I hope James Holmes will at least put a stake through the argument

[pnwmom]

that gun legislation is pointless because people who legally own their guns are never going to use them improperly anyway; that it's only the "criminals" who misuse guns, and they would ignore any gun laws that were passed. Holmes was a legal gun owner up to the time he (allegedly) fired on a theater full of people, at which point he became (allegedly) a criminal.

And he obtained every one of his firearms legally, including his assault weapon, thanks to the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban in 2004.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/romneys_gun_flub/

Mitt Romney is deeply confused about gun laws. In an interview set to air later tonight on NBC, the GOP presidential candidate says that alleged Aurora, Colo., shooter James Holmes “shouldn’t have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices” that he did. Romney says this justifies current gun laws as strong enough: “It was illegal for him to have many of those things already, but he had them. So we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won’t.” Instead, Romney says “changing the hearts of the American people” is a better policy.

This is simply not true. As Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates explained: “All the weapons that he possessed, he possessed legally. And all the clips that he possessed, he possessed legally. And all the ammunition that he possessed, he possessed legally.”

Holmes used a handgun, a shotgun and an AR-15 assault rifle in his massacre — all legal, thanks to the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban in 2004, which had previously prohibited some versions of the AR-15. Holmes also had body armor, tear gas grenades, a gas mask and tactical gear. All are legal and widely available online at minimal cost (one website sells tear gas grenades for just $16 a pop).

The only way it would have been illegal for Holmes to have his guns would be if he had been diagnosed as mentally ill or was a convicted felon, but neither was the case. His only record was a speeding ticket. “Background checks, as required by federal law, were properly conducted, and [Holmes] was approved,” said a spokesman for Bass Pro Shops, where he bought one of his guns. Holmes had also booby-trapped his apartment with homemade explosives, but there’s no evidence yet that any of these devices were illegal either, as he made them himself with common materials like gasoline.

SNIP

[HockeyMom]

1. They are all Legal until the FIRST TIME

you see THAT is the problem.

[Control-Z]

3. How's that?

I'm not understanding your comment. Maybe I'm just exhausted from all the gun threads. Could you explain what you meant to me? I'm sincere.

[HockeyMom]

6. Holmes had no Felonies, no Adjudicated Mental Illness

much the same as ALL the mass murderers. His, and theirs, was the FIRST. It was very easy for all of them to guns and ammo, in the states where they lived.

[Brisket]

10. Would that also apply to first time armed robbers or home invaders who stole the gun

or got it on the street? Are some babies born criminals? It seems to me that every person who breaks the law never did it before the first time. Maybe I'm trying to hard to apply some logic to your comment...help me out here.

[Control-Z]

20. I see what you're saying now.

And I agree. That is why restrictions all around need to be improved. How hard would it be to keep track of the number of guns owned, amount of ammo purchased, patterns in purchasing, etc?

For security purposes, credit card companies look into changes in spending habits. By law, we can only purchase a certain amount of Sudafed in a 30 day period. Prescriptions drug purchases are tracked like we're all criminals. We need insurance, registration and driver's license to own and operate a car.

Why not the same for guns?

[X_Digger]

24. What is there, if anything, about the shooter's purchases that would have set red flags off?

Three guns? That's not atypical. Ammo? Again, not uncommon.

Oh, and re insurance? Insurance companies don't pay for criminal acts (see "Intentional Acts Exclusion&quot

[Control-Z]

48. It's not that hard to figure out. Really.

If each gun were treated like a car purchase with registration and yearly fees, a license to use and/or carry, and yes, proof of liability insurance, as well as records to track sudden high volume purchases - just think.

I don't know much about insurance companies other than they change their policies all the time. It's all about the money after all, isn't it?

[X_Digger]

51. If it's not so hard to figure out, then please explain..

Many gun owners will purchase multiple guns in a short time, or ammo over the internet.

So please, elucidate me.

[Control-Z]

59. It is more than obvious

you're not open to intelligent discussion. What a waste.

[X_Digger]

67. So no answer?

I might purchase multiple guns, in a short time, even on the same day (especially around tax refund time). And I probably order 1-2k rounds of ammunition multiple times a year.

I'm far from the only gun owner to do such, so I'm genuinely curious where your pattern match comes in.

eta: grammar

[Control-Z]

93. Are you serious??

I'm afraid you actually are since you answered your own question but don't seem to know it.

While you are talking about pattern matches,

"so I'm genuinely curious where your pattern match comes in"

which by the way, you yourself have (a pattern):

"I probably order 1-2k rounds of ammunition multiple times a year."

I was talking about breaks in patterns, spending habits - changes
in purchasing.

"records to track sudden high volume purchases"

The red flags go up when a pattern is broken.

See? Now do you get it?. And fwiw, I think you and people like you should be watched at all times, but we know that will never happen.

[X_Digger]

101. So the first time after this magical pattern match is implemented, when I purchase ammo online..

.. what, the SWAT team comes knocking?

Yeah, I don't think you understand typical behavior of many gun owners very well. Lots of false positives, lots of resources expended, lots of intrusions into private lives for legal activities..

Good luck with that.

[Control-Z]

105. You still don't get it.

Sad. Willful ignorance.

[X_Digger]

106. No, you came up with what you thought was a clever idea..

.. and when shown that it's not workable due to the nature of occasional purchases by non-nefarious gun owners, you feign my misapprehension.

[Control-Z]

107. Well, I guess you believe you're batting 1000.

[soccer1]

7. I think I know what HockeyMom means.....

People can purchase weapons if they have no criminal record or history of severe mental illness. So, they commit a heinous crime, like Holmes, THEN they can't legally own a firearm. A little too late for the murdered individuals, yes?

[treestar]

9. Exactly. Like the saying every dog gets his first bite

Every serial killer gets his first murder.

Question would be why do we have people who want to kill the rest of us?

[soccer1]

17. I think we'll always have people who want to kill other people...

the question is.....how do we become a more humane society so that fewer people kill other people?

[Mojorabbit]

77. The crime rate is dropping from what I have read

so maybe we are slowly getting better but when events like this happen it gets a ton of coverage and makes us feel like everything is out of control. Hopefully we are becoming kinder and more humane.

[ellisonz]

90. The annual homicide number remained steady at around 10,000 murders for a decade. n/t

[X_Digger]

102. .. while the population went up by 20% -- did you miss the word 'rate'? n/t

[soccer1]

96. The MSM thrives on extended coverage of sensational stories.....

it ups their ratings But, as you have said, the crime rate is dropping and there are a ton of positive human stories out there but we just don't hear too much about them. Us humans are improving....inch by inch.....a snail's pace, but it's happening.

[Brisket]

11. I think I get it, finally! The solution is to imprision everyone (who might become a criminal)

and only let them out if they do not. Makes perfect sense.

[reformist2]

15. We could at least have a system that red flags people who go on buying sprees.

[Brisket]

18. How exactly would your spree detector function? If you have a working model, you should

either patent it or donate it to Homeland Security!

[rrneck]

32. Thread win. nt

[treestar]

50. No but is there nothing at all that we can do?

Are you saying that we should accept occasional shooting of this kind as a price of freedom?

[HockeyMom]

16. My point is that these states don't ask WHY you want guns,

all that ammo, tear gas, armour, etc. I live in Florida. If I decided I wanted to own a gun, would they even ask me WHY? Absolutely not. My "Constitutional Right". So how do they know that I don't want to buy a gun to murder somebody? They ASSUME that I want a gun for recreation (sic) or protection.

STUPIDITY.

[Brisket]

21. Does Best Buy ask you "why" you want a printer? They should, you could be

publishing slanderous material or even recruiting members for the KKK!

[X_Digger]

22. And all those planning murder would answer "To kill someone." when asked?!?

Only on The Simpsons would something like that actually work.

[HockeyMom]

25. I want a gun to throw it away?

I guess that would be fine too, even if by doing so a criminal could find it.

[X_Digger]

29. Again, what value would such a question have?

That's the part I'm scratching my head at.

[HockeyMom]

33. Prove a point

Not questions asked WHY??????

[spin]

49. Let's suppose a person wanted a firearm for a nefarious purpose. ...

Do you seriously believe that he would state that reason on a piece of paper?

[thucythucy]

73. Holmes might well have answered, "yes, I plan to kill

a lot of people." According to the reports I heard today, he actually mailed a notebook detailing his plans, including diagrams of how he would do it, to a psychiatrist, but unfortunately the notebook wasn't delivered in time (or taken seriously enough) to prevent the tragedy. It's still too early to draw conclusions, but there is at least the possibility that he did this because he wanted to be stopped. This strikes me as similar to how people who tell friends, loved ones, shrinks that they're feeling suicidal, or at least leave broad hints, are hoping in their heart of hearts to be stopped before it's too late.

So yeah, if someone had outright asked this guy, "Why all the guns, why all the ammo, is there something you want to tell us?", he might well have handed them a copy of this notebook, and an awful tragedy might have been averted.

At the very least, it would have been worth a try.

You don't agree?

[X_Digger]

74. I don't, no..

My guess is that the notebook was mailed so that he'd be 'famous'- a manifesto of sorts (remember all the garbage that the Norway shooter wrote?)

Additionally, it's not like he bought all the equipment / guns / ammo at one time- so no, it wouldn't have raised any eyebrows at any place I shop, either.

[thucythucy]

98. Except, according to the reports, he mailed

the notebook days before the shootings, and the only reason the shrink didn't get it was because there was a mix-up in the mail room. Had the mail been delivered on time--this is the story at present, details of course may change as the case develops--the shrink would have seen this before the shooting happened.

It's now also being investigated whether he had the guns and ammo shipped to his address at the university.

So you don't think it would have been worth it for someone at the school to have called him in and said, "What's going on?" Failed his orals, dropped out of the program, ordered weapons and ammo, mailed a detailed plan about how he was going to shoot up a movie theatre--but no point in anybody making any inquiries?

[X_Digger]

100. You're moving quite far afield from the original subject..

Which was asking why someone was purchasing a gun.

To assume that a person bent on murder would say so is.. quite a stretch to say the least, more likely naive.

[thucythucy]

108. Not a stretch at all. "Heavily armed Maine man arrested"

this according to Reuters, July 23, 2012. The police stopped him on the turnpike and saw he had several guns and boxes of ammo in his car. They asked him, what's with all the guns, and he told them he was on his way to the place where he used to work to shoot his former employer.

Perhaps this is highly unusual...but perhaps not. Certainly not all potential murderers, or even most potential murderers, will answer honestly--but some will. These are the folks who basically want someone, anyone, to intervene, to recognize their desperation, to offer them a straw to clutch. This may seem "naive" to you -- but it's a not entirely unheard of scenario for mental health providers.

If even one potential murder or mass murder is prevented by simply asking, "what's with all the guns?" (as was the case in Maine), you still don't see the point? Bearing in mind in most cases the person being questioned is perfectly free to answer, "None of your business," or simply walk or drive away without answering at all--you're still telling me that people should NEVER be asked what they plan to do with weapons, ammo, full body armor, etc.?

As for straying from original subject, the OP is about how Holmes violated no laws at all when he stockpiled his guns and ammo. The sub-thread is about whether inquiring as to why someone is purchasing or possesses a stockpile of weapons is useful, or even appropriate. I'd submit that there are instances when it's both appropriate and potentially life-saving.

Of course, we'll never know if we never try.

[rrneck]

34. How do they know you wont lie?

You've got the makings of a great Monte Python sketch there.

[Posteritatis]

37. That'd be because the vast, overhwelming majority of purchases *are* for recreation/protection.

What's really stupid is assuming that asking somebody why they want to purchase something will have the tiniest fraction of an impact on how people use or misuse it.

[Missycim]

38. Its none of their

Bidness on the reason you want a gun...

[HockeyMom]

39. So they won't keep track of that gun I bought?

I could do whatever I wanted with it. Right? THAT is stupid, and dangerous. ASSUME NOTHING.

[Missycim]

41. Record the sale

but they have no right to ask me what I intend to do with it...is what i meant.

[NYC_SKP]

2. Everybody is entrenced in their positions on the matter, I'm afraid.

[bongbong]

4. Don't be confused

They're not "arguments", they're "NRA Talking Points", AKA "NRA Lies"

[Frustratedlady]

5. I keep reading comments that Mitt is very intelligent...

He said, “...changing the hearts of the American people” is a better policy."

Is he plugged in at all?

In all my years on this earth, I have never seen a division like what we have today in this country. Just how does he propose to change the hearts of the American people? Most don't even like him.

[treestar]

8. How did he keep control of three guns

during this attack - that will be interesting to hear about. Why did he need the other two when he had an assault rife?

[pnwmom]

12. He must have carried them all in and put the ones he wasn't using

by his feet or on his person while he did the shooting. Since the theater was dark and the first thing he did was throw in smoke bombs or tear gas (I don't remember), it's possible no one even noticed the other weapons . . . but how could they have gotten to them, anyway?

[Brisket]

14. He had an assault rifle? I hadn't heard of that...

hmm

[Cali_Democrat]

30. Yes...I believe he had an AR-15

A weapon designed for mass killing.

[X_Digger]

54. The AR-15 was not designed for 'mass killing'.

The use of the intermediate caliber in the M-16 (the mil version) is intended to wound, not kill- a wounded soldier takes up more resources than a dead one. Morbid, but true.

The civilian one was designed for target shooting and hunting small game.

[NewMoonTherian]

63. It isn't an assault rifle either.

I'm tired of fighting the fight to convince people to be honest and informed about the guns they want so badly to get rid of. They resent the knowledge.

[X_Digger]

71. Some are proud of their ignorance and wear it like a badge. *sigh* n/t

[pkdu]

78. Indeed ...how many deer do you need to kill with 100 rounds at 1 per second?

[NewMoonTherian]

83. I don't agree that the AR platform is for hunting. It's for combat.

Assault Rifle is a designation for a specific type of firearm. The AR-15 doesn't qualify. It is basically a replica of an assault rifle - the M16. And it isn't a distinction without a difference. If you tried to use an AR-15 one-on-one against someone armed with an assault rifle, all other things being equal, you would be at a steep disadvantage.

The confusion comes from the Assault Weapons Ban, which dealt with AR-15's and AK clones. "Assault weapon" refers to an arbitrarily selected group of guns, and is a name intentionally chosen to resemble "assault rifle" to give it a falsely dangerous connotation.

[Marr]

82. Look at it from the other side for a moment.

The correct term may be very important to you as an aficionado, but to someone who isn't into guns, the difference between an assault rifle and a semi-automatic rifle is a matter of nuance.

It's like someone who's very into sailing insisting that people call some boats "ships" because of their configuration. The terms don't signify any meaningful difference to someone who doesn't have their head in it.

[NewMoonTherian]

84. But there is a very large difference...

and it's critical to a fair discussion of policy. I know that it looks nuanced and even trivial to the uninitiated, but if you're going to propose legislation that drastically hampers other people's rights, you have a responsibility to understand the subject as thoroughly as possible.

EDIT: To help clarify what I'm talking about, I put this together. I'm not trying to play "gotcha" or discredit anything you're saying. Just trying to better express my position.

Of the two guns pictured below, which would you support a ban on?

A.)[IMG][/IMG]



B.)[IMG][/IMG]

[Marr]

86. I don't necessarily want to ban anything.

And I do understand the difference between an "assault rifle" and a semi-automatic rifle myself.

My point is that just because someone uses the incorrect term doesn't mean they're being intentionally obtuse, or arguing dishonestly, as was suggested. Should a person be familiar with the lingo surrounding things they opine about? I suppose so, sure-- but it never seems to be the case on any subject. I don't see why guns should be any different.

[NewMoonTherian]

89. I wouldn't want to accuse everyone...

who misuses the terms of being dishonest. I think I come across as more rash than I want to be, which is probably a result of frequenting the Gungeon. What I take issue with is using the term to categorize semi-automatic guns as something they're not, for the purpose of pushing tighter restrictions. If it's a simple terminology oversight, I'm cool with that.

[ellisonz]

91. Yeah it's an assault weapon.

[NewMoonTherian]

92. Hey, that term may be misleading, but at least it's not so egregiously dishonest. Good on ya. n/t

[pkdu]

80. And the 100 round , shot per second , magazine is for the targets or the "smalL game" ? Nt

[X_Digger]

81. It's for taking to the range, primarily

They're prone to jamming (as indications are this one did).

By the way, magazine size has no effect on rate of fire- it doesn't fire faster with a larger magazine.

[rrneck]

35. Bling. nt

[reformist2]

13. This story puts Mitt in an impossible situation.

Reason and probably his own instincts are telling him that some sort of gun control is called for, but the usual suspects will be pulling him the other direction. I can't imagine how Mitt's going to thread the needle when this question comes up at the debates. I almost feel sorry for the guy.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

19. Speaking for myself

I've never said nor believed that anyone that legally obtains a gun will never use it to commit a crime. But I know for certain that outlawing guns won't keep criminals from using them.

[Brisket]

23. You can ask until you're blue in the face how the gun-banners can guarantee that no criminals

will get guns after a ban, and the crickets you will hear are infinite and eternal.

[HockeyMom]

26. Like I said I could legally buy an gun

and throw it in the nearest pond for a criminal to find. That ok too?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

43. Is there a large incidence of this behavior that you're aware of? n/t

[HockeyMom]

46. Not large, but they do find rusted guns in ponds

Somebody had to put them there. Crime commited? Well, in Florida no way to find that out.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

53. Rusted = useless n/t

[NewMoonTherian]

64. So the tragic boating accidents are real!

I thought that was an old wives' tale!

[treestar]

97. Fewer of them would

Making a thing illegal doesn't mean it won't happen. Murder is illegal itself, but still happens.

Even keeping guns from felons doesn't work, as there is always going to be a first felony. In fact the Fast and Furious story had gun dealers finding young people to buy guns for them. Young and no record, in some cases, yet.

Regulating those who have them could go a long way. Someone could maybe tell us that Holmes was getting a bit out of it before he shot someone.

[pnwmom]

28. That's because anyone who used an outlawed gun would then be a criminal, by definition.

So yes, you're certainly right about that.

However, regulating guns (and smoke bombs, and tear gas, etc.) could help reduce the number of incidents like in Aurora.
I think we should bring back the Assault Weapons Ban, without the loopholes that made it too easy to circumvent.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

45. Fair enough

Outlawing guns won't prevent anyone that wants to from using one to hurt or kill others.

[pnwmom]

47. The AWB could have prevented Holmes from killing as many people as he did. n/t

[hack89]

55. Which AWB - the old one or the one they are trying to pass? nt

[SickOfTheOnePct]

57. Not necessarily

He couldn't have bought the AR-15 legally, but do you think someone that is planning a mass killing is going to hesitate to obtain the same weapon illegally?

It's fantasy to believe that outlawing guns will stop mass killings. Someone that is intent on such a massacre isn't going to hesitate to get what he needs to do so, even if he has to do it illegally.

[NewMoonTherian]

65. We're not really going to talk about cracking down on smoke bombs now, are we?

Hold on. I have pierced the veil of fate and received a vision of the future:

"Please fill out this form and attach two standard passport-style photographs. You should receive a letter in about 114 days, and if you're approved, you can pick up your smoke bomb license at your local sheriff's office."

No sign of any lives being saved. The veil jealously guards its secrets tonight.

[pnwmom]

85. What are smoke bombs for? What about tear gas? What's that for? n/t

[NewMoonTherian]

87. Smoke bombs? I use them for paintball.

Of course, the local news this week has been trying to stir up a moral panic against paintball and airsoft, so the point is probably moot.

I haven't been able to turn up much info regarding tear gas in the United States, or what kind Holmes is said to have used. In some countries it's carried and used like pepper spray. In others it's restricted to police and private security firms. It's used for self defense and riot control. With all the sensationalism surrounding the story, I suspect that the media is referring to the smoke bombs as tear gas. I hope we'll know for sure in time.

[pnwmom]

88. Tear gas as self-defense? How does that work? Wouldn't the tear gas

make the user sick, too? Unless the user was already wearing a gas mask, which doesn't seem very likely in a defensive situation.

[Major Hogwash]

27. " . . . we can sometimes hope . . ." <-- Romney's new campaign slogan.

Romney is probably the most ignorant Presidential candidate that I have ever seen run for office since . . well, McCain.

[ladjf]

31. James Holmes is a chicken shit coward and will contribute nothing to anyone. nt

[DearAbby]

36. We have to come to terms...

1. Americans will always own guns. Just the way
it is.

2. When your gun rights intrude on the General
Welfare of WE THE PEOPLE, some restrictions
should be in place.

a. Every gun owner should be trained to
handle the weapon being purchased.
certified by an accredited learning
facility.

b. Every Gun owner should be required to
have insurance in case of mishandling of
weapon.

c. No exemptions. It is not preventing people
from owning weapons, it is to require
RESPONSIBLE people be allowed to own
weapons. Well regulated Militia.

[Missycim]

40. Ok fair enough

I think every voter should go take a class on the way Govt works before being allowed to vote.

Hows that?

[DearAbby]

52. Missy...this is already being done

It is called Civics. I also believe in a strong education. I very much believe we should be funding it. The best thing we could do for this country is to make sure each and every citizen has the opportunity to go as far as they can in their education. Fair enough.

[Missycim]

95. I am talking about

a class separate from school fair enough?

[X_Digger]

58. One point..

re 2b. Liability insurance doesn't cover intentional criminal acts- see "Intentional Act Exclusion".

It makes a nice talking point, but insurance doesn't work that way.

[DearAbby]

62. There is nothing we can't do if we put our minds

to it. We can require insurance as a requirement to responsible gun ownership. We dictate, not the insurance companies. They have to abide by the laws WE THE PEOPLE set down. They should not dictate to us, what they require. WE THE PEOPLE didn't form this government to maximize Insurance Profits. Let us remember who is boss in this country.

[X_Digger]

70. Ohhkaaay...

You'd have to overturn common law precedent from the time of King James. You have fun with that. *snort*

[treestar]

99. Good point. There's no reason they should not be regulated

The amendment itself refers to regulation. I'm up for at least trying a military style regulation - you have guns, you need to check in every once in a while so we can make sure you don't have any new criminal records, emotional problems, have guns you don't know how to use, etc.

[cbrer]

42. Your statement about Mitt Romney is false

I believe that not only is he NOT confused about gun law, but he is working an agenda that will bring him the bloc that certain ignorant conservative voters represent.

It's important to delineate the reasoning, because if we don't find a sound, plus emotionally appealing way to argue some kind of gun/magazine law changes, we will always be pushing back against this reactive segment.

Call it a pipe dream, but this is my nation too, and I will never give up the notion that, with the right strategy, we can effectively pursue progressive goals.

My $00.02

[HuckleB]

44. You should be correct.

Alas, few want to sit down and find solutions. The propaganda has worked, and people are emotionally entrenched. Their is a wonderful little book that just came out called "The Power of Habit." The support for fewer gun laws despite the evidence that they may be putting the public at genuine risk, seems to be a possible example of the power of habit.

Here's a fair piece on the book:

http://blogs.plos.org/neurotribes/2012/03/20/breaking-the-habits-that-enslave-us-qa-with-charles-duhigg/

[Egalitariat]

56. It's illegal in Florida to own a gun if you are mentally ill

I don't know about Colorado.

Holmes is mentally ill.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

61. And unless there was some record of him being mentally ill

He would have gotten his guns in Florida, too.

[X_Digger]

66. One has to be adjudicated as such- and I'm okay with that. n/t

[EX500rider]

60. I think a good start would be to look at the numbers...

Rifles of all types are by FAR the least used method of killing someone and don't even come close to cracking the top 50 list of causes of death with #50 being malnutrition @ 2,680 dead.

Poisonings kill over 31,000 in a year
Falls over 24,000
Drownings over 3,500
and fires over 2,500....

Rifles? about 350 in a year...5 times more killed by knives, 2 times more killed by hands & feet.

2009 FBI stats:
13,636 total murders

Murders with handguns – 6452 (47.32%)
Murders with rifles – 348 (2.55%)
Murders with shotguns – 418 (3.07%)
Murders with unknown firearms – 1928 (14.14%)
Murder with knives or cutting instruments – 1825 (13.38%)
Murders with other weapons – 1864 (13.67%)
Murders with hands, fists, feet etc.. – 801 (5.87%)

Handguns would be a better start but still almost 4 times more people die by falling then from handguns.
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa-cause-of-death-by-age-and-gender

[reformist2]

68. Why are you comparing crimes to accidents?

False equivalency.

[EX500rider]

72. "5 times more killed by knives, 2 times more killed by hands & feet"

Are those accidents?

[EX500rider]

75. "Why are you comparing crimes to accidents?"

Is it about saving lives or hating guns?

No way to save people from being poisoned or dying of malnutrition?

And rifles seems a silly place to start....over 13,000 murdered in a year....removed ALL rifles deaths, still over 13,000 murdered...

[ileus]

69. another AWB banned the AR believer.

[krispos42]

76. Oh, lordy, broad-brush smears again.

Nobody ever said that people that legally purchase and own their guns will never use them to commit crimes. Of course it happens. They also may legally purchase and own a car that is later used to escape from a crime scene, too.




Also, if the AWB had still been in place, that rifle still would have been sold to him... except that the adjustable stock would have been fixed in place instead.

Definition of an rifle that is also classified as an "assault weapon", from Wikipedia:


Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
  
• Pistol grip
  
• Bayonet mount
  
• Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
  
• Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally)

Assuming Sideshow Bob's M&P15 rifles had a telescoping stock, a pistol grip, and a flash suppressor, it would have been classified as an "assault weapon" for having 3 items on the list.

However, Smith & Wesson could have simply produced the rifle with a fixed stock and no flash suppressor. With only a pistol grip, it is no longer an "assault weapon".

Millions of AR-15 and AK-47-pattern rifles were built, imported, and sold in the United States during the time the AWB was in effect. They lacked adjustable/folding stocks, bayonet lugs, and flash suppressors, that's all.




Do you really think that if his rifle hasn't had the adjustable stock and the flash suppressor, the shooting would have been any less deadly?

[Aerows]

79. It will never put a stake through it

You have people arguing that they need to hunt with a 100 round magazine and an AR-15. It's so dumb you wonder why they believe themselves, but they will argue it until they are blue in the face.

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. Yup...bill Mahler out it succinctly. Selfish.

[GreenStormCloud]

103. You have said some things that are not true.

because people who legally own their guns are never going to use them improperly

Nobody makes that claim. We readily admit that some few legal gun owners will use them wrongly. What we do claim is that the vast majority of legal gun owners will continue to use them legally, for the rest of their lives.

The AWB did not change anything about the way any gun functioned, it only changed some cosmetic features of some guns.