# 3 killed, 28 hurt in shootings since Friday night



## Big Don (Jul 23, 2012)

[h=2]3 killed, 28 hurt in shootings since Friday night[/h] 	 		 
			Chicago SUN-TIMES 


 Last Modified: Jul 23, 2012 09:30AM EXCERPT:


 	 	       Three men are dead and at least 28 other people wounded from gun violence across the city since Friday night.

 The weekends first fatal shooting happened in the  400 block of North Austin Boulevard, after a man intervened in a  domestic argument between the suspect and a woman, police said. The  suspect left to get a handgun, then returned about 12:50 a.m. on  Saturday and opened fire, striking the man and two other people.


 Akil Partee, 19, of the 5900 block of West Lake  Street was dead at the scene, according to the Cook County Medical  Examiners office. A 29-year-old man was shot in the abdomen and was in  critical condition at Loyola University Medical Center in Maywood. A  20-year-old man was shot in the buttocks and taken in fair condition to  John H. Stroger Jr. Hospital of Cook County. Authorities think the  gunman may have shot the men from a light-colored vehicle.

 Another man died after he was shot in the abdomen  in the 4200 block of North Milwaukee Avenue at 1:46 a.m, police said.  Pablo Hernandez, 41, of the 3500 block of South 60th Court in Cicero,  was pronounced dead at Masonic at 3:37 a.m., according to medical  examiners office.

 About 6 a.m. on Saturday, Gerry Woods, 37, was shot  at his home in the 4500 block of South Wood Street after he had  apparently been in a fight with another man, authorities said. The other  man returned to the scene with a semi-automatic handgun and fired  several shots at Woods, authorities said, adding that the shooting may  have been gang-related.

 At least 26 other people were hurt in shootings on the South and West Sides since about 8 p.m. Friday evening.
END EXCERPT
Tell me again how gun control laws help... It is so fiendishly difficult for the law abiding to get a gun in Chicago, people have had to go all the way to the US Supreme Court. 
Gun laws keep the law abiding from arming themselves. Their effect on criminals is negligible at best.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 24, 2012)

Well Bill, if you think Chicago's bad, can you imagine how high the crime rate is in Vermont (legal carry), Texas (legal carry), and even Sweden (mandated ownership of assault weapons).  Kennesaw Ga (mandated ownership) has to be like Tombstone.

I wonder what the stats are there....


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 24, 2012)

Not sure why you brought Sweden into it, their 'murder by firearms' rate is lower than Switzerlands which has no gun laws. 
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 24, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Not sure why you brought Sweden into it, their 'murder by firearms' rate is lower than Switzerlands which has no gun laws.
> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms



That was the point.  The places here with the Most Restrictive gun laws like CA, IL, MA all have extremely high rates of Violent crime, and the places he mentioned that have the most relaxed laws, Vermont, Texas, Sweden etc have some of the lowest... which is in direct opposition to what we are constantly bombarded with by the Anti-Gun crowd, who refuse to look at pesky things like Facts and Truth.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 24, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> That was the point. The places here with the Most Restrictive gun laws like CA, IL, MA all have extremely high rates of Violent crime, and the places he mentioned that have the most relaxed laws, Vermont, Texas, Sweden etc have some of the lowest... which is in direct opposition to what we are constantly bombarded with by the Anti-Gun crowd, who refuse to look at pesky things like Facts and Truth.



Why bring other countries into it though? We are all very different cultures from America so comparing crime let alone gun crime between the countries isn't going to give you anything you can use for either side of the argument. Sweden is a very different place from America, the culture and the national mindset is different so perhaps it's nothing to do with gun laws that the gun crime is down more to do with the way people are there. You can only compare like with like. Trying to prove something by involving another country is pointless for both sides of the argument, as I said yours is a unique debate, only South Africa seems to be debating this with the same intensity and even they have different problems to yours.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 24, 2012)




----------



## MJS (Jul 24, 2012)

Big Don said:


> *3 killed, 28 hurt in shootings since Friday night*
> 
> 
> Chicago SUN-TIMES
> ...



Certainly some crazy ****.  Its the same here in Hartford, New Haven and Bridgeport, with shootings pretty much on a daily basis.  All the idiots running around, since the Co. shooting, talking about gun control.  Sorry, doesn't work the way THEY want it to or think it should.  The badguys can still get the guns, while the good guys, like you said, have to jump thru endless hoops.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 24, 2012)

I thought this was interesting.  It does contradict what Bob is saying, but I'm not saying that Bob's wrong on this.  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ix-facts-about-guns-violence-and-gun-control/



> Six facts about guns, violence, and gun control
> Posted by Ezra Klein on July 23, 2012 at 11:51 am
> The aftermath of the Aurora, Colorado shootings has been thick with calls to avoid &#8220;politicizing&#8221; the tragedy. That is code, essentially, for &#8220;don&#8217;t talk about reforming our gun control laws.&#8221;
> Let&#8217;s be clear: This is a form of politicization. When political actors construct a political argument that threatens political consequences if other political actors pursue a certain political outcome, that is, almost by definition, a politicization of the issue. It&#8217;s just a form of politicization favoring those who prefer the status quo to stricter gun control laws.
> That said, it&#8217;s important to be clear about what Aurora is: A tragedy that may or may not tell us anything useful about the general trends in guns and violence in the United States. And so this post is about those trends, some of which may surprise you.



Now when you read the story I've linked to, keep your mind clear until you read the entire thing - try to get through it all without blowing a gasket.  I suspect that this piece will satisfy neither gun-grabbers nor gun-owners, because it doesn't cleave to one 'side' or the other.  However, I find that refreshing.

I suspect that people with an agenda for or against gun control are going to either hate this piece or try to take it apart.  But the part I found most useful was at the very end:



> 6. Gun control is not politically popular.
> Since 1990, Gallup has been asking Americans whether they think gun control laws should be stricter. The answer, increasingly, is that they don&#8217;t. &#8220;The percentage in favor of making the laws governing the sale of firearms &#8216;more strict&#8217; fell from 78% in 1990 to 62% in 1995, and 51% in 2007,&#8221; reports Gallup. &#8220;In the most recent reading, Gallup in 2010 found 44% in favor of stricter laws. In fact, in 2009 and again last year, the slight majority said gun laws should either remain the same or be made less strict.&#8221;



I do believe that is the case.  The gun grabbers have become far quieter in recent years.  My suspicion is because there just aren't that many of them anymore.  The political will just isn't there for significant changes to gun control laws in the USA.  That's not to say things could not change - the public is fickle and has a short attention span.  But it's just not the kind of battle it was back in the 1980's and 1990's.

If I were to hazard a guess, it would be that the only type of gun control legislation that might stand a chance of passing in this season would be some type of control on ammunition, especially restricting the sale by mail of ammo.  A lot of citizens were unaware that you can buy ammunition by mail in the USA without any kind of license or background check, etc.  That might be seen as low-hanging fruit that a gun-grabber could use to get something out of the current situation.  Other than that, I'm not seeing anything here.


----------



## billc (Jul 24, 2012)

The solution to this problem is very easy.  We need more laws on the books outlawing murder.  Obviously, the laws that we have are not working.  If we made it even more illegal to murder someone society would be much safer.  On the bonus side, if we had more laws prohibiting murder that would also take care of any issues we have with guns.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 24, 2012)

billcihak said:


> The solution to this problem is very easy.  We need more laws on the books outlawing murder.  Obviously, the laws that we have are not working.  If we made it even more illegal to murder someone society would be much safer.  On the bonus side, if we had more laws prohibiting murder that would also take care of any issues we have with guns.



I think you're fighting a battle with an invisible opponent this time around.  No one is howling for more gun control laws at the moment but the media, and that's dying down quickly.

I have seen the media attempts to do the 'ooh, scary gun' thing on TV with the AR-15 and the AK-47 and the drum magazines and the intentional blurring of the lines between an 'automatic' weapon and a 'semi-automatic' weapon, but it just doesn't seem anyone is biting this time around.  No one is getting furious and demanding that 'something be done' this time around.  I think the political will just isn't there. I could be wrong, but I'm just not seeing it.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 24, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Why bring other countries into it though? We are all very different cultures from America so comparing crime let alone gun crime between the countries isn't going to give you anything you can use for either side of the argument. Sweden is a very different place from America, the culture and the national mindset is different so perhaps it's nothing to do with gun laws that the gun crime is down more to do with the way people are there. You can only compare like with like. Trying to prove something by involving another country is pointless for both sides of the argument, as I said yours is a unique debate, only South Africa seems to be debating this with the same intensity and even they have different problems to yours.



You certainly have a point... that said, it never stops anyone from comparing our Healthcare system with that in Canada or Europe despite the fact that they are very different places from America as well... 

*shrug*


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 24, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think you're fighting a battle with an invisible opponent this time around.  No one is howling for more gun control laws at the moment but the media, and that's dying down quickly.



Jan Schakowsky (D - _IL_) is.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 24, 2012)

Tez is right. You really can't compare the US to Sweden or Switzerland or France.

But then again, should we be comparing say Texas to Vermont to Illinois too?


----------



## MJS (Jul 24, 2012)

billcihak said:


> The solution to this problem is very easy.  We need more laws on the books outlawing murder.  Obviously, the laws that we have are not working.  If we made it even more illegal to murder someone society would be much safer.  On the bonus side, if we had more laws prohibiting murder that would also take care of any issues we have with guns.



I agree.  Instead of making the prisons feel like Club Med country club, get back to making them such a miserable place, that nobody would want to spend a day there.  Problem is, the BHC (Bleeding Hearts Club) and their followers will cry foul.  The threat of the death penalty...well, we've beat that horse 50 times already, so......

But yes, something needs to be done.  What, I dont know.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I think you're fighting a battle with an invisible opponent this time around.  No one is howling for more gun control laws at the moment but the media, and that's dying down quickly.
> 
> I have seen the media attempts to do the 'ooh, scary gun' thing on TV with the AR-15 and the AK-47 and the drum magazines and the intentional blurring of the lines between an 'automatic' weapon and a 'semi-automatic' weapon, but it just doesn't seem anyone is biting this time around.  No one is getting furious and demanding that 'something be done' this time around.  I think the political will just isn't there. I could be wrong, but I'm just not seeing it.



Sadly, despite all the background checks that're done, if a dirtbag wants a gun, he'll get it.  I'm certainly not anti gun, in fact I'm the opposite.  If a alw abiding citizen wants a gun, then by all means, let 'em have one.  One thing that I've often wondered about is the type of gun.  Using the latest nutjob in CO as an example....who the hell, aside from LE and Military, would need assault type weapons?  Furthermore, why was it so easy for this guy to buy body armor online?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 24, 2012)

MJS said:


> One thing that I've often wondered about is the type of gun.  Using the latest nutjob in CO as an example....who the hell, aside from LE and Military, would need assault type weapons?  Furthermore, why was it so easy for this guy to buy body armor online?



I know that you know the drill on this question, but I'll run through it again for the sake of others who haven't heard it before.

Your question, restated, is what use do citizens have with military-style weapons that have no purpose except to kill human beings?  That is, they're not hunting, sporting, or target weapons, so why permit them?  (Correct me if I am wrong on what you're asking).

The answers, in no particular order, and without malice or anger, are these:

1) The 2nd Amendment says nothing about what a weapon looks like.  There is no 'and the gun has to have a particular purpose before it can be legal' clause in it.
2) Banning guns generally starts with low-hanging fruit - first ban the 'scary' guns.  It's part of a long-standing 'divide and conquer' strategy amongst gun-grabbers.
3) There is no realistic definition of an 'assault' rifle.  The weapons commonly referred to as 'assault' rifles are like military weapons in appearance only.  They cannot fire fully-automatic as real 'assault' weapons do.
4) There is precious little difference between an 'assault' rifle and any other kind of rifle.  Take a standard hunting rifle, such as a Ruger Mini-14, and put a 'tactical' black stock on it, and it's an 'assault' rifle that looks strikingly like the military M14 scaled down.  In what way has it become a more dangerous weapon by making it black instead of wood colored?
5) The most common argument against so-called 'assault' weapons is that they can hold magazines of large capacity.  As demonstrated in the recent shooting, large-capacity magazines jam frequently and are poor choices for any experienced shooter.
6) Most criminals do not use assault weapons, although their have been some very high-profile exceptions.
7) Of course they are designed to kill.  All guns are designed to kill.  And most of them can kill humans very effectively.  That a gun has 'only' the purpose of killing humans is a poor reason to ban it; that would require also the banning of all home-defense weapons, as they also were designed specifically to kill human beings.

There was, for a period of time, an 'assault rifle ban' in the USA.  It served very little purpose.  Certain magazines with extended capacity were illegal.  But the weapons it sought to ban were simply modified before importation - instead of a black plastic stock, they got a wooden stock.  Instead of a bayonet mount, they ground them off.  The weapons were renamed.  But they remained the same weapons for all intents and purposes.  Little of consequence actually happened, by most accounts.  Even the most ardent gun-grabbers (Diane Feinstein) stated that it was effective because it 'drove up prices.'  Ooh, wow.

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

In reality, most people who are against additional gun control are deeply suspicious of attempts to ban 'scary' guns.  Whilst non-gun owners may see these black, hulking, weapons of the basic design commonly carried by  the military and police as frightening, they are essentially no less and no more dangerous than any high-powered firearm.  The main complaint seems to be the extended magazine capacity; in all other respects, they function the same way, they carry the same (or even less-powerful) ammunition, and they're quite often less accurate than hunting weapons.

And ultimately, my most common statement regarding demands that weapons be restricted on the basis of 'need' is that free speech is also a civil liberty.  No one asks why a person 'needs' to speak freely.  What guns I choose to own as a free citizen simply aren't available for question regarding what I 'need' with them.  What need have you to speak in public?  What need have you to be free from unreasonable search and seizure?  Right; the law doesn't ask that question; nor should it.  It's just not an appropriate question to ask.

If the actual purpose of banning guns was to reduce crime, one would think that one would focus on the guns most used by criminals.  But instead, we seem fascinated and frightened by the 'scary-looking' ones.  That really isn't an effective way to think about reducing gun crime, IMHO.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 24, 2012)

I've read that law enforcement upgraded their personal carry from .22 to .35 to .45 to 9mm etc in order to keep pace with the criminals.  Swat teams in some areas are now equipped with the same gear as an infantryman in Iraq.  So if the idea is "self defense against criminals" why shouldn't the average citizen also have access to equalizing firepower?  There are guys walking the streets in Buffalo (which is not a high crime town) that have been shot 5, 10, 15 times with .22's.   Criminals are getting body armor...so why can't I have it too?

There are about 313 million Americans.
That's 313,000,000.
There are an estimated 300,000,000 firearms in US civilian hands. This does not include illegal guns in criminal hands, or those used by LEO or military.
An estimated 45% of Americans own at least 1 firearm.
That's 140,000,000 people own guns.

Deaths by guns in 2010 were under 9,000.

If it was a huge epidemic, we'd be losing a lot more people faster.


Some observations: (pulled from facebook here on)

The places in the US where we're seeing these massacres happen (Columbine, Aurora, The Giffords shooting) were "Gun Free Zones". In cases where the shootings happened that weren't "Gun Free", other armed citizens took out the psycho. There's a video on YT of a woman who lost both her parents to a crazied gunman, testifying in front of Congress calling on more gun ownership, not more laws (that criminals won't follow anyway).

If gun access = high crime, then Vermont, Kennesaw GA, and Sweden would have high gun crime rates. Wonder what the actual rates are.

I don't see more laws as the answer to stopping these crimes. I see proper enforcement of the ones we have, better education of citizens period, harsher penalties for misuse, and a better focus on safety for owners. You can argue the whole 'lots of people dying from guns, not so many tyrants' BS. But the DOJ says gun crime has been in a decline. Specifically "Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993. Nonfatal firearm crime rates have declined since 1994. After 1996, less than 10% of nonfatal violent crimes involved firearm" (source DOJ)

All that happens with more difficult access is that law abiding citizens are disarmed and left defenseless against a criminal element that will ignore the law and obtain firepower illegally. If that wasn't true, then places with hard access and low availability like Chicago, NYC and DC would be low crime. DC's crime rate fell after Heller.

Now personally, if guns vanished tomorrow I wouldn't shed a tear. But, when a tragedy such as this occurs, the emotional instinct is to pass sweeping poorly thought out legislation. This must be opposed, until all the facts are in, and emotions have cooled and rational thought can prevail. With an estimated 45% of US households having at least 1 of the 300+million firearms in circulation, where is the logic in passing restrictive laws because a handful of the 138,000,000 legal civilian gun owners are nutcases?

We all know that criminals respect the law, and harder laws and harsher penalties would serve as a deterrent. That's when we have so few repeat offenders. Easy access to guns is a sure recipe for disaster. That's why Vermont, Texas and Arizona have the worst gun violence, and Chicago, NYC and DC (pre Heller) were so safe. That's also why Switzerland with it's mandated ownership of assault rifles must be worse than Somalia these days.

The US has an estimated 300,000,000 guns in civilian hands. That number does not include military or law enforcement. 45% of the US population is estimated to own at least 1 firearm. That's over 100,000,000 people.

9,484 out of 313,000,000 died from guns in 1 year.
In 2010 (the lowest in years) 33,808 Americans died due to automobiles.
3X as many people die from cars as guns...

Can we ban the car please? It's fricken lethal!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 24, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> Jan Schakowsky (D - _IL_) is.



What legislation has she proposed?  It's noise, IMHO.

The only comment on the actual floor of the House or the Senate so far is this one:

https://scout.sunlightfoundation.com/item/speech/CREC-2012-07-23-pt1-PgH5117-2.chunk1
Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), on Jul 23, 2012


> Mr. Speaker, the tragic events that happened in Aurora, Colorado just shows us in this country that if we don't have sensible gun control legislation, then shame on us; then we're the fools.
> 
> Nobody is against Second Amendment rights, and nobody is not for giving legitimate people the ability to own guns. But what the shooter was able to obtain on the Internet or in a gun shop, without any kind of background check whatsoever, to me, is unconscionable and makes no sense whatsoever.
> 
> ...



But has proposed nothing so far.  Just made a speech.  To be expected.

And, of course, for those who do not know it, he is lying.  One cannot buy a firearm legally in the USA from a gun dealer 'without any kind of background check'.  That's a lie.  Furthermore, the background check that WAS DONE on the accused shooter came back clean - he apparently had nothing more than a speeding ticket in his past.

As to the ammunition he purchased, the news media is reporting that he bought it over many months.  Even if controls were put in place regarding the amount of ammunition a person could buy (which won't happen), he could still have amassed a large amount of ammunition given his time frame.  And finally, he of course did not expend anywhere near that number of rounds.  Not to be grisly, but it would appear he fired at most several hundred rounds - quite possible even with stringent controls over the purchase of ammunition.  The 6,000 rounds he is alleged to have simply didn't play a part in his crime; he didn't use them. Hell, he could not have carried them.


----------



## MJS (Jul 24, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I know that you know the drill on this question, but I'll run through it again for the sake of others who haven't heard it before.
> 
> Your question, restated, is what use do citizens have with military-style weapons that have no purpose except to kill human beings?  That is, they're not hunting, sporting, or target weapons, so why permit them?  (Correct me if I am wrong on what you're asking).



Yes, in a nutshell, thats what I was asking. 



> The answers, in no particular order, and without malice or anger, are these:
> 
> 1) The 2nd Amendment says nothing about what a weapon looks like.  There is no 'and the gun has to have a particular purpose before it can be legal' clause in it.
> 2) Banning guns generally starts with low-hanging fruit - first ban the 'scary' guns.  It's part of a long-standing 'divide and conquer' strategy amongst gun-grabbers.
> ...



Like I said, Bill, I'm not against people owning guns.  I, just like many others, (not necessarily anyone on this forum) are asking the purpose of the average joe citizen, owning an 'assault type' weapon.  But hey, that's just simply my opinion.   If the law allows that, then have at it.  

As for the last paragraph....I don't know, but it'd seem to me that the common guns used by criminals, are the same ones used by you and I and every other law abiding citizen, no?  I mean, when was the last time we heard of a car jacking, and the BG had an uzi, or AK?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 24, 2012)

MJS said:


> Like I said, Bill, I'm not against people owning guns.  I, just like many others, (not necessarily anyone on this forum) are asking the purpose of the average joe citizen, owning an 'assault type' weapon.  But hey, that's just simply my opinion.   If the law allows that, then have at it.



I understand, but I was trying to provide context to the question itself.  It seems a simple question to ask "What need do you, Joe Sixpack, have for an Uzi?"  The answer isn't to explain why Joe needs an Uzi.  The answer is to explain why that question would not be considered a valid question if you applied it to other civil liberties.  "What need do you, Joe Sixpak, have for a hate-based website?"  Or a belief in a religion that isn't mainstream?  or a political belief in Anarchy or Communism?  No one has a 'need' for any of their rights, at a fundamental level, presuming we're all alive and relatively well and free.  But we don't have to defend our 'need' to have rights; we just have them.  By that token, then, there is no requirement to have a 'need' for an Uzi.  It's just not a valid question to ask.



> As for the last paragraph....I don't know, but it'd seem to me that the common guns used by criminals, are the same ones used by you and I and every other law abiding citizen, no?  I mean, when was the last time we heard of a car jacking, and the BG had an uzi, or AK?



And that was my point.  If the argument for gun control is to reduce the availability of guns to criminals, then assault weapons are unlikely to have an effect, by anyone's standards.  It's like saying that termites are eating my home, but I can't seem to stop them, so I'll go after the ants instead.  In what way will that fix the termite problem?   It's like that old anti-gun argument, _"Well, we have to do SOMETHING!"_  Actually, doing the wrong thing or the ineffective thing is worse than doing nothing, so why propose it?


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 24, 2012)

I'm not arguing for or against gun control, but people cite the second ammendment as the reason all guns are legal yet forget the part about the militia.  Gun ownership in the constitution was specifically so men would have firearms while in the state militia.  How many gun owners are part of thier state militia/

I do think there can be some common sense laws that responsible gun owners and non-gun owners alike can agree on.  Such as closing loop holes allowing very easy purchase of guns in shows and flea markets.  A lot of the weapons in criminals hands are from gun shows and flea markets.

No one is really championing strict gun control laws, even those that believe in them.  The NRA and gun lobbyist just have way too much influence for those type of laws to be discussed, much less passed.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 24, 2012)

Most guns in the criminals hands are stolen in burglaries or traded for drugs by drug users.  I've bought several guns illegally when I worked under cover almost all were traced back as stolen.  Even bought a grenade once which is totally illegal for anyone to have but they are still out there proving gun laws don't prevent a criminal from getting a gun.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 24, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> I'm not arguing for or against gun control, but people cite the second ammendment as the reason all guns are legal yet forget the part about the militia.  Gun ownership in the constitution was specifically so men would have firearms while in the state militia.  How many gun owners are part of thier state militia/



That argument is over.  The Supreme Court stated that gun ownership is an individual right, not a militia right.  So there is nothing to be argued there any more.  It's over.



> I do think there can be some common sense laws that responsible gun owners and non-gun owners alike can agree on.  Such as closing loop holes allowing very easy purchase of guns in shows and flea markets.  A lot of the weapons in criminals hands are from gun shows and flea markets.



Did the shooter in this case obtain his guns from an unlicensed individual at a gun show?  I do not believe he did.  In fact, I believe he obtained them from a gun shop, and underwent a federal background check for each purchase, which he passed, because he did not have a criminal record or a record of mental instability.

So what would closing the 'gun show loophole' have done in this case?



> No one is really championing strict gun control laws, even those that believe in them.  The NRA and gun lobbyist just have way too much influence for those type of laws to be discussed, much less passed.



One might also say that the people have too much influence.  The most recent Gallop poll on gun control shows the overwhelming majority are against any ban on handguns, and a majority are against an 'assault weapons' ban.  The NRA is certainly a huge and powerful lobby; but the citizens themselves have opinions, too.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/record-low-favor-handgun-ban.aspx



> October 26, 2011
> Record-Low 26% in U.S. Favor Handgun Ban
> Support for stricter gun laws in general is lowest Gallup has measured
> by Jeffrey M. Jones
> ...



You can blame the NRA if you like, but the facts speak for themselves.  Americans do not want gun control.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 24, 2012)

The militia is everyone. Regardless of what the Feds reclassified as National Guard. But that's besides the point.

"The Right To Bear Arms".  Doesn't say 'guns', 'pistols', or 'rifles', it says 'arms'.

That included field artillery 'back in the day', when everyone needed to know where the town cannon was, and how to load it.  Arms = military weaponry.

Because the purpose was to ensure a first line of equipped and trained defense against threats 'domestic and foreign', while the Regular Army was organized and brought to field.

threats 'domestic and foreign' (back in the day) = indian uprising, invasion by the French, up to rabble mob descending on the court house, to civil war.

Well, today the Indians are busy selling cheap gas and cancer sticks or running their casinos, so they aren't a threat, and the idea of France invading anything beyond a desert cart today is just giggly.  So that leaves us with rabble mobs, or gangs.

Cops are 6 minutes away.  Mr. Remington is 30 seconds from draw, aim, boom.
If my front doors being kicked in, I'll let you guess who I call first.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 24, 2012)

A cute little pink gun will kill someone just as fast as a "Scary black gun"


----------



## Big Don (Jul 24, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Mr. Remington is 30 seconds from draw, aim, boom.
> If my front doors being kicked in, I'll let you guess who I call first.



Mr Remington must be hiding in the back of  the house


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 24, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Mr Remington must be hiding in the back of  the house



He might be. He might not be. I'd be unwise to mention what I actually do have.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 24, 2012)

Now that we know the killer in Colorado was wearing a ballistic cloth tactical vest and NOT a "Bullet proof" vest, as was widely (and wrongly) reported, should we ban "Scary Black" clothing as well?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 24, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Now that we know the killer in Colorado was wearing a ballistic cloth tactical vest and NOT a "Bullet proof" vest, as was widely (and wrongly) reported, should we ban "Scary Black" clothing as well?



Well, they banned trenchcoats after Columbine....


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 25, 2012)

Since some of these questions have been raised in this thread: These are my thoughts on the issue of Aurora, Gun Violence, and the so-called need to ban "Semi Automatic Machine Guns" "Assault Rifles" and hi-cap mags.  I wrote it for some friends on Facebook, but I will share here:

As a firearm owner, and advocate of the Second Amendment, I have been  reluctant to speak since the Events in Colorado.  Its not that I feel  my position has been shaken, or that I am reconsidering my beliefs;  Rather I think that time for emotions to calm down and for people to  think clearly needs to pass.  I feel for the families of those who were  killed in the theater, the same way I feel for the  families of the 14 killed tonite in the truck crash in Texas.   Its  all a waste of lives and it reminds us ours are fragile.  That said, I  have seen so much Pro/Anti propaganda in the past few days that I think  misses the mark entirely that I cant bring myself to stay silent.  Im  truly sorry to anyone who feels that this is ill-timed or shouldnt be  said, but I cannot keep my peace anymore.
 Firstly,  I think it is a  knee jerk reaction to say the guns used in this event are/were to blame  or made it worse.   My personal belief is that if someone wanted to kill  off a theater full of patrons, or a mall, or a rally, or any other  venue like this, lack of access to firearms is unlikely to stop them.   It is very easy, almost too easy, to make an improvised explosive  device.    There is no doubt in my mind, given what was done to trap his  home and computer etc, that if this maniac did not have access to  firearms, it would not have stopped him.   And as horrible as the event  was, can you imagine how much more devastating it would have been had he  simply tossed 3 or 4 pipe bombs into the theater and walked away?   Likewise, Im given to understand its a relatively simple task to  manufacture some seriously deadly poison gases AT HOME that can, in  theory, be deployed via Bottle bomb, and the worst part of that is,  these are toxins that can be breathed over the course of a 2 hour movie,  with no one the wiser and no one dies for 24 hours or longer how many  theaters could this guy poison, how many deaths could he facilitate,  before they caught him?   Especially given that he thinks hes The  Joker and poison gas was the Jokers main Gag.   What I am getting at  is that the means exist, with or without firearms and to say well,  firearms are the quick, easy way is, to my way of thinking a cop out.   Without them, the game changes, but not in any great way that stacks  the deck in favor of a defender. 
 So then we hear, Well, firearms  are all well and good, but we dont need people to have Semi Automatic  Machine Guns or Assault Rifles or the ability to have a gazillion  round magazine, etc.  This is almost, in my mind, a commendable way of  thinking, but at the same time I have to point out the fault in the  logic presented here.  First and Foremost, the largest majority of  firearms produced today are Semi Automatic.  They are not, however,  Machine Guns.  A semi-automatic rifle fires 1 bullet, every time you  pull the trigger.  Just like a Revolver, or a Lever Action rifle, or a  Pump Shotgun.  The difference is that they will then re-load the chamber  for you.  (A revolver will do this also, I would like to point out.)  I  am linking below an excellent video from a 25 year Law Enforcement  Officer in California, who will explain and demonstrate the differences.   I hope you will take time to watch it, as it is a VERY well presented  piece, and I think SHOULD clear up some of the myth and Hype the media  has created in response to the term Semi-Automatic.    Secondly is the  term Assault Rifle.  Again, I do not believe that cosmetics make a  rifle an Assault Rifle which is the exact thing the government has  based the previous (and on state and county levels, current) Assault  Weapons ban on.  Weapons with Pistol Grips, or Muzzle breaks, or forward  hand guards, or look like M-16 or AK-47s etc tend to be the driving  criteria.  Please know that just because an AR-15 LOOKS like an M-16  does not make it FUNCTION like one:  and that to my mind is the  distinction between a Dressy sport rifle, and an actual Assault  weapon:  If it only fires ONE bullet every time you pull the trigger, it  really should not be qualified to be an Assault rifle.   Lastly, High  Capacity Magazines.  Now, here is one that I could understand we dont  really NEED a rifle with a 75 round drum magazine, or a Shotgun that has  25 rounds in it, or a handgun that holds 15 or 30 bullets.  However,  there are legitimate Sporting uses for them,  and no real reason to ban  them.  I know it is easy to say Well, if the Maniac Mall Shooter only  had 10 round magazines it would have limited his damage capacity but  that really is a false statement.  Nothing would stop him from carrying 5  10 round mags instead of 2 25 round mags, and before you say Well, he  would have to stop and reload I think you should watch the second video  I am linking.  Certainly the gentleman in that video is WELL practiced,  but realistically someone who spends a couple hours repeating that  motion can be almost as fast and accurate.  There are plenty of ways to  do this with rifles as well.   I dont see how a limit on Magazine  capacity will have a large amount of impact on crazies like these.

Semi-Automatic vs Automatic explained:

http://youtu.be/ysf8x477c30 

Quick Reload Demo: 

http://youtu.be/Ls4Uq1aCiTA


----------



## billc (Jul 25, 2012)

One of my favorite authors responds to the issue...

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/fisking-a-gun-control-editorial/



> *Why do I want a weapon that holds more than 10 rounds? Well, first and foremost, why do I have a self defense gun? It is a tool in my tool box used to solve a certain specific sort of problem. In this case, it is to defend myself from serious bodily harm from assailants. Notice the s on the end of assailant. As in plural.*
> *10 shots isn&#8217;t many if you have more than one attacker, or you miss, or most importantly, contrary to the movies, when a good guy shoots a bad guy, the bad guy doesn&#8217;t fly backwards through the wall, do a flip, and catch on fire. Most defensive weapons simply poke a hole in the bad guy, which then bleeds, which causes a drop in blood pressure, which makes him stop trying to hurt you. Here in the real world, sometimes you have to shoot somebody multiple times in order to make them stop trying to murder you. *





> *The reason nobody wants to talk about your gun policy is because your gun policy is stupid. This is one of those debates where most of the country has looked at your stupid way of doing things and said that it doesn&#8217;t work and we don&#8217;t want to do it anymore. *
> *Your inner-cities are hell holes, and you blame us for the crime. Crazy people shoot innocents and you blame people who had nothing to do with it. You declare places like schools and movie theaters to be gun free zones, and they you blame us when nobody is there to defend them. *
> *In fact, your single most reliable defense against this sort of attack is an immediate violent response, and since the police need time to get there, that means the immediate response has to come from the victim pool or not at all. Yet your policy is to kick us and our guns out of those places, that way the bad guys can work unmolested until the cops arrive. *





> *Remember the thing with bombs earlier? Yeah&#8230; You make it harder to get guns, that&#8217;s the next option. The only reason they don&#8217;t get used more is that bombs are scarier to make, and take up to half an hour on the internet and trip to Home Depot to make, but once you get over that hurdle, then you can really cause some destruction. See for example, the rest of the entire world. *
> *And what was the biggest mass murder at a school in US history? Michigan, 1927. And the crazy guy used a bomb. *
> _And we should consider how flaws in current gun policies contribute to this disparity._
> *But wait&#8230; are these statistics even true? How about how the United Kingdom, a tiny island, with some of the strictest gun and even knife control, has some of the worst crime in Europe? An island, with the most police surveillance in the world, can&#8217;t stop violent crime, and can&#8217;t stop weapons from coming in. You might be a lot less likely to get into a mass shooting there, but you are a whole lot more likely to get your skull smashed in with a bat. And since mass shootings are extremely rare, but *******s who want to rape you and take your stuff are common, that&#8217;s supposed to be a net positive trade?*
> ...





> _But in most states, the gun dealer who stands to profit from a gun sale, rather than a law enforcement agency, determines the authenticity of purchasers&#8217; identification cards. _
> *False. In fact, that&#8217;s not true at all. You have to call the information in to a state audit agency that then checks their records to see if that person has anything on file which would bar purchase. This would include criminal charges, court orders, and convictions. I&#8217;m assuming the doctor knows this and is just pulling facts out of his ***. *
> _Gun dealers face little consequence if they fail to account for dozens of guns upon inspection._
> *HA! That&#8217;s a good one&#8230; Little consequence is hilarious. Oh wait, you&#8217;re serious? Dude&#8230; The BATF will burn your house down. The BATF will destroy your business at the slightest hint that you&#8217;ve done something wrong. The BATF has no mercy, no kindness, and well and truly enjoy ruining gun dealer&#8217;s days. *
> ...





> _Indeed, calls for removing restrictions on carrying concealed firearms will not stop mass shootings. _
> *Lie. Which is why we&#8217;ve all heard about Columbine, but not Paducah. That&#8217;s why we&#8217;ve all heard about Virginia Tech, but not Virginia Law School&#8230; Similar circumstances, yet one side of those coins had body counts that got the headlines and the other didn&#8217;t because there was somebody there with a gun to interfere with the bad guy&#8217;s plans.*
> *In just my local area since I&#8217;ve been a professional gun guy, a crazy lady started shooting people at the KSL building in Salt Lake, stopped by a permit holder with a .45. Trolley Square, bad guy on a rampage was stopped by an off duty in normal clothing cop with just a pistol until the SLCPD got there and shot the dude to death. Couple of weeks ago, dude bought a butcher knife at a grocery store and started slashing the hell out of a bunch of people, until he got proned out by a permit holder coming in from the parking lot. *
> *Oh, there&#8217;s more. Many, many, many more. And those are the rampages, which are statistical anomalies. You are way more likely to need your gun against a regular scumbag. *


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 25, 2012)

billcihak said:


> One of my favorite authors responds to the issue...
> 
> http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/fisking-a-gun-control-editorial/



Thanks Bill.  Despite the very strong Bias in that piece, I Feel it made some excellent points and was well worth the long read.


----------



## billc (Jul 28, 2012)

I believe someone here spoke too quickly about gun grabbing politicians...



> What legislation has she proposed? It's noise, IMHO.
> 
> The only comment on the actual floor of the House or the Senate so far is this one:


http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/240657-cybersecurity-bill-includes-gun-control-measure



> [FONT=Georgia !important]Democratic senators have offered an amendment to the cybersecurity bill that would limit the purchase of high capacity gun magazines for some consumers.
> Shortly after the Cybersecurity Act gained Senate approval to proceed to filing proposed amendments and a vote next week, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a sponsor of the gun control amendment, came to the floor to defend the idea of implementing some &#8220;reasonable&#8221; gun control measures.
> The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.The amendment is identical to a separate bill sponsored by Lautenberg. Feinstein was the sponsor of the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.  ​​​[/FONT]



Gun Grabbers will never stop, no matter what sounds come out when their lips are moving, they want all guns taken away from private citizens and will bide their time until they get the chance...


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 28, 2012)

Technically they aren't touching guns, but grabbing the high capacity magazines.  Which we hear from the gun enthusiast are crap anyway for use.  Even then, the amendment has to be approved and with the NRA's power in DC, that is definitley not a sure thing.

Not everyone who believes we should regulate guns and gun accesaries more closely are trying to take away your guns, Billi.  You are making large assumptions in order to paint people in opposition to your views as extreme.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 28, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Technically they aren't touching guns, but grabbing the high capacity magazines.  Which we hear from the gun enthusiast are crap anyway for use.



Not EXACTLY true.  While most of the 100 round mags are big, stupid and unreliable, they are going after anything that holds more than 10 rounds.  Some of the more typical semi-auto rifles have mags that average 20-30 rounds standard, and they are pretty decent as far as reliability goes.  And there are a number of handguns that hold 12-15 rounds as a standard, without extending the magazine capacity with an aftermarket magazine, which again, are fairly reliable.

So please don't be fooled that the mags they are trying to ban are only the crappy excessive sized ones... plenty of perfectly reliable "factory" magazines would be effected by this as well.


----------



## billc (Jul 28, 2012)

Well...grabbers are going to grab as many guns as they can get away with...and it sounds like they are going to go after assault rifles again...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...n-High-Cap-Mags-and-Assault-Weapons-Next-Week



> When announcing the proposed amendment, Schumer took time to say "average Americans" have no need for assault weapons, so they're obviously on the chopping block as well.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 28, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> Not EXACTLY true.  While most of the 100 round mags are big, stupid and unreliable, they are going after anything that holds more than 10 rounds.  Some of the more typical semi-auto rifles have mags that average 20-30 rounds standard, and they are pretty decent as far as reliability goes.  And there are a number of handguns that hold 12-15 rounds as a standard, without extending the magazine capacity with an aftermarket magazine, which again, are fairly reliable.
> 
> So please don't be fooled that the mags they are trying to ban are only the crappy excessive sized ones... plenty of perfectly reliable "factory" magazines would be effected by this as well.


Glocks come standard with magazines with higher capacity as well as the Beretta 9mm the US Military uses...


----------



## billc (Jul 28, 2012)

It may not pass but if pistols can carry 14 rounds, will something as stupid as this legislation require pistol manufacturers to change their magazines as well?  I wouldn't doubt that this would be the intended consequence of limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds.  It is a back door way to stick it to the pistol makers who the grabbers really hate.  I doubt this will go anywhere this term, but a second obama term could see this attempted or even an executive order that would have to be fought in court.  Another reason to send obama back to Chicago.



> S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.


Does anyone think it is a coincidence that the 10 round magazine capacity they are looking for eliminates the magazines for most 9mm pistols, especially the hated "Glock?"


----------



## billc (Jul 29, 2012)

Three things obama could do against the right to keep and bear arms if he is re-elected...

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/three-simple-steps-obama-can-take-on-gun-control-20120726



> *1.* Allow law-enforcement agencies to confiscate more assault weapons like the AR-15 rifle used in the Aurora shootings by reinstituting a tighter definition of &#8220;sporting purposes&#8221; when inspecting assault weapons for import. President George H.W. Bush did this in 1989 to ban the import of assault weapons, using powers under the Gun Control Act of 1968, which stipulated that legal rifles had to be &#8220;suitable for sporting purposes.&#8221; Bush acted after a serial criminal killed five schoolchildren and wounded 29 others with an AK-47 assault rifle on Jan. 27, 1989, in Stockton, Calif.





> *2.* Expand Obama&#8217;s new requirement issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives that gun shops in border states report customers who purchase two or more domestically made assault weapons within five business days. The courts have upheld the reporting requirement, and it could be expanded nationwide without congressional action. Gun-control advocates credit Obama for taking the initial step on tracking multiple sales in border states (where Mexican cartel violence has risen), but a national system could help make multiple assault-weapon purchases more visible and traceable.





> *3.* Toughen licensing requirements on gun dealers to secure their inventories. Advocates say that Obama could easily take three basic steps: Require dealers to better secure firearms from possible theft, mandate background checks of gun-shop employees, and eliminate the &#8220;fire sale&#8221; loophole that allows gun dealers who have had their licenses revoked to sell off their inventory without compulsory background checks on those sales. Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., has written to Obama asking for this administrative-enforcement change. Obama already has used some executive power to expand the reach of criminal background checks for firearm purchases, which he touted in New Orleans, calling them &#8220;more thorough and complete.&#8221;





> Obama is no stranger to dipping deep into the murky waters of executive powers and finding ways to achieve policy goals that Congress has thwarted. Proponents of gun control say that the president has crystal clear and uncontested powers&#8212;some used by an NRA card-carrying GOP president (Bush resigned from the group in 1995)&#8212;to deal with assault weapons.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 29, 2012)

Define Assault weapon.  When asked back during the Clinton administration, the best answer they could give was "I know what one looks like when I see it"

Sure, sure, and I know what a race car looks like too.  Any old clunker with a Spoiler on it qualifies as a racecar right?  Has nothing to do with speed or performance. 

That's why the old Assault Weapon ban included single-shot hunting shotguns in the ban... cuz OOOOOOH they LOOK SCARY!  People have no goddamn common sense anymore.


----------

