Here's where the gun debate should go!

[bunnys]

Bae, Jesse Jackson has already come out with something - I think he was calling for candle light vigils or something like that in as many movie theatres as possible.

Can we please just ban Jesse Jackson? The man's "good by" date is long past.

What's interesting about the whole outcry for stricter gun control after each of these types of incidents, is that there's little outcry about the constant shootings by thug-types in the inner city. Chicago's a great example of it this year. The especially hot weather makes everyone over irritated, and the numbers have gone through the roof.

Is there something wrong with the call for a candlelight vigil or is it just Jesse Jackson? Regardless of the answer, why?

I, for one, am one of those calling for stricter gun control (or rather some gun control as it's pretty much a free for all out there right now) and I also think it's terrible when "thug-types" engage in "constant shootings" in the inner city. I also think it's terrible when anyone anywhere engages in a shooting, that's why I want some limits to gun/ammo access for all.

[Rogar]

What's interesting about the whole outcry for stricter gun control after each of these types of incidents, is that there's little outcry about the constant shootings by thug-types in the inner city. Chicago's a great example of it this year. The especially hot weather makes everyone over irritated, and the numbers have gone through the roof.

These mass murders definitively get more media attention than the daily crimes. Major Bloomberg was on our local coverage and said that New York City has 365 gun related killings a year (I think he was ball-parking). If you can consider the mayors of these cities as any sort of experts, there is a coalition of city mayors including Chicago, Boston, and NYC who are members, along with of a coalition of a few hundred other mayors, that have agreed on the need for tighter gun controls (M.A.I.G.). Bloomberg is especially outspoken. Their have a formal list of items that basically tighten gun registration regulations and give federal and local agencies more access to gun sale and ownership records.

[JaneV2.0]

A friend asked me why anyone would ever need an AK-47, and my only answer was that some people believe they're going to have to take on the government/US military at some future time. I don't get the passion we have in this country for weaponry, but it seems to be entrenched, so I mostly just ignore it.

I haven't read Kozol for some time, but I recall him being well to the left of me. I should revisit him, just to be sure.

I loved the Onion piece; perfectly put. And I hate, hate, hate to see people with so much (apparent) promise flame out as Holmes did.

[DocHolliday]

A friend asked me why anyone would ever need an AK-47

Do we really want the Thought Police to decide what someone else "needs" in this country? For those who would ban someone else from having them, would you want someone else banning something you own and use from your daily life?

To add some facts to the discussion, rifles of all kinds are rarely used in murders in this country. In most States more people are beat to death than killed by rifles.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...es/10tbl20.xls

[DocHolliday]

I, for one, am one of those calling for stricter gun control (or rather some gun control as it's pretty much a free for all out there right now) and I also think it's terrible when "thug-types" engage in "constant shootings" in the inner city. I also think it's terrible when anyone anywhere engages in a shooting, that's why I want some limits to gun/ammo access for all.

It goes back and forth, but there are years where more people are killed in alcohol related traffic deaths than are murdered by firearms. Should we ban or restrict sales of high-capacity 6 and 12 packs, and cases of beer to bring those numbers down? Background checks for beer sales?

[JaneV2.0]

Do we really want the Thought Police to decide what someone else "needs" in this country? For those who would ban someone else from having them, would you want someone else banning something you own and use from your daily life?

To add some facts to the discussion, rifles of all kinds are rarely used in murders in this country. In most States more people are beat to death than killed by rifles.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...es/10tbl20.xls

You'll notice the discussion wasn't about government, but why anyone would want or need a weapon of mass destruction. Governments ban a lot of items, from lead toys to mescaline, some of which I might want to buy.

[Rogar]

To add some facts to the discussion, rifles of all kinds are rarely used in murders in this country. In most States more people are beat to death than killed by rifles.

I don't have statistics, but military style assault rifles seem to be a popular choice for mass slayings, including the most recent. At one time they were banned but that provision expired in 2004, so they are now legal.

[bae]

You'll notice the discussion wasn't about government, but why anyone would want or need a weapon of mass destruction. Governments ban a lot of items, from lead toys to mescaline, some of which I might want to buy.

An AK-47 is hardly a "weapon of mass destruction". Maintaining such indicates a lack of knowledge.

The AK-47 fires a medium-powered rifle cartridge, roughly the equal of the venerable (vintage 1895) 30-30. The AK-47s sold in America are semi-automatic only, meaning they fire a single round with each pull of the trigger.

The reasons someone might want to own such a thing are varied. At a time when a quality Springfield M1A semi-auto rifle costs $1500 to $2000, or a Remington semi-auto rifle $1000, a $500 AK-47 still represents a reasonable value, it is reliable, very easy to maintain, and shoots reasonably-priced ammunition.

People focus on the AK-47 as a symbol for gun control efforts because it looks scary, has bad connotations because of its history and use by repressive regimes, and so on.

Don't be fooled.

[bae]

I'll mention something else. The US government will sell you, a normal civilian citizen, a quite nice rifle, the M1 Garand or the M1 Carbine, through the Department Of Civilian Marksmanship, if you are not a criminal and demonstrate that you are engaged in the proper use of such things. They will also sell you ammunition and parts, and run the National Matches, which require the use of these particular firearms for many of the events.

These rifles are very very rarely used in any sort of crime.

[Rogar]

The popularity of the assault style semi-auto rifles is due in part to the availability of accessories, like a 100 round drum magazine. They are relatively light weight and smaller than your standard hunting rifle. The AR-15 like the one used in Aurora (with the 100 round magazine if I have it right) is not a cheap gun. It could fire 50-60 rounds a minute with the high capacity magazine, even as a semi auto.

The old clunky Italian carbine Oswald used cost $19.95 with a scope and resulted in the ban of mail order guns to common citizens. FWIW.