(12-17-2012 11:02 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Again, no one is claiming that any type of ban on assault weapons will prevent them from being purchased...but it would most definitely dramatically reduce the risk and frequency of such senseless mass killings...and I really don't think that's debatable.

The statistics I've seen are that we have about 25,000 violent deaths shooting deaths per year, of which about half result from guns and 348 were attributable to semi-automatic or assault weapons in the last year for which I saw numbers. If you have different numbers feel free to share.

But taking those numbers, assume the ban works and you cut the number of violent deaths from 25,000 to 24,652. Are you happy with that? What do you want to do next? And what if it doesn't work? What then?

Edited to correct description of statistics.

(12-17-2012 11:21 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  I'm no expert in this area, but I'm always suspicious of government answers to problems which make us feel better but don't really make a difference and wind up having unexpected results. And I'm usually on the opposite side on other issues from those who are most vociferous in their support of gun control. Let me ask this - can those who support gun ownership limitations also address the culture of violence in movies, video games and other forms of entertainment? Many video games now consist of treks through danger where obstacles are mowed down by powerful weaponry. Have we raised a generation that is just too de-sensitized to taking life?

The Sciguy on chron.com addresses this a bit in this post, with a link to a study (sorry, have to buy it) that discusses the fact that there is not a very strong link between violence in video games and future violent behavior.

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/12/the...s-infancy/

More studies referenced here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_...d_violence

(12-17-2012 11:19 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 11:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 11:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Sorry, but I don't see the slippery slope here with regards to assault weapons. Sure, a ban will not stop them from being acquired illegally. However, it does make such acquisition that much more difficult....and, in the case of the mentally ill (who are not usually not hardened criminals or members of street gangs), dramatically reduces the risk that such weapons will get in their hands.
You've got to start somewhere. And, IMO, that slippery slope argument (with the insinuation that at some point we could be calling for a ban on all handguns) is preposterous....and one heck of a stretch.

OK, so what happens when we ban them and things like this continue to happen? As I said, you don't need assault weapons to kill 27 people in an otherwise gun-free zone in 20 minutes.

What do you do next? And what do you do when that doesn't work? What's you end game and how do we get there?

Seems to me there are only three possible outcomes:
1) We decide to live with some level of risk and go no further
2) We start with an assault weapons ban, and keep ratcheting the screws tighter and tighter on legal gun owners, until we have disarmed the population and things like Dachau and Buchenwald and Mexico are on the table
3) We take a multi-faceted approach, doing the kinds of things I mentioned above with guns, plus addressing other issues like mental health and the culture of violence

I'm not opposed to doing something, but I am opposed to depriving liberties for no good purpose.

We will just have to agree to disagree. I believe in the 2nd amendment and the protection it provides. However, I don't believe putting some type of assault rifle ban in place will be causing great harm against gun owners.

Maybe it will, maybe it won't. But if out of 25,000 violent deaths, 348 are attributable to assault/semi-automatic rifles, it won't do much good either. And that's if it works, and I'm not nearly as certain that it will as you and Walt are. Where do you go from there?

What do you see as the end game?

(12-17-2012 11:11 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  In the Va Tech massacre, Cho managed an even higher body count, with only handguns. For a psycho rampaging through a school on lockdown, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. The type of gun is as irrelevant to the solution as the clothes the perp is wearing. Heck, in the Japan school massacre, the guy killed eight with nothing but a kitchen knife.

As someone said, gun control is an easy "fix," which is why politics focuses on that. Addressing what's wrong with society is much harder, which is why the politicians wish to distract with a gun- control debate. Solves nothing but satisfies the need to "do something."

Agree 100%.

Just read this on Slate.

Apparently in 1996, after a mass shooting that killed 35, Australia decided to take drastic measures and restrict gun access.

"At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.)"

The have not had another mass shooting since then (there had been 11 in the tens year before the shooting).

They also saw major decreases in firearm homicides (-59%).

IMO, it would behoove us to look at other countries and how their gun laws work and the results they achieve, while trying to understand how that would translate to the US. I don't believe the culture of Australia is so different from the US (as compared to Nordic countries, etc) so this could be a decent case study for how things could potentially unfold in the US.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12...ide_a.html

(12-17-2012 11:11 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  In the Va Tech massacre, Cho managed an even higher body count, with only handguns. For a psycho rampaging through a school on lockdown, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. The type of gun is as irrelevant to the solution as the clothes the perp is wearing. Heck, in the Japan school massacre, the guy killed eight with nothing but a kitchen knife.

As someone said, gun control is an easy "fix," which is why politics focuses on that. Addressing what's wrong with society is much harder, which is why the politicians wish to distract with a gun- control debate. Solves nothing but satisfies the need to "do something."

Very well said.

(12-17-2012 11:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 11:19 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 11:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 11:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Sorry, but I don't see the slippery slope here with regards to assault weapons. Sure, a ban will not stop them from being acquired illegally. However, it does make such acquisition that much more difficult....and, in the case of the mentally ill (who are not usually not hardened criminals or members of street gangs), dramatically reduces the risk that such weapons will get in their hands.
You've got to start somewhere. And, IMO, that slippery slope argument (with the insinuation that at some point we could be calling for a ban on all handguns) is preposterous....and one heck of a stretch.

OK, so what happens when we ban them and things like this continue to happen? As I said, you don't need assault weapons to kill 27 people in an otherwise gun-free zone in 20 minutes.

What do you do next? And what do you do when that doesn't work? What's you end game and how do we get there?

Seems to me there are only three possible outcomes:
1) We decide to live with some level of risk and go no further
2) We start with an assault weapons ban, and keep ratcheting the screws tighter and tighter on legal gun owners, until we have disarmed the population and things like Dachau and Buchenwald and Mexico are on the table
3) We take a multi-faceted approach, doing the kinds of things I mentioned above with guns, plus addressing other issues like mental health and the culture of violence

I'm not opposed to doing something, but I am opposed to depriving liberties for no good purpose.

We will just have to agree to disagree. I believe in the 2nd amendment and the protection it provides. However, I don't believe putting some type of assault rifle ban in place will be causing great harm against gun owners.

Maybe it will, maybe it won't. But if out of 25,000 violent deaths, 348 are attributable to assault/semi-automatic rifles, it won't do much good either. And that's if it works, and I'm not nearly as certain that it will as you and Walt are. Where do you go from there?

What do you see as the end game?

Don't know. Can't see the future. I won't support any further ban and I would think a majority of Americans won't either.

Overall, the Australian experience has been decidedly mixed. Homicide rates have fallen slightly sine the law was passed, but at the same rate it was falling over time before the law. Armed robberies and assaults have not declined. Part of the problem is that these kinds of mass shootings, while dramatic enough to garner news attention, are so rare as to be an insignificant part of the statistical database. And for every Australia there is a Mexico where stringent gun laws have failed miserably and produced armed gangs operating outside the law.

This event occurred in Connecticut, which has the 5th most restrictive gun laws in the US per the Brady organization.

(12-17-2012 11:19 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 11:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 11:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Sorry, but I don't see the slippery slope here with regards to assault weapons. Sure, a ban will not stop them from being acquired illegally. However, it does make such acquisition that much more difficult....and, in the case of the mentally ill (who are not usually not hardened criminals or members of street gangs), dramatically reduces the risk that such weapons will get in their hands.
You've got to start somewhere. And, IMO, that slippery slope argument (with the insinuation that at some point we could be calling for a ban on all handguns) is preposterous....and one heck of a stretch.

OK, so what happens when we ban them and things like this continue to happen? As I said, you don't need assault weapons to kill 27 people in an otherwise gun-free zone in 20 minutes.

What do you do next? And what do you do when that doesn't work? What's you end game and how do we get there?

Seems to me there are only three possible outcomes:
1) We decide to live with some level of risk and go no further
2) We start with an assault weapons ban, and keep ratcheting the screws tighter and tighter on legal gun owners, until we have disarmed the population and things like Dachau and Buchenwald and Mexico are on the table
3) We take a multi-faceted approach, doing the kinds of things I mentioned above with guns, plus addressing other issues like mental health and the culture of violence

I'm not opposed to doing something, but I am opposed to depriving liberties for no good purpose.

We will just have to agree to disagree. I believe in the 2nd amendment and the protection it provides. However, I don't believe putting some type of assault rifle ban in place will be causing great harm against gun owners.

It will cause absolutely no harm against gun owners. As for the options/outcomes postulated above by 69/70/75, how about adding a very reasonable and realistic option/outcome 1a; namely, we decide to live with some level of risk (which will always be out there), but we reduce that level of risk where and when rationale (without impinging on our Second Ammendment rights, or at least those intended by our founding fathers). Allowing the legal purchase of assualt weapons and semi-automatic handguns adds an incremental level of risk that is neither rational and justified...and has nothing to do with intended Second Ammendment rights.

(12-17-2012 11:33 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 11:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 11:19 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 11:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 11:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Sorry, but I don't see the slippery slope here with regards to assault weapons. Sure, a ban will not stop them from being acquired illegally. However, it does make such acquisition that much more difficult....and, in the case of the mentally ill (who are not usually not hardened criminals or members of street gangs), dramatically reduces the risk that such weapons will get in their hands.
You've got to start somewhere. And, IMO, that slippery slope argument (with the insinuation that at some point we could be calling for a ban on all handguns) is preposterous....and one heck of a stretch.

OK, so what happens when we ban them and things like this continue to happen? As I said, you don't need assault weapons to kill 27 people in an otherwise gun-free zone in 20 minutes.

What do you do next? And what do you do when that doesn't work? What's you end game and how do we get there?

Seems to me there are only three possible outcomes:
1) We decide to live with some level of risk and go no further
2) We start with an assault weapons ban, and keep ratcheting the screws tighter and tighter on legal gun owners, until we have disarmed the population and things like Dachau and Buchenwald and Mexico are on the table
3) We take a multi-faceted approach, doing the kinds of things I mentioned above with guns, plus addressing other issues like mental health and the culture of violence

I'm not opposed to doing something, but I am opposed to depriving liberties for no good purpose.

We will just have to agree to disagree. I believe in the 2nd amendment and the protection it provides. However, I don't believe putting some type of assault rifle ban in place will be causing great harm against gun owners.

Maybe it will, maybe it won't. But if out of 25,000 violent deaths, 348 are attributable to assault/semi-automatic rifles, it won't do much good either. And that's if it works, and I'm not nearly as certain that it will as you and Walt are. Where do you go from there?

What do you see as the end game?

Don't know. Can't see the future. I won't support any further ban and I would think a majority of Americans won't either.

So we do it, and it has minimal effect, and you're fine with that?
Seriously?

(12-17-2012 11:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 11:33 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 11:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 11:19 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 11:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  OK, so what happens when we ban them and things like this continue to happen? As I said, you don't need assault weapons to kill 27 people in an otherwise gun-free zone in 20 minutes.

What do you do next? And what do you do when that doesn't work? What's you end game and how do we get there?

Seems to me there are only three possible outcomes:
1) We decide to live with some level of risk and go no further
2) We start with an assault weapons ban, and keep ratcheting the screws tighter and tighter on legal gun owners, until we have disarmed the population and things like Dachau and Buchenwald and Mexico are on the table
3) We take a multi-faceted approach, doing the kinds of things I mentioned above with guns, plus addressing other issues like mental health and the culture of violence

I'm not opposed to doing something, but I am opposed to depriving liberties for no good purpose.

We will just have to agree to disagree. I believe in the 2nd amendment and the protection it provides. However, I don't believe putting some type of assault rifle ban in place will be causing great harm against gun owners.

Maybe it will, maybe it won't. But if out of 25,000 violent deaths, 348 are attributable to assault/semi-automatic rifles, it won't do much good either. And that's if it works, and I'm not nearly as certain that it will as you and Walt are. Where do you go from there?

What do you see as the end game?

Don't know. Can't see the future. I won't support any further ban and I would think a majority of Americans won't either.

So we do it, and it has minimal effect, and you're fine with that?
Seriously?

Yes, because even a minimal effect is a net positive (even if it reduces such senseless mass killing by even 1%)...and because a ban on such weapons has absolutely no impact on Second Ammendment rights.

(12-17-2012 11:27 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 11:21 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  I'm no expert in this area, but I'm always suspicious of government answers to problems which make us feel better but don't really make a difference and wind up having unexpected results. And I'm usually on the opposite side on other issues from those who are most vociferous in their support of gun control. Let me ask this - can those who support gun ownership limitations also address the culture of violence in movies, video games and other forms of entertainment? Many video games now consist of treks through danger where obstacles are mowed down by powerful weaponry. Have we raised a generation that is just too de-sensitized to taking life?

The Sciguy on chron.com addresses this a bit in this post, with a link to a study (sorry, have to buy it) that discusses the fact that there is not a very strong link between violence in video games and future violent behavior.

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/12/the...s-infancy/

More studies referenced here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_...d_violence

Interesting read. The authors seem to suggest that mental health, rather than any environmental factors, are more indicative of violent behavior.

(12-17-2012 11:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Just read this on Slate.

Apparently in 1996, after a mass shooting that killed 35, Australia decided to take drastic measures and restrict gun access.

"At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.)"

The have not had another mass shooting since then (there had been 11 in the tens year before the shooting).

They also saw major decreases in firearm homicides (-59%).

IMO, it would behoove us to look at other countries and how their gun laws work and the results they achieve, while trying to understand how that would translate to the US. I don't believe the culture of Australia is so different from the US (as compared to Nordic countries, etc) so this could be a decent case study for how things could potentially unfold in the US.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12...ide_a.html

This is a much more relevant situation than saying we are like 1930s Germany or present day Mexico. Our country is so dissimilar to those that they are not even worth invoking other than as a radical attempt to frighten. The primary problem in those situations wasn't/isn't strict gun laws, and it's extremely disingenuous to claim that gun restrictions have had even a miniscule role in what happened in the Holocaust and modern day Mexico. There are plenty of modern countries with stricter gun laws than we have, and they haven't devolved into violent anarchy or organized genocide.

Nobody would seriously put a complete gun ban on the table, but assault weapons are logical, and we definitely need to step up ways to identify and treat mental illness.

Nobody in my family owns a gun, and I don't begrudge the right of others to do so in a limited manner. But I don't feel any less safe knowing police officers and soldiers have guns and I don't. I do feel less safe knowing random guy on the highway has a pistol in his glove compartment and who knows what in his house. I'm certain guns come in handy in self defense sometimes, but I can barely recall hearing about any of those from my gun owning friends or in the news. Much more often you hear of accidental shootings of family members or people getting jumpy too quickly. I was once robbed at gunpoint, and I can only imagine how much worse the situation would have been if I had a gun on me.

(12-17-2012 11:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 11:33 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 11:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 11:19 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 11:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  OK, so what happens when we ban them and things like this continue to happen? As I said, you don't need assault weapons to kill 27 people in an otherwise gun-free zone in 20 minutes.

What do you do next? And what do you do when that doesn't work? What's you end game and how do we get there?

Seems to me there are only three possible outcomes:
1) We decide to live with some level of risk and go no further
2) We start with an assault weapons ban, and keep ratcheting the screws tighter and tighter on legal gun owners, until we have disarmed the population and things like Dachau and Buchenwald and Mexico are on the table
3) We take a multi-faceted approach, doing the kinds of things I mentioned above with guns, plus addressing other issues like mental health and the culture of violence

I'm not opposed to doing something, but I am opposed to depriving liberties for no good purpose.

We will just have to agree to disagree. I believe in the 2nd amendment and the protection it provides. However, I don't believe putting some type of assault rifle ban in place will be causing great harm against gun owners.

Maybe it will, maybe it won't. But if out of 25,000 violent deaths, 348 are attributable to assault/semi-automatic rifles, it won't do much good either. And that's if it works, and I'm not nearly as certain that it will as you and Walt are. Where do you go from there?

What do you see as the end game?

Don't know. Can't see the future. I won't support any further ban and I would think a majority of Americans won't either.

So we do it, and it has minimal effect, and you're fine with that?
Seriously?

Yes. I don't believe assault rifles should be for sale to the general public. Semi-automatics, I'd have to see which ones they want banned.

I guess the main thing we need to do is to ensure that the gun owners in America are responsible gun owners. How to do that, I am not sure. Tighter standards for ownership? Insurance against the harm done by the wrongful use of their weapons? Don't know. Don't really have an opinion on it right now.

(12-17-2012 11:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Just read this on Slate.

Apparently in 1996, after a mass shooting that killed 35, Australia decided to take drastic measures and restrict gun access.

"At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.)"

The have not had another mass shooting since then (there had been 11 in the tens year before the shooting).

They also saw major decreases in firearm homicides (-59%).

IMO, it would behoove us to look at other countries and how their gun laws work and the results they achieve, while trying to understand how that would translate to the US. I don't believe the culture of Australia is so different from the US (as compared to Nordic countries, etc) so this could be a decent case study for how things could potentially unfold in the US.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12...ide_a.html

If we ban semi-automatic shotguns I will probably stop bird hunting. The government will lose my license revenue and the tax money on the gas it takes me to get to South Texas and back. Gander Mountain will lose some dove-hunting related sales. Winchester will lose some ammo sales. The little old lady I pay to lease a corn field will lose some of her income. The little old man that owns the campground will lose some revenue. The Dairy Queen in the little South Texas town nearby will lose a weekend of sales. And my wife will lose her Labor Day weekend without her husband and sons.

Wonder if that would qualify as a genuine reason?

(Not trying to make light of any of this but that was what immediately popped into my head when I read your post. And, to be clear, if someone could prove to me that banning semi-automatic shotguns would prevent one mass shooting, I'd willingly oblige. I have my doubts, however.)

I have an acquaintance who strongly believes that guns should not be regulated at all--even assault rifles. His argument is that a day is coming when Americans will have to fight the government because the government is slowly taking away our Constitutional rights, and we cannot afford to let today's government take away our ability to fight back in the future. I think he's paranoid, but I post his opinion here because (a) it is the extreme view on one side of the argument and (b) I don't think his view should be dismissed without reflection.

My personal feeling is that guns are tools, not causes. Mental illness is the cause. The Columbine killers made bombs. If they didn't have guns, perhaps they would have made more bombs and/or larger bombs. But that raises another issue: To what extent should the government be monitoring the mental health of its citizens?

(12-17-2012 11:56 AM)Steven Herce Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 11:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Just read this on Slate.

Apparently in 1996, after a mass shooting that killed 35, Australia decided to take drastic measures and restrict gun access.

"At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.)"

The have not had another mass shooting since then (there had been 11 in the tens year before the shooting).

They also saw major decreases in firearm homicides (-59%).

IMO, it would behoove us to look at other countries and how their gun laws work and the results they achieve, while trying to understand how that would translate to the US. I don't believe the culture of Australia is so different from the US (as compared to Nordic countries, etc) so this could be a decent case study for how things could potentially unfold in the US.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12...ide_a.html

If we ban semi-automatic shotguns I will probably stop bird hunting. The government will lose my license revenue and the tax money on the gas it takes me to get to South Texas and back. Gander Mountain will lose some dove-hunting related sales. Winchester will lose some ammo sales. The little old lady I pay to lease a corn field will lose some of her income. The little old man that owns the campground will lose some revenue. The Dairy Queen in the little South Texas town nearby will lose a weekend of sales. And my wife will lose her Labor Day weekend without her husband and sons.

Wonder if that would qualify as a genuine reason?

(Not trying to make light of any of this but that was what immediately popped into my head when I read your post. And, to be clear, if someone could prove to me that banning semi-automatic shotguns would prevent one mass shooting, I'd willingly oblige. I have my doubts, however.)

I kind of wonder what their definition of semi-automatic shotgun is. I would assume that pump-action as well as double barreled would not be affected. I think ensuring that hunting activities can still be enjoyed is essential if any major gun laws are enacted.

(12-17-2012 11:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 11:56 AM)Steven Herce Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 11:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Just read this on Slate.

Apparently in 1996, after a mass shooting that killed 35, Australia decided to take drastic measures and restrict gun access.

"At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.)"

The have not had another mass shooting since then (there had been 11 in the tens year before the shooting).

They also saw major decreases in firearm homicides (-59%).

IMO, it would behoove us to look at other countries and how their gun laws work and the results they achieve, while trying to understand how that would translate to the US. I don't believe the culture of Australia is so different from the US (as compared to Nordic countries, etc) so this could be a decent case study for how things could potentially unfold in the US.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12...ide_a.html

If we ban semi-automatic shotguns I will probably stop bird hunting. The government will lose my license revenue and the tax money on the gas it takes me to get to South Texas and back. Gander Mountain will lose some dove-hunting related sales. Winchester will lose some ammo sales. The little old lady I pay to lease a corn field will lose some of her income. The little old man that owns the campground will lose some revenue. The Dairy Queen in the little South Texas town nearby will lose a weekend of sales. And my wife will lose her Labor Day weekend without her husband and sons.

Wonder if that would qualify as a genuine reason?

(Not trying to make light of any of this but that was what immediately popped into my head when I read your post. And, to be clear, if someone could prove to me that banning semi-automatic shotguns would prevent one mass shooting, I'd willingly oblige. I have my doubts, however.)

I kind of wonder what their definition of semi-automatic shotgun is. I would assume that pump-action as well as double barreled would not be affected. I think ensuring that hunting activities can still be enjoyed is essential if any major gun laws are enacted.

Yeah, that would be my concern as well.

(12-17-2012 11:44 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 11:19 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 11:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 11:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Sorry, but I don't see the slippery slope here with regards to assault weapons. Sure, a ban will not stop them from being acquired illegally. However, it does make such acquisition that much more difficult....and, in the case of the mentally ill (who are not usually not hardened criminals or members of street gangs), dramatically reduces the risk that such weapons will get in their hands.
You've got to start somewhere. And, IMO, that slippery slope argument (with the insinuation that at some point we could be calling for a ban on all handguns) is preposterous....and one heck of a stretch.

OK, so what happens when we ban them and things like this continue to happen? As I said, you don't need assault weapons to kill 27 people in an otherwise gun-free zone in 20 minutes.
What do you do next? And what do you do when that doesn't work? What's you end game and how do we get there?
Seems to me there are only three possible outcomes:
1) We decide to live with some level of risk and go no further
2) We start with an assault weapons ban, and keep ratcheting the screws tighter and tighter on legal gun owners, until we have disarmed the population and things like Dachau and Buchenwald and Mexico are on the table
3) We take a multi-faceted approach, doing the kinds of things I mentioned above with guns, plus addressing other issues like mental health and the culture of violence
I'm not opposed to doing something, but I am opposed to depriving liberties for no good purpose.

We will just have to agree to disagree. I believe in the 2nd amendment and the protection it provides. However, I don't believe putting some type of assault rifle ban in place will be causing great harm against gun owners.

It will cause absolutely no harm against gun owners. As for the options/outcomes postulated above by 69/70/75, how about adding a very reasonable and realistic option/outcome 1a; namely, we decide to live with some level of risk (which will always be out there), but we reduce that level of risk where and when rationale (without impinging on our Second Ammendment rights, or at least those intended by our founding fathers). Allowing the legal purchase of assualt weapons and semi-automatic handguns adds an incremental level of risk that is neither rational and justified...and has nothing to do with intended Second Ammendment rights.

That's actually my option number 1, Walt. OK, so what's the level you're willing to accept? Is 25,000 too many but 24,362 is okay?

And what is the basis for your "absolutely no harm against gun owners" statement? Have you done any research on the topic?

Your argument depends on two basic assumptions:
1) Some material good will come from a ban on assault/semi-automatic weapons.
2) No harm will result.

I question both assumptions. Prove them.

Frankly if you could prove them I might be amenable to the ban. I own guns, but neither an assault weapon nor a handgun. I have no need for the former,and my Navy experience was that I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a pistol--from inside the barn.

And you dismiss the slippery slope argument as preposterous. Based upon what? What support do you have for that position? As I have asked,what do you do if/when this doesn't work? What do you do next? And how do you avoid the slippery slope?

(12-17-2012 11:59 AM)Caelligh Wrote:  I have an acquaintance who strongly believes that guns should not be regulated at all--even assault rifles. His argument is that a day is coming when Americans will have to fight the government because the government is slowly taking away our Constitutional rights, and we cannot afford to let today's government take away our ability to fight back in the future. I think he's paranoid, but I post his opinion here because (a) it is the extreme view on one side of the argument and (b) I don't think his view should be dismissed without reflection.

My personal feeling is that guns are tools, not causes. Mental illness is the cause. The Columbine killers made bombs. If they didn't have guns, perhaps they would have made more bombs and/or larger bombs. But that raises another issue: To what extent should the government be monitoring the mental health of its citizens?

I would feel a lot more comfortable if your friend didn't have a gun