Jeffrey,

Very well put. And I think it is just that which is the crux of the whole problem. You can talk and talk until everyone is blue in the face, but unless you take the first step toward doing something, it's all just talk and often a lot of false bravado. No more.

I'm trying to be fair to both sides and just focus on the possible not the ideal. Here are what I see as undisputed facts.

1. Congress MIGHT pass a new assault weapons/high capacity magazine ban, I repeat they MIGHT.

2. Such a ban would ONLY ban the further manufacture of MORE "assault" weapons. In other words all the assault rifles and hi capacity magazines out there will stay out there.

3. That is ALL that is likely to happen as far as actual gun control is concerned.

Now if we wanted to make school shootings impossible or difficult via gun control we'd have to tightly control not just assault rifles (way overrated as killing machines) but all guns with the following characteristics.

1. The ability to fire rapidly

2. The ability to be reloaded faster then victims could escape or rush the shooter.

You could only do this if you eliminated virtually all of the guns used for hunting, target shooting, historical re-enactments, and self defense.
In other words making a serious dent in the availability of guns "suitable" for mass murder just is not politically possible.

Now given what I've just described I would argue an assault weapons ban is a complete waste of time. It would be like banning Dr. Pepper to stop obesity.

I respect your opinion if you think getting rid of a bunch of guns would be good in theory but in reality I am arguing we are so far from that goal that our efforts to protect schools should be spent elsewhere. Having our politicians waste limited time arguing over meaningless laws is a shame because there is so much else they could do that might actually help avoid more tragedies.

Edited by Cameron on 12/20/2012 21:37:28 MST.

Have you anti gun people even read the numerous links I have provided? You guys drag out nothing concrete. I provide links that demonstrate that banning guns don't make you safer. That decrease gun violence. Big freaking deal. It is overall violence that matters.

Fact: only 1 mass murder attack since 1950 on US soil has occured where guns where allowed.
Fact: Israel virtually eliminated attacks by turning "soft" targets into hard targets
Fact: outlawing guns doesn't help


I am not making this up. Unlike those who want to ban guns, I have provided a Harvard based study.

.

Edited by Ice-axe on 01/09/2013 20:29:41 MST.

----You are NOT legally allowed to use deadly force to defend property.


That depends on where you are. Some state are much more liberal in their application of statutes like the Castle doctrine.



Miguel,

When did you become an American again?

Miguel,

When did you become an American again?

Michael,


(^J^)/" ⎛⌒Y⌒⎞

Edited by butuki on 12/20/2012 22:16:47 MST.

.

Edited by Ice-axe on 01/09/2013 20:29:09 MST.

AB, You are dead wrong. Laws vary by STATE.

Sixteen states have adopted "Stand Your Ground" laws that allow an individual to use deadly force to protect a residence, place of business, vehicle or other property, so far Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia and Washington have enacted statutes.

The law states that an individual in self-defense "has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force,it also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the shooters covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them..

There are requirements that vary from state to state before deadly force can be used a few examples are:An intruder must be making or have made an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.

The occupant of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home.

The occupant of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary. The occupant of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force.


Again, if an intruder is attempting to enter your home, or your car with YOU in it, the apriori assumption is that they intend to do you harm.

You are correct, you cannot shoot them if they are running away or leaving.

States also have "kill a carjacker" laws as well. If someone tries to steal your car with someone in it, you can kill them, plain and simple.

Edited by livingontheroad on 12/20/2012 22:08:02 MST.

.

Edited by Ice-axe on 01/09/2013 20:35:02 MST.

A lot of "stand your ground" laws came from silly lawsuits. These laws are an (imperfect) attempt to define what is legal and what is not. Before in some states you had a "duty to retreat" which meant you could only respond with force if you couldn't get away. That sounds reasonable but an old man was criminally charged for shooting an assailant who chased him down and tackled him. The lawyers were arguing the he should have tried to run some more!

If it sounds like the Old West its really not. Its well known in the community that even a legal and justifiable shooting can land you in court and cause all kinds of legal headaches so smart guys are REALLY careful. Almost every tactical gun magazine issue will have at least one article dedicated to legal issues and not doing something dumb that could land you in jail.

Edited by Cameron on 12/20/2012 22:25:24 MST.

.

Edited by Ice-axe on 01/09/2013 20:28:31 MST.

"As per Tony Beasley's comments up thread, mass murders dropped to zero after the Port Arthur Massacre and the tightening of gun laws. "

Not zero.

The Monash University shooting cause more gun control measures to be enacted making handguns have to be made larger to make them harder to conceal.

And mass murder just moved to use other means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childers_Palace_Fire June 2000 killed 15 backpackers: nine women and six men.

Backpackers no less.

In the past, people were actualy sued by their assailant who was only wounded. So it was common knowledge that you needed to finish killing them if you only wounded them, totally dead, or you could be sued by them.

These laws prevent that suit, so it actually is good for the perp.

How Fd up the world gets when lawyers get involved.

Edited by livingontheroad on 12/20/2012 22:37:55 MST.

ab-

I don't know in which state you live (and the rules for concealed carry licenses vary by state) but here in Oregon (and Utah and Florida), there is no "federal test" of any kind needed to get a concealed carry permit. Fill out the application, pay your fee, successfully go through the background check, and pick up your permit.

I've never read or heard of such a test. What's your source for this please?

.

Edited by Ice-axe on 01/09/2013 20:30:38 MST.

Jeffrey,

There were quite a few straw man arguments wielded against me there.

Buck, you're probably against serving healthier food to children in schools because many children remain fat anyway. Obviously you know that's not what I think since I pointed out how many people obesity is killing.

I don't own any assault weapons and I don't think they are toys. I am not arguing that knives are as dangerous as guns. They're not. We have gun control now. In general you can't own a machine gun. There are many situations where guns cannot be carried, etc. The only question is where to draw the line on gun control. Don't try to peg the most extreme pro-gun arguments on me because I'm not the guy making them.

Perhaps you didn't notice I said I thought an assault weapons ban and a limit on magazine size would come out of this and I didn't argue against it. And if we can improve our ability to pre-identify the extremely rare person who commits such crimes, I think we should and try to figure out appropriate actions. An example of something I don't think we should do is turn our schools into armed fortresses in response.

People are really, really poor at risk assessment. Anytime we spend an inordinate time focusing on a lesser problems we are spending too little time focusing on greater problems. Our concern for risks should be proportional, and it's often not for situations like this tragedy.

Thousands of parents are panicking about sending their kids to school now when schools are one of the safest places our kids can be. Despite what the media might lead us to believe, statistically this country is getting safer.

Should we try to make things safer yet? Sure, to a reasonable degree. I think regardless of what anyone on this thread wants the assault weapons ban and magazine restrictions will come and that most gun possession rights will be maintained for the foreseeable future.

hooah! certainly the first step in the right direction!!!!

"I guess there is one more way I would give up my firearms, allow prayer back in schools, I think that would be a worthy trade." {add and a president who fears god!} just my 2 cents!
best comment since it started!

I'm getting annoyed here. An assault rifle is a select fire rifle (fully automatic and semi automatic capable). You can't buy a fully automatic weapon unless it was manufactured and properly registered with the BATF before 1986. Even then it's a ton of red tape and they can be extremely expensive. Please people, the words "assault rifle" should never be used in an American gun control debate.

Now, there is the wacky federal definition of an assault rifle (as defined by the federal assault weapons ban), but it's incredibly stupid. It bans rifles based on cosmetic features that do not limit their lethality. A semi automatic rifle is a semi automatic rifle. It doesn't matter if they are black and scary or wooden stocked and sporty.

Edited by justin_baker on 12/21/2012 00:50:34 MST.

"They want to effectively remove the ability for citizens to protect themselves."

This is coming from someone who owns 20 guns. You are delusional by ignoring the root cause of why you need to defend yourself against the apparent zombies running amuck. Honest to God, you represent part of the problem to which there is no solution. Fire away.

a b,

From what I've been able to determine, the HSC and safety demonstration is purely a California requirement. There are no such federal requirements that I can locate or find reference to. Perhaps you heard a reference to the DoJ and thought it was the Federal DoJ rather than the California DoJ? It's also possible the dealer didn't know what he was talking about; I recall reading similar examples when perusing yelp reviews some time back.

For a rifle, I assume the questionnaire you completed was ATF form 4473? California's requirements for permits and safety demonstrations only apply to handguns.

Only seven states require a license/permit for handguns, and four states require such for all firearms. Only about six states require a safety exam/training as part of the process.

Personally I agree that much better training should be a requirement, and I think that is well supported by the original meaning/usage of "well-regulated".

Ref:
http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/hscinfo
http://smartgunlaws.org/licensing-of-gun-owners-purchasers-policy-summary/
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf