GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, OR DO THEY?

[Blindgreed1]

I don't think many people with command of the English language would miss the difference between a 'weapon' and a 'rifle', Gunnar.

'Weapon' is a broad term; many everyday items can be used as weapons and some items are designed to serve as weapons -- like guns (handguns, rifles, automatic, semi-automatic, or otherwise), switchblades, certain bombs....

We know that handguns (including semi-automatic ones) account for most gun violence in the U.S. and semi-automatic rifles are the preferred weapons for public mass-murderers and terrorists in the U.S.

So, again, whether one chooses to label the weapons referred to in the Globe editorial as 'semi-automatic' or 'assault' is irrelevant to the the issue itself. It's clear, and defined in the article itself, what constitutes a 'semi-automatic' or 'assault' firearm and that the author believes that semi-automatic arms (including the rifles used in most public mass murders and terrorist attacks) to be weapons of war which should not be available to any interested civilian who passes a background check and pays for the firearm.

I don't like blurred lines.

[F.U.]

the Boston Globe just said that the ban on these weapons expired in 2004 and Congress had done nothing to reactivate this law...did I misunderstand this?

This is correct bbh. The Clinton ban expired and was not renewed because it did nothing to help the issue.
Cosmetics such as folding stocks, pistol grips, bayonet mounts, attachable grenade launchers, flash suppressors, threaded barrels designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, silencer & barrel shrouds, were all part of the ban and did not make the firearm any more or less deadly. They just looked scary was all.
They also banned magazines that held over 10 rounds of ammo and while that sounds like a good idea it made no difference. because a magazine can be changed in under 1 second, so 3 10 round or 1 30 round really effected little.
I remember the ban well and the biggest effect it had on firearms, from my recollection, was it pushed a lot of aftermarket add ons and hi cap mags, underground and people were making a killing off selling them. A 30 round magazine for a ar-15 that once cost $7 cost us $50 during the ban.

[Duchess]

Cosmetics such as folding stocks, pistol grips, bayonet mounts, attachable grenade launchers, flash suppressors, threaded barrels designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, silencer & barrel shrouds, were all part of the ban and did not make the firearm any more or less deadly. They just looked scary was all.

That made me think of the picture of the guns you once posted. One was a rather benign looking long gun and the other had a bunch of add-ons and it did look very scary. It was the same gun.

[HairOfTheDog]

It's twelve years since the 1994 Assault Weapon ban expired and the issues have changed.

High fatality public mass shootings carried out by murderers using semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines
are, unfortunately, happening more frequently in today's environment. Many of the weapons were purchased legally by civilians who passed a background check.

My views are changing in line with the times. It's not enough to do more to try to keep such weapons out of the hands of the 'wrong' people and to better enforce the existing gun laws.

The bad guy with the gun is too many times a good/responsible guy (on paper) with a gun right up until he starts slaughtering people. And, the Supreme Court has already ruled that it's constitutional to put restrictions on gun ownership without violating the second amendment.

I now think it should be made much more difficult for anyone to purchase an assault weapon, ALONG WITH enhancing efforts to keep any guns out of the wrong hands + increasing the commitment/funding to enforce gun laws. But, I don't want to see everybody's guns taken away or anything like that (and it doesn't matter to me what the gun looks like; restrictions should be based on functionality).

[F.U.]

I now think it should be made much more difficult for anyone to purchase an assault weapon, ALONG WITH enhancing efforts to keep any guns out of the wrong hands + increasing the commitment/funding to enforce gun laws. But, I don't want to see everybody's guns taken away or anything like that (and it doesn't matter to me what the gun looks like; restrictions should be based on functionality).

I don't see a good way of making it more difficult for people to purchase a modern sporting rifle, that would have any effect on a mass shooters plans. I mean if people will take the time to go through schooling just so they can learn how to fly a plane and use it to do evil, why wont they take the time to jump through the hoops to get a firearm? All I see it doing is making it harder for the average Joe to purchase the firearm.
What is your proposal to accomplish this ?

[blueberryhill]

It's twelve years since the 1994 Assault Weapon ban expired and the issues have changed.

High fatality public mass shootings carried out by murderers using semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines
are, unfortunately, happening more frequently in today's environment. Many of the weapons were purchased legally by civilians who passed a background check.

My views are changing in line with the times. It's not enough to do more to try to keep such weapons out of the hands of the 'wrong' people and to better enforce the existing gun laws.

The bad guy with the gun is too many times a good/responsible guy (on paper) with a gun right up until he starts slaughtering people. And, the Supreme Court has already ruled that it's constitutional to put restrictions on gun ownership without violating the second amendment.

I now think it should be made much more difficult for anyone to purchase an assault weapon, ALONG WITH enhancing efforts to keep any guns out of the wrong hands + increasing the commitment/funding to enforce gun laws. But, I don't want to see everybody's guns taken away or anything like that (and it doesn't matter to me what the gun looks like; restrictions should be based on functionality).

Wasn't it your State, Hair, which stated that the 2^nd amendment does not guarantee your right to carry concealed weapon? Kudos to that State.....

First, I think the 2^nd amendment needs to be clarified so that people can be clear on what it says and doesn't say......does anyone think laws should be updated to keep up with the times? I dunno know, just think that when we refer to laws made 200 years or more ago, we might see a need to keep up with the times....When 2^nd amendment was signed, we were using muskets as our weapon against our invaders and not firearms who kill maximum people in minimum time...

[F.U.]

BBH, just judging from your comment about concealed weapons, I assume you don't agree with people having the right to carry a firearm. If so, why?

[Duchess]

This is wild.

It's easier to get a gun than it is to get...

A divorce
A passport
A puppy
A drivers license
Cold medicine

[HairOfTheDog]

I now think it should be made much more difficult for anyone to purchase an assault weapon, ALONG WITH enhancing efforts to keep any guns out of the wrong hands + increasing the commitment/funding to enforce gun laws. But, I don't want to see everybody's guns taken away or anything like that (and it doesn't matter to me what the gun looks like; restrictions should be based on functionality).

I don't see a good way of making it more difficult for people to purchase a modern sporting rifle, that would have any effect on a mass shooters plans. I mean if people will take the time to go through schooling just so they can learn how to fly a plane and use it to do evil, why wont they take the time to jump through the hoops to get a firearm? All I see it doing is making it harder for the average Joe to purchase the firearm.
What is your proposal to accomplish this ?

Well, I don't consider them "sporting" rifles. I consider them more military, by design.

But, one idea that crossed my mind is to simply apply the same requirements for purchasing fully-automatics to buying semi-automatics (with some enhancements to the current requirements).

Something like this, for example:

- Pay $2,000
- Undergo an in-depth background check (if you've been on a no-fly or watchlist in the last 5 years, automatic denial)
- Fill out a lengthy application to register your gun with the federal government
- Undergo basic psych eval
- Submit photographs and fingerprints
- Provide a certificate of safety course completion
- Have two personal references and the chief local law enforcement official sign the application
- Wait 3 months
- Renew some of the steps above every two or three years...

[F.U.]

I now think it should be made much more difficult for anyone to purchase an assault weapon, ALONG WITH enhancing efforts to keep any guns out of the wrong hands + increasing the commitment/funding to enforce gun laws. But, I don't want to see everybody's guns taken away or anything like that (and it doesn't matter to me what the gun looks like; restrictions should be based on functionality).

I don't see a good way of making it more difficult for people to purchase a modern sporting rifle, that would have any effect on a mass shooters plans. I mean if people will take the time to go through schooling just so they can learn how to fly a plane and use it to do evil, why wont they take the time to jump through the hoops to get a firearm? All I see it doing is making it harder for the average Joe to purchase the firearm.
What is your proposal to accomplish this ?

Well, I don't consider them "sporting" rifles. I consider them more military, by design.

But, one idea that crossed my mind is too simply apply the same requirements for purchasing fully-automatics to buying semi-automatics (with some enhancements to the current requirements).

Something like this, for example:

- Pay $2,000
- Undergo an in-depth background check (if you've been on a no-fly or watchlist in the last 5 years, automatic denial)
- Fill out a lengthy application to register your gun with the federal government
- Undergo basic psych eval
- Submit photographs and fingerprints
- Provide a certificate of safety course completion
- Have two personal references and the chief local law enforcement official sign the application
- Wait 3 months
- Renew some of the steps above every two or three years...

So basically ban them. Because we both know the average Joe cant afford that.

[HairOfTheDog]

An assault rifle for non-military personnel is not needed for adequate self defense, so it's a luxury item in my mind.

If you're an Average Joe on a budget and you really want a semi-automatic, you're gonna have to save and/or choose a semi-automatic over a new truck, a vacation, nights at the bar, etc... That's not unreasonable to me.

The fee might be lower than $2,000 though - that was just an example. The administration cost (whatever that might be) should be covered by the applicant, not the taxpayers, in my opinion.

[F.U.]

You do know that the $2000 fee is 4 times what I sell a new ar-15 for, right?

I would think this altered list would be doable. People, gun owners included MIGHT get behind something like this.

Pay $100
- Undergo an in-depth background check (if you've been on a no-fly or watchlist in the last 5 years, automatic denial)
- Fill out a 4473 application to satisfy the federal government
- Undergo basic psych eval
- Provide a certificate of safety course completion
- Wait 3 days

[HairOfTheDog]

Well, it's not my call. You asked for my ideas and what I tossed out is reasonable, to me.

The price of the gun is irrelevant to me. People can choose between different priced guns and make trade-offs based on their priorities, same as for other goods.

$100 wouldn't cover the costs of the qualifications process. I feel strongly that the full background investigation and other administration costs should be the responsibility of the applicant/purchaser, not subsidized by tax payer dollars.

Anyway.... the Average Joe isn't gonna die if he/she can't afford to qualify for a semi-automatic. But, other Average Joes might die if he continues to be able to get one so easily and turns out to be not-so-average after all.

[Maggot]

I might consider giving up my guns but the 16^th amendment would have to be repealed first.

[sally]

An assault rifle for non-military personnel is not needed for adequate self defense, so it's a luxury item in my mind.

That's how I viewed it, it's not a necessity since you can buy a cheaper gun for self defense. Just like other luxury items, no one gives a shit if the average Joe can't afford it.

[Maggot]

Great, give all the rich people money then give them guns. Oh wait they have body guards and contribute to Senatorial candidates in places like New York that pass out favors like easy concealed permits to friends.

[Maggot]

Ronald Lauder: Worth $3.3 billion, No. 103 on Forbes
Donald Trump: Worth $2.9 billion, No. 128 on Forbes 400
Joseph Sitt: Coney Island developer with assets of $1 billion
Andrew Farkas: Island Capital CEO used to employ Andrew Cuomo.
Richard Fields: Hard Rock casino mogul
Howard Stern: Recently inked $400 million deal with Sirius
John Catsimatidis: Gristedes CEO worth $2 billion, No. 212 on Forbes
John Mack: Former Morgan Stanley CEO
Larry Gluck: Real-estate mogul owns Independence Plaza and heads Stellar Management.
Adam Rose: Owner of Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village.
Isaac Perlmutter: Marvel comics CEO worth $1.9 billion, No. 263 on Forbes.
Tommy Mottola: Bronx-born recording exec worth $100 million
George Klein: Real-estate mogul, CEO of Park Tower Group
Ivan Seidenberg: Former Verizon CEO made $62 in 2009-2011
Dana Duneier: CEO of Madison Avenue jeweler Clyde Duneier
Albert Fried: Managing director of venerable Wall Street firm Albert Fried & Company.
Martin Goodstein: Founder of Goodstein Management
Donald Trump Jr.: First son of The Donald works for the Trump Organization.
Eric Trump: Third son of Donald, he’s also in the family biz.

Strangely, the Post’s list of NYC’s “21,243 Tom, Dick and Dirty Harry’s” doesn’t include celebrities (e.g., Robert DeNiro). Something to do with maintaining access for the paper’s paparazzi?


link

[HairOfTheDog]

Great, give all the rich people money then give them guns. Oh wait they have body guards and contribute to Senatorial candidates in places like New York that pass out favors like easy concealed permits to friends.

That's obviously not what I suggested.

A rich person and an Average Joe would be equally required to pass an extensive background check, successfully complete a safety course, supply meaningful references, pass a psych eval... A rich person who didn't meet those qualifications could not legally purchase semi-automatics anymore than could the Average Joe who also didn't qualify.

Likewise, a rich person or an Average Joe would be equally required to pay the standard qualifications/screening administrative fee, whatever that turned out to be -- $500, $1,000, $2,000... Tax payers shouldn't be financially responsible for ensuring that people who want to buy luxury hobby items don't pose an identified risk to the safety/lives of others in so doing.

[HairOfTheDog]

Interesting that you now seem to consider income inequality and corruption important issues, not issues that only crazies and jealous people care about, Maggot. Better late than never.

[sally]

Also if you can't afford or save up $2000 for something you really want then you're not an average Joe, you're a broke ass nigga.