERAL MORE, EXCEPT a policeman shielded the wounded firemen on the ground with his car, AND SHOT SPENGLER WITH A RIFLE.

What have we learned today?

* Criminals don't CARE about gun laws - they will get guns or other weapons they can use against YOU.

* It behooves you to have a gun to shoot them when they try to kill you.

Apologies for boring the liberals who seem completely unable to understand this basic premise.

Here's a little lesson from nature:

Without a firearm, we are the warthog - careful, but still vulnerable, and still a victim. (not for the squemish):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-UX0w2yA2A

[DanaC]

It is not, in my opinion, acceptable or desirable for people to be allowed to drive tanks down the public highway willynilly. They weren't made for use in that setting. Doesn't mean i want to ban all motor vehicles.

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by DanaC

It is not, in my opinion, acceptable or desirable for people to be allowed to drive tanks down the public highway willynilly. They weren't made for use in that setting. Doesn't mean i want to ban all motor vehicles.

I like your analogy, Dana, and I agree with your balanced view on the subject.

[glatt]

Our Forefathers envisioned a "well regulated militia" for the common good.

It seems to me that if you are making the argument that guns are only protected under the Constitution for militias, then you need to allow machine guns. After all, they are military weapons for a military organization. So if we want to restrict guns that look like machine guns, what we need to do is to change the interpretation of the Constitution so that the Constitutional purpose of guns is not to arm militias. Ironically, the Supreme Court did just that when they overturned the DC handgun ban and held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by glatt

It seems to me that if you are making the argument
that guns are only protected under the Constitution for militias, then you need to allow machine guns.
After all, they are military weapons for a military organization.
So if we want to restrict guns that look like machine guns,
what we need to do is to change the interpretation of the Constitution
so that the Constitutional purpose of guns is not to arm militias.<snip>

Ummmm.... there are two issues here.

What was the wording of the original "2nd Amendment ratified by the States ?
To wit:

CONGRESS of the UNITED STATES
Begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday,
the
Fourth of March, One Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty-nine.

Article the first [Not Ratified]
Article the second [Not Ratified - until 1992, as the 27th Amendment]
Article the third [1st Amendment]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

Article the fourth [2nd Amendment]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The laws passed by Congress after the States ratified
the Constitution and Bill of Rights are worded differently.

A great deal is made of the Federalist Papers regarding the intentions of our Forefathers.
John Jay's writings there on the 2nd Amendment (before ratification)
specifically discuss the need to give up some "rights"
in order to gain other benefits gained from the new federal government.


The "militia" of our Forefathers is not one of individuals with guns,
but of independent (non-federal) communities formally calling up individuals,
even to the point of a draft to meet quotas, to defend against foreign forces.
---

Second, our Forefathers could not have envisioned the machine gun,
or much of any gun we now call an "automatic firearm",
which came 50 to 100 years after ratification...

from Wikipedia:
The History of the Firearm

<snip>
A repeating firearm or "repeater" is a firearm that holds more
than one cartridge and can be fired more than once between chargings.
Springfield rifles were among the very first breech-loading rifles, starting production in 1865.

The most well-known repeater is the American Springfield Model 1892-99

The earliest repeating firearms were revolvers (revolving rifles were sometimes called "turret guns")
and were "single action" in that they could only be fired one way: by manually cocking the mechanism
(drawing the hammer to the rear with the thumb) before each shot.
This design dates from 1836, with the introduction of the Colt Paterson,

The first successful rapid-fire firearm is the Gatling Gun, invented by Richard Gatling
and fielded by the Union forces during the American Civil War in the 1860s.

Thus, it only takes 5 USSC Justices to re-interpret "well regulated" to end gun violence.

[glatt]

Yeah, that's all interesting, but the Supreme Court already removed the whole militia part of the 2nd amendment. So a new Supreme Court would have to change that ruling to bring militias back into it, and then go on to do what you suggest.

The Wikipedia summary of the Supreme Court's holding in D.C. v. Heller:

The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

It only takes 5 Supreme Court Justices to end gun violence in America.

Just like it ended drinking in America? Just because something is made illegal doesn't mean it will automatically go away.

Is there actually any unbiased evidence that banning guns has an effect on lowering gun deaths? From the data I've seen, banning handguns in D.C, Chicago, etc. didn't really do anything when comparing against the national average. I could see it having an effect on suicides but that is preventable through other measures as well.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

From the data I've seen, banning handguns in D.C, Chicago, etc. didn't really do anything

Think about that for a second. Were people free to leave DC and cross the bridge into Virginia where gun laws are lax? If there is a nation wide ban, would there be such an easy path around the law?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by glatt

Think about that for a second. Were people free to leave DC and cross the bridge into Virginia where gun laws are lax? If there is a nation wide ban, would there be such an easy path around the law?

I don't see much difference between a hypothetical gun ban in the US with prohibition on alcohol, weed, cocaine, etc. Would there maybe be some initial instability? Probably. However, if there is a demand for guns, I'm sure the black market would be more than happy to supply. It already does in many urban areas.

We have over 300 million guns in this country and only a very very small proportion of those are used to kill people. I would imagine that a ban on guns would greatly reduce the number of guns that are being used responsibility but have little impact on the number of guns being used irresponsibly. Any gun regulation needs to address this IMO.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Just like it ended drinking in America? Just because something is made illegal doesn't mean it will automatically go away.

Is there actually any unbiased evidence that banning guns has an effect on lowering gun deaths? From the data I've seen, banning handguns in D.C, Chicago, etc. didn't really do anything when comparing against the national average. I could see it having an effect on suicides but that is preventable through other measures as well.

Here is all the surprising, inconvenient, confusing, complicated, and non-soundbite-worthy evidence.

It's not simple.

http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp