Skip to main content

View Diary: Texas dad freaks out and shows why it is past time we ban assault-style weapons & ammo (102 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I disagree with you (3+ / 0-)

    it is a fact that ARs were designed to kill people and to hunt people.

    You nor I have a Constitutional right to own any gun you, or I please.

    Part of your comment distorts and deflects from reality. You wrote: " AWB represents an extreme response, especially given the guns in question only account for 2%, tops, of u.s. gun violence."

    The fact is, the AW and high-capacity ammunition account for close to 100% of mass killings.

    Keyword: mass killings.

    The goal is to reduce the number of mass murders and the Assault-Style weapon is used in almost 100% of mass murders in America/

    With all due respect, I find your 2% comment extremely insulting to any parent who had to bury their child because they were murdered in a mass shooting by someone unloading their Assault Weapon.

    When I read your 2% comment it made me think that you think those 2% are insignificant
    .... so, when it is YOUR CHILD's Funeral we are reading about because someone with an Assault Weapon used it on your child and many others

    ... please tell me how insignificant that 2% that you posted is to you then

    •  i don't think they're insignificant (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      raincrow

      my point about 2% is:  what about the other 98% of gun violence?  i could just as easily sit here and say you don't care about those other shooting victims, that you think the suicides comprising the majority of u.s gun deaths are insignificant. but that would be rather pointless, don't you think?

      your priority seems to be to stop mass killings.  all well and good, but wouldn't addressing the issue on a broader scale also benefit the subset (mass killings) that concerns you?  

      Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

      by Cedwyn on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 08:00:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  your 2% number is not accurate in (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        S F Hippie, SilentBrook, nominalize

        reflecting the number of deaths by mass murder.

        1) The assault-style rifle is used 100% of the time in mass murders.

        2) I have not seen any FBI data that shows only 2% of all homicides in America were from "assault-style weapons."

        The FBI tables I have seen they do not differentiate between non-assault-style guns and assault-style guns.

        For instance, the FBI Tables do not let the reader know if the "rifle" is an "assault-style" rifled or not.

        Also, the FBI Tables do not let the reader know if the "handgun" is an "assault-style" handgun or not.

        Therefore, I would like to know where you get the idea that 2% of those murdered by guns were murdered by "assault-style" handguns or "assault-style" rifles.

        3) By your logic, we should stop trying to find a cure for Breast Cancer because more people die from lung cancer  than any other type of cancer --- we  should stop trying to find cures for all other types of cancer until we cure lung cancer.  

        I think you are trying to deflect from the realty that in order to reduce the number of deaths by mass murder we need to ban the weapons that cause mass murder.  A hammer is not used in mass murder, but 100% of the time, Assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition are used in mass murder.

        •  murderous people cause mass murder (0+ / 0-)

          whether they use guns, bombs, or arson.

          on point number one, you are flat-out wrong.  it is not the case that 100% of mass murders (a term not limited to shootings) involve an "assault-style rifle."

          http://www.motherjones.com/...

          http://www.slate.com/...

          Guns aren’t even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.

          ...In the 2000s, both the mass murder and the homicide rates dropped to their lowest levels since the 1960s.



          point number two:

          http://www.theblaze.com/...

          the stats you cited, interestingly enough, show both murder rates and firearm involvement in them decreasing.  

          http://news.nationalpost.com/...

          ...1,202 mass murders between 1900 and 2009. Of those, 12%, or 142 incidents, were massacres in public such as the Denver shooting early Friday morning and at Virginia Tech in 2007 and Columbine in 1999.

          But those kind of mass public shootings accounted for less than one-tenth of 1% of all murders in general, he said.

          so let's take that ratio -- 1/10th of 1% -- and look at the FBI data for 2006 as a hypothetical, since it has the highest numbers.

          Total murders:  15,087
          mass shooting percentage of total murders:  0.001%

          mass shooting number of murders:  15
          total firearm murders:  10,225

          15 murders out of 10,225 isn't even 1 full percent.  i say "2% tops" to be overly generous in estimating the impact of mass shootings/"assault weapon" events.

          as for point number three, nothing could be more apples and oranges.  the point about these types of guns and incidents being a very small portion of our (gun) violence is that if we are going to go to the mat, it should be for something more broadly effective than an AWB, especially one like DiFi's which is already so riddled with grandfathered exceptions and other silliness as to be toothless.

          there are other, much more effective means of addressing violence involving all types of guns.

          i am not your enemy; i just disagree about the value of an AWB and question the importance of making it a priority.

          peace

          Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

          by Cedwyn on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:42:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your data is scewed (0+ / 0-)

            because the data collected by the FBI does not say whether the weapon used was an assault-style weapon nor does the data table from the FBI let the reader know how many of those murdered were murdered by high-capacity assault ammo.

            I am not your enemy either but your post implies that you think mass murders are ok, because not enough people are murdered that way, so why should we bother trying to reduce the number of deaths caused by Assault Weapons used in mass murder.

            We are not allowed to own bombs -- but because not enough civilians in America have been killed in bombings should bombs be ok to own?

            More people die from Lung cancer than from Breast cancer so should stop trying to find a cure for Breast Cancer because more people die from lung cancer  than any other type of cancer

            Should we stop trying to find cures for all other types of cancer until we cure lung cancer?

            The goal is to reduce the number of deaths by mass murder.  Your 2% number is disingenuous because the FBI does not indicate if the firearms used are Assault-Style or not.

            Also, that 2% number, while it may only be a number on a piece of paper to some, in reality, that 2% number is someone's child that they buried.

            So yeah, we disagree.

    •  oh, BULLSHIT, TeamSarah4Choice. (0+ / 0-)

      Go look at Mother Jones' article on Mass Killings. The weapons used are 68% handguns.

      The AW and high capacity ammunition account for close to 100% of mass killings, you say.

      You're showing your lack of research -- or understanding.

      High capacity ammunition??????

      http://assets.motherjones.com/...

      LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

      by BlackSheep1 on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 01:22:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  blacksheep: do you not know that handguns DO (0+ / 0-)

        have high-capacity ammunition ...

        Guess what?  They do.  Handguns can and do have high-capacity ammo.

        •  erm, no. Are you confusing high-capacity with (0+ / 0-)

          high-power / caliber?

          Handguns typically can support up to 20 rounds before reloading. Is that what you mean?

          LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

          by BlackSheep1 on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 04:03:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  black, erm - no YOU are wrong (0+ / 0-)

            "high-capacity" are mags that can go into a handgun that are capable of holding more than 10 bullets.

            Sheesh ....

            Read and learn:
            The Federal Assault Weapons Ban, defined "high capacity ammunition" as a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

            It seems to me you got on this Diary to disrupt it and post nonsense --- your comments indicate you do not know what you are talking about.

            I hope you go research the difference between "high-capacity ammunition" vs. "high-power" (you might want to look up "high velocity" because if you look up "hi power" it might lead you to a video game -- which -- by your comments it seems your only experience with weapons is on a video game.)

            •  No. You're factually wrong -- as in, INCORRECT -- (0+ / 0-)

              about capacity.

              Capacity is a factor of the firearm or its magazine, and means the ability to carry multiple rounds of ammunition -- it's not a property of the ammunition.  The revolver is a firearm requiring no magazine to carry multiple rounds of ammunition. It is available as several sizes and calibers of pistol and at least one rifle.

              You can have large-capacity firearms (the 17-round original capability in a Glock pistol, for example, or the highly-publicized and ever-popular-in-movies "banana magazine" for the AK-47/52).

               You cannot have ammunition that's more than, per round, one propellant charge and projectile, cased -- paper or cloth or plastic or metal cartridge casings, familiarly referred to by shooters and reloaders as brass because most of the metal ones are some alloy of brass -- or not cased, as for muzzle-loading muskets, rifles, and fowling pieces utilizing black powder, patches and round lead shot --  except for shotgun rounds.  It's also possible to buy shotgun rounds that drive a single (slug) projectile; these are commonly referred to as "deer slugs".

              Shotgun rounds may contain several much smaller projectiles per primer and propellant charge, depending on the 'rating' of the shot. Our Air Force "riot guns" were pump-action shotguns and the issue ammunition was double-ought buck. Shotguns may be found in .410, 20-gage, 16-gage, 12-gage or 10-gage in the US.

              I see, in perusing the statute, where your confusion arises. You're assuming that "feeding device" isn't part of the description of what's being banned. TheATF has a FAQ on this; but if you're just going by the statute, the ban includes "

              large capacity ammunition feeding devices"
              and then goes on, obligingly, to define what it's banning: clips, magazines, drums, feed strips or similar devices.

              Back when he was a Senator, Joe Biden wrote this bill. Jack Brooks, of Texas, then sponsored the House version. Neither one of them is an idiot. Neither one of them would believe in "large capacity ammunition."

              There is no such thing. What there are, however, are ways of quickly reloading large numbers of rounds of regular ammunition. They put those instruments of destruction into their ban.

                 (b) DEFINITION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 110102(b), is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

                  `(31) The term `large capacity ammunition feeding device'--

                      `(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but

                      `(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.'.

              So, I guess me and my little Remington are exempt under this ban on assault weapons. That's good, because it holds 15 rounds of .22LR in one of those "attached tubular device designed to accept and capable of operating only with .22 caliber rimfire ammunition."

              I love me some Joe the Biden even more for this provision of the law. He's ensuring that we have access to small-bore firearms with readily-available ammunition for purposes of varmint control, target shooting, and basic familiarization/training of youngsters / novices in firearms safety. I take that .22LR Remington of mine very seriously -- it doesn't look like an "assault rifle," the way the Ruger-built Colt MP4 or the S&W MP 4 does (although it works the same way they do, essentially, since neither of them, despite their "AR15 look and feel" is actually a gas-operated bolt-action semi-automatic rifle as is the .223 Colt M-16/AR-15/MP4; they're rimfire .22s, just like mine). It's not triflingly expensive to buy a box of .22LR ammunition for a trip to the range, but considering it's about $5 instead of more than $20, I remain grateful to VP Biden and Representative Brooks for seeing that rifles like mine weren't banned.

              Here's the 1994 statute:

                  (a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

                  `(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

                  `(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.

                  `(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

                      `(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in Appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;

                      `(B) any firearm that--

                          `(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;

                          `(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or

                          `(iii) is an antique firearm;

                      `(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or

                      `(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

                  The fact that a firearm is not listed in Appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from Appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

                  `(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

                      `(A) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);

                      `(B) the transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or contractor of such licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials;

                      `(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving a firearm, of a semiautomatic assault weapon transferred to the individual by the agency upon such retirement; or

                      `(D) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Secretary.'.

                  (b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

                  `(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--

                      `(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--

                          `(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

                          `(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;

                          `(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);

                          `(iv) Colt AR-15;

                          `(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;

                          `(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;

                          `(vii) Steyr AUG;

                          `(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and

                          `(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

                      `(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

                          `(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

                          `(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

                          `(iii) a bayonet mount;

                          `(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

                          `(v) a grenade launcher;

                      `(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

                          `(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

                          `(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

                          `(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

                          `(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

                          `(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

                      `(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--

                          `(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

                          `(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

                          `(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

                          `(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'

              So, if it hadn't been built before 1993, the AR-15 imitator (Bushmaster) used in the Newtown shootings would have been illegal to own.

              Bushmasters are said to closely mimic the M-16A1. I shot M-16s and M-16A1s (what a piece of junk) in the military.
               US Air Force, peacetime, working very proudly for a Commander in Chief named Jimmy Carter on a Strategic Air Command base in Louisiana. So you're wrong about me, too; I qualified with the rifle and the Smith & Wesson .38 revolver sidearm, and I passed my qualification with the M-60 7.62 belt-fed machine gun first go-round in 1979.

              I don't do FPS video games. Do you?

              LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

              by BlackSheep1 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:27:35 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site