"... her gender, whether she identifies as gay or lesbian, whether she is Hispanic, whether she lives in the South or a number of other demographic characteristics."
Observes Nate Silver, and yet 31% of Democrats own guns (compared to 58% of Republicans). 31% seems like a lot to me, especially when you consider that women are more likely to be Democrats. Women are less likely to own guns, but not by that much: 37% to 48%.
Americans like their guns, and yet the elite class is suddenly adamant about gun control. I think it's funny that those who act like they're so much wiser than the clinging-to-their-guns peasants so often let it show that they don't know what they're talking about.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२७२ टिप्पण्या:
272 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»The 'elite' are just a bunch of rich over-educated snobs that don't want their status quo upset.
Yes they want gun control.
They have their bodyguards, gate watchmen, friendly police chiefs, etc... to keep them safe, so why wouldn't they want to be make sure and take away everyone else's gun.
Same for most cops. Less guns out there make their job easier and safer FOR THEM. You, on the other hand, well that's to bad for when seconds count the cops are just minutes (or more) away.
So Althouse, after you get done laughing at everyone discussing gun control in America, what's your solution?
@trouble. Lol, you said "automatic."
AFAIK nobody's shot anyone with an automatic weapon in a long time.
Semi-automatic weapons, is that what you mean?
-XC
The elite class hire folks to carry guns. they don't want anybody else to have them....
Yeah that's what I mean :)
sorry, Paul beat me.
what Paul said..
Oh and thing is what makes one think they will stop at 'assault' guns?
What happens when the next nutjob uses a 10 shot rifle and 4 extra 10 shot mags and kills the same 20-30 kids?
Vola! Band 10 shot mags!
See in England they did just that and ended up with single shot rifles and double barreled shotguns (but only at 'clubs' or if the officers inspect your place to make sure you have a safe and alarm for those single shot weapons.)
No the problem isn't guns, it's insane people allowed to roam free.
"So Althouse, after you get done laughing at everyone discussing gun control in America, what's your solution?"
I'm staying out of it. I really don't know, and I'm not pretending to know. I feel like there are these 2 gangs fighting downtown — pro- and anti- gun — and I'm just not going to that part of town. It's not my fight, and I'm not spending my time learning enough to have a worthwhile opinion.
But the idea that there is a "solution" seems naive to me. We simply must do something about all the bad things in the world.
Paul said...
Oh and thing is what makes one think they will stop at 'assault' guns?
What happens when the next nutjob uses a 10 shot rifle and 4 extra 10 shot mags and kills the same 20-30 kids?
the Ft Hood shooter shot like 40+ people and killed 13 with a pistol.
the blue cities aren't frantic over M1 rifles. they want to take away pistols. (and do, even after Heller) where have you been?
I was surprised to see a lot of comments on Facebook from gun owning friends and family about getting rid of assault rifles. None of the life long hunters I know want anything to do with them.
It is trivial to exchange low-capacity clips or magazines, so this restriction would have the same effectiveness as banning high-capacity soft drink cups. The men and women who would presume to control our lives are either delusional or possess ulterior motives.
Of course, we cannot overlook the extraordinary success of removing competing interests with a scalpel and vacuum. We could save approximately one million lives annually in America alone by banning the scalpel and vacuum.
As for further firearm restrictions, this cannot be justified when around one million aliens illegally enter this nation annually. It cannot be justified when our federal government arms drug cartels and terrorists alike. It cannot be justified when the federal government runs trillion dollar account deficits without representation.
Treating symptoms is profitable in perpetuity. Addressing causes is hard and exploitation is difficult.
We already have gun control in America. Connecticut certainly does, it's not easy to buy a gun there by any means. And all of Connecticut's gun control laws failed in Newtown.
But for some reason, the only possible solution to the failure of previous gun control laws is...more gun control laws. It's a one-way ratchet and everyone can see where it ends.
"But the idea that there is a "solution" seems naive to me."
Well, on the bright side, you get blog hits regardless.
Question, have you ever posted at Nate's site? btw, Nate welcomes differing opinions as isn't that the point of blogging ;) but it's wise to trust him on presidential predictions. :)
Nate was about 100% sure mama grizzly would run for president. Oops! As I was one of the few who easily figured out the shyster/charlatan was only interested in makin' $$$.
Although she would have also made $$$ if she ran, but that would have required effort for the (2) year governor. I digress.
>
So if everything posted re: a solution to gun violence is naive, why further the discussion?
I was surprised to see a lot of comments on Facebook from gun owning friends and family about getting rid of assault rifles.
What, exactly, do you mean by "assault rifle"?
I don't understand why the left wants to deny the weaker sex a choice... They used to be all about empowerment.
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
H. L. Mencken
There is no universal solution. There is only risk management.
The goal should be to preserve the liberty of law-abiding citizens while without predicting criminal behavior limit its expression.
This can be effectively accomplished with creating deterrents which increase initial and continued risk and opportunity cost to the criminal, as well as providing the intended victim with a means to respond and prevent further involuntary exploitation.
This does not mean everyone needs to be armed. It does mean that the criminal should not know beforehand that his victims are vulnerable and willing prey.
The Second Amendment was designed to mitigate the risk of a minority (e.g. government) or superior interest running amuck and committing involuntary exploitation of law-abiding citizens. It cannot prevent corruption, but it is a tool to limit its expression.
Bad people do bad things. Guns or no guns, that will never change.
What did that Adolph Hitler fella do first? oh yeah- he took away all the guns.
That scares me more that anything.
I have to hand it to the crazed prog left. I don't own a gun. Today, for the first time, I thought seriously about obtaining one.
Well, to be fair, we all know not of which we speak, for the most part, about most things.
Certainly anything complex.
I'd heard it was 40% of Demos, so Ned Silver is blowing smoke (surprise!).
shiloh said...
So Althouse, after you get done laughing at everyone discussing gun control in America, what's your solution?
You have one, smartass?
No, I didn't think so.
Oops! As I was one of the few who easily figured out the shyster/charlatan was only interested in makin' $$$.
He's a legend in his own mind. Or should I say she since he had his plumbing pulled?
So it's a pretty sick mind.
Charlatan?
Have you been mayor of the 5th largest city in your state?
Governor of any state?
Taken on your state's political establishment?
Vice Presidential candidate?
2 for 3 batting record of candidate endorsements?
As for shyster, you clearly don't know what it means and, as for making money, spoken like one of the losers Messina targeted.
So if everything posted re: a solution to gun violence is naive, why further the discussion?
Having fun with this?
Or do you just hate free speech?
Ann doesn't have any ideas, but wants it to stop.
If you're so smart, let's hear what you'd do.
The left is always talking about equality this and equality that.
A woman with a licenced gun, to defend herself, is the worlds foremost equaliser.
Lots of people don't know anything about guns.
One of the comments on the "Why are people having so much trouble understanding rhetorical devices?" post demonstrated a profound ignorance of firearms, thinking "military style weapons" are, somehow, magically, more dangerous than semi-automatic hunting rifles.
This person, and people like him, have likely done, and will do, more damage to American freedoms with ignorant, emotional votes than the deranged idiots who episodically go on murderous rampages.
"I don't understand why the left wants to deny the weaker sex a choice"
Inane generality notwithstanding ...
Abortion
Contraception/birth control
ok, ok, as Mourdock said, pregnancy from rape is "something that God intended"
Indeed, cons have no problem w/restricting women's rights, they just have a vaginal probe fetish.
" shiloh said...
So Althouse, after you get done laughing at everyone discussing gun control in America, what's your solution?"
The solution is sane mental health laws. The last story on this kid is that his mother was finally going to file commitment papers. The papers are public records so that should be easy to check.
The foolishness is nor just on the left. Bill O'Reilly talked about an "AK 15" last night and doesn't know what "semi-automatic" means.
If people knew what they were talking about there would be a lot less foolishness.
garage mahal said...
"I was surprised to see a lot of comments on Facebook from gun owning friends and family about getting rid of assault rifles. None of the life long hunters I know want anything to do with them."
Assault rifles are already illegal.
Have been since before they were invented.
Learn something.
Please.
"It's not my fight" says Althouse, who is somehow by some divine dispensation the one American whose home will absolutely positively never ever face a home invasion.
So then you agree with me that all the left and the right wants to do is rule... not really "solve" anything.
" garage mahal said...
I was surprised to see a lot of comments on Facebook from gun owning friends and family about getting rid of assault rifles. None of the life long hunters I know want anything to do with them.
Is that supposed to mean you know someone who hunts ? Do you know what an "assault rifle" is?
"What, exactly, do you mean by "assault rifle"?"
There's only one definition of "assault rifle"
Assault rifles are already illegal, and have been since before they were invented.
"Is that supposed to mean you know someone who hunts ? Do you know what an "assault rifle" is?"
He is, not surprisingly, talking out of his ass.
He does not know what he's talking about.
Again. Not surprising.
"
ok, ok, as Mourdock said, pregnancy from rape is "something that God intended"
"
Do you lie routinely ? Or only when pretending to quote a Republican ?
Garage Mahal should try buying an assault rifle.
He will be denied, of course.
But not because he's insane, or has a criminal background.
Guns are compatible with property rights, wealth and capital...
Guns are incompatible with socialism, wealth redistribution and the welfare state.
"I was surprised to see a lot of comments on Facebook from gun owning friends and family about getting rid of assault rifles. None of the life long hunters I know want anything to do with them."
Are you not assaulting the animals with your rifles when you hunt?
The elite class, i.e. the ruling class, forever seeks ways to dominate us and rule over us. Without those pesky weapons. we'll be so much easier control.
Another direct quote from a con biologist wannabe, If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. ~ Akin
Taking guns away from actual criminals is too dangerous. The police would MUCH rather be seen to be "doing something" by gathering up all the low-hanging fruit represented by legal, law-abiding gun owners. Katrina proved that, as both the police and Nat Guard units seized guns from lawful owners while armed looters roamed freely. (the gun owners had to sue--went all the way to the SCOTUS, where theyultimately prevailed--but 'twas a Pyrrhic victory as the N.O. "evidence" dept could not "locate" 2/3 of the weapons to return them to their rightful owners despite a court order.) The underlying psychology/logic driving of all this is, of course, the same as that of the drunk, who, having lost his keys in a dark alley, nonetheless insists on looking for them under the corner street-lamp on mainstreet "because the light is so much better there."
Back to the subject of the post.
I suppose there's some merit to Silver's observation.
I own guns, several of them, including a "military style weapon" and an actual, obsolete military weapon, both rifles, but none of them "assault rifles." And I am, in fact, a registered Republican.
The only time I handled a weapon was in the service, and then only once a year when I qualified with the carbine. Apparently I was a decent shot. The TI complimented me on my tight clusters. I was in the Air Force and didn't haven't much of a warrior's spirit. Joining the Air Force was my way of dodging the draft. But for all that there's something about holding a rifle that's kind of cool. I see the appeal. Holding a gun doesn't complete me or fulfill me or empower me, but it's a pleasant feeling......I never afterward felt the need to own a gun or go shooting, but I can understand that the wish to do so is not some bizarre, wicked thing like getting your nipples pierced. In the spectrum of human desires the desire to own a gun is not in an especially dark band.
Come on, moron. what's your answer to this?
You don't know, but you want to hijack the thread so you can get some little ego kick.
20 little kids murdered right before Christmas and you think it's just sooo funny.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
I don't own a gun (they scare the hell out of me) nor did my Chicago suburban family - nor my husband's family. City folks hate guns because the bad guys have too many of them (the ones who will never obey any kind of ban or registration law).
I had a WI student write an essay one day that completely turned me around 180 on guns. Yes, students, your rhetorical musings actually persuade with brilliance - possibly more than you all know.
In summary, this male student - age 26 - wrote "I was living in the country, 20 miles from the volunteer sheriff, with my wife and new child. One moonlit night, as we were going to bed around 11 PM, we heard voices, car doors slamming - so I looked out the window to see two cars with headlights turn into our long driveway. Suddenly they turned off their headlights. You better believe I was happy to have a rifle in the house to chase them away - who knows what was on their minds?
A Chicago city girl who felt fine about gun control and banning guns realized that rural people need guns for way more reasons than hunting.
Semiautomatic guns are most guns owned by Americans
Revolvers are generally junk guns and Saturday night specials
The sales of expensive revolvers are mainly large bore magnum pistols, like the mag .44's
I've owned both.
I don't own a gun (they scare the hell out of me) nor did my Chicago suburban family - nor my husband's family. City folks hate guns because the bad guys have too many of them (the ones who will never obey any kind of ban or registration law).
I had a WI student write an essay one day that completely turned me around 180 on guns. Yes, students, your rhetorical musings actually persuade with brilliance - possibly more than you all know.
In summary, this male student - age 26 - wrote "I was living in the country, 20 miles from the volunteer sheriff, with my wife and new child. One moonlit night, as we were going to bed around 11 PM, we heard voices, car doors slamming - so I looked out the window to see two cars with headlights turn into our long driveway. Suddenly they turned off their headlights. You better believe I was happy to have a rifle in the house to chase them away - who knows what was on their minds?
A Chicago city girl who felt fine about gun control and banning guns realized that rural people need guns for way more reasons than hunting.
Are you not assaulting the animals with your rifles when you hunt?
What about the fish?
Are they less than the hunted animals of the woods and forest?
Another direct quote from a con biologist wannabe, If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. ~ Akin
Oh, are we playing "stupid things people in the other party say?" Then I nominate Hank Johnson's Guam quote:
"My, my fear is that ah, the whole island will become so overly populated that it would tip over, and ah, capsize."
Bahahahahaha.
What nonsense!
A true assault rifle is an automatic weapon.
Those have been illegal for many decades
The anti-gun people are hysterical ignoramuses.
In case you were interested in familiarizing yourself with the AR-15 platform, read this.
The article was written by an Obama supporter.
The elite has always been adamant about gun control, and pretty much every form of control over the hoi polloi. They don't hire private security because they fear each other.
This episode has merely afforded them a window of opportunity. One they are set on exploiting to it's fullest potential.
Need I add/mention that the Newtown shooting ONCE AGAIN confirms the old adage that "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away?"
Many in the elite class like guns but they think they'll have special privileges that the masses won't have.
AFAIK nobody's shot anyone with an automatic weapon in a long time.
From what I've read, the last automatic weapon used in the commission of a crime was used by a police officer.
I was surprised to see a lot of comments on Facebook from gun owning friends and family about getting rid of assault rifles. None of the life long hunters I know want anything to do with them.
Garage, is everyone you know on Facebook an idiot?
Many in the elite class like guns but they think they'll have special privileges that the masses won't have.
That's the way it works in CA. In most counties you can only get a CCW permit if you know someone. The politicians all have armed security, of course.
Shiloh undermines his anti-gun argument by bringing up rape.
If more women had guns I believe rapes would be fewer.
Is it still true that the Swiss Militia Man has to own his own military assault rifle kept at home? It was once true. The only rifle I still have is an old Garand M-1 with a thousand rounds of 30 cal..
The others have been passed on to the sons, one of whom spent 8 years in the 82nd Airborne where he learned how to kill anything that needs killing.
I don't think guns will be banned any more than abortion will be. I think the anti-abortionists would do well to campaign against late term abortions and STFU about carrying rapist's babies to term. In like way, I think the anti-gun people would do well to stress the dangers of weapons that fire at a rapid clip and extended magazines and STFU about banning guns......There's a downside to widespread gun ownership. Guns sometimes fall into the wrong hands, and sometimes the results are horrendous. That's a fact.....There's a downside to banning guns. The downside is not so apparent because it's a counterfactual, but it nonetheless exists. It's of some use to a democracy to have a self reliant yeomanry who don't look to the goverment to solve all their problems. I think gun ownership facilitates that spirit.
ok, ok, as Mourdock said, pregnancy from rape is "something that God intended"
Indeed, cons have no problem w/restricting women's rights, they just have a vaginal probe fetish.
Actually, I'd prefer women have the option to shoot a rapist before penetration occurs. Preferably before any contact occurs.
But I'm empowering that way.
Is gun ownership a good predictor of political affiliation specifically among women, or is Silver one of those twee writers who thinks ignoring the centuries-old convention of using "he" as both the masculine pronoun and the gender neutral pronoun will advertise some desirable quality about himself?
> If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. ~ Akin
Whenever someone says "we're trying to get pregnant", the response is almost always "you've got to keep a positive mental attitude".
I don't know if that is true, but I don't go around condemning folks who say it.
And, if it's true, Akin was correct....
For those who want the short version assault rifle.
As for assault weapons, anybody remember Maxwell's silver hammer?
Maybe it's time to outlaw hand tools (don't start...).
What, exactly, do you mean by "assault rifle"?
Not a bad question actually. I'm not sure there is one true legal definition. Or even between enthusiasts. I always thought assault rifles had the ability to fire fully automatically. The AR-15 doesn't, so, probably sloppy terminology on my part.
The only rifle I still have is an old Garand M-1 with a thousand rounds of 30 cal..
A thousand rounds? That's a fortune in ammo.
I think the anti-gun people would do well to stress the dangers of weapons that fire at a rapid clip and extended magazines
What is "fire at a rapid clip" or an "extended magazine"?
Why do you want to limit my ability to defend myself?
I was surprised to see a lot of comments on Facebook from gun owning friends and family about getting rid of assault rifles. None of the life long hunters I know want anything to do with them.
Oh yea?
Lem said...
Shiloh undermines his anti-gun argument by bringing up rape.
If more women had guns I believe rapes would be fewer.
Sam Colt and Eliphalet Remington didn't make their fortunes selling pistols to the Army, Navy, Texas Rangers, or itinerant cowboys.
They made it selling small, easily concealed firearms to women in need of an equalizer.
Following on Lauderdale Vet, a little historical perspective on the AR-15 and its suitability as a hunting rifle. The AR-15 was origibally comissioned by the USAF from a civilian contractor as a SURVIVAL HUNTING RIFLE for SAC aircrews that might be downed over the Soviet Union/China during a WW III. It was so good the Army adopted it, NOT because it liked it--it didn't, NIH syndrome--but because its light-weight meant it was a good fit/export for snmall-statured Third-World allied armies we exported wpns to.
Point being, sports fans, the rifle STARTED OUT as a hunting rifle. So much for the "incompatibility" for hunting bit..
Pardon me, if I have told this story before but a radio talk show host who was a lefty in LA had a show about people carrying illegal concealed weapons. This was probably about the time of the "assault weapons" ban. Anyway, he kept getting calls from women who said they carried a gun and refused to be a victim. He was always horrified and tried to lecture them but then the next call would be another woman.
I almost had to pull over from laughing so hard.
Strictly speaking, the term "assault rifle" should refer to a fully-automatic weapon, the sort of weapon that's been illegal for some time (and somehow that ban hasn't lead to a totalitarian dictatorship!). But in ordinary parlance, the term is used to refer to semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines. Fussing about usage of the term is pedantic and a diversion.
So far, no regulation has solved the problem. Have those ineffective regulations been abandoned?
So we should pile some more on top?
When did we quit being able to learn from our mistakes?
I have an assault rifle, but greatly prefer my tomahawk and scalping knife.
The religious and economic breakdowns of gun ownership rates were interesting. I expected non-religious Republicans to own far fewer guns than they actually do. Female ownership was also surprisingly high.
But the numbers show the absurdity of calls for gun control. Guns are everywhere. Even in Garage Mahal's over-active imagination. (In my made up fantasy land, my elf-friends, too, collectively threw their "assault rifles" into a giant community smelter. They called them that, too: assault rifles. In their squeaky little elvish voices: "We were so FOOLISH to have so many assault rifles in our mushroom-homes. Thank Blorc we have gotten rid of them!)
Anyway, guns are everywhere. They've been everywhere. But then a tragedy happens, and suddenly it's a problem. It's a problem because 26 people died. I hate to sound insensitive, but 26 people dying is a statistical anomaly and a tragedy, but it's not a problem. Problems presuppose solutions, and there are none. But 30,000 people dying in gun-related homicides and suicides each year is a problem, but it's not a problem fixed by limiting clip capacity or requiring training seminars for would-be gun owners. It's not a problem fixed by stopping law-abiding and mentally stable people from owning guns.
To address the complete picture of gun violence would force us to address very serious and very uncomfortable socio-economic realities that the left especially does not want to address. Parsing the statistics shows obvious patterns, the most glaring being the racial composition of violence in America. But that's a dangerous issue to address, so let's focus on those 26 people.
To say Sandy Brook proves that we need stricter gun control is like saying 9/11 proved we needed safer airplanes. A freak occurrence is not grounds for substantial policy changes. It's a pretense. It puts 26 faces to an unrelated cause so one can appeal to the masses' emotions rather than intellect. It's Obama's Mother as a Case for Health Care Reform redux. Frankly it's despicable.
There is no evidence that any policy changes offered by the left on gun control would have prevented or contained the damage done at Sandy Brook. And it gets my fucking goat that we have to endure all this posturing and foot-stomping and feigned incredulity by the left. And why? So they can get what they want and then act totally perplexed next year when they realize the incidents of gun-related fatalities went from 30,000 to 29,950?
No. That's not how functioning democracies work. You don't encroach--dare I say tread?--on the constitutional liberties of 48% of the country so you can feel good about yourself and prevent fewer than 50 deaths a year, all while your reticence to address the real problems leaves a Sandy Brook's worth of bodies in places like Chicago and Detroit each week.
"I'm not sure there is one true legal definition."
Of course you don't know.
Why don't you try to learn?
GREAT post, Coketown--EXACTLY on point!
somefeller, "fussing" about the term is not a distraction. The gun control activists deliberately confuse people by implying that semi-auto rifles are in fact fully automatic.
They want people to think that this about some mythical ease of obtaining full auto weapons.
Its a deliberate lie that must be continuously fought.
In any case, hunters don't generally use semi-automatic rifles with banana clips to hunt deer, and if you need more than two shots (and that's being generous) to kill your prey, you shouldn't be out hunting. I grew up around firearms and have a couple of small shotguns for home defense or dealing with varmints at the family ranch. I don't have a general problem with firearms but I also wouldn't shed a tear if assault weapons (using the parlance mentioned above) were banned.
Russia’s homicide rate is four times that of the U.S., with 1/10 the rate of gun ownership. It's all about control over the proletariat. The elite want to continue to build their wealth on the backs of the rest of us. John Kerry, Michael Bloomberg, George Soros didn't build all that by themselves
But re-establishing institutionalization of people who are mentally ill and dangerous as a more common action would be a better step for public safety.
Even in Garage Mahal's over-active imagination.
All I can tell you is the comments are coming from people that love their guns.
Of course you don't know.
Why don't you try to learn?
Then why don't you finally step onto the field instead of chirping from the sidelines? Give me your damn definition.
Yo Mag's house about this:
"It's a one-way ratchet and everyone can see where it ends."
It's a one-way ... rat shit. And every one ... can see where it ends.
What, exactly, do you mean by "assault rifle"?
As already pointed, real assault rifles can switch between auto and semi-automatic. They are illegal.
I think "assault rifle" is pretty much any gun that assaults a lefty's sensibilities. Oh, and there's the inconvenient fact the Hitler named them: link
This whole brouhaha reminds me of the great problem-solving parable in the Dilbert 'Dorky Pants' comic strip more than anything else.
Next time someone suggests more Gun Control, do a 'Dogbert': laugh at them and say "Now there's a real 'Dorky Pants' solution".
And all this talk of the big bad elite is yet another example of the right-wing variety of class resentment, which if course some people will say doesn't exist. Says more about the speaker than the topic.
I figure that "assault weapon" or "assault type weapon" or any variant usage is useful and effective shorthand for "I haven't a clue, ignore me."
"Strictly speaking, the term "assault rifle" should refer to a fully-automatic weapon, the sort of weapon that's been illegal for some time (and somehow that ban hasn't lead to a totalitarian dictatorship!). But in ordinary parlance, the term is used to refer to semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines. Fussing about usage of the term is pedantic and a diversion."
The ban on "assault rifles" preceded the existence of assault rifles, because the ban is on automatically firing weapons (with the exception of those with federal firearms licenses, a group so small and so tightly regulated they are inconsequential to the discussion), dating back to 1934. The first assault rifle didn't hit mass production until 1944 in Germany. It's features, and those of all subsequent copies in other nations, were already illegal in the US for civilian ownership, and have been ever since.
"In ordinary parlance," as you say, the term is used to fuzz over a critical distinction between a true military weapon and what is most usually a mocked up semi-automatic hunting rifle to advance a political and policy agenda that will not make any American anywhere safer.
Those using the term "assault rifle" this way are either ignorant, arguing in bad faith or sometimes, both.
I'm not sure there is one true legal definition. Or even between enthusiasts. I always thought assault rifles had the ability to fire fully automatically. The AR-15 doesn't, so, probably sloppy terminology on my part.
That's the problem. There isn't a generally-agreed-upon definition (Sorry, Tim). That's why the last time around they banned specific models (which were just tweaked a little and sold under different names) and cosmetic stuff like bayonet lugs.
What really makes an assault rifle different from other rifles is the power of the ammunition - more powerful than a pistol, but less than a traditional rifle. That was what made the original Sturmgewehr 44 a new class of rifle. You could fire it accurately in short bursts like a submachine gun but it was powerful enough to be useful at ranges combat actually occurs - out to about 300 yards.
It's not so easy to code that into a meaningful statute. Are we going to say any gun that fires ammunition greater than this energy but less than that is illegal? We could, I guess. But I suspect that would just encourage these kinds of nutcases to use pistols, heavier rifles, or shotguns.
We already have a ban on high capacity magazines here in CA and it doesn't seem to have made any practical difference. Constrain the magazine size and they bring extra guns.
"Give me your damn definition."
Fuck you.
It's easy enough.
Just learn it.
I peed on the floor, slipped, and hit my head on the toilet. I mean on the assault toilet. Let's ban them.
Soon we'll be able to print reliable AR receivers anyway, and then the whole gun control thing will be a moot point.
Maybe then we can focus on root factors of gun violence like unemployment and our failed management of mental health.
Sturmgewehr is one of those cool-sounding German words. I like to admire mine while listening to Wagner full blast or listening to Nietzsche audio books in the original. ;)
Synova said...
"I figure that "assault weapon" or "assault type weapon" or any variant usage is useful and effective shorthand for "I haven't a clue, ignore me."
Actually, the term "assault weapon" is an artificial term created by the federal "Assault Weapons Ban" of 1994; they could not use the term (although they really wanted to) "assault rifle" because, under the National Firearms Act of 1934, "assault rifles" were already illegal.
With and "old M1 Garand", you can accomplish your objective with one or two shots. You won't need 1000 rds.
@Tim/
LOL, facts really are "inconvienient things," aren't they--at least for the left.
It's not so easy to code that into a meaningful statute
I'm not sure the legal definition is even consistent between one state and the next. Tim's foot stomping notwithstanding.
"We could, I guess. But I suspect that would just encourage these kinds of nutcases to use pistols, heavier rifles, or shotguns.
Given that it took the cops 20 minutes to respond, and the only people who attempted to confront him were petite women had he been physically robust he probably could have accomplished a similar level of carnage with nothing more than an axe or spiked baseball bat.
Eric,
An "assault rifle" is a military rifle, primarily for infantry forces, with a selector switch allowing the rifleman to switch from automatic to semi-automatic fire as necessary.
That's an assault rifle.
It always has been.
"From what I've read, the last automatic weapon used in the commission of a crime was used by a police officer."
That was the last, and I believe ONLY, use of a *legally owned and registered* full-automatic weapon in a crime.
There have been illegally owned full autos used in crimes from time to time, but they are very rare.
"I'm not sure the legal definition is even consistent between one state and the next. Tim's foot stomping notwithstanding."
States have enacted different bans on "assault weapons."
Assault rifles, under the National Firearms Act of 1934, are illegal, and have been since before they were invented.
Those are just facts.
Ya'll have ignored the point I tried to make - it's a country mouse vs city mouse argument.
Cosmopolitanism versus ruralism.
At some point in all our futures - this dichotomy will matter a lot.
The elite are from cities. Big cities somewhere in their upbringing. Big city folks hate guns.
But rural folks - this includes not so big cities and towns and villages and real country folks - understand the need for guns for many other reasons than hunting.
A woman with a licenced gun, to defend herself, is the worlds foremost equaliser.
Ask Adam's mom?
somefeller said...
But re-establishing institutionalization of people who are mentally ill and dangerous as a more common action would be a better step for public safety.
That's the gist of one half the argument coming from the Right (and right) side of the aisle.
And all this talk of the big bad elite is yet another example of the right-wing variety of class resentment, which if course some people will say doesn't exist. Says more about the speaker than the topic.
Some phony folksy and his Lefty snark notwithstanding, the term "elite" in this sense is really a misnomer.
Elite usually denotes exceptional ability or accomplishment. In this case, we're merely talking about the Lefty establishment.
somefeller said...
But re-establishing institutionalization of people who are mentally ill and dangerous as a more common action would be a better step for public safety.
That's the gist of one half the argument coming from the Right (and right) side of the aisle.
And all this talk of the big bad elite is yet another example of the right-wing variety of class resentment, which if course some people will say doesn't exist. Says more about the speaker than the topic.
Some phony folksy and his Lefty snark notwithstanding, the term "elite" in this sense is really a misnomer.
Elite usually denotes exceptional ability or accomplishment. In this case, we're merely talking about the Lefty establishment.
"What really makes an assault rifle different from other rifles is the power of the ammunition..."
Not really. Its the difference between a rifle that is semi-auto (Like the M-1) and one that can go full auto (like the M-16).
Assault rifles have smaller caliber bullets because that's the only way you can have a fully automatic rifle and still have a useful military weapon**. Another way of looking at it: An "assault rifle" is a more accurate sub-machine gun with more range.
** - the BAR fired .30 caliber ammo and weighed almost 20 lbs.
“It's not my fight, …”
Is that right?
Perhaps it’s time you made it your fight.
I think the least we owe our children is to act as caring adults. Those young kids in Newton never had a chance to be brave. Their last memories were the horrific deaths of their classmates and best friends. No chance to run or hide, but just enough time to scream with their last breath as the killer fired off shots as fast as he could pull the trigger of his semi-automatic weapon.
If this is the price we pay for broadly interpreted second amended right, it’s too high. That seems so obvious to me that I’m beginning to question the sincerity (and sanity) of those who argue so strongly otherwise.
If Nanny Bloomberg really believes guns are so evil, now about disarming his 20-man NYPD personal bodyguard force, or have them give up their Glocks, and switch to Nerf guns? note also that banners like Upchuck Shumer and Diane Feinstein have CCW permits, unlike the peasants they lord it over.
phx said "Ask Adam's mom?"
Here's a November 2012 non-comprehensive report of DGU (Defensive Gun Use) that includes a lot of women successfully defending themselves with firearms.
It's a partisan gun site, if you're not into that kind of thing.
There's a t-shirt pictured on the site that reads "Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound."
Something must be done. Like during the DC sniper shootings, the cops shut down movement on the freeways and went looking for two white guys in a white van. They were doing something because something had to be done.
rcocean said...
""What really makes an assault rifle different from other rifles is the power of the ammunition..."
Not really. Its the difference between a rifle that is semi-auto (Like the M-1) and one that can go full auto (like the M-16)."
Exactly right.
And, under the "Assault Weapons Ban" of 1994, the M1A, the civilian version of the M-14, was entirely legal, even in California. And it's still legal in California.
Yet, concerning firepower and lethality, it is more capable than the Bushmaster AR-15.
As any semi-automatic rifle firing any caliber larger than .223 would be.
So, those talking about "banning assault rifles" really do not know enough to talk intelligently about this.
Ask Adam's mom?
You dont expect your son to try to kill you... like rh says...
This is was a one off.. one in a million.
The "assault rifle" was invented by the Germans in WWII and later copied by the Russians. It was called the Sturmgewehr 44 (StG44).
Several characteristics distinguish them. One is a small calibre round and a short cartridge so that recoil is minimized when it is fired on full automatic. The M 14 failed as an assault rifle in Vietnam because it had too much recoil from the 7.62 mm cartridge that it inherited from the Garand M-1. It could not be kept on target when fired on auto. The Russians made hundreds of thousands of AK 47s and they were far superior to the M 14. The army adopted the AR 15, a civilian rifle which was adapted for a full auto mode. It became the M 16.
The M 16 was a failure at first because the army changed the powder specs and did not supply cleaning kits so they jammed repeatedly in Viet Nam. Many KIAs were found with jammed M 16s. Eventually cleaning kits were supplied although with the original powder, it did not require cleaning.
All true assault rifles have a full auto, and usually a "burst" mode of three shots with each trigger pull. They have large magazines and the ammo is light, both a small calibre round and a small cartridge. They are accurate only at 100 yards or so. The ignorant press refers to "high power assault rifles" which is a contradiction in terms and show how little they know. It is also intended to wound, not kill, as a military maxim is that a wound disables more troops than a kill. It takes one or two to carry the wounded back for help. They do make big exit wounds, though. That's because the small bullet tumbles after impact.
Not really. Its the difference between a rifle that is semi-auto (Like the M-1) and one that can go full auto (like the M-16).
Not true. It's easy enough to turn any semiautomatic rifle into full auto with small changes to the receiver, but a rifle like an M-1 that doesn't make it an assault rifle. That makes it a light machine gun.
The demographic with the largest percentage of gun ownership is veterans. So people who most likely have experience with guns are most likely to own them. And the people with the least experience (and knowledge) are the most likely to fear them.
Eh, and, incidentally the M-16 doesn't have a full auto selection. It's either single or burst.
ambienisevil, it doesn't have to be another "invasion". More relevant examples can be as simple as a temporary breakdown of society/infrastructure, such as in the aftermath of Katrina or Sandy.
And, under the "Assault Weapons Ban" of 1994, the M1A, the civilian version of the M-14, was entirely legal, even in California. And it's still legal in California.
That's the point. They couldn't come up with a reasonable definition so they just listed out a bunch of models. Anything that was black and looked kind of scary got listed. Anything that looked like grandpa's deer rifle didn't.
An "assault rifle" is a fairly light, easily maneuverable fully-automatic ("machine gun") rifle suitable for storming a target. Paratroopers loved them. Regular infantry preferred a more powerful rifle with more stopping power.
Because only one person has been killed by a machine gun (by a rogue cop) - unless you count the Waco victims - gun control proponents want to muddy the waters by talking about "assault weapons", which is a nebulous term of no real definition. Dianne Feinstein's definition was entirely cosmetic; a black plastic stock was bad, but wood was OK, for example. A pistol grip, or a fore-end guard or a bayonet lug made a regular sporting rifle into an "assault weapon", without making a bit of difference in its lethality.
It's true that you can't hunt deer with an "assault rifle"; the small bullet and underpowered cartridge of an AR-15, for example, won't humanely kill a deer. But it wasn't intended to!
In WWII, American troops were armed with the M1 Garand rifle in 30-06, a powerful .30 caliber round. It was generally a one-shot kill. But in Viet Nam, the Army decided that the M-16 rifle firing the much smaller .223 was preferable, because the ammo was smaller and lighter and you could carry more of it. (30-06 ammo is big and heavy!) Plus, a .223 round will generally only wound. In "civilized" warfare, a fatal wound takes one soldier out of the battle, KIA. A wounded soldier takes out THREE; the casualty plus two more to carry him back to the aid station. So if degradation of battle effectiveness is desired, the lighter bullets are overall more effective.
Its not so far off base.
A light, short rifle with a large magazine of lower-powered cartridges is much easier to shoot accurately, rapidly at short range than an M-14. The .308 is more powerful and much longer ranged but its harder to get the sight picture back after a shot and the overall shoot-recoil-aim-shoot cycle is substantially slower. They are also harder to train with.
I have used M-1's (carried them way further than I wanted to) and M-16's, and if I wanted to shoot a lot of targets close by quickly it would be no contest. And full auto is much overrated. Semi-auto is much more effective.
Conversely, for constitutional purposes, these semi-auto rifles make excellent guerrilla weapons in an urban setting. If the point of the Second Amendment is to facilitate revolt against a tyrannical government they are nearly ideal. The real targets are not soldiers but the governments civilian supporters.
Edubutcher: I tried to show how I "once was one of those elite - the citified type who hates guns and - in the words of John Lennon and Yoko Ono - imagined a world...of you know....bullshit fairy-tale stuff. But it sure sounded good to me for about twenty years.
Then I read an essay from a rural Wisconsin student that changed my entire point of view.
I'm not right wing or left wing on this issue.
I think I'm trying to tell folks it's a city versus rural issue.
I also believe this is a real and true dichotomy in our current America that needs to be given a lot of thought in regards to many issues beyond guns.
How can you be in this world and not see the way the elite (and protected) urban media shape so many of our outcomes?
Wisconsin is a rural state. So is most of America.
"Really, if you want to “lead a national debate,” you need to actually know stuff."
Sadly no, no you don't.
Eric said...
Eh, and, incidentally the M-16 doesn't have a full auto selection. It's either single or burst.
Originally, it did. I think they went to burst in the 90s (one of our vets will know).
Our M16's didn't have the burst mode. This was @1978-80, and not in the US military.
I believe that came after the 1970's.
"If this is the price we pay for broadly interpreted second amended right, it’s too high. That seems so obvious to me that I’m beginning to question the sincerity (and sanity) of those who argue so strongly otherwise."
You are going to have to redefine sanity to do so. roughly half of your fellow citizens think the gun laws are just fine as they are, or should be liberalized. They are, as a rule, normal, thoughtful, law-abiding, high-functioning people from the very bedrock of civil society.
I wonder what percentage of adults who identify as Democrats and own a gun are willing to admit it to a pollster.
Silver doesn't address the possibility of false negatives in the responses. There would be multiple reasons to just say no.
Still a lot of bad info here.
1) The M-16 assault rifle has been produced in different versions. Some have a "full auto" mode and others a "3 round burst" mode (in each case, in addition to the semi-auto mode). Never both. The US Army and Marines chose to limit auto fire to just 3 rounds in the more recent versions. Other countries (like Canada) allow full auto on their latest versions. Full auto is very rarely used - only in trench or room clearing - it's inherently less accurate due to muzzle climb.
2) A civillian ATR-15 cannot easily be converted to full-auto. It's very difficult by design - the parts are deliberately made to be incompatible, and of course the requisite parts to go full auto are strictly controlled, and possession by civillians is illegal (outside a very few weapons that were specially registered pre -1986, when registration of such weapons became impossible).
3) The .223/5.56 round fired by the AR-15 is quite light, but it travels fast. It is not optimized for very long range shooting, but an average, astigmatig person like me can reliably hit at 300 meters, more with a good scope. 500 meters is probably the practical limit, though some experts can go further in the right conditions. For comparison, a .308/7.62 or .303 can potentially be accurate at 1,000 meters with the right shooter.
4) All firearms reqire cleaning at some point. A cleaner powder will allow less frequent cleaning, but eventually all firearms require cleaning.
Originally, it did. I think they went to burst in the 90s (one of our vets will know).
Yeah. they keep waffling on this. They started with a full auto selection, then took it away. Most recently the army was going to field the full auto version of the A4 for some units and then changed its mind.
The worry has always been less experienced troops in possession of a fully automatic rifle will spray all their ammo in the general direction of the enemy without effect. However, there were some internal studies that said a more common problem is green troops tned to just hunker down without firing at all, and that a full auto selection gives them some confidence to return fire. Apparently the guys in charge of shipping bullets won the argument.
Colt actually makes both a safe/semi/burst and a safe/semi/full version of the A4, but only has international buyers for the latter.
The M16 and M16A1 had full auto mode. These bullet hoses were the inspiration for the term "spray & pray". Something around 100,000 rounds were expended from these guns for every Viet Cong they killed.
With this in mind, the Marines adopted the M16A2 with three-shot burst in the early 80's. The other services followed later in the decade.
The M16A3 is an A2 with the A1 full auto trigger group, used by Special Forces. It is not common.
The M16A4 is the current issue version for the Marines and combines the 3-shot burst mode with a removable handle for mounting optics and such..
All you people who are saying fully-automatic rifles are illegal...
.
.
.
please...
.
.
pay attention:
.
.
They are NOT illegal under federal law!
Did you get that word? NOT. It's very important.
A few states do have a complete ban full-auto firearms, but most states do not, so it's completely legal for non-prohibited persons to own and use full-auto firearms in those places; you just have to pay the $200 tax and get your local head of law enforcement to sign off on your application. Oh, and wait a while while your application is processed (the Instant Background Check system does not apply here.)
Oh, and also bring a boatload of money to the table, because (due to the artificial scarcity* of units available for sale to civilians) the cost is ridiculously high.
But they aren't illegal. Not in most states.
.
.
.
Thank you.
You may now continue with your regularly scheduled argument.
-----------------------------
*"Artificial scarcity" meaning that the manufacturing cost for a full-auto M16A1 is not in any meaningful way higher than for a semi-auto-only variant, and so if federal law did not restrict civilian sales to rifles manufactured before May 19, 1986 (and thus the supply is not increasing), the retail price of full-auto variants would not differ significantly from their semi-auto versions.
The point is that gun ownership rates are actually declining significantly among both Democrats and independents, but don't let that get in the way of what you propagandistically assert the case "seems" to be or anything.
A civillian ATR-15 cannot easily be converted to full-auto
You used to be able to get the conversion kit mail order from some outfit in Nevada. In any event you can turn pretty much any semi into full with a file. The trick is to get it to stop when you let go of the trigger. That's more difficult but doable by anyone with some mechanical acumen.
All firearms reqire cleaning at some point. A cleaner powder will allow less frequent cleaning, but eventually all firearms require cleaning.
Yes, but what sucks about the original M-16 is you have to clean it a lot more than the guy in the other trench has to clean his AK-47 because you're using a rifle with direct impingement and he's using one with a piston.
Supposedly they are replacing the uppers with a gas piston design, but the piston is prone to jamming, and when the piston jams you have to take it to the armorer to get it fixed.
Sorry, but taking a file to the sear won't work if you have a civvie bolt carrier group. It won't let the hammer move like you want it to.
JohnJ said...
"I think the least we owe our children is to act as caring adults. Those young kids in Newton never had a chance to be brave. Their last memories were the horrific deaths of their classmates and best friends. No chance to run or hide, but just enough time to scream with their last breath as the killer fired off shots as fast as he could pull the trigger of his semi-automatic weapon."
You mean they were shot like fish in a barrel, a "gun free zone" barrel.
There's nothing we can do for them, it's too late. Life is for the living, like the children we continue not to protect in "gun free zones" schools.
Every similar case of mass shooting since 1950 has taken place in "gun free zones' except the Gabby Gifford incident.
In every case the shooter, when confronted with arms, either committed suicide, surrendered or was killed.
Israel learned their lesson decades ago, they armed the schools and there hasn't been a mass shooting since.
By the way the Hartford Courant in Connecticut poll supports my view by 72%. Also check out the Connecticut gun registration numbers since the Newton shooting. The truth is that this debate on gun control was over decades ago.
All you people who are saying fully-automatic rifles are illegal...
By "all you people" do you mean TexasJew and somefeller? Your comment was a bit theatrical to correct a misconception held by two people. Nobody else in the entire comment thread even hinted that automatic rifles are federally banned.
Coketown,
You left out Tim @ 9:49pm, chickelit @ 10:32pm, and perhaps others.
But fair enough, part of my growing frustration comes from having seen the same misnomer repeated on all the previous threads too.
I just finally got as mad as hell and couldn't take it any more.
Rabel said...
"I wonder what percentage of adults who identify as Democrats and own a gun are willing to admit it to a pollster."
Only a fool would admit to a stranger of having firearms at home.
And we know republicans and conservative habitually lie to polls, especially exit polls, just ask President Kerry. That's half the fun of going to vote
Sorry, but taking a file to the sear won't work if you have a civvie bolt carrier group. It won't let the hammer move like you want it to.
Well, I have to admit my knowledge here is second hand. But the guy I knew who did it in the early 80s was able to get his AR-15 to spray out the entire magazine when he pulled the trigger, and it only took him an hour or so of fooling around. If what you're saying is true either he's more clever than I realized or things have changed over the years.
Since having a gun you could start but not stop got old pretty quickly, he mail ordered the conversion kit, which worked but not very reliably. Eventually he restored it to original condition and sold it off.
You left out Tim @ 9:49pm, chickelit @ 10:32pm, and perhaps others.
Both of those comments mention specifically "assault rifles," not automatic rifles, which as Tim explained in an earlier comment are distinct from automatic rifles, distinct from the media's made-up definition of "assault rifle," and already are federally banned.
If you have problems with his argument, address it. But don't make stuff up.
Coketown,
What is your problem? "Assault rifle" is a well-known term of art; and yes they are full-auto or burst-fire, and no they aren't illegal per se as Tim claimed.
It's "assault weapon" that's the made-up media term, as in, y'know, "Assault Weapon Ban".
There was a panel discussion on NY1 about this issue and gun control in general. Eliot Spitzer, Ed Koch and a couple of elitist journalists sat around and all agreed that guns had to be banned and that this was the perfect time to do it. They all agreed with every liberal talking point.
It is just disgusting that people are using the deaths of these childern at the hands of a manaic to advance their political agenda. Obama is even using it for fund rasing.
They are vile and despicable.
@coketown You are correct - they are not illegal per se. Just illegal in some states (inc. CT), and both heavily restricted and nearly unobtainable everywhere else due to scarcity.
Of course, if you listen to Rupert Murdoch and his employee Gerry Rivers, the streets are awash with full-auto weapons.
Of course, if you listen to Rupert Murdoch and his employee Gerry Rivers, the streets are awash with full-auto weapons.
Yes, apparently you can just mosey on down to the local gun store, plunk down a few dollars, and walk out with a machine gun.
I guess if you live in NYC where you can't even get a large soda it's beyond your ability to understand gun laws.
Baron - when I hear Obama pushing for banning high-capacity clips then I'll start to be scared. Until then it's just a huge left-wing circle jerk.
But in ordinary parlance, the term is used to refer to semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines. Fussing about usage of the term is pedantic and a diversion.
Now we get to the crux of it - you want to ban semi-automatic guns.
Bullshit.
He said. Guns are a better predictor than 1,2,3
58% gun ownership Republican
31% gun ownership Republican
gay - 2% Republican
gay - all fucking in, are you kidding me? % Democrat
gay -8% other
I pulled those figures out of bum just like Nate Silver did
But in ordinary parlance, the term is used to refer to semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines.
No, it isn't. As an owner of many scary black rifles I can tell you that absolutely no one who knows what they're talking about refers to semiautomatic rifles as automatics.
The production of new civilian automatic weapons was banned in 1986. But, since you're now arguing that there's no real difference between semiautomatic and automatic weapons, and the difference is only "pedantic", perhaps you can join me in calling for the production of more civilian automatic weapons.
Since you're entering this conversation in the spirit of compromise and all.
Sorry, but taking a file to the sear won't work if you have a civvie bolt carrier group. It won't let the hammer move like you want it to.
More specifically it will cause the rifle to slam fire. The odds are good that it will eventually fire out of battery and blow up the rifle, plus any parts of you that happen to be nearby. It's not an automatic rifle, it's a dangerously malfunctioning rifle.
Maybe they are selecting for women that live in rural areas, and in ghettos.
Chip Ahoy sez:
"Bullshit."
Blacks, anyone? We know what happens to Black Republicans. Pulled back to the plantation by those Democrats. Boy, are they good at it. Give them an Obama phone, and that's all it takes. Or some Obama money. Or pretend you are going to pay for their gas and mortgage. And Do!
With and "old M1 Garand", you can accomplish your objective with one or two shots. You won't need 1000 rds.
Actually, you needed to be working with a couple guys carrying the Browning BAR to get your job done.
The tradeoffs for military weapons only make sense in the context of the tactics for which they're designed. If tactics dictated that we shoot at the enemy at 1000 yards you'd pick a gun with a high powered cartridge. That's not what assault rifles are.
The point of assault rifles was to give the rifleman enough rounds to suppress the enemy within 200 yards, the maximum typical engagement range. To do that they chose to make assault rifle rounds less powerful than that of the typical deer rifle; they're not "high powered" at all, but light and small enough for the rifleman to carry a few hundred rounds. Then rifleman A shoots at the enemy to keep their heads down while riflemen B, C, and D sneak up on the enemy and shoot him, to grossly simplify. Rifleman A has enough ammo on his person to continue suppressing while B, C, and D are running around. In the old days of grandpappy's M1 Garand the shooting at people to keep their heads down part was done by the BAR or the M1919 beltfed machine gun. It's fair to say the 5.56 round was designed to make people duck.
Ironically the M1 or its close cousin the M14 in semiauto guise would be far more deadly in a civilian shooting. They fire much more powerful rounds and a spree shooter can still carry plenty of ammo. But those have walnut stocks and they don't look scary. The elites, because they are dumb asses and know nothing about the subject they are proposing to regulate, ignore this.
Brooks, Kurtz, and the rest of that gang of ignorant hysterical ninnies exhibit the worst features of the American elite: invincibile ignorance, overbearing arrogance, and eagerness to "do something."
Black have a homicide rate eight times that of whites. Perhaps progressives, using their skills in math, could hone in on that and we could begin our gun confiscation program in the black "community" and see if that has the desired effect. I somehow dont think that is a statistic that will be highlighted in our conversation. Our conversation, of course, will be a lecture.
These mass killings happen very seldom. So called assault weapons are already illegal, and trying to ban large capacity magazines wouldn't make any difference for the simple reason that someone intent on using such a weapon will just have more not so large capacity magazines while committing a crime.
What's the answer to this extremely high murder rate in this country? Well, since most murders are committed by black and hispanic males, removing them from the country will pretty much put the US with the same statistics as the rest of the civilized world.
Not gonna happen though, for obvious reasons. How many were killed in Obama's hometown last month?
So Althouse, after you get done laughing at everyone discussing gun control in America, what's your solution?
Media coverage inspires more of these attacks.
Should we have a "discussion" of the First Amendment?
I'm not sure there is one true legal definition.
So you don't know what you're talking about. Got it.
Michael can type faster than me.
Nate's numbers don't make sense. If 31% of Dems own a gun yet less that 5% of blacks voted for Romney and the claim is that gun ownership is a better predictor of party than race? I don't believe it.
I might say that whether a person has a gun is a more powerful predictor of whether they are a hunter than anything else.
What sparrow said.
According to Pew 3 times as many young black males voted for the Romster as voted for Junior.
You better believe his numbers don't work.
When one of these events happens and your first response it to call for banning guns, or more gun laws, when you have no clue how the shooter obtained the weapons or what type of weapons they were, you're an ideologue. And, frankly, not that bright.
But for some reason, the only possible solution to the failure of previous gun control laws is...more gun control laws. It's a one-way ratchet and everyone can see where it ends.
Exactly.
"I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help....with your Gun Control"
"I'm here from the Government, and I'm here to help....with your health care needs"
Is that really what anyone wants to hear?
"If this is the price we pay for broadly interpreted second amended right, it’s too high. That seems so obvious to me that I’m beginning to question the sincerity (and sanity) of those who argue so strongly otherwise."
The very existence of the 21st Amendment (not how broadly it is interpreted) results in considerably more deaths in this country every year than firearms. I myself am beginning to question the sincerity (or intellectual ability) of those who don't recognize this obvious threat to our safety. Two people killed by an insane person with a firearm in a mall is a major news story. Two people killed by a drunk driver is news that never travels beyond its immediate locality. And don't ask me to provide an alcohol analogy to Newtown or VPI (I did the other day; try Google).
I don't think it is funny that the NYT editorializes on 12/18 that there is no individual right to gun ownership.
Heller?
However, every train tankcar load of ink they have to buy puts them closer and closer to financial ruin.
In 10 years, people will perceive them as just another blog, maybe not as influential as 'Althouse'.
Why keep a thousand rounds of 30 cal ammo in old machine gun belt boxes?
A thousand rounds for the M-1 is how many a good preper/boy scout should have home. And I got a good deal on them.
If there ever is a lengthy no-mans land situation from food shortages and police order has broken down, then it will be too late to go to the store for more ammo. The store selling ammo will be the first one that closes up after being robbed or sells it all out at 100 times today's prices.
In such a case, I expect that hoarded gold would become less valuable than the same weight in 30 cal ammo rounds.
not much to add on this topic--clearly, to me at least, assault rifles should use a military definition. As for other types of rifles and long guns, I am a bird hunter and use a shot gun. A 12 gauge for waterfowl, and a 28 for woodcock and grouse.
As a military veteran, albeit an old one, I qualified expert in basic training on an M1 garand (a great weapons IMO). I have used M3 "grease gun", M16s, M14s, and the carbine version of the M16. I have used the m1911 pistol. each weapon has advantages and disadvantages--which is why you have to train soldiers as to the proper weapons to use. I have not used any modern military weapons since I retire in 1986 and cannot comment on them.
There are clearly some definitional problems when it comes to any civilian legislative control issues.
--And all this talk of the big bad elite is yet another example of the right-wing variety of class resentment, which if course some people will say doesn't exist. Says more about the speaker than the topic. --
So now we can't comment on them when they open their yaps & point out their hypocracy?
An interesting infographic is here;
http://www.livescience.com/17737-private-gun-ownership-infographic.html
btw I am not a big game hunter, but my understanding is that skilled hunter will use a single shot rifle, or perhaps a bolt action rifle. I would appreciate the views of big game hunters on that issue.
--"I'm here from the Government, and I'm here to help....with your health care needs"---
Don't bring up health care, just read France & another country are targeting the alzheimers & very young for early death.
“At 47%, reported gun ownership is the highest it has been in nearly two decades — a finding that may be related to Americans’ dampened support for gun-control laws,” Gallup wrote. “However, to ensure that this year’s increase reflects a meaningful rebound in reported gun ownership, it will be important to see whether the uptick continues in future polling.”
This is from a gallop poll of people who admitted to owning a firearm. The number is probably higher.
And yet 1 of our best friends' family is extremely liberal and 1 of the brothers loves to shoot.
Go figure.
If this is the price we pay for broadly interpreted second amended right, it’s too high. That seems so obvious to me that I’m beginning to question the sincerity (and sanity) of those who argue so strongly otherwise.
This is one of the reasons that a real debate(or "conversation") is difficult: Anti-gun folks constantly demonize the other side.
It is also difficult to debate when the other side has very little knowledge of the basic subject(guns).
I wonder how the commentor would feel about the following statement:
If observance of civil rights are the price we pay for allowing crazy people to walk the streets, it’s too high. That seems so obvious to me that I’m beginning to question the sincerity (and sanity) of those who argue so strongly otherwise.
If this is the price we pay for broadly interpreted second amended right, it’s too high. That seems so obvious to me that I’m beginning to question the sincerity (and sanity) of those who argue so strongly otherwise
Um, huh?
This incident has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment at all.
Lanza had all the mental health resources he needed--and he did it anyway. The law stopped him from buying a gun--and he did it anyway.
I'm beyond questioning the sanity of people who make idiotic comments like those above.
Via Vodkapundit:
Joe Manchin sounds a lot like Big Brother in this press release:
The President called me this afternoon. We agree that as Americans and parents, all of our children belong to all of us – and we must work together to keep our precious children safe.
------
Does this mean I get to discipline your kid withouth consequences?
RogerJ. I am a bird hunter who has killed one red deer in my life. In Scotland using a bolt action rifle with a clip of four or five rounds. They are so PC in Scotland that they recommend (require?) the use of a silencer on the rifles which is good on the ears, dissipates recoil and does not spook an entire herd of stag. Not my thing as it happens.
Lanza needed to be involuntarily committed. If he had been he'd be alive as would his victims. Your statement "Lanza had all the mental health resources he needed" is ridiculous.
Now there is a fair question about what determines when someone should be committed , but our system now is totally hands off and is clearly inadequate.
By the way, since liberals are like super-duper concerned about shootings, are they going to get outraged about Fast & Furious now?
*SNICKER*
RogerJ. Speaking of big game! When in London recently I held a custom made double barrelled elephant gun which looked like a sawed off 12 gauge but which weight around twenty pounds. It was bespoke and cost the buyer over one hundred thousand GBP. I asked the salesman how many elephants you can shoot a year and he gave me a funy look and said the gun could be used for rhino as well....
Your statement "Lanza had all the mental health resources he needed" is ridiculous.
Really?
Not long into his freshman year, Adam Lanza caught the attention of Newtown High School staff members, who assigned him a high-school psychologist, while teachers, counselors and security officers helped monitor the skinny, socially awkward teen, according to a former school official. "
I guess in your mind "having resource" = effective treatment.
Which is pretty silly.
@creely23,
More
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/12/the-times-embarrasses-itself-on-guns-again.php
...all of our children belong to all of us ...
Said at the Democratic Convention, "Government is the only thing we all belong to."
As someone who has only an admittedly modest knowledge of firearms, I'm amazed at the casually stated misinformation I hear on the radio (I rarely watch the kind of TV where they would have these discussions) every time firearms are discussed.
It is immediately clear that many of those speaking have no, or incorrect, knowledge of what semi-automatic means, or what a commercial (ie. not military) assualt rifle actually is. Then they go on to talk about remedies and restrictions.
Ann Althouse said...
***
But the idea that there is a "solution" seems naive to me. We simply must do something about all the bad things in the world.
This here says alot. Sometimes there is no "solution" that will solve a perceived problem. What you get are two ideas: (1) "Something" must be done; and (2) We can make the world 100% safe. Both incorrect. Put them together and what you get is a continual erosion of freedom.
I've been hearing the same wrong things about guns since I started paying attention to politics in the mid 90s. I don't expect the national conversation to ever inform people who already have their minds made up.
So Althouse, after you get done laughing at everyone discussing gun control in America, what's your solution?
The solution is to acknowledge the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
And it really isn't all that funny that so many American "elites" think that they are free to do away with parts of the COnstitution that make them squeamish or uncomfortable. What it shows is the contempt for individual rights that the Higher Educational establishment has taught them for the past 50 years.
Do I have a Constitutional right to walk down the street carrying a bazooka?
Machine: Just like the First Amendment, there are reasonable restrictions allowed on these rights. All pointing out an absurdly silly weapon type ("Should I be allowed to have a nuclear weapon?") does is exactly what the Laffer Curve does: It proves something exists without actually positing what the limitation or point should be.
So, instead of a pithy, pointless question, lay out an actual policy.
"I guess in your mind "having resource" = effective treatment.
Which is pretty silly."
Don't see why that's silly - availability of a useless service is not getting what he "needed" - your word. He clearly "needed" much more than the non-service he got. But semarics is not really the point here.
I'll I think you'd agree (or maybe not) that effective mental health care may have actually prevented this horror.
Do I have a Constitutional right to walk down the street carrying a bazooka?
I'll take the bait: No, you don't. But what's your point?
Only if you're going to break your buds out of jail like they did in France a few years ago.
Do I have a Constitutional right to walk down the street carrying a bazooka?
No, but you are probably the best debater in fourth grade
That seems so obvious to me that I’m beginning to question the sincerity (and sanity) of those who argue so strongly otherwise.
It's not uncommon for the mentally ill to claim the others are the crazy ones.
My guess is that, while most gun owners are going to be either Dem or Republican, gun ownership is the most reliable indicator of being a member of the Libertarian party.
I'm staying out of it ... But the idea that there is a "solution" seems naive to me. We simply must do something about all the bad things in the world.
Megan McArdle and even Ezra Klein, bless his little left-wing loonie fringe heart, understand that maybe there's nothing one can do to stop all the gun violence. Back before Heller the carnage in the inner city was horrendous, yet draconian gun laws prevailed. Gun ownership goes up, gun violence goes down. Go figure.
Last night at 10:01 AmericanWoman offered an anecdote reinforcing that life in big cities is nothing like life in rural areas. I guess people aren't supposed to live on farms or ranches? Even a knucklehead like David Brooks realizes that push back is going to come from rural areas. Rural people do not bitterly cling to their guns for strange reasons -- they need them, just like they need the tools in their tool sheds.
A couple of notes to Eric.
Someone else above pointed out the differences between the different versions of M16s. Selector switch for safety, semiautomatic, and either 3 shot burst or unlimited burst. Same thing with the M4 carbine. All considered assault rifles, and therefore machine guns, under U.S. law, and heavily regulated since 1934, and the only legal one used in recent years to commit a crime was that rogue cop using the machine gun issued by his department. Any legal machine gun (including M16 or M4 of any type) has to be registered with the feds, or it is illegal. There are also significant limitations on how these guns can be transported, repaired, etc.
Yes, older AR type semi-automatics could be fairly easily converted to fully automatic fire. Not any more, by design, and an automatic trigger system or conversion kits are also legally considered machine guns, all by themselves, and must be identically registered with the federal government. If you own such a conversion kit, etc., and you don't have the proper FFL license, you are committing a federal felony. You don't even need an AR-15, just the conversion kit.
"Assault Rifle" has had an accepted definition (including selective fire) since probably 1944 or so. It is only in recent years that the gun grabbers have attempted to blur the line between semi-automatic AR and AK type weapons and their fully automatic, heavily regulated, brethren, by trying to expand the definition to include the semi-automatics. That well accepted definition (found in laws and treaties) for "assault rifles" is why the term "Assault Weapon" was used in the Clinton era law. That was an earlier attempt at confusing the public, essentially banning weapons that looked too much like the already heavily regulated assault rifles on cosmetics.
@SGT Ted, I'm with you. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's pretty plain to me.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I have an unalienable right to life, but not an unalienable right to defend my life? I think maybe Democrats need to go to the corner and think on these things.
"No, but you are probably the best debater in fourth grade."
No chance. He was the guy in the back corner of the classroom making snarky comments.
@SGT Ted, besides, some 44 years ago next month I learned in Basic Combat Training that the sergeant is always right.
That's rule #1, and rule #2 is that if you think you know something the sergeant doesn't, reread rule #1.
I don't own a gun, but am getting really annoyed at the manipulation to try to ban (I.e we must have a dialogue which essentially means having a conversation on gun control). them based on this incident.
As Ezra Klein mentioned (and he's no gun rights advocate) we already had gun control in this instance, and none of the rules would have applied to the shooter. Because, the guns weren't his.
We could have discussions on background checks, but it wouldn't apply since they weren't his guns. We could have rules about not giving guns to crazy people, but again it doesn't apply since they weren't his guns.
But how are law abiding citizens supposed to protect themselves from the Adam lanza's of the world when they arm themselves?
And any time you have a "gun free zone" that seems to be the point where law abiding citizens are at their most vulnerable from attacks from people who simply ignore the rules.
@Bruce, a few years back I heard a network anchorwoman admit that she was terrified of semi-automatic handguns (she called them "automatics," but as you point out that's simply her ignorance speaking). Lord help me, but my first thought at the time was to wonder whether she'd be okay being shot by a revolver.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा