Answer this question: Why are assault/semi-automatic-type weapons available for purchase by the general public?

Your grammar is terrible, your logic is flawed, and your assumption of what "everyone" wants when we talk about gun control is ridiculous. There are many types of gun control. One of which is to ban assault weapons and large clips, and one of which(my favorite) is to require all guns to be sold with a free trigger lock, so that it is far less likely something like this will happen. Think about if this guy who killed all these people had picked up that assault rifle and found it locked

If the gun owner (the mother) had spent a little money on a locking gun safe then a trigger lock would be a mute point now wouldn't it

Define Assault Weapon so i know how to answer.

if you are talking about semi auto guns its call M.A.D (mutually assured destruction) if the bad guys have them then we should. if a guy breaks in with a semi auto rifle or hand gun it would suck if all i had was my bolt action rifle. and the issue with caring them how is a women going to protect her self out in public when attacked with out a hand guns? and yes all hand guns are the same except single shot ones hope she does not miss

Answer: Because people want more than they need. No one (except police and military) needs an assault weapon.

Well if you want to make sellers give out a gun safe with every weapon that is fine with me, but I don't think they'll like that kind of cost very much.

Trigger locks are cheap and easy to use. It allows people to own handguns and whatever weapons they would like, but with additional safety precautions. I would also like to see a mental health evaluation alongside the background check. No banning of guns, more safety. Everyone wins

8-how does a physically weak person protect them selves from the physically strong?

Now at least I understand you, you never even made it to 2nd period with your lunch money.

"Gonna git sumpaybakk!!!!"

Snakea, that's nothing but a load of straw-man arguments. None of which are even worth answering.

The ONLY thing I got out of your rants was just how clueless you are, nothing more.

We all can see the lives of twenty children mean less to you than your moronic obsession with a tool of death.

I guess it is to much to ask for some logic and reason from the gun control crowd. they can not seem to answer a few questions, all i see are insults. they are not even willing to learn anything about guns.

Passion rules reason, for better or for worse.

If the gun owner (the mother) had spent a little money on a locking gun safe then a trigger lock would be a mute point now wouldn't it

Yes it can help, and I am one such that locks his firearms in a safe that I only have the key for. But I am not fanatical, nor am I into military assault weapons or similar high rate of fire weapons only meant to KILL people. That's where I draw the line as a gun owner. I've never liked them from the standpoint of useless for hunting, now I have even a more important reason to OK with banning them permanently.

Screw the NRA, it's time for banning large capacity clips and either modifying even banning semi-auto assault weapons.

Oh, and don't mistake me as a noob. I know how fast someone experienced can fire a semi-auto. Fast enough, because of the recoilless design, to mimic some automatic fire rates. You can empty a 30 round clip in under 5 secs with a little practice.

The 1986 McClure-Volkmer Act forbids the federal government from establishing any “system of registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearms transactions or distribution.

The 1993 Brady Act prohibits the establishment of any electronic registry of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions.

So I am a bit curious, what was the source of the following:

The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that Nancy Lanza, who friends described as a gun enthusiast, purchased the weapons legally over a three-year period, beginning in 2010 with a Bushmaster XM-15 .223-caliber semi-automatic assault-style rifle -- the weapon that authorities say 20-year-old Adam Lanza used to mow down the victims in Friday’s rampage. She then bought a 9 mm Sig Sauer pistol in 2011, followed by a 10 mm Glock pistol in January 2012

1- why do cops have guns?

Mostly to get someone to stop doing something for fear of an immediate and deadly consequence. Occasionally it is also to protect themselves.

2- does a cop deserve more protection then a 110 pound women protecting herself from a 200 pound rapist?

Inflammatory question. Obviously a 100 pound woman being attacked by someone should be protected. But she has no need for an assault rifle with an extended magazine in order to do so.

3- there is around 100 million gun owners in the USA what happens if Just half decide not to give up there guns?

Very few are calling for a complete ban on guns. Most want rational regulation. Your question is not grounded in reality.

4-can you lock up 50 million people?

No, but you could effectively stop the manufacture of any compatible ammunition.

5-will you kill those who will not give up there guns?

See above.

6- if the 2nd amendment only applies to muskets does the 1st amendment only apply to newspapers not the internet and TV?

It doesn't apply to TV actually. That is a highly regulated medium due to it's ability to impact the public...

7- are the lives of the tens of thousands of people who protect themselves with guns every year worth less then the people who die in these shooting?

Except that far more people die from guns than are protected by them. Secondly, a rational regulation of assault weapons and extended magazines would not impact the number of people saved, but would reduce the number lost.

8-how does a physically weak person protect them selves from the physically strong?

A dog is empirically far more effective than a gun. So are locks, alarms, and common sense. A taser or mace also works. And for some I'd recommend a shotgun. An assault rifle isn't needed however.

9- Why is it that when the UK band guns there crime rate went up?

But homicide is much lower.

Comparable weapons have been available for sale since ~1946. In fact, the US government used to sell surplus guns to the general public. M1 carbines with 15 or 30 round magazines, to be exact.

Except that far more people die from guns than are protected by them. Secondly, a rational regulation of assault weapons and extended magazines would not impact the number of people saved, but would reduce the number lost. facts please saying it does Not make it so

www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots/2012/02/study-gun-owners-prevent-crime

9- Why is it that when the UK band guns there crime rate went up?

But homicide is much lower. so its ok for people to be raped beat robbed stabbed long as no on dies?

You cite "outdoorlife.com"!? Sorry, try an actual research article by a reputable source. What is even worse is it was referencing a "study" by Cato. It would be like me citing 'Think Progress'.

A real source looks like this one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

Relevant finding:

For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/

EngEsq you aren't considering the situations that didn't actually result in a shooting.

@Jeff1592116, If my math is right, you are saying with a little practice, one can fire 360 rounds per minute with what you call a semi-auto assault weapon. Not only that, but one must change 12 / 30 round magazines along with pulling the trigger 6 times per second to achieve this feat. I trully find that very hard to believe. Bushmaster's & other similar firearms are in fact used for hunting. We have a coyote problem where I live & these firearms are the firearm of choice for this type of hunting.

Enough, those mythical situations don't exist. If you compare crime rates between countries of similar development and other variables we have approximately the same level of crime.

Having guns does not, empirically make one safer. This is fact. Unless you are trained in the weapon's use, and take precautions to minimize risks, a gun won't help anything but your peace of mind.

EngEsq

Enough, those mythical situations don't exist. If you compare crime rates between countries of similar development and other variables we have approximately the same level of crime.

Having guns does not, empirically make one safer. This is fact. Unless you are trained in the weapon's use, and take precautions to minimize risks, a gun won't help anything but your peace of mind.

Then taking them away will not help. so taking them away is for your peace of mind?

Snakea, Having guns certainly didn't make the Connecticut shooter's mother any safer. In fact, as too often happens, her guns were used against her. So, in a sense, one could argue that her weapons may have made her less safe than she would have been without them.

Then taking them away will not help. so taking them away is for your peace of mind?

Snakea, while crime rates are approximately the same, the type is skewed by guns. Assaults are about the same. Homicide is significantly higher in the US. And on average property crime is higher in these other countries.

I'd rather have more burglaries than homicides. And again, I'm not saying guns should be banned; I just don't see why these military grade weapons are necessary.

Anyway, I have a meeting to get to. Please realize that nobody is trying to take away all your guns. The discussion right now is only based around banning military grade weapons, extended clips, and requiring better screening.

EngEsq - Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. The American people, by right, are and should be armed with the same weaponry as our military. This is to prevent tyranny from an oppressive government. Ban all "military grade weapons" and then what will you do when the military is ordered to turn on its people?

You say that could never happen? Well I have news for you, it's happening now, it happened 20 years ago, it happened 70 years ago, it happened 150 years ago, it happened 230 years ago, and the list goes on. When emotions run high, like they are now, you all quickly forget why we have these rights in the first place.

Yes a trigger lock would really do a lot of good when you kill the person with the KEYS. A combo gun safe might have worked as long as Adam did NOT have the combo and COULD NOT get it. FORCE HER TO OPEN IT before he killed her.

There are a lot of different things that could of happened. Adam would of found guns from somewhere, somehow, even if he had to kill someone with a knife, baseball bat or something else to get to the GUNS.

The American people, by right, are and should be armed with the same weaponry as our military.

Our military has an awful lot of weaponry! Are you saying every American citizen needs a full compliment of standard-issue military gear...even surface-to-air missile launchers in our back yards!? Do you think that is really necessary or desireable? Would that be funded by private industry, a government entitlement plan, or something that is available to only the 1% who can afford it?

We do NOT know if the MOM was shot first or if she was forced by some other means to get access to the guns. To speculate on that just shows the IGNORANCE of those that think they know it all.

Scuro you make a good point why is this government NOT allowing us to get the same weapons that could be used against us.

I would love a new jet.

What about the mental health question. Isn't that a common thread with all these shootings? All you people seem to want to talk about are gun's. Agenda please.

I just don't see why these military grade weapons are necessary.

A Bushmaster is by no means military grade. And no, its not an "Assault Rifle" - very very VERY few people own those types of weapons because the restrictions are such that it make it practically impossible to get one which is a good thing.

This non-sense of rounds per minute has no meaning. The gun fires as fast as you can pull the trigger, like every other non-bolt action rifle! If you want to limit clip/magazine capacity fine, but stop acting/talking like these kids used automatic/assault weapons. While it may look like what the military uses, they are in no functional way the same other than they both fire bullets.

Guns are not the target. The target is the lack of security at the school house. Guns have been around for a long time. Sometimes there is a nut case doing something eventful. Instead of wasting tax payer funds on useless legislation that only strengthen the hands of criminals and mass murders, use the funds to have a security that is second to none at all of the schools.

EngEsq:

2- does a cop deserve more protection then a 110 pound women protecting herself from a 200 pound rapist?

Inflammatory question. Obviously a 100 pound woman being attacked by someone should be protected. But she has no need for an assault rifle with an extended magazine in order to do so.

Answer: If its the only thing available I would hope that is what she used....

You will never stop people from owning semi-automatic rifles. These can be converted to full auto very easily and many people own fully auto machine guns. Gun control is a pipe dream. People sneak into America every day (illegals) how many illegal weapons (full on machine guns) do you think are in America? Conservatively; at least 10 million.

If a frog had legs he wouldn't bump his ass? WAKEUPAMERICA. PLEASE regulate all these gun Nuts in America.

WilliamOfRites

8-how does a physically weak person protect them selves from the physically strong?

Now at least I understand you, you never even made it to 2nd period with your lunch money.

"Gonna git sumpaybakk!!!!"

AWESOME quote!! This is how you force something into your AGENDA. WilliamofRites-Do some homework before you type.

I believe the reason most people obtain and collect weapons is not for protection, or hunting, or target practice but for fantasy fulfillment. I don't have an objection to that as long as that motivation is honest. The problem is some people can't discern the difference between fantasy and reality and ones toys are used for what they were designed to do. We don't let people play with explosives, or heavy weapons or fully automatic small arms but a Bushmaster AR-15 is OK? That weapon snuggles right next to the dividing line.

snakea

if a guy breaks in with a semi auto rifle or hand gun it would suck if all i had was my bolt action rifle.

Not if you are a good shot.

and the issue with caring them how is a women going to protect her self out in public when attacked with out a hand guns?

Why would she be with out her gun?

and yes all hand guns are the same except single shot ones hope she does not miss

Now you just have proven that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Derringers, semi-automatic, revolvers and single shot pistol (flintlock, dueling, break-action, bolt action)

Glen, to satisfy your "curiosity", there is no ban on the States keeping records of firearms sales. On the contrary, they must do so in order to register and license them.

Any full automatic weapons must be federally registered, failure to do so being a heavy federal offense.

Glenn-974637

The 1986 McClure-Volkmer Act forbids the federal government from establishing any “system of registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearms transactions or distribution.

The 1993 Brady Act prohibits the establishment of any electronic registry of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions.

So I am a bit curious, what was the source of the following:

The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that Nancy Lanza, who friends described as a gun enthusiast, purchased the weapons legally over a three-year period, beginning in 2010 with a Bushmaster XM-15 .223-caliber semi-automatic assault-style rifle -- the weapon that authorities say 20-year-old Adam Lanza used to mow down the victims in Friday’s rampage. She then bought a 9 mm Sig Sauer pistol in 2011, followed by a 10 mm Glock pistol in January 2012

How did they get their information? Perhaps the receipts were still in the boxes, as were the receipts for the banjo and the guitar my dad bought over the years. Perhaps the records were in her insurance files, in case if she ever needed to file for their being lost or stolen. Perhaps there were family members who were shopping with her when she got them.

Sheesh!

1- why do cops have guns?

Uhhh....because they are cops and hired public servants.

2- does a cop deserve more protection then a 110 pound women protecting herself from a 200 pound rapist?

A cop protects more than himself. A 110 lb woman does not need an assault rifle for protection.

3- there is around 100 million gun owners in the USA what happens if Just half decide not to give up there guns?

They become criminals. And only for refusing to turn in those weapons which are prohibited, or clips exceeding a specific limit. No one is proposing taking ALL guns from ALL people, silly.

4-can you lock up 50 million people?

Sure we can. We already have well over 2 million incarcerated for non violent offenses. Let them go and put the violent ones in custody. Very simple.

5-will you kill those who will not give up there guns?

What a silly question.

6- if the 2nd amendment only applies to muskets does the 1st amendment only apply to newspapers not the internet and TV?

The second amendment references a "well regulated militia". The national Coast Guard and the Army Reserves have taken on that responsibility. And the last I checked, freedom of speech has never killed anyone. Now, guns have killed those exercising their freedom of speech, but that is a whole different discussion.

7- are the lives of the tens of thousands of people who protect themselves with guns every year worth less then the people who die in these shooting?

Where do you come up with these numbers. You can't just make things up as you go and expect to be taken seriously.

8-how does a physically weak person protect them selves from the physically strong?

There are many ways. Non-lethal ones, at that.

9- Why is it that when the UK band guns there crime rate went up?

You are suffering from disinformation disorder.

If for some reason they think that the timeline of when the weapons were purchased has any bearing, why don't they report on how the weapons were maintained by the woman? I have a sneaking suspicion that the lady did in fact maintain the guns in what most in here think would have been a normally safe manner & would/should have prevented this monster from getting his hands on them. The monster was said to be reclusive & almost never left the house. If that's true & the monster was as bright as they say he was, isn't it possible that he was able to figure out how to get to them, i.e., find the keys, safe combination, etc.? Way too much speculation going on here.

8-how does a physically weak person protect them selves from the physically strong?

Go to the @!$%#ing gym? I dunno.....

1- why do cops have guns?

Primarily, they're a piece of survival equipment. It is the most effective tool the law enforcement officer has for defending himself or herself against criminal assault or attempted murder when all lesser means are inappropriate or have failed. In rare instances, an officer's sidearm can be used on behalf of the community which the officer works for, but it is very rare. A few officers, at one point in their career or another, may have to neutralize an offender who is so immediately dangerous to the citizens in the area that any attempt to take them into custody must be abandoned and deadly force must be used to stop them from harming anyone. Again, it is extremely rare and most officers never find themselves in such a situation. Most officers never have to shoot anyone to defend themselves, either. If they did, they wouldn't carry holstered handguns, they'd conduct daily patrol with a rifle, shotgun, or submachine gun at the ready like they do in some unstable, third world nations.

2- does a cop deserve more protection then a 110 pound women protecting herself from a 200 pound rapist?

No, not really. But keep in mind that it is a law enforcement officer's job to go tangle with rapists, robbers, murders, and others who are likely to put up a fight rather than quietly be arrested. An officer is expected to go mess with dangerous people most of us have the option of avoiding in the first place if we stay alert and don't get ourselves into trouble by going places and being with people we shouldn't be with!

Handguns are semi-auto.. Most hunting rifles are semi-auto..

Eh, no. Automatic pistols are autoloaders, or 'semi automatic'. There are many single shot pistols, mostly used for target shooting and very much in use for hunting. Many are actually chambered for rifle cartridges! Look up the Thompson Contender or Encore, for instance. Revolvers are not 'semi auto', though a double action revolver where a long, hard pull of the trigger advances the cylinder while raising the hammer is close. There are still quite a few single action revolvers in use, where the hammer is drawn back with the thumb before each shot. I'm an aficionado of those myself. Most hunting rifles are still lever action (such as the Winchester 1894 or Marlin 336) or turnbolt (Winchester 70, Remington 700, Savage 110, Ruger 77, and many others). Autoloading rifles are very popular, yes, but saying that most are is a stretch! Actually, it just isn't true! But they do have their place, depending on what you're hunting and where, and if the rifle itself is a good match for you personally. Some are, some aren't, and each hunter and shooter will be different.

if you are talking about semi auto guns its call M.A.D (mutually assured destruction) if the bad guys have them then we should. if a guy breaks in with a semi auto rifle or hand gun it would suck if all i had was my bolt action rifle.

Oh, come on! One good shot from any of my bolt action rifles loaded with hunting bullets (soft point or hollow point, as required by law for hunting, though I'm not a hunter myself) will be extremely messy and sudden death for anyone hit by one at close range. That being said, my 'go to' gun is a basic police grade 12 gauge riot shotgun loaded with #1 buckshot. Also virtually 100% effective at close range, but isn't likely to go through the walls of my home, the neighbor's home, his neighbor's home...I think you get the idea. My riot gun is secured by can be accessed very shortly if need be. Everything else is in the vault with either a trigger lock, an action lock, the bolt or slide removed, magazines or magazine tubes/followers removed, etc. If I get one out for an afternoon, I retrieve the separately stored critical part to make the gun operable; usually takes about two minutes. I also keep all ammunition besides that for the riot gun locked up in another building.

So I am a bit curious, what was the source of the following:

The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that Nancy Lanza, who friends described as a gun enthusiast, purchased the weapons legally over a three-year period, beginning in 2010 with a Bushmaster XM-15 .223-caliber semi-automatic assault-style rifle -- the weapon that authorities say 20-year-old Adam Lanza used to mow down the victims in Friday’s rampage. She then bought a 9 mm Sig Sauer pistol in 2011, followed by a 10 mm Glock pistol in January 2012

Source: Inspectors from the US Department of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

You know the yellow BATFE Form 4473 you fill out when you purchase a firearm? The dealer has to keep them for 20 years, unless he goes out of business, then he relinquishes them to the BATFE. When a gun is recovered and they want to trace it, the BATFE inspectors go to the manufacturer with the model and serial number. They look it up and see what distributor or wholesaler purchased it. Then they go to the distributor or wholesaler and see what dealer they shipped the gun(s) in question to. Then the inspectors go visit the dealer and look at the log books and the Form 4473's he's kept on file. Bingo! That's how you trace a gun. It's a bit of work, by design, to prevent governmental abuses. They can do it if they want to and have a reason to, but they're not going to do it to just 'go fishing' or 'just because'.

Comparable weapons have been available for sale since ~1946. In fact, the US government used to sell surplus guns to the general public. M1 carbines with 15 or 30 round magazines, to be exact.

Eh, also a 'no'! The Model 8 Remington autoloader rifle was actually a Browning design that was an adaptation of the Browning Automatic shotgun. Both were first produced by FN in Belgum. The rifle was the Model 1900 and the shotgun was the Browning Automatic, later known as the 'Auto-5'. I have an early Auto-5 built in early 1907. Remington got the license to produce the rifle and introduced it in the US in about 1906 in .25 Remington, .30 Remington, .32 Remington, and .35 Remington calibers. It saw some popularity with law enforcement in the 20's and 30's and beyond...and a 20 round magazine was actually manufactured for it! I believe one or more of the Texas Rangers and others in the posse who did in Bonnie and Clyde at Bienville Parish, Louisiana on 23 May 1934 used a Model 8 Remington. Winchester introduced it's autoloader .22 rifle in 1903, and moved up to centerfire models in 1905 (.32 Winchester Self-Loader), 1907 (.351 WSL), and 1910 (.401 WSL). These were nominally hunting rifles meant for smaller game (smaller than deer) but were popular enough with law enforcement (especially the Winchester 1907 in .351 caliber) and used to battle gangsters and bank robbers as well as frequent issue to prison guards.

The US Carbine, M1 used a .30 caliber cartridge that was based on the 1905 .32 WSL round, considered long obsolete by WWII. The carbines were the Standard A throughout WWII and Korea, so they were not surplussed. Many of the six million and some built during the three year production run were provided to our Allies after the war and were very popular with police forces in Europe. Ultimately, the US Rifle, M16 took the place of the carbine in the early 60's. The US Army released surplus carbines for sale through the NRA in 1963. Before then, they were not available to civilians.

Except that far more people die from guns than are protected by them.

This is also not true. Most people are protected by guns not because bad guys are shot with them or even confronted by homeowners with gun, but by the fact that large quantities of guns are known by (almost) everyone to be in the hands of civilians. This is exactly the same way that the police protect us...it's really not by arresting a lot of criminals, it's by being there and pursuing criminals, period. The real reason a lot of people do not steal, rape, or kill is because the police will be after them and probably arrest them if they do! The reason a lot of burglaries, rapes, and other crimes against people in their homes do not occur in the first place is because many people (many men, actually, mostly younger ones) know that there is a very good chance that if they break into someone's home, they may be shot as a result! Thus, many crimes develop no further than the fantasy stage in many would-be bad guys' minds. They know better than to do it and value their health and well being too much!

Homicide is significantly higher in the US.

...and very much of it is criminals killing other criminals, too. Especially criminals engaging in the drug trade who double cross someone or fail to uphold their end of a deal. Live a straight life, and the odds that you'll be a homicide victim are remarkably low.

A Bushmaster is by no means military grade.

Actually, Bushmaster is one of the closer ones of the many 'AR' pattern rifles out there. Most things that make an M16 or M4 carbine what it is has to do with metallurgy...4150 Chromium-Molybdenum barrel steel vs. 4140, for instance. 4150 retains greater strength when red hot after extended firing so the weight of an M203 40mm grenade launcher that may be attached doesn't warp the barrel. Irrelevant in most military applications (a bit of extra insurance in extreme, desperate emergency wartime use), and does nothing for any normal use but drive the cost up. Military 'specs' also stay fairly plain and basic, sticking with what is known to work and be reliable. They don't mess with 'fancy stuff' like titanium firing pins or titanium nitride coated parts until extensive testing proves that the benefit is worth the additional cost to the taxpayer. Usually, it isn't!

You will never stop people from owning semi-automatic rifles. These can be converted to full auto very easily and many people own fully auto machine guns.

First sentence is probably correct, there have been quite a few made over the past 112 years! Second sentence, no, not even close!

Firearms designs that were never intended to be fully automatic just didn't even take that into account on the drawing board and if converted to select fire or full automatic, they perform poorly and don't last long. They can also be extremely dangerous to the person firing them! Select fire service rifles (our 'assault rifles') were not designed to be full-auto except in more or less emergency use. The military seldom ever allows rifles to be fired in full automatic, in fact, the M16A2 which arrived in the early 80's replaced the full-auto option with a three round burst setting. M16A1's used from the 60's through the late 80's were very commonly destroyed by overheating if any amount of automatic fire was done and it was not uncommon for a soldier who did that to have to pay for the rifle he ruined! The M16 was intended to be fired as an autoloader under virtually all circumstances and can handle a sustained rate of fire of 12 to 15 shots per second. In other words, the maximum rate of fire an M16 can handle continuously without overheating and being damaged is one shot every four to five seconds. It ain't a machine gun!

The BATFE works extensively with gun manufacturers to ensure that autoloading firearms cannot readily be converted to fire fully automatically or to be changed in such a way as to violate federal laws without permanently altering them. The Thompson M1921 submachine guns of yesteryear had a 10" barrel, were select fire from an open bolt (facilitates barrel cooling) and had a detachable buttstock - they could be fired as an oversized 'pistol' with the stock removed by depressing a button beneath the receiver where the stock attached. The modern replicas fire from a closed bolt like any other autoloading rifle does, has a 16" barrel so it is a carbine and not a restricted "Short Barreled Rifle" (an 'SBR'), and that buttstock does not remove by pushing a button anymore, because then the gun could be readily transformed to be less than the required 26" minimum overall length for a non-restricted rifle. And, of course, the 'new' autoloader Thompson replicas are not select fire and thus no longer a submachine gun...just a heavy, clunky carbine that fires .45 caliber pistol cartridges that has a nostalgic appeal to history buffs who like to shoot.

A well regulated militia is why citizens need the right to bear arms.

Freedom of speech has never killed anyone.....tell that to the family of the nurse in England.

Docjt, you have no feelings for anyone's death. Those dead children are just fuel to fire your agenda.

In response to a brutal mass killing of children by a psychotic young man, some good, honest and concerned Americans have begun to ask if there are responsible steps we could take to mitigate this kind of carnage. Proposed for consideration so far are banning military-grade weapons for civilian use, limiting the number of bullets which can be loaded into the gun at one time, and taking additional steps to ensure that all gun sales are registered as legally required. Up for legitimate debate is the question: would any of these steps help the situation at all? Many, including myself, find it doubtful.

But this is not the question asked by snakea. His first assumption - so obvious to him that he doesn't even argue it, but just takes it for granted - is that the (perhaps secret?) goal of his fellow Americans is really to take away the guns of law-abiding citizens, and put them in jail or perhaps kill them if they don't comply. His nine questions make it very clear that he is serious about this. More disturbing is that so far, 28 people in this forum alone have joined him in this dark paranoia.

Docjt called his question about killing gun-owners 'silly'. I disagree. I do not find it silly; i find it shocking. It indicates a brooding, unsettling psychosis about the intentions and motives of his fellow Americans, and apparently one which no longer represents the isolated view of a disturbed mind.

I came to this board to engage in a debate over the efficacy of certain gun-control propositions. I leave it very troubled, with entirely different questions.

What has happened to these people, like snakea and his followers? What has gone wrong in their minds?

Maybe some of you have a theory as to why, since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect.

Since the outset of the Texas right-to-carry law, the Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower than it was before the law took effect.

Could it be that criminals are afraid they might get shot in those states?

Did you know that criminals have admitted, that the mere thought that you might have a gun, keeps some of them from committing crime against you? You don't even have to own a gun...

In 1986 Wright and Rossi reported that:
81% of interviewees agreed that a “smart criminal” will try to determine if a potential victim is armed.
74% indicated that burglars avoided occupied dwellings, because of fear of being shot.
57% said that most criminals feared armed citizens more than the police.
40% of the felons said that they had been deterred from committing a particular crime, because they believed that the potential victim was armed.
57% of the felons who had used guns themselves said that they had encountered potential victims who were armed.
34% of the criminal respondents said that they had been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed citizen.

Based on this government-funded research by Wright and Rossi, it would appear that armed citizens do have a deterrent effect on crime.

Wright, James D., Rossi, Peter H., Daly, Kathleen, Under the Gun, Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, 1983.

Wright, James D., Rossi, Peter H., The Armed Criminal in America, U.S. Department of Justice, 1985.

Wright, James D., Rossi, Peter H., Armed and Considered Dangerous, a Survey of Felons and their Firearms, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, 1986.

A well regulated militia is why citizens need the right to bear arms.

National Guard and Army Reserves. Enough said. And regulations are necessary to enforce "well regulated".

Freedom of speech has never killed anyone.....tell that to the family of the nurse in England.

Do I really need to point out the obvious flaw in your argument, kpm? U.S. Constitution, and therefore, first amendment rights, do not apply to England. Likewise, the death was a suicide, not a homicide, and totally unrelated to anything to do with this incident, or any of the mass shootings in our very recent past.

Docjt, you have no feelings for anyone's death. Those dead children are just fuel to fire your agenda.

Since I have yet to see you offer the first degree of emapthy or feeling for these victims, and have seen nothing but attempts at support of your belief in gun ownership and violence, you really probably shouldn't have gone there. You are all over the vine spouting your 2nd Amendment fallacies, and looking very much the insensitive and disturbed person.

Docjt called his question about killing gun-owners 'silly'. I disagree. I do not find it silly; i find it shocking. It indicates a brooding, unsettling psychosis about the intentions and motives of his fellow Americans, and apparently one which no longer represents the isolated view of a disturbed mind.

In theory, I would agree. That was my effort at being paternalistic, lol.

, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effecMaybe some of you have a theory as to why, since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry lawt.

I don't have a theory, but I have a proven fact. The murder rate has "gone down" because of the way data is collected. Actually, deaths have gone up, but thanks to SYG, the way those deaths are categorized has changed, thus they are not included in "murder" statistics. More people being killed, more murderers not being charged. The "justifiable homicide" cases have increased at an alarming rate. In other words, no less crime, no less deaths by firearms, just fewer murder convictions.

Docjt

Your lack of knowledge of the 2nd Amendment is shown.

You do have a great talent in evading that you are wrong.

Obama Whistles Idiots Follow = Previously banned troll.

"...before driving to the school and forcing his way in."

If this person had been armed...... bang, end of altercation.............

My uncle, a ww2 vet, owns an M-1 carbine that was purchased through the US government. It came with special paperwork to prove its origin.

Was he an officer? More specifically, was he a career officer?

Upon retiring, officers of the US Army were often allowed to retain weapons they used that were originally government issued. Usually, they were only asked to exchange a very modest amount of money for the privilege. More of the cases I am familiar with involved sidearms, but carbines were widely used by officers, as well.

The reason for that documentation is to prove, if need be, that your uncle had not stolen the carbine. Unfortunately, this happened a few times too often through the years, too. Similar documentation was issued for 'spoils of war', or 'war trophies' that soldiers captured overseas. This would apply to things such as Luger P-08's and Walther P-38 pistols 'liberated' from the Germans. If a soldier reported to an officer and 'turned it in', the officer would have some papers authorizing whatever it was to be in the soldier's possession. Otherwise, a war trophy was probably considered 'contraband'. We've gotten away from that altogether, and under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, no war trophies of any kind are allowed anymore, at least not for the individual soldier. Any material captured must be dealt with through official channels only.

The main point to this is that 1) your uncle probably wasn't a member of the general public if he was able to purchase a Carbine, M1 from directly from the US Government during the post WWII years, and that 2) these carbines weren't in wide circulation throughout the US until the 1960's and 70's, after the US Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps were done with them. Importing carbines left overseas after WWII didn't start in earnest until, I'd say, at least the early 80's.

Thank you for sharing. I hope you're uncle is still able to enjoy his carbine every now and then. They may not have been especially good weapons in many respects, but they are a lot of fun to fire every now and then and they're a great piece of American history that many of us have a connection to through our veteran relatives.

I guess you could go there, these Liberals seem to think its the MOM & DADS fault.

No, steve-1962, it is the "gun lobby" that is at fault. They play on your weakness, lack of critical thought and your fear of the unknown.

The only two who deserved to die in all of this were named Lanza.

Let's add a timeline of mental health visits too.

Damned HIPPA law, eh?

No.. you probably couldn't

tommyboyesq,This young man's Mom was awaiting doomsday,which makes her mentally unstable.She was not a responsible gun owner.If you don't feel the need to own a gun then nobody is forcing you to do so.This is America where we are allowed to own guns although I am in favor of stricter gun laws such as gun safety classes in order to obtain a gun ownership license, background checks and longer waiting periods.None of those safeguards though will ensure that tragedies like this will be prevented until we have better mental health care and the education of mental health issues in this country.

Yep, Tommyboy, someone can just pick one up and hit every object in the room with it. Like the Oregon mall shooter, maybe? Or maybe not...

Jacl, do you think 12/21/12 had any kind of meaning to the mom, do you think she kind of kept that doomsday aura in front of her son? Dumb question, but your comment sort of made me wonder about that kind of thinking line.

We did NOT have this type of problem before we had the WEAPONS FREE ZONES. The only people that will have guns are the LAW BREAKERS they do NOT care about the laws.

There have been a lot of shootings inplaces like schools, malls, Theatre's ALL WEAPONS FREE ZONES. NO LAW ABIDING citizen will have a gun to protect against those that do NOT abide by the laws.

To: Enough2735007:

Let me clarify the point of my last post. NO ONE needs an assault weapon to defend one's self or home. The only exception, exagerated I admit, would be if one expected to have his home invaded by an intruder using an assault weapon; then you might argue that the homeowner wanted (or needed) some kind of equal firepower. But, generally speaking I would think that one handgun in a safe at the side of your bed, is sufficient to deter the common burglar. I mean I am a single person living alone and I do not own a gun, but if I did decide to own one, I would think (hope) one handgun holding six rounds, locked in a safe next to my bed would be all I need.

Simply put, the weapon of choice for almost every mall shooter or school shooter in the last 10 years seems to have been the assault type weapons. So why don't we start by eliminating those from the market? I know, some wiseguy will say, "What about the guy in China that killed all those kids with a knife" But you know that the next mass shooting will also be done with an assault weapon. And if the next mass killing in the U.S. is done with a knife I will be shocked. And with the way this is going, if the next mass killing in the U.S. does not happen within, let's say, 3-4 months I will be equally shocked.

You mention the Oregon mall shooter. Incidentally, I understand that he stole that assault weapon from a neighbor and took the gun to the mall, which further proves my point. He was NOT defending himself in his home. His neighbor, from whom he stole the assault weapon, did NOT need it to defend his own home. And evidently it was not securely locked in a gun safe either.

I'm just curious what this country's tolerance level will be for these mass killings before the government gets tougher with the laws. Will we accept 3-4 of these massacres each year? Will we accept 8-9 per year? Time will tell.

.

Tell me this you want assult rifles gone well i hate to break it to you anti gun morons but assult rifles by definition is full auto or burst fire capabilites you @!$%#ing idiots should realy read before running your mouth. I have a idea while we are baning guns how about we ban all alchol right with them. Drunk drivers kill more children and adults than guns knives combine. Or how about abortion killing pore inocent children being killed you @!$%#ing dumb asses go @!$%#ing hug trees with Hilliary Clinton(major @!$%#) people like you ar the reason this country is a @!$%# hole

Great someone else who doesn't understand that these are not automatic weapons.

You can fire the same with a semi-auto hunting rifle. I love how you take the word "assault" to make the firearm sound so much more dangerous. No who is going to argue with my post with the same old "what about the 30 clip"...

steve-1962, these problems have been going on all along, which is why weapon-free zones were made in the first place, so that IF someone was found with a weapon in a weapon-free zone, they could be arrested and the weapon seized and have a restraining order against him or her at the least, and jailed at the most, and ever after be banned from the zone.

Please read this account, of the 1927 (way back before weapon-free zones) school massacre, which was carried out by a man, a member of the school board, who seemed to believe that paying taxes to build a school building was a form of government tyranny, and worth blowing up the school building and killing the children and faculty inside. He used his gun to commit suicide, taking three other by-standers with him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Why does someone have to PRACTICE with an assault weapon?

To satisfy the NEED they FEEL to do so. Human nature, and perception may as well be reality. If someone is convinced that they're supposed to or have to do something, then it really doesn't matter if that's not the case, does it? They're going to do it unless they figure out at some point they don't have to.

I've never even HELD an assualt weapon and I'll bet you I could pretty much hit every object in a room with it.

It's really not that tough. Draw the bolt back until it locks, for safety's sake, and withdrawing the magazine and flipping the fire control lever to 'safe' wouldn't be a bad idea, either. Hold the gun any way that feels comfortable to you, and proceed to strike, beat, and smash everything in sight. Frankly, I prefer to clobber adversaries and training dummies with the checkered buttplate, myself. Buttplates are cheap and easy to replace if need be. Swinging a rifle like a bat tends to break the stock, damage the recoil buffer tube, crack the receiver, wreck the sights, or bend the barrel.

Seriously, if it was as easy as it looked the US Government would not waste precious resources training soldiers to shoot, and think of all the accidents that could be avoided if green recruits were never issued a rifle until they entered actual combat!

It's not overly difficult, but a lot of people just don't have the knack to intuitively shoot well. It does take practice, and for some of us, it takes a LOT of practice before any consistent ability to hit a target is achieved. In Adam Lanza's case, the task was even less challenging than the old fish in a barrel scenario because the children he killed were positioned such that practically every bullet that left the muzzle of the carbine he'd absconded with likely impacted multiple victims. Projectiles fired from all but the least powerful guns will generally pass completely through an adult human torso while losing very little velocity at close range. Most centerfire rifle bullets are still travelling faster than the speed of sound three hundred yards from the muzzle, and in a classroom, the distance wasn't even thirty feet.

Source??? Stats are pretty, but I can say that 95% of people play hopscotch every morning, does that make it true?

Yeah I've been seeing lots of unsourced stats lately...

There were over 600 accidental gun deaths and 8,775 murders by guns in 2011.

How many times did the average citizens used their guns to save themselves or their loved one? 20 - 30 times?

Robbie the robot its is around 1 million every year you just don't hear about on the news

Here is one study that had decent methodology. I'm not saying it's perfectly accurate, but the sampling size indicates it is representative.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

A relevant finding:

For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

Hint:

To obtain the slightest bit of credibility when stating 'facts' or 'statistics', please link to the source.

A reputable one.

You left out the 99% that didn't shoot anyone at all.

Evidence behind your claim Enough###? Because if my home were being invaded I wouldn't say "stick em up" and not shoot my weapon.

Plus national statistics don't show us having any lower crime rates than similarly developed countries.

It was a response to the OP. He/She was implying that ALL guns purchased shoot someone, well mine never have, my father's never have, my sister's never have. None of the ones that belong to the members of my shooting club ever have. I know a lot of people that shoot and none of their guns have ever shot a single person.

Just because you think you would have to shoot your weapon doesn't mean you do. I know someone who just racked her pump action shotgun and the guy who was about to steal her motorcycle sh!t himself jumping back over the fence.

When you rack a shell into the chamber or they think you did they do NOT stick around to see if that was the case.

These cowards do NOT go to Police stations or other places that have guns. They go to the WEAPONS FREE ZONES so they will NOT be shot back at.

What Steve said. One of the most effective home defense weapons is a shotgun for the sole reason: That unmistakable sound. Everyone knows what that sound means. Gun owners are taught NOT to shoot bad guys unless there is imminent threat of serious bodily harm/death. Pulling that trigger could land you in prison, better safe than sorry.

* Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

* Click here to see why the following commonly cited statistic does not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility: "In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns."

http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

2008 are outdated statistics. You need to use the most recent. That would be 2011. Robbie has provided you with an example:

There were over 600 accidental gun deaths and 8,775 murders by guns in 2011.

These are actual crime statistics.

Your use of self report data is questionable at best. These issues need to be quantified.

Would of been fine if not for the person she did NOT expect to use them against her. Plus we do NOT know if she was choked almost to death to get the combo to the gun safe before he KILLED her.

You think you know how it happened, NO ONE does and probably will never know.

Does anyone ever EXPECT their family member to shoot them with their own gun?

Of course not. And yet it happens consistently. As the statistics show.

The Connecticut law specifies semiautomatic rifles that

"accept detachable magazines and have at least two out of five features: 1) a folding or telescoping stock, 2) a pistol grip, 3) a bayonet mount, 4) a grenade launcher, and 5) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor."

The configuration of the rifle used by Lanza, which his mother legally purchased and possessed in Connecticut, evidently was not covered by that definition.

According to the Hartford Courant, the state ban is so specific, the mother bought it legally

The Connecticut law restricts semi-automatic rifles — those capable of firing a bullet with each pull of the trigger — only if they include a detachable magazine as well as at least two of five specific features. One of those features — a pistol grip — is ubiquitous on military-style weapons. But to be banned, an AR-15-style rifle would also need to include a folding or telescoping stock, a bayonet mount, a grenade launcher or a flash suppressor, a device typically screwed on to the end of the muzzle to limit the bright flash caused by gunpowder that ignites outside of the muzzle.

Aware of the restrictions in some states, weapons manufacturers have modified some models to stay within the laws. Bushmaster, for example, offers a "state-compliant" model with a telescoping stock that simply has been pinned in the fully open position, making it legal for sale.

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/newtown-sandy-hook-school-shooting/hc-newtown-assault-weapons-20121217,0,7818253.story

Yeah, Darwin. Hmmmmmm, I'd love to see the explanation of this one.

An “Assault Weapon” is defined as: Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms:

• Algimec Agmi;
• Armalite AR-180;
• Australian Automatic Arms SAP Pistol;
• Auto Ordnance Thompson type;
• Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type;
• Barrett Light-Fifty model 82A1;
• Beretta AR 70;
• Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol;
• Calico models M-900, M-950 and 100-P;
• Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88;
• Colt AR-15 and Sporter;
• Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max-1 and Max-2;
• etc, etc, etc........

Thanks, Cloho.

That feel good legislation, unicorn and lollipop, Utopia AWB did a good job.... eh?

An “Assault Weapon” is defined as: Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms:

Education time.

Select fire has three settings. Safe, semi-auto and full auto. The Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol are banned because of the full auto capabilities. Hense the word auto. These are not sold at Cabela's and you need a class 3 licence to own them. The also cost around $12,000.

Right, Al. We know about select fire.

but, "or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms:", "Colt AR-15 and Sporter"

It shouldn't matter who the manufacturer is, an AR-15 is an AR-15 is an AR-15.

champagnesabre

Right, Al. We know about select fire.

but, "or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms:", "Colt AR-15 and Sporter"

It shouldn't matter who the manufacturer is, an AR-15 is an AR-15 is an AR-15

Can I just say "wrong" and that will count for a good response? You have no idea what your talking about. Stop trying to Google common sense.

You're absolutely right. It's just an AR, a gun, a tool.

Obesity is one of the biggest killers in the US. Is it time to ban the fork?

Has anyone bothered to look into the cocktail of meds that this kid was on? Ban Doctors from prescribing meds?

There are other things that this scenario can be blamed on.

How about the lack of security in schools. Maybe the budget can't handle the cost of security. I wonder why that is? Maybe the outrageous salaries of superintendents and principles have something to do with it.

I don't know, but more gun laws are not going to solve the problem. The equipment is already in the population.

These shootings are happening in gun free zones. Gun free zones are the best thing a criminal can ask for.

Ever wonder why criminals don't attack the police stations?

I think this woman knows more about the topic than the rest of you combined. I'm a medically retired/disabled veteran. 11Bravo30 with 15 years of active service. I believe that makes me a authority on military weapons. Either way, Connecticut Law Sec 53-202a Assault Weapons; definitions, clearly defines the Bushmaster weapons as semi-automatic. Perhaps some of you loud mouths should take a course in reading comprehension. A M-1911 pistol is often referred to as a .45 Automatic, though it is not capable of full-auto fire. Maybe one of you know it all types would like to explain that.

(1) Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms: Algimec Agmi; Armalite AR-180; Australian Automatic Arms SAP Pistol; Auto-Ordnance Thompson type; Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type; Barrett Light-Fifty model 82A1; Beretta AR-70; Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol; Calico models M-900, M-950 and 100-P; Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88; Colt AR-15 and Sporter; Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max-1 and Max-2; Encom MK-IV, MP-9 and MP-45; Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FN/FNC; FAMAS MAS 223; Feather AT-9 and Mini-AT; Federal XC-900 and XC-450; Franchi SPAS-12 and LAW-12; Galil AR and ARM; Goncz High-Tech Carbine and High-Tech Long Pistol; Heckler & Koch HK-91, HK-93, HK-94 and SP-89; Holmes MP-83; MAC-10, MAC-11 and MAC-11 Carbine type; Intratec TEC-9 and Scorpion; Iver Johnson Enforcer model 3000; Ruger Mini-14/5F folding stock model only; Scarab Skorpion; SIG 57 AMT and 500 series; Spectre Auto Carbine and Auto Pistol; Springfield Armory BM59, SAR-48 and G-3; Sterling MK-6 and MK-7; Steyr AUG; Street Sweeper and Striker 12 revolving cylinder shotguns; USAS-12; UZI Carbine, Mini-Carbine and Pistol; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson "Linda" Pistol;

I'm very surprised to hear the NRA say that.

Gun control has worked wonders in DC and Chicago!

Have a nice heart attack! ;-)

Amen. How on earth can any sane person have both a troubled adolescent and an arsenal under the same roof? Unbelievable. She's ultimately responsible for each and every death that horrible day.

many an innocent looking lady packing heat like it's a natural-born-way-of-life

You say that like it's a bad thing, but I guess that depends on your perspective. Yep, no telling which women are packing, so it's best to just leave them all alone. You honestly think being 'trusting' is going to prevent an attack?

Bet you're pissed we don't have pictures, huh?

Excellent point! My feelings exactly.

If you have guns, of any kind, you have a responsibility to keep them secure and prevent any unauthorised access to them.

To not do so, is being irresponsible.

Clips of 10? Ok then, buy 10 clips. You still have a 100 rounds.

Takes but a second to reload.

Anyone could walk into an elementary school with 4 handguns, each with a 10 round clip and kill 20-30 children. Guns are only a problem when someone mentally unstable has one. If you own a gun, you should be responsible for it. I own a business and we are having our X-Mas party this Friday. So I have 75 employees that will be eating a drinking for several hours. I made each one sign a hold harmless document and am providing cab fee to anyone I feel is too impaired to drive. Anyone they hit, while drunk, will come back in court against my firm. It should be no different with a gun owner.

I would word it that no long guns originally designed to use removable magazines could be manufactured or sold, and that no gun would be allowed to hold more than 5 rounds. No gun designed to have removable mags but modified to get around the rule (California "bullet button" AR's) would be allowed. No pistols more than 5 rounds, with all mags for those made new and not modified from high cap mags to only hold 5 rounds (which are easily converted back to high capacity). I would also make it the law that the use of any gun in any crime, whether the gun is fired or just used to threaten, seen or implied (like its in their pocket) would almost be equal to murder. The use of a gun in a crime implies that they will use it to kill you,so thats enough for me. 30 day waiting period on all guns. Laws should be changed so that a database of all purchased guns is kept with owners names and addresses, with all sales and transfers between individuals tracked and the database updated. In home inventory/inspection by authorities every year or two to make sure the records match.

Shogun69, wow, you really trust government! Databases and in home inspections. That worked out so well for Jews in Germany, why wouldn't we want to duplicate such a successful policy? There's no potential there for selective enforcement at all! Sure hope they don't put someone like you in charge.

I like to call it an assault rifle just to piss off the anal-retentives ;-)

Sometimes it is fun to poke at the anal retentive ... from both sides.

@ -god, i'll buy that if you are not a spelling nazi.

have to admit, from that perspective, it's funny.

Why is it that authorities continue to insist that Lanza got an AR-15 from his mom, which was purchased "legally" - when this type of weapon is ILLEGAL to own in Connecticut? I just want that one answered.

i'm having trouble with that as well.

reports have indicated the bushmaster was found in the car.

yet, the "expert" claims all hits were from a .223.

doesnt make sense...and henry repeaters were never chambered for the .223. a century separated them. not to mention the henry was a .44 rim fire design, iirc.

Generalize much?

They do its called taxes, they just choose to spend it on entitlement programs instead.

The gas tax is a dedicated tax for roads only. Extra security to keep people safe from guns should be provided by those who own, manufacture guns, and push their ownership.

Not that would matter anyways, the kitchen knife would work for any insane person.

Time to ban Abortion, enough babies have died.

Free abortions for everyone!!!

Too bad Mary didn't have one!

san antonio kid

Time to ban Abortion, enough babies have died.

AGREED!

God is that you?