Mass shooting

[punked]

Only a moron would call an AR-15 an assault rifle.

Now we are down to specifics. So you agree there is a difference between assault weapons and rifles and that some weapons need greater regulation. Great now all we have to do is draw a line.

[Guest Derek L]

Now we are down to specifics. So you agree there is a difference between assault weapons and rifles and that some weapons need greater regulation. Great now all we have to do is draw a line.

Like I’ve said, AR-15s aren’t assault weapons………..The Obama administration is calling on a ban of new AR-15s……..that’s a ban on new production, not greater restrictions.

But like I said, it won’t happen.

[punked]

Like I’ve said, AR-15s aren’t assault weapons………..The Obama administration is calling on a ban of new AR-15s……..that’s a ban on new production, not greater restrictions.

But like I said, it won’t happen.

But you agree some weapons should have stronger regulation then exists right now?

[Guest American Woman]

Now we are down to specifics. So you agree there is a difference between assault weapons and rifles and that some weapons need greater regulation. Great now all we have to do is draw a line.

So how would that help? As long as the Ruger mini 14 can effectively kill a lot of people, and that's not even a restricted gun in Canada, how does a ban on other assault weapons help prevent deadly mass shootings?

No one has answered that question. I assume it's because there is no answer.

[Guest Derek L]

But you agree some weapons should have stronger regulation then exists right now?

Depends what you mean by regulation……

[punked]

So how would that help? As long as the Ruger mini 14 can effectively kill a lot of people, and that's not even a restricted gun in Canada, how does a ban on other assault weapons help prevent deadly mass shootings?

No one has answered that question. I assume it's because there is no answer.

Wouldn't be nice if the American government could commission a study to answer you question? Well they can't because the NRA got a stupid law passed that you support. Don't ask questions if you don't support getting answers.

[Guest Derek L]

So how would that help? As long as the Ruger mini 14 can effectively kill a lot of people, and that's not even a restricted gun in Canada, how does a ban on other assault weapons help prevent deadly mass shootings?

No one has answered that question. I assume it's because there is no answer.

That’s the problem with the anti-gun folk……..they don’t understand the subject mater……………Most gun rights folks, including the NRA (and myself), are fine with keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and wing-nuts………..Safety Courses, background checks and even licensing all have valid merits to them, in that they regulate the person that can legally purchase said firearm………

Regulating individual firearm actions, sizes & lengths, magazine capacities etc is what garners opposition by people like me, or better put, people that understand firearms………A criminal or nut should no more have access to an AK-47 then they should to a single shot bolt action rifle………A law abiding citizen it shouldn’t mater………

Simply put gun control, should be violent people control.

[Guest Derek L]

Wouldn't be nice if the American government could commission a study to answer you question? Well they can't because the NRA got a stupid law passed that you support. Don't ask questions if you don't support getting answers.

She's asking a question of Canadian gun laws.

[punked]

She's asking a question of Canadian gun laws.

Sure I would love American thinkers to look at Canada and ask the question what are the differences. I would love it. They can't because of a stupid law American women supports. Again get the NRA out of the picture and the questions will be answered and we can move forward with what does and doesn't work. We don't have to guess send people out to study the problem and what does and doesn't work. If what you guys say is true those conclusions will be reached and it will be all well and dandy. There is a reason the NRA got "don't ever study gun violence" law on the books. They don't want answers they want to ask questions and pretend there are no answers.

[punked]

Depends what you mean by regulation……

What regulations would you support on assault weapons?

[Guest Derek L]

Sure I would love American thinkers to look at Canada and ask the question what are the differences. I would love it. They can't because of a stupid law American women supports. Again get the NRA out of the picture and the questions will be answered and we can move forward with what does and doesn't work. We don't have to guess send people out to study the problem and what does and doesn't work. If what you guys say is true those conclusions will be reached and it will be all well and dandy. There is a reason the NRA got "don't ever study gun violence" law on the books. They don't want answers they want to ask questions and pretend there are no answers.

People can still study gun violence, just not with taxpayer dollars.

[Guest Derek L]

What regulations would you support on assault weapons?

None on the weapons themselves…….Just regulations on the people that can own firearms.

[punked]

People can still study gun violence, just not with taxpayer dollars.

Which seems silly doesn't it? Apparently people like you keep saying the government is wrong yet you refuse to give money out to prove you are right. Why is that? BTW the government is allowed to study guns they are just not allowed to put out any reports which say guns might be the problem so they are only allowed to put out pro gun reports. That is the law not what you claim they can study guns on taxpayer dollars ONLY IF they put out pro gun reports. That is a key distinction.

[punked]

None on the weapons themselves…….Just regulations on the people that can own firearms.

Great so you think the NRA who pushed through in 11 states that felons my buy guns right out of prison is part of the problem then?

[Smallc]

Which seems silly doesn't it?

You just said that governments don't have unlimited money. That is more true in the US than it is here.

[Guest Derek L]

Which seems silly doesn't it? Apparently people like you keep saying the government is wrong yet you refuse to give money out to prove you are right. Why is that? BTW the government is allowed to study guns they are just not allowed to put out any reports which say guns might be the problem so they are only allowed to put out pro gun reports. That is the law not what you claim they can study guns on taxpayer dollars ONLY IF they put out pro gun reports. That is a key distinction.

The Government is wrong........I had this link in my email this morning:

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/1/biden-says-administration-doesn't-have-time-to-prosecute-people-who-lie-on-background-checks.aspx

Jim Baker, NRA-ILA's Director of Federal Affairs, represented NRA at the meeting. As detailed in a recent Daily Caller article, Mr. Baker was given five minutes to present NRA's concerns and the approach NRA saw as being the most effective way to safeguard our children. During those five minutes, Baker mentioned the need to vigorously prosecute existing gun laws. He further noted the low number of prosecutions for falsifying information on Form 4473s, and the low felony prosecution rate for gun crimes in general.

In response to Mr. Baker's comments, Vice-President Biden said, "And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately." That's right: Biden said the administration just doesn't have time to prosecute crimes (felonies punishable by up to a 10-year prison sentence) under existing laws, but is proposing a host of sweeping new laws.

According to federal statistics cited in the Daily Caller article, in 2010, prosecutors considered just 22 cases of information falsification, and 40 additional background-check cases ended up before prosecutors for reasons related to unlawful gun possession. Prosecutors pursued just 44 of those 62 cases, although more than 72,600 applications were denied on the basis of a background check. Overall, gun prosecutions per capita in 2011 were down 35 percent from the previous administration's peak in 2004.

[Guest Derek L]

Great so you think the NRA who pushed through in 11 states that felons my buy guns right out of prison is part of the problem then?

A source?

[punked]

You just said that governments don't have unlimited money. That is more true in the US than it is here.

Sure and if this was about the government spending money you would have a point but they do have money and give out money to study guns. The people taking that money though are now allowed to conclude guns are part of the problem in anyway. It has nothing to do with money it has to do with the stipulations placed on that money. BTW the US government would probably take in more money if 11,000 of its citizens weren't killed every year eh?

[punked]

A source?

It is quite a good read have fun.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/felons.htm

BTW again the NRA is a large part of the problem in the US because they never do what they say and what they do do most people supporting them here would not agree with. They are great at messaging but actions speak.

[punked]

The Government is wrong........I had this link in my email this morning:

http://www.nraila.or...und-checks.aspx

I just spent a whole thread calling the NRA lairs with citations and no one showing me any of my sources were wrong. Then you post an article whose source is the NRA. Why am I not surprised?

[Guest Derek L]

It is quite a good read have fun.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/felons.htm

BTW again the NRA is a large part of the problem in the US because they never do what they say and what they do do most people supporting them here would not agree with. They are great at messaging but actions speak.

The NRA creates and enforces laws?

[Guest Derek L]

I just spent a whole thread calling the NRA lairs with citations and no one showing me any of my sources were wrong. Then you post an article whose source is the NRA. Why am I not surprised?

Care to refute it?

[Guest Derek L]

The NRA creates and enforces laws?

Just wanted to add:

http://www.vpc.org/aboutvpc.htm

The Violence Policy Center (VPC), a national tax-exempt 501©(3) non-profit organization based in Washington, DC, works to stop this annual toll of death and injury through research, advocacy, education, and collaboration. Firearms are the only consumer product not regulated by a federal agency for health and safety. This unique exemption has been exploited by the gun industry as it has moved to embrace increased lethality as the foundation of its design, manufacturing, and marketing efforts in the wake of the long-term decline in household gun ownership. The VPC believes that the answer to reducing gun violence lies in applying the decades-long lessons of consumer product safety regulation and injury prevention to the gun industry and its products. This approach is detailed in our landmark 1994 publication Cease Fire: A Comprehensive Strategy to Reduce Firearms Violence.

Sour Grapes that my tax exempt organization is supported by more people and money then yours?

[punked]

The NRA creates and enforces laws?

They push laws they like and have huge power to do so. They have made it so the ATF will never have a real head and will only have a part time acting head so they effect the enforcement of laws yes.

Are you trying to set me up to get my talking points out so your side looks uneducated or do you just know nothing about that you are talking about?

[punked]

Care to refute it?

Yah here I will refute it. The article cites an organization I have shown as liars many times in this thread. That makes then an unreliable source how about you find a reliable one and I will entertain what they are saying ok?