On the January 9 Special Report, the "All-Star" panel discussed what the Obama administration might do about gun control. Charles Krauthammer opined that there will probably be an assault weapons ban like the last one but which “didn’t work.” But Krauthammer is wrong.
I think we're going to end up exactly where we started. We're probably going to try an assault weapons ban and it will be a little bit tighter. But it didn't work. The numbers on it, it lasted for 10 years from the mid-90s, and the statistics on it had no effect. And the reason is simple. If we had an honest debate, the gun owners would admit that yes, of course guns contribute to homicide. The rate in Britain where they don't have any is 10 times as much here. Japan had 11 gun homicides last year. That's a weekend in Chicago.
In reality, studies prove that the 1994 assault weapons ban was effective. The share of gun crimes involving assault weapons fell by 17-72% across localities studied, among other findings.
Host Bret Baier should have challenged Krauthammer’s assertion but, of course, he did not.
Be honest, come on, you didn’t even realize you were writing like an anarchist, did you?
Went back to your previous posts and found the following which corroborates a diagnosis of chronic anarchism: “In short, our government should not be dictating to law-abiding citizens what they “need.” I don’t need their advice on what I need.”
Put your gun away before you go back to sleep, dear.
“No, Joey, you cannot bring your uncle’s pistol to demonstrate what might happen under choice b).”
Should have been:
“No Joey, you cannot bring your uncle’s pistol to demonstrate what might happen in either case.”
I would personally favour a total ban on firearms not used for “real” hunting, the sort that involves a bit of effort (can’t imagine a real hunter wanting to kill, skin and chop up the beastie in one fell go; that’s messy too so add littering to their offenses.
However, I realise that boys will be boys (the scorn is intended) so I’m willing to at least try to help develop ways to address the fact that the current level of non-regulation (or non-enforcement) constitutes a danger to the public. I read somewhere (Aria?) that over half the 13,000-odd homocides by pistol per year are “accidental” in no way related to criminal activity. That tells me that pistol owners are pretty seriously lackadaisical about how they keep their guns. As though guns were innocent toys.
A tragic but true story: The two founding members of an association that helped push for obligatory use of seatbelts in cars and helmets for motorcyclists told me that they’d been dead set against anything of the sort. Being rather lacking in empathy (their own words), it took the deaths of their own children for them to change their minds. Pity that it has to come down to that sort of personal experience for some people to wake up.
Anarchism, n. 1. the theory that formal government of any kind is unnecessary and wrong in principle; the doctrine and practice of anarchists. 2. one who promotes anarchy.
Government, n. 2) (a) a system of ruling, controlling, etc.;
Anarchist, n. 1. one who believes in or advocates anarchism as a social and political theory.
A+B=C (aka “silly”)
The thought for tomorrow, children: "Why is it that there are more restrictions (aka rules and regulations) on plastic toys for the kiddies than there are on guns? What would a community of thoughtful people (aka “thinking” and “interested in protecting the safety of others”) be most likely to do:
a) lift the restrictions aimed at ensuring that plastic toys are safe for kids to use; or
b) develop reasonable rules and regulations for protecting the public from the crazies who just might decide to pick up a gun and use it.
After making your choice, draw up a list of at least two of the foreseeable consequences of your choice.
“No, Joey, you cannot bring your uncle’s pistol to demonstrate what might happen under choice b).”
I also don’t know what gave you a belief that I’m a liberal elite – inferred by your statement and assumed it was pointed at me since your post followed mine and you didn’t specify. If it’s because I frequent this site and detest Fox News, you are mistaken. I’m neither Liberal nor elite. That’s one of the problems I really have with people who take rabid stance on any side of a debate is that they try to cast you into either the “for us or against us” camp and with today’s Fox News brand of Conservatives there is no such thing as compromising. Not saying you are one of those Fox News people but if the shoe fits. I agreed that a ban does little to stem the tide of this sort of bullshit and creates a slippery slope however since I didn’t agree that 30+ round magazines are the greatest thing and everyone should have them then I’m automatically cast in the “against us” camp. I guess the point of agreement was totally lost to you.
Another tactic commonly employed in these sorts of debates is false equivalency which you trotted out like clockwork.
However to humor you, and use your analogies:
They could ban cigarettes and it wouldn’t bother me however that’s not the point. In general, cigarettes are basically becoming banned – you pretty much cannot smoke in any restaurants, most bars, and within 25-50 feet of a public doorway (depending on the municipality) in my area. However, people typically don’t go batshit and run into a no-smoking area with a “high capacity” handful of lit cigarettes and begin burning people.
People killed in car accidents linked to speeding are not intentionally out to kill people, although by some twisted logic I guess you could make that case if it fits your narrative. Also with rare exception, you don’t get some asshole going nuts and running through a parking lot in a “high capacity” Hummer or Excursion trying to waste as many people as possible.
I would go on with the “assault” sugar and “tactical” coffee analogies but it would just get ridiculous, much like these false equivalency arguments.
Yes Bemused-you are right. Because I value my second amendment rights and don’t agree with banning inanimate objects that I am obviously an Anarchist that does not want any regulation. Nice logical deduction. Nailed it.
You’re right, though, to think that I don’t believe guns are necessary for survival in this day and age. That’s my position exactly. The leap from that conclusion to my having said anything about banning all firearms resembles nothing more nothing less than kneejerk fear flooding your gut with adrenaline which your gut then sends into your brain. That’s precisely when the crazies tend to lose it and go berserk.
I really do think there’s a need to increase the odds against their being able to get their hands on guns. Is that moralistic? I think it’s pragmatic. A frying pan or a baseball bat or even a chair has potential for keeping off a knife-wielding crazy; no use at if he (most are men, you know) has a gun especially one of those that can spray out bullets faster than an angry drunk can spit on you.
What’s needed IMO, is a set of regulations that can encourage even the most irresponsible among gun owners to keep their guns safe. I’ve always liked the idea of getting insurance companies involved in any sort of regulation that aims at protecting the public from crazies. Government stays in the picture to make sure the insurance companies obey the rules, too. The Founding fathers had this great idea of checks and balances being necessary.
A proper anarchist would, of course, be against all regulations on the grounds that humans are inherently good. Being a whole lot less optimistic, I don’t think I’d like to live in such a society.
And I sincerely doubt that you would, either.
You seem like you know what is best for us by wanting to ban certain weapons under the premise that they magically kill people on their own so I was simply suggesting that maybe you would like to ban other inanimate objects that kill even more people on their own. Speeding and cigarettes cause far more deaths than assault weapons so why not start there if you really want to make an impact.
It also sounds like you want to do away with all guns under the premise that this would stop evil. Fair enough. Why don’t you start by writing your congressman about removing the second amendment? Once you get rid of it, then we can talk.
So, in a nutshell: “liberty is having the power to kill others and the freedom to decide not to”. That’s so weird, it’s funny but I’ve decided to take this seriously.
Your comparisons are pretty silly but do I perceive a common thread: in all cases, there are regulations in place and they are being enforced pretty strictly except for guns.
Ownership of cars IS regulated, everywhere, and reckless behaviour or incompetence (aka the accident-prone) are eventually punished by the insurance companies through higher premiums.
Speeding on public roads IS regulated, so the decision to own a fast car is justified only by the shot of adrenaline as you rev the motor, however, using that power (aka reckless behaviour) is kept under pretty close surveillance by the police.
Smoking IS regulated – finally – as it took a long time for people to realise that the tobacco lobbies were doing everything in their power to keep people ignorant (just like the NRA, actually). Shucks, my ancestors the Redskins knew that long before the mighty white man arrived: tobacco was used only during the most important of ceremonies. Freedom’s a two way street and one person’s “freedom” to smoke is limited by the freedom of others not to do so even second-hand.
Ownership of guns IS regulated but only patchily and even more patchily enforced, with the degree ranging between “not at all” to most severely. It’s so true that people use the helpless gun to kill others but it’s also a no-brainer to realise that easy access to those ever-so-innocent toys will enhance the chances of guns being used to kill. It’s a no-brainer: I’m mad as the dickens but all I have is the kitchen knife and the recent story from China suggests that it’s a lot less easy to kill lots and lots of people with one or two knives.
A very powerful lobby called the NRA is hell-bent on preventing any regulation of guns at all: understandable considering who they get their core financing from (the gun makers). What I find silly is how they are being cheered on by people addicted to the surge of adrenaline every time they caress their firearms. I stopped playing cowboys and indians at the age of about 12.
According to the CDC, “…more deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined” (443,000 annually). Given these horrifying statistics, why is there no proposed ban from Congress on cigarettes? Using the same logic that is used on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, it is clear that such chemicals “…are not needed…” . At the very least, can’t we agree that a restriction in the length of “high capacity” cigarettes is in order?
Similarly, according to the Governor’s Highway Safety Association, “…in 2010, 10,530 people died in crashes that were linked to speeding.” Given that the top speed limits in most states are 70 mph, why is there no proposed ban on cars that can exceed 70 mph? Shouldn’t we be proposing the immediate elimination of new vehicles that can exceed this limit? Surely we can agree that a Corvette, (with a top speed of 190 mph), “…is not needed…” for daily commuting or recreational driving! Perhaps a ban on these high speed vehicles can be expanded to all law-abiding owners of vehicles that have the potential to exceed these limits? We could ensure compliance by requiring our citizens to install governors (no pun intended) on their cars that must be registered and inspected annually. Think of the lives that could be saved!
Or perhaps Congress would like to restrict the intake of our sugar which, according the journal of Nature, can contribute to as many as 35 million deaths worldwide each year! Next we could restrict our intake of coffee. It is apparent to me that no one really “needs” a $4 soy mocha latte with Madagascar cinnamon when a simple cup of Joe is enough!
The obvious argument here is not whether or not such excesses of cars, cigarettes, sugar or guns are needed. We can probably all agree that they are, in fact, not needed at all. The point, however, is that when we start allowing our government bodies to restrict our lives through legislation based on what they (or their constituents) believe is needed for us, we erode the liberties of all through the good intentions of protecting a few. In short, our government should not be dictating to law-abiding citizens what they “need.”
I don’t need their advice on what I need.
I happen to have firearms and I have respect for them, care for and store them properly. I strive to be proficient with them because to be otherwise is irresponsible. I have a semi-automatic handgun that under some of the loosely tossed about specs would be considered banned – i.e. it holds more than X number of cartridges. I consider that too vague, just my opinion and I’m sure there are those that disagree. You can says it’s meant for killing a lot of people in a short amount of time – or – it’s good for killing whoever the SOB that decides coming in my window is a good idea good and dead. It’s all in the perspective. Also, someone proficient with a revolver and a pouch of speedloaders can be just as lethal if they went guano and decided they wanted to go on a killing spree.
I see absolutely no problem with universal background checks and closing the so-called “gun show loophole” because I consider that due diligence. However unless you say that every transaction involving a firearm even between private citizens must be facilitated through an FFL so that the proper background checks will be done, there’s still a big hole which in reality is practically unenforceable. Actually the gun show loophole is somewhat a misnomer because at least in TX, if you’re an FFL you still have to do background checks at gun shows. The loophole as it were applies to private transactions between a consumer and non-FFL at a gun show, which could just as easily take place at a private location.
I also agree there’s really no need for the general public to have weapons with 25 or 30+ round magazines. Sure it may be fun to unload a clip at the range but there’s really no practical value unless you want to kill, clean and grind your deer all at once. Those that claim it’s to oppose a tyrannical government – which I think in this particular case they mean one headed by the scary N-clang in the White Hizzouse – are idiots. That dystopian government fantasy is made moot by the simple fact their full-auto true assault rifles, tanks, APVs etc trump your AR…sorry that’s just a fact. You can yell and scream how much a patriot you are but if you choose to really try to face down a group of soldiers with your AR, in the end you’re just a stupid dead MF but I’m sure your family will be proud of you.
These tragedies are truly sad but are a manifestation of failings in already existing legislation and laws that are suffering from lack of enforcement. A good example is the current background check database that is supposed to be fed not only criminal background but mental health background from states. One problem is they don’t enforce the state mental health reporting. There I’m sure are many other issues that need to be addressed.
The biggest problem to me is that cooler heads, common sense and logic will never prevail in this debate. People can, will and have argued the “yeah buts…” and “what ifs” ad nauseum.
And he never will. Some people say there’s a strong understanding at FoxGOPTV that the word of The Undertaker is never to be questioned by anyone.
“I think we’re going to end up exactly where we started. We’re probably going to try an assault weapons ban and it will be a little bit tighter. But it didn’t work. The numbers on it, it lasted for 10 years from the mid-90s, and the statistics on it had no effect. And the reason is simple. If we had an honest debate, the gun owners would admit that yes, of course guns contribute to homicide. The rate in Britain where they don’t have any is 10 times as much here. Japan had 11 gun homicides last year. That’s a weekend in Chicago.”
No. No. No. Nooooo… Chuckles!
How many times do I have to tell you!
GUNS DON’T KILL. PEOPLE DO!
BRAVO! BRAVO! B R A V O!
I have to commend our new friend in his brilliant argument FOR GUN CONTROL.
In other words, IF the criminals CANNOT get their hands on grenades, or large caliber automatic or semi-automatics, bayonet or not, or large capacity clips, then WE WILL NEVER hear about mass shootings or attacks against the police.
Single shot elephant hunting rifles with folding or retractable stock, flash suppressor, and pistol grip?
Sure! Let the hunters have their fun, but even those may have to be registered.
Please sign this petition because we need to convince Senator Ayotte to vote for any upcoming legislation to ban assault weapons, which she currently opposes. Tell everyone you know to sign. It doesn’t matter where you live, her vote affects us all. Thank you.
Kyle, Kyle, Kyle. Simply because the catalogues don’t call them by that name is no justification for being so thick (aka dumb).
Everybody in the whole wild world understands without being reminded that that’s become the term for anything made exclusively for …
… shooting lots and lots and lots of PEOPLE easily without getting close to them (knives are so messy).
Cue: Kyle uses such firearms for ….
Basically, what they did is to invent a fictional class of guns, then call for their banning, and act as if they are the adults in the conversation up against a bunch of dogmatic, unyielding gun nuts will not compromise on the most “sane and reasonable” gun regulation. But the reality is that there is nothing reasonable or sane about it.
An assault weapon is defined by its cosmetics. If the gun has a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, folding or retractable stock, bayonet lug, flash suppressor, or grenade launcher, it is an “assault weapon.”
Now I don’t know how on earth a pistol grip is supposed to make any difference. You can fire a rifle without a pistol grip just as quickly as one with a pistol grip. You don’t ever hear after a mass-shooting the police saying, “If only the shooter’s gun hadn’t had a pistol grip, he wouldn’t have been able to shoot so many people…”
Claiming a folding or retractable stock makes the gun more lethal is just laughable.
A flash suppressor is a safety mechanism that lets the shooter better see just what they are shooting at as it suppresses the flash from the gun shot.
I do not know when a criminal has ever fixed a bayonet and charged, and if someone points a gun at you with a bayonet fixed on the end of it, the bayonet is not the source of your concern at that moment.
As for the grenade launcher, one cannot buy the grenades for it, which is why you never hear of criminals firing at the police with grenades in any crimes in the country.
An assault weapons ban is just a slick way to go about infringing on people’s gun rights. In this sense, it is a very crafty piece of legislation, as now the media and politicians act like such weapons are an actual thing. But in terms of being a reasonable piece of gun legislation that can address the issue at hand, such as how to prevent future mass shootings from occurring, it is one of the most ridiculous pieces of legislation ever devised.