MtnMan Loc: ID

Most states already have laws that severly up the penalties for any crime committed with a gun.

The thing the anti-gun people can't seem to get their mind's around is that laws don't affect criminals. They only make life more difficult on the innocent citizen. There is much criminology research to prove this point.

I am pretty certain that Congress will reintitute the "Assualt Weapon" ban. I don't care because it won't affect my gun ownership and use. But I also know it will do NOTHING to prevent crimes involving guns. The sad part is that they will take credit for having done something useful when they did not, enabling them to go on and do nothing useful. That happened for years with airline hijackings. It took 9/11 for them to change the policies (never respond to demands vs. old policy to respond) and put bulletproof doors on cockpits. Hijackings haven't happened since.

The NRA made a number of suggestions of things to do that might actually help immediately and are paying for a high level group to come up with more ideas. So far they are the only sane voice in this debate.

sueyeisert Loc: New Jersey

The NRA spokesman blamed everything he could think of, but the proliferation and the EASY access to guns for the gun violence in this country. Yes we need better mental services in this country, but people don't want their taxes raised for services. Also are you asking for people to realize that they are dangerous and they'll self-commit to a mental institution??? The easiest thing for society can do is to curb gun ownership and bullet ownership. Why does anyone need an assault rifle. a sportsman doesn't hunt dear with an assault rifle. An assault rifle is for killing people- many people. So I ask rhetorically who do you want to kill-police ,minorities,gov. agents etc

MtnMan Loc: ID

It is something that can be done easily indeed. That doesn't mean it works.

Note how the fav's of the gun ban crowd (UK and Australia) compare to U.S.

Even gun crimes went up in the U.K. when they banned them.

BuddyLars Loc: Rockton, Illinois

Definition

The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally "storm rifle", as in "to storm a position"). The name was coined by Adolf Hitler[3] as a new name for the Maschinenpistole 43,[nb 1] subsequently known as the Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first assault rifle that served to popularise the concept and form the basis for today's modern assault rifles.

The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[4][5][6]

It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
It must be capable of selective fire;
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 (which the M16 rifle is based on) that share designs with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective fire capable. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.

The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s.

The US Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Mtn Man, I'm afraid the House of Commons disagrees with you. They show a reduction in crime and homicides since they made their gun laws stricter.
I do have another question. What exactly is a "contact crime"
I've never heard that phrase at it may be what is skewing the figures. Every other source I look at has the USA as the murder capital of the industrialized world.

MtnMan Loc: ID

Contact crime is where the criminal comes into contact with the victum. It leaves out things like buglaries and other thefts (e.g. cars) where the victum isn't present.

I am sure there are ways to collect and present statistical data to make any point you wish. I didn't make the data or the presentation I showed. I just looked it up. The sources are listed on the graphs.

sueyeisert Loc: New Jersey

Let's not obscure the issue.

MtnMan Loc: ID

Since the population of the U.S. is about 300 million I sincerely hope we don't define mental illness so it applies to two thirds of them.

There are certainly millions of people with mental illness. Mental illness in most cases does not lead to mass killing. However I think most would agree that anyone who would carry out a mass killing is mentally ill.

One of the things we can do is train people to look for the signs of those who might perform mass killings and provide clear steps they can take to cause intervention in those few cases. There is quite a bit of research on what makes for a mass killer. Not something you read about in the press but you can find it with diligent searching. Most mass killers don't wake up one morning to do their thing: they obsess about it and plan for weeks or months. If we had clear ways for those who know them to report the symptoms and a way to deal with that reporting we might interdict some of these. Nothing exists and no one is looking that way because of the gun hysteria.

(PS: The worst school mass killing in U.S. history was carried out in 1927 in Bath, MI using bombs. Although the killer there doesn't match the profile of many current mass killers in some respects (age) he'd have likely been detectable.)

Mudshark Loc: Illinois

It's the same deal...They spend their horrid lives in NYC then, when they have "acquired" enough gold jewelry they move to Miami...same-oh, same-oh...no contact with the real world....

Crwiwy Loc: Devon UK

You make a very good case for gun control. Your figures mean that the ownership of guns as a 'freedom' is reducing the population better than a war!
:shock:

BuddyLars Loc: Rockton, Illinois

Just tired of hearing the word "ASSAULT" bring carelessly thrown around.

Mudshark Loc: Illinois

I agree 100 percent, sane people don't end other people's lives. I think you have to be, at some level, mentally very sick to take another person's life unless, of course, your life is being threatened. The methodology is where all these people get bogged down. The truth is, and unlike so many of these people, I've been shot at and seen the results of automatic weapons, knives, bombs, homemade weapons, etc., etc., there is an almost infinite number of ways to kill someone. Guns are not the problem...I've been a gun owner for decades...but I also love slingshots. They've been a hobby since I was a kid. I have slingshots that I could easily kill people with using river pebbles...
I don't think I could live with myself...if I had to take another persons life. But put in the position of kill or be killed...trust me I'll use whatever I can get my hands on...could be that 8 inch skillet you fried your eggs in this morning....

frankeieio Loc: Bend, Oregon

The question is, are semi-automatic weapons built on military specified platforms, over kill for self defense and hunting in a civilized society. In the case of hunting, I could see the merits of such capability, if indeed game were able to fire back or mowing down whole herds were the object of the sport...

Huey Driver Loc: Texas

If you had ever been charged by a 400 lb. wild boar you would understand and want a semi-automatic weapon. Wild hogs have become dangerous and over populated animal in Texas and need to be controled.

MtnMan Loc: ID

Perhaps in that case but for big game hunting very few use semiautomatic rifles. They are heavier and less accurate than bolt action rifles.

However almost all use semiautomatic weapons for bird hunting (shotguns) and varmint and rabbit hunting (22s, 223s, etc.).

At least that is my lifetime observation of thousands of hunters over 50+ years.

My newest gun for deer and elk hunting is a muzzle loader. It is quite deadly up to 100+ yards.