Assault Rifle Bans

[townhalleditor]

I completely understand the position that an American has the right to bear arms; such arms are for personal protection and hunting. I get it.

I also understand that shootings on school property is nothing new to the American fabric and has been happening since the 1700's, the first recorded event being a native American shooting the school master and other students.

What has changed in the last 15 years is the body count of each event. If you care to research, most school shootings prior to the late 90's were 2-3 victims, usually personal conflict between students or conflict between students and administration.

Assault rifles, in and of their names, run counter intuitive to the term, "defense." Assault weapons are meant for one thing, to assault others.

I know the hard right will advocate that the Founding Fathers intended no restriction on gun ownership. This isn't true either.

Justice Scalia, a very conservative judge, stated that the Founding Fathers had laws against citizens owning certain types of weapons to avoid "frightening" of citizens as well as banning ownership of cannons etc.

I seriously think that gun owners do need to look at the intent of the Founding Fathers as to why cannons could not be owned. A, they were an offensive weapon, and B., they created mass carnage.

I think it is reasonable that a cannon of the 1700's can easily be equated with an AR-15 in 2012, along with clips.

The only way hunters can justify owning an AR is if they plan on killing a herd of deer in one sweep, which would be illegal, or they intend making swiss veal in the field.

Controlling AR weapons is only one slice of the pie to address violence in our society. Overdosing young kids with prescription medications, access to mental health, violence in the arts, the mentality that life is a "dime a dozen"and entertainment and the dissolution of personal and civic responsibilities are a few areas that need to be addressed holistically.

These are my thoughts as I hear the finger pointing beginning on both sides of the gun control debate.

Source for Scalia's comments here:

obsdailyviews.blogspot.com/2012/07/scalia-surprise-some-guns-can-be-banned.html

[TW]

I understand what you're saying. My question is this. Is a semi-automatic assault rifle any more deadly than the semi-automatic handguns that the Newtown assailant used?

That's where the rub is. It's in the action of the weapons themselves.

Yet, who's to say that a person armed with a revolver, and several speed loaders ready to go, couldn't be just as deadly?

I wish I knew the answer. I guess I don't, and probably never will. I do know that there's been a major push in all states to make it legal for people to carry arms.

I have a problem with that. I see it from the point of view of a police officer, and someone who would want to know that there are no vigilantes out there to muck up my job while I'm trying to do it. It's difficult deciding who is and isn't the bad guys, when people are hauling out guns.

[townhalleditor]

Its my understanding that the guns used in the shooting yesterday would have been banned under the AR Ban.

Its also my understanding that this kid used his mother's guns.

*sigh*

I have no right answers either, only assumptions based upon my perspective about these shootings.

I don't think its solely an "access to guns" problem. People need to be less myopic on gun control and understand mass killings in American society is a multi-faceted problem that needs to be addressed from many different angles simultaneously.

[TW]

Although I'm not certain on the specifics of the weapons he used, this would probably represent the .223 he had.

If you watch the video with this, you'll see the .223 pistol becomes a rifle with a quick swap to a stock.

This in no way looks like a "hunting rifle" to me.

Adding to the woes, some states, like Wisconsin, have legalized usage of handguns for hunting, thereby ending up having something like this beast added as a hunting rifle, or handgun.

www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/55983

[happypacker]

I agree that you and me and all of us have no certain answer to stop this. it is a very complex cituation. It is not the gun so much as it is the society, i do realize that many guns today, are called semi auto but with the numbers ina clip and the ease of the trigger, does it matter what they are called and are? the thing is this peole also will get the weapon even if banned or out lawed 100% they are in the vast minority, they dumb fools. but I must also see that a person with a converted or a semi auto now has a weapon that can injure and kill many peopl e much faster than say a revolver. so how do we stop this?
I have only a few questions,,
what does any normal person in America need a semi automatic weapon for? can he hunt? can he terget practice?(no need to practice with that type weapon) so besides maye they are a collectors, or a tournment or are they waiting for the Russians to attack our main land?
I would like to know the real need FOR THESE TYPE WEAPONS, OTHER THAN THEY can own them. The brits have strict guns laws and the people over there still find another way to kill and maim. so I don"t know .
a thought,, does the American pubic ,with many owning these weapons possible act as a deterent to some of the crimmals? because they are in fear of an equal return in fire power?
I wish I knew what we could do to really stop the fools from killing the innocent.
I also feel that if this person(s) is killing children and we capture them, they should be put on TV and hung in public. for this very great crime, these young kids are not even old enough to make people hate them or want to harm anyone, they are so young and have no chance to put there mark on society. the pigs that kill kids deserves the crulest and slowest death we can give them. In front of all to see. and that is just my mild opinion.