Lars Larson on need for high-capacity magazines

 Lars Larson on need for high capacity magazines

by NW Spotlight

Lars Larson appeared Monday with Megyn Kelly on Fox News’ America Live and spoke on why high-capacity magazines are needed when people are defending themselves in their homes. Lars used the example of the young mother in Georgia who defended herself and her 9-year-old twins last Friday from an ex-con home invader, using her .38 revolver.

The young mom shot the home invader six times – hitting him five times – when he opened the attic crawlspace where the mom was hiding with her two children. Unaware the mom had emptied the revolver, the home invader obeyed her command to stay down or she’d shoot again, allowing the mom and her children to run to safety at a neighbor’s house. The home invader was still able to get up and drive off. He didn’t get very far – sheriffs’ deputies found the home invader bleeding profusely in a neighbor’s driveway.

Lars pointed out that the mom was very courageous – and fortunate. If the intruder had chosen to attack her rather than stay down, or if there had been more than one intruder, the mom and her children would have been defenseless, as her .38 revolver was empty after firing six shots. Lars explained “That’s one reason that most people, including most police officers and most people who care about protecting their homes, want a gun that is capable of holding more than [six bullets] and is capable of reloading very quickly.”

Lars told Megyn Kelly that at local police citizens’ academies “officers will tell you, you can put a lot of bullets in a bad guy, and he will keep coming at you. That’s why they teach officers – shoot till the threat is gone.”

The Atlanta newspaper reports that the ex-con forced his way in the front door with a crowbar, and had previously cased another home, but left after being confronted by the homeowner.

A smaller local Georgia newspaper is reporting that the intruder is in the hospital, “reportedly on a ventilator,” and that “officials from Walton County Sheriff’s Office don’t expect any charges to be filed against the mother.” On the way to the hospital, the home invader told a deputy sheriff the reason he broke into the home was because “I was there to steal.”

UPDATE: The original January 2013 MSNBC story that said that the home invader, Paul Slater, was an ex-con – has been taken down (it now produces an Error 404 message). The link in this article has been updated – it now points to an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution from Feb. 11, 2013 that states that the home invader, Paul Ali Slater, “was released from jail there in late August after serving six months for simple battery and three counts of probation violation. Slater has six other arrests in Gwinnett [County] dating back to 2008, according to public records.”

A May 4, 2013 Washington Post article says this about the home invader “Slater had been charged with theft one other time. He also had been charged on two occasions with assaulting his wife.” The Washington Post article also says “[Sheriff Joe] Chapman says Slater sought out [the mom] and her children, bypassing a purse on a counter and a big-screen TV to reach the crawl space, breaking through two locked doors in his path.”

tt twitter big4 Lars Larson on need for high capacity magazines tt facebook big4 Lars Larson on need for high capacity magazines tt linkedin big4 Lars Larson on need for high capacity magazines tt reddit big4 Lars Larson on need for high capacity magazines

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in 2nd Amendment, Crime & Sentencing | 107 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • mike

    Lars is right on this one. Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. Think about it. What if that lady had had nothing?
    Fool idiot stupid dems want to take everything. Hey, and listen to me. How come every home in Switzerland has a gun and they have a crime rate much lower than ours??? Could there be a connection?
    No, couldn’t be.

    • DavidAppell

      How come very few homes in Japan has a gun and they have a crime rate much lower than ours??? Could there be a connection?

      As long as we’re playing “what if….” What if one of her kids go ahold of her gun and shot the other? What if she used the gun on her husband, or on one of her kids? Or herself?

      Less than 1/3rd of Swiss homes have a gun. Switzerland requires you to have a reason to have a gun, with re-permitting required every 6 months. Swiss militias are moving to requiring guns be kept in depots.
      – Washington Post, 12/14/12
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

      • just sayin’

        Go smell a gas fart in a Tokyo tunnel airhead DA?

        • sayin’ nuthin’

          The NRA sure is right that our mental health system is in ruins.

          • valley person

            Yes. They should know. They have a crazy person in charge of themselves and a lot of lunatic members.

      • Japanese

        Since the obvious answer will get deleted in a millisecond, let me just waltz around it and say that Japan doesn’t have the “criminal elements” present in the United States.

        • 3H

          They have their share of CEOs.

          Other than that, to which group are you referring? I don’t believe it is as obvious as you pretend.

  • crabman34

    Lars does it again. I am continually amazed that this guy gets paid to do what he does.

    I fail to see how the example of a mother SUCCESSFULLY defending her family with a revolver proves that we need high capacity clips. First off, how would she use a high capacity clip with her revolver? And second, if you could magically make a clip attach to a revolver, why couldn’t she just have more than one clip in the house? She clearly had time to change clips, and then, per Lars’ “proof” she would still save herself and her family.

    As for mike, your cherry picking of Switzerland is silly, but I suspect you know that. Guess what countries have more guns than Switzerland? U.S., Serbia, and Yemen. Guess where Switzerland ranks among European countries in firearm-related deaths? Number 1 (or two, sometimes Serbia beats them). Guess what else is behind the gun ownership in Switzerland? Compulsory military service in which nearly ever man gets trained in how to use and keep a gun safely. Maybe we should require compulsory service before gun ownership here?

    You can cherry pick all you want, but it won’t prove a point. How come Japan basically prohibits all gun ownership and has one of the lowest crime rates in the developed world AND has almost no firearm related deaths? Could there be a link???

    • 3H

      Yeah.. Lars needs to think a lot more before he posts. I’m not sure how a high capacity magazine would have made this situation any better. But, Lars is one of those for whom ideology trumps facts. It’s a pity; he was a decent journalist before he decided to follow the money into the entertainment industry.

      • David from Mill City

        After firing the six shots the revolver was empty. It takes time to reload a revolver, assuming that you grabbed a handful of extra cartridges when you got the pistol. A modern semi-automatic pistol holds more then 6, typically from 7 to 17 rounds, and you can change the magazine with a round still chambered making it possible to fire if attacked while reloading. In the case under discussion the woman was twice lucky, first that she was able to hit the attacker 5 out of 6 times and second that the attacker withdrew. If she had had a semi-automatic pistol instead of a revolver she would have been better off.

        • valley person

          So what you and Lars are saying is that for home defense, it makes sense to have a loaded pistol with 17 rounds in it, apparently somewhere within easy reach, even if your house has kids in it?

          • David from Mill City

            I cannot speak for Lars, but I am saying that for defensive purposes a magazine fed semi-automatic pistol is better then a revolver. As there are lockable metal pistol boxes available which provide relatively quick access and safe storage, storing the pistol safely is possible.

          • crabman34

            That’s not the conversation we are having, David. An automatic machine gun would be better for defensive purposes, wouldn’t it? Maybe a booby trap at the front door that automatically kills intruders unless you disable it for your invited guests?

            Lars is claiming to make a case for high capacity clips, which have been used in most of the recent high-profile shootings, by pointing out that a woman successfully defended her family and home using a revolver. Why does she NEED a high capacity clip and semi-auto? Why can’t she have two regular capacity clips and a semi-auto? Lars is responding directly to a call to restrict ownership of high capacity magazines, and to prove that he points to a revolver, which doesn’t use a clip in the first place and which was successful in doing the very thing that everyone says they want guns for in their homes. Is it really all that better to have one clip that holds 30 rounds vs two clips with 10 each? I really don’t see how this makes a point.

            People like me who want to see improved gun regulation (no, I don’t want to take anyone’s guns away) are constantly accused of being dishonest, hyper-emotional, illogical. But here is Lars on Fox, and you, David, suggesting that we need high capacity clips and no regulation thereof, simply because someone might come into your home and you need more than just a regular clip. Or a revolver in this case.

            What is so offensive about regulating some aspects of gun ownership?

          • David from Mill City

            Regarding magazine capacity, the standard factory provided magazine, that fits completely into the grip of a modern full sized semi-automatic pistol holds from 13 to 17 rounds the exact number varies from pistol to pistol. A high capacity magazine sticks out of the grip and holds more rounds, as a practical matter the top limit seems to be about 30 rounds or so.

            And for the record I do not see the need for a high capacity magazine for a pistol nor would I suggest that someone acquire one, but I also do not consider the factory supplied pistol magazines as being high capacity.

            Oh and for the record there are two or three revolvers that use a clip to permit the use of a rimless cartridge in a revolver.

          • valley person

            So for the record, do you support the right of any American who can fog a mirror, excepting convicted felons and/or certified mentally ill, to buy guns with 30 round capacity, as many as they want, and as much ammo as they want, along with body armor?

            Or…what restrictions would you accept?

          • crabman34

            Fine, but you understood my point a long time ago. Lars and people like him poison discussions like this because they influence the debate with poorly thought out articles.

            Most revolvers don’t use clips, we all know that, but sure there are two or three that allow that. Either way it doesn’t matter.

            I said 10 rounds, you say 13-17, big deal. We are talking about high capacity and Lars’ story fails to make that case. I don’t consider factory clips high capacity either. We agree that high capacity clips have no use, but it took you like 7 posts to get to there, why? My first post said precisely that, but you attacked me, and then claimed the woman would be “better off.” Better off than what? Than being alive with her children and her home intact and the intruder arrested and in the hospital? Seems like that’s as good as it gets, unless you hope and wish the guy was dead.

          • valley person

            Yes…its “possible”. But it wouldn’t be a requirement of ownership, and I suspect most gun owners do not bother taking that measure.

            Sure, its better to have more bullets than not if you are shooting at someone. Its also better to have a fully automatic weapon I suppose. But the point is that has to be weighed against all the misuses of guns with high capacity to discharge bullets.

        • crabman34

          That’s precisely my point. She could have bought a semi-automatic pistol but she didn’t. She chose to buy and own a revolver. Are you suggesting she should be given a semi by the government? What does this have to do with gun control or regulation? Even if the assault weapons ban was reinstated and semi-autos were banned, this story would not change one iota.

          My point is that Lars is an irresponsible and dishonest journalist. He shares a story that does not prove a point about high capacity magazines because it doesn’t involve a gun that uses magazines in the first place. This woman didn’t shoot the guy and then go on the news and say “I would have had a 9mm with a high capacity clip but the government won’t let me.” She shot the guy with the gun and ammo she had at the time.

          Please read my post more carefully next time. I don’t need a lecture on what a revolver is or how many rounds a modern semi holds. Maybe nuance isn’t your thing.

        • 3H

          Yet it worked. What would a high-capacity semi-automatic weapon have achieved that her revolver had not? How would she have been better off? I’m not exactly sure what better outcome you are hoping for. That the intruder had been killed instead of wounded?

    • just sayin’

      GD sick and tired of the Lars bashing mental midgets. Go get a life in Havana you sick head mental midgets!

      • crabman34

        Ah, what a breath of fresh air. A trolling fool on OC with nothing to say besides “yer a commie!” or “yer dum!”

        Yeah! You proved me wrong that Lars is dishonest and intellectually incurious. All you had to do was call me a mental midget!

        Why bother even posting? Seems like you would want to conserve what little brain power you apparently possess without wasting it on liberal commies like me.

        • just sayin’

          Three up-votes likely marked by Valley Person, DavidAppell and 3H; Ardbeg likely to join the dance program and ‘pincer ploy’ crabman34, voting twice.
          Meanwhile, wonder why OC requires an additional step for down-votes and up-votes d’oh fare-free?

          • crabman34

            What on earth does this mean?

          • 3H

            No one knows.

          • Damascusdean

            just saying knows…but he or she ain’t sayin

          • 3H

            You give Just Sayin’ more credit than I would.

          • just sayin’

            Mr crabman34, issue ‘tending tally whack’n up or down votes every post. Satisfied?

            ~
            Again OC, why is it easier to mark an up-vote while down-voting requires an extra step? You used to allow both aye and nay-sayers an equal footing in the accounting ‘deportment.’“`Too, what’s with the “drag and drop your images here to upload them” schtick? Used to be a simpler cut copy and (transfer) paste for blog threads was less key strokin’ forbidding than the new process you instituted.

          • crabman34

            Not really. I’m sorry, but is this some sort of greater Oregon vernacular I’m not familiar with? I’ve seen your weird posts here before, under other pseudonyms, but I just don’t get why you think they are useful (or funny? cute?). Dance program? Pincer ploy? It’s like free association on acid with you. “tending tally whack’n up or down votes every post?” Pretty sure that ain’t an english sentence.

            You’re whining about up and down votes, but it makes sense to me that down votes would be a little harder than up since down votes are about silencing others and up votes are about enabling voices. I can’t really bring myself to care, though. Technology is hard?

            For the record, though, I don’t do up and down votes, and I’m not sure why I’d want to vote my own posts up.

          • just sayin’ aka ‘guest’

            …”free association with acid?” C’mon, the left wing posterior-ings at OC resound like progressive (oxymoron) ‘pot’ scourers – and fair to say, assume you know what I mean, jelly bean?“`If not, go soak yourself in BlueOregon’s lagoon and, stop acting like you know scat while appearing to know nothing but snot from arising from left winglbrainwashing. Geez, go toke a break in San Franfreakshow Bay and kiss the butt of Nuancy Pelosi while you’re of a jack’d ass a mind to. Period!

            ~

            Again, OC, why the extra encumbrance down-voting blogs that do not agree with airings of well, 3H, VP, DavidAppell, Ardbeg and other members of the jackassinine anal-mule farm.

            Reality now, the fish-wrapper Oregonian and its suburb-inal convocations, Pamplin’s CONmunity newspapers appearingly michael moore left of U.S. than assay Willamette Week…have made diss-areements increasingly difficult to tally down in a numerical fashion. Why is that?

            Is there sum snort of unannounced subliminal social
            engineering going on that right minded folks are demanding an answer to? Say what, if you care or dare, Mr Larry H?

          • crabman34

            No need to say more. The free association tag was right on the first time. Yikes, is about all I can muster with you bud.

          • crabman34

            Also how exactly is progressive an oxymoron? Do you mean that liberal policies are regressive? Seems like that is unequivocally false, but you don’t really appear to be in the business of logic and reason and reality.

            Something something, clint eastwood, fish wrapper blah blah, your mind is so warped period, kiss john boehners boehner.

            I can’t compete.

    • David from Mill City

      Regarding Japan, the low crime rate is more a product of the nations culture then the lack of availability of weapons. This culture also seems to be the significant factor in their extremely high suicide rate.

      • crabman34

        And you know this . . . how?

        So are you also saying that our culture a factor in our extraordinary gun violence?

  • valley person

    I fail to see how this case, even if it is exactly true as Lars describes, makes a case for individuals having gun capacity higher than 6 shots for home defense. The woman in question, again assuming the details are correct, did the job with 5 rounds. And she had plenty of time to reload if needed.

    But…does anyone really believe a woman in distress crouching in an attack fired 6 shots and hit her target with 5 of those? Maybe in a movie. Not likely in real life.

    • Granola girl

      It was on Good Morning America, it is true. Otherwise the Alphabet channels would not air it. Your assumptions are just that – doesn’t take that much time to reload? You try and do it in a panic with someone coming at you and lets see how you do!

      • valley person

        It was on TV so it is true? Really? Al Gore has been on TV. Does that make what he says on global warming true?

        My assumption is that based on the account as told by Lars, 6 shots were sufficient.

    • David from Mill City

      Regarding reloading, while she may have had the time, I doubt she had the cartridges to reload the gun with, as that would have required her to grab either some loose cartridges or a box of ammunition when she got the pistol, and the two kids up into the attic. With a modern semi-automatic pistol she would have had from 13 to 19 shots in the gun and getting a single extra magazine would have doubled that.

      • DavidAppell

        Or, with a semi-automatic weapon, her troubled son might have gotten ahold of the gun, shot her in the face four times, then slaughtered a roomful of 1st graders.

      • valley person

        So you think she needed 19 shots to defend herself, even though she clearly didn’t? And if 19 why not 50? Why not 100? Is there a line anywhere you would accept?

  • DavidAppell

    “Children aged 5 to 14 years in the United States have 11 times the likelihood of being killed accidentally with a gun compared with similarly aged children in other developed countries ( Table 1). [4] The United States has been in this unenviable position for at least the past decade. [5] From 2003 to 2007, the yearly averages of unintentional firearm fatalities were as follows: 62 children aged 0 to 14, 89 youth aged 15 to 19, and 95 young adults aged 20 to 24 years. [6]

    “Not surprisingly, there are more accidental gun deaths in areas with more guns. [7–9] The differences are substantial.”

    – American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine
    “Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home,” David Hemenway,
    Am J Lifestyle Med. 2011;5(6):502-511.
    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058

    • Granola girl

      David a responsible gun owner teaches his/her children gun safety AND keeps their guns under lock and key away from them. It is unfortunate that some children die, but how many die by alcohol related deaths? Why aren’t we doing more to treat mentally ill people? Those two things alone kill more people than gun owners!!

      • valley person

        So then you would agree there must be many irresponsible gun owners who have guns. Isn’t that a reason to have a bit better regulations on who gets to have guns? Or do we just write off thousands of dead kids as the price of freedom?

        • Granola girl

          Yes I agree there are irresponsible gun owners, just like everything else in our society. Mute point. Regulations are in place, and accidents happen every day with children being killed unintentionally. There are not less people dying from alcohol/drug related issues. If you want to save more people, why don’t you go after WA and Colorado who legalized pot. Just wait until all THOSE impaired persons get behind the wheel, and how many additional deaths that will cause.

          • 3H

            Still nothing compared to alcohol.

          • Granola girl

            Exactly my point 3H, THOUSANDS of people die from alcohol and now we are adding weed into the mix. This whole uproar over guns is rediculous. Lets start addressing mental health instead of going after innocent gun owners.

          • valley person

            People don’t die from weed. Alcohol is legal but highly regulated. All we are asking is better regulation of weapons, not making them illegal.

          • Granola girl

            Valley person….you need to do a little research on drug and alcohol addiction, You do not know what you are talking about……
            As far as my post “it was on Good Morning America” I was saying it sarcastically….I believe very little of what they report and was astonished that they would actually air it.

          • valley person

            I don’t know what exactly. Weed is killing people?

            OK, I missed the sarcasm. Sorry.

          • DavidAppell

            All gun owners are “innocent” until they stop being so. Adam Lanza and Jared Loughner were both “innocent” before their shootings. The question is, how could those shootings have been prevented, not how the shooter is classified.

          • Granola girl

            David neither of the those people were lawful gun owners, but I do agree …..how could these events have been prevented. Mental health issues need to be addressed in this country!

          • DavidAppell

            The guns Adam Lanza used were owned “legally.”

            And as far as I know, so were Jared Loughner’s.

            Conservatives don’t want to spend any money on government services, which is a big reason why serious mental health issues here are not being addressed.

          • valley person

            The Aurora shooter bought all his guns legally, along with thousands of
            rounds of ammunition over the internet.

            And, another school shot up today, this time in California.

            Is this a great country or what?

        • Oregon Engineer

          Regulations do not eliminate or change the behavior of irresponsible people. You just canot legislate out stupid.

          • DavidAppell

            You can try to minimize the effects of stupidity — licenses, permitting, reviews, insurance, restrictions on high-powered weapons and clips, and other regulations.

          • David from Mill City

            Please explain how calling for more restrictions on bolt action hunting rifles (or as you describe them “high-powered weapons”) adds anything positive to the discussion. Or for that matter restricting “clips” which rarely exceed 10 rounds. Granted it does show that you do not know anything about that which you wish to regulate.

          • DavidAppell

            “power” = the power to kill large numbers of people quickly, in whatever form that takes.

          • valley person

            Its not the power so much as the capacity to discharge a lot of bullets in a short period of time. You don’t need that capacity for hunting unless you are a very lousy hunter.

          • David from Mill City

            No you do not need it to hunt, but that capability is inherent in any semi-automatic rifle including 50 year old hunting rifles. And while you may not believe it, a detachable magazine is a safety feature worth having in a hunting rifle as it permits unloading unfired ammunition without running them through the action, thus reducing the chance of inadvertent discharge.

        • David from Mill City

          VP According to the CDC 81,903 people were killed or injured by firearms (suicides and police shootings not included) in 2011 (most recent year data is available for) assuming that different firearm was used for each death or injury and that there are 300 million guns in the United States then we are talking about 0.000273% of all the guns in the United States were involved in a death or injury in 2011.

          According to the FBI there were 274,784 crimes (Homicides, Robberies and Aggravated Assaults) committed with a firearm in 2011 (most recent year data is available for) assuming that different firearm was used for each offence and that there are 300 million guns in the United States then we are talking about 0.000916% of all the guns in the United States being used in a crime in 2011.

          This indicates to me that our current firearms safety education programs and existing laws and regulations are already extremely effective. And that the real problem is not the existence of guns but rather a small number of people who are using or storing guns improperly. And that our time and efforts would be better spent addressing those people rather then harassing the vast majority of gun owners who are not part of the problem.

          • DavidAppell

            You are simply defining away the problem. “Using guns improperly” *is* the problem. Adam Lanza, Jared Loughner, the Columbine shooters, etc…were all using guns “properly” up until the very moment they didn’t.

            (Unless, of course, you consider that by the very nature of these guns — whose only purpose is to kill large numbers of people very quickly — they were indeed using the guns “properly.”)

          • David from Mill City

            No, I am approaching the problem from a different point, I see that at its root it is a people problem not a gun problem. The data shows that the vast majority of firearms ( in excess of 99.999%) are not a problem so why go after millions of gun owners when it is the actions of less then 300,000 people that are the problem. Lets spend our time and limited resources dealing with those people and if possible what is creating them.

            As to your comment regarding the mass killers you named, as best as I can determine they all had mental conditions that should have precluded their lawful ownership or possession of any form of firearm. So they were not ever using firearms properly.

          • valley person

            I guess I look at those same numbers and draw a very different conclusion. We also have a few hundred million cars and few of us have accidents, yet we require licensing, testing, and insurance, and we have speed limits, safety belts, and air bags.

          • AntiCitzenOne

            But you don’t limit the horsepower of the cars nor do you capriciously issue licenses or limit where on the road people can drive.

      • DavidAppell

        Yes, everyone is responsible — until they aren’t. Then children die.

        Less people die from alcohol-related deaths, especially drunk driving, than used to — because of added laws, legal crackdowns, education, and social unacceptance. People lose their permission to drive if they offend. Regulations work.

        • AntiCitzenOne

          The only laws that are in place for alcohol are ones that merely restrict the age to purchase and possess alcohol (and we already have that with guns already) and ones dealing with actual impairment while driving (an irresponsible action, and we already have laws on the books saying you cannot be intoxicated)
          Apples and oranges.

      • drivin

        10,000 people die per year from drunk drivers

  • DavidAppell

    “…keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4). Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.”
    – Kellermann et al, “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home,” N Engl J Med 1993; 329:1084-1091, October 7, 1993
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

  • Oregon Engineer

    How many of you all ready own guns, DA, VP, 3H, crabman?

    • valley person

      I do not own a gun. Does this disqualify me from commenting on gun regulation?

      • Oregon Engineer

        I have nothing against you commenting but I have found that the greatest advocates for gun control are those who don’t own one.

        • crabman34

          That would make sense wouldn’t it? How is that relevant? Why does that disqualify anyone?

          • David from Mill City

            Disqualify no. But trying to have a meaning full discussion with people who do not understand that which they are attempting to regulate is difficult at best. And when those individuals who seem to have an irrational fear of guns are included in the mix it becomes impossible. Further, if you do not own a gun and do not participate in any of the shooting sports you would not have to comply with any of regulations being proposed making the reasonableness or the cost-effectiveness of a proposed regulation less a factor then it is to a gun owner.

          • valley person

            Well, I don’t know why I or anyone else would have to own a gun to have a meaningful discussion about how to make my community and nation safer from gun violence. People debate all sorts of things they don’t have direct expertise in. Would you leave national policy on climate to climate scientists for example?

            I don’t have an “irrational” fear of guns. I have a rational concern about the level of gun violence and death in our nation. Yes, you are right that I would not have to comply with a licensing and insurance and registration requirement unless I chose to own a gun. So what? I would think a responsible gun owner would want to take some obvious steps to keep guns out of the hands of those who are likely irresponsible. I drive, but I don’ lobby against licensing and insuring myself and my vehicles because I want to know that others on the road have basic capacity.

          • crabman34

            Well said VP. Even though I no longer own any guns (got rid of the handgun we had when we had a baby), I am personally very familiar with gun violence, so I think that makes me qualified to discuss and consider the regulation of that violence, through gun regulation.

            Why should gun owners who have never experienced gun violence be able to join the conversation about avoiding gun violence? In my experience, gun owners who have not been exposed to the randomness and horror of gun violence have a deep and irrational fear of government that clouds their judgment about the violence. Having a meaningful conversation with them about an issue which they do not understand is difficult at best.

            If you don’t care about random acts of violence and the problems of guns on our streets, then you are less invested in that side of the debate and will discount the value of it to someone like me.

            Sure, increased gun control might make it marginally harder for you. You’d have to use two or three clips instead of one high capacity one when you are shooting at the range. You’d have to wait some extra time before getting a new gun. You might even have to (gasp) submit registration forms every few years or so, like you do with cars. Guess what? That’s life in civilized society.

          • David from Mill City

            You have raised an interesting point about understanding the impact of violence. I have so far been lucky, and with the exception of being involved in the discovery of a several week old body dump, my experience with violence all has been second and third hand. So I do not have a complete understanding of the depth of the impact of violence can have on an individual beyond a recognition that it is deep and long lasting. But I do recognize that violence, regardless of the weapon if any used, is not desirable and it is a problem that needs to be addressed. I also recognize that violence is a complex problem that will require all of us working together to solve. Unfortunately, in an emotion driven rush for a quick fix, the rights and concerns of gun owners are being ridiculed and trampled, which is making working together to develop a real solution difficult.

          • DavidAppell

            Yes, the senseless slaughter of a classful of 1st graders certainly touches the emotions. Hence the “emotionally driven” search for a solution. I frankly can’t fathom how it doesn’t touch your emotions.

            But it’s not just this one event, but the whole series of them in recent years. Newtown was the tipping point, and it’s clear now to many that the “rights” of gun owners have gone too far and something needs to be done to stop the violence.

          • David from Mill City

            It has touched my emotions, I have just been able to compartmentalize. The data in Wikipedia seems to indicate that world wide mass killings are becoming more frequent and that weapons other then firearms are being used. How complete their data is I do not know and I have not been able to consolidate the data into a single list. But there seems to be an increase. What I am not seeing at least in the US school massacres is a correlation between the number and availability of guns and the frequency of school shootings. Semi-automatic firearms have been around since the 1890s and commonly available since WW II. Yet in the 65 years from 1927 to 1992 there were only 7 school shootings and 10 in the 15 years since 1998 in the United States. Which to me seems to rule out gun availability as the cause of the increase and indicates that some other factor is at work. It is interesting to note that China is also experiencing a rash of school attacks having at least 17 since 2004 the weapon of choice being knives and having resulted in 49 deaths and 264 injuries and even Japan had a school attack in 2001 resulting in 8 deaths and 15 injuries and some sort melee weapon was used. Clearly something is going on to cause this and it is not the availability of guns.

          • DavidAppell

            This is a lot of useless speculation, intended only to deflect and deceive. Unless you can present some science, which attempts to control for the many variables in play, your musings are useless.

            You can start here:
            Kellermann, Arthur L. et al, “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home”, New England Journal of Medicine 329 (15): 1084–1091
            http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

          • David from Mill City

            I have read the summary and skimmed the body of the report. Given that proxies were interview instead of the victims friends or families, That “As compared with the controls…case households more commonly contained an illicit-drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone who had been hit or hurt in a fight in the home.” as well as the many problems with Kellermann’s other works and that it does not examine the positive aspects of having a gun in the home I see little value in it.

          • DavidAppell

            Where are your per capita calculations for school shootings, US vs world? You gave some numbers — finish them and give us the per capita per year rate. Obviously for the US it’s much, much higher….

          • DavidAppell

            Wow! — Japan had one school attack 12 years ago. Wow. How many mass attacks have they had over some statistically significant interval? How many has America had?

          • David from Mill City

            According to Wikipedia The United States has experienced 17 school massacres in 85 years. World wide there were 65 in a 99 year period, 50 since 1998 of which 10 were in the US,

          • DavidAppell

            US population is less than 5% of the world. So why don’t you figure out the per capita kill rate and get back to us.

          • DavidAppell

            Assuming the US population has been 4-5% of the world population over all these years, that means there have been 6 to 8 times more school massacres in the US than the rest the world. The availability of guns certainly has something to do with that.

          • crabman34

            Driving is a privilege, but freedom of movement is a right. Driving enables that right, so although the government can restrict the achievement of that right, it has to have a good reason. Rights aren’t untouchable, and I don’t see why our 4th amendment right to be free from search or seizure or our 5th and 14th amendment rights to equal protection and due process can be limited or restricted but the 2nd can’t. Even the 1st amendment can be limited, it isn’t absolute.

            DUI control, bad driving control, call it what you want, but I see those as similar, not the same, as reasonable gun regulation. You might say, well, you pass laws and drunks still drive, people still get in accidents, road rage still happens. Yes, but the laws we have passed to make driving safer have worked to reduce driving-related deaths drastically in just a few decades. Why are guns so different?

            I’m confused about your reference to Republicans efforts to disenfranchise minorities and Democrats. Are you saying that Dems would use a gun test to disenfranchise? That Repubs would water down a gun test so that it is meaningless? Can you clarify?

            I get that you are upset about the rhetoric on some of the liberal websites, but have you looked at the language used on Fox News’ comments? Or WND? Or Alex Jones’ The-New-World-Order-is-Out-to-Get-me site? Point being the rhetoric on both sides can get ugly.

            I keep hearing people like you say the assault weapons ban didn’t work, but all I can tell is that it just wasn’t written well. I wouldn’t call that not working, I’d call that a bad first try. Simply because the ban was done wrong the first time, why does that mean we don’t try again? If at first you don’t succeed, well, then F%&k it?

            So maybe we can’t ban certain types of guns because there isn’t an objective standard. I haven’t heard enough from gun rights advocates why that is, just that it can’t happen. It’s frustrating, because you say that gun control advocates don’t get it, can’t understand guns if they don’t have them, etc. So explain it.

            Why can’t we ban high-capacity clips? Why can’t we ban certain types of ammunition that are designed to inflict maximum damage on human flesh? Why can’t we ban the AR-15? That gun is extraordinarily popular, used in mist of the recent mass shootings, and yet seems to have little other purpose. It’s modeled after a military gun, so that means, to me, that it is intended to kill people. Not to hit targets, or to hunt, or to protect your home, but to kill. Am I wrong? Is the AR-15 the best gun for [FILL IN THE BLANK] job that isn’t killing innocents?

          • David from Mill City

            Crabman34—- “Assault Weapons” is a term is a media creation to describe rifles that are designed to look like Military Weapons that are not available for private ownership in the United States. The basic problem is that this media created term is cosmetically based and does not describe rifles that are functionally or mechanically different from other rifles. In firearms terms a “Assault Rifle” is a magazine fed semi-automatic rifle chambered for a medium powered cartridge, in the case of the Colt AR-15 that is the ,223 Remington. Other of these rifles are chambered for other medium powered cartridges. However that description also applies to a Remington Model 740 Woodmaster hunting rifle and its descendants. A rifle that went into production in 1958. The Woodmaster was primarily available chambered for the .308 Winchester cartridge a slightly more powerful round intended for Deer hunting.

            The significant differences between these two rifles is that the Woodmaster has wood stock of more traditional design and the factory supplied removable magazine held only 5 rounds while the Colt AR-15 has a black plastic stock with a pistol grip configuration and the factory supplied magazine holds 20 rounds. In the 1970s aftermarket manufactures made 20 round magazines for use in the WoodMaster, Colt among others also made a 5 round magazine for its rifle. As you can see, aside from the chambering, only practical differences between these two rifles is how they look. Now some will try to make a case that these weapons are intended for different uses and at the marketing level they are, but as it is the owner that determines what a rifle will be used for. And to add another level of fog to this discussion, the Colt AR-15 rifle has been popular with competitive rifle shooters who participate in the NRA’s Service Rifle competitions since the late 1960s early 70s. A competition that dates back to just after the Spanish-American War.

            One of the most basic historic realities of firearms design is that all military weapons are based on are or improvements of civilian designs and all civilian weapons are based on or are improvements of Military weapons. Historically, military weapons purchasers have been very conservative and resistant to change, so most of the significant innovations (i.e. rifling, the flint and percussion locks, fixed cartridges, both the rim-fire and center-fire cartridges, smokeless powder the breach loading, the falling block actions, the bolt actions lever actions and semi-automatic actions to name a few) came from the civilian side and were later adopted by a military.

            As Armies are concerned with robustness, reliability, ease of manufacture and repair and being “idiot proof”, civilian designs are adopted and many of these changes find their way into civilian designs. For example most bolt action hunting rifles are based on a handful of military designs, the Mauser action being the most common. That Mauser action was an improvement of a Mauser designed civilian action that predates the Mauser Military Rifles. And to add some more fog, before the adoption of fully-automatic military rifles, after a major war or adoption of a new rifle surplus military rifles were sold in the civilian market place where they were in many cases modified for hunting and other clearly civilian uses.

            This digression into firearms history is significant to our “Assault Rifle” rifle discussion in that most of the first generation “Assault Rifles” are lateral descendants of three military rifle designs, the Armalite AR-15, the AR-180 and the Russian AK-47/ AKM Family. They are lateral rather then direct descendants because they are all a product of extensive design processes that developed a Semi-Automatic rifle that when legally possible used as many of the components of the military rifle they are related as they could. The intent of this process was to produce a rifle for the civilian market that looked like a military rifle that American’s can not own. It is very important to understand that these are civilian rifles designed for the American Civilian Arms Market and are not military weapons. The Federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) reviewed the designs and tested the rifles to insure that the could not be easily made to fire fully-automatically.

            While at least some of the 1st Generation “Assault Weapons” are still being sold, development has moved on creating 2nd and 3rd generations of designs as the basic civilian design was adapted, changed and improved upon for the civilian market.. They became available in other calibers, with different stocks, accessary rail systems and different sights. Some of these improvements were adopted by the US Army as the basic M-16 design changed over the years into what is now called the M-4 rifle.

            The net result of this is that the option of attempting to use their linage as being related to a military rifle could not be used as part of a definition. Almost all civilian rifles including the classic lever action 30-30 can be linked to military rifles. Nor could the cartridge the rifles are chambered for be use effectively in a legal definition as both the .223 Remington and the .308 Winchester were civilian cartridges designed and used for hunting before they were adopted by the US Army and NATO for military weapons. The Russian 7.62x39mm cartridge was a military design but because of its ballistic performance and availability (surplus military ammo is cheap and plentiful) several popular civilian hunting rifles using this cartridge. So that descriptive option was also off the table.

            Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns have been made for civilian since the 1890s it is not a new rifle action, though it did not really start to gain popularity till after WWII. In the over 65 years since WW II many other semi-automatic hunting rifles and shotgun designs have been made and sold in the Civilian market place and most all of the rifles use a detachable magazine of some sort. So using a definition “ magazine fed semi-automatic rifle chambered for a medium powered cartridge” also was off the table.

            What the drafters of the original “Assault Rifle” ban did was first list a number of weapons by name as being “Assault Rifles”which could no longer be sold new. Then they crafted a list of items that were often found on “Assault Rifles”, things like pistol grips, collapsible stocks, grenade launchers, flash suppressors and bayonet lugs. And the law said that any magazine fed semi-automatic rifle which had two or more of the listed item was an “Assault Rifle”. They also limited the capacity of any rifle or pistol magazine to 10 rounds. And then they list a number of rifles that they designated as not being “Assault Rifles” even if they met the definition. And lastly they exempted police weapons and grandfathered in all rifles currently located in the United States.

            Even before the bill was introduced, sales of these rifles and magazines went through the roof, prices went up and they became hard to get. Importers got as much stock into the Country as they could. And the rifles manufactures changed the names or model designators of all their rifles and then began to make small changes, flash suppressors were replaced by muzzle breaks, bayonet and grenade launchers and pistol grips were replaced by thumb-hole stocks and these new legal designs were brought to market. Additionally some of the gun accessory wholesalers started approaching Police Departments and offered to give them brand new magazines for their used magazines of the same type at no cost to the Police Departments. The PDs liked this because the spring that makes the magazine work wears out over time reducing the reliability of the pistol. The Wholesalers had the old magazines reconditioned (i.e. they changed the spring) and sold them on the civilian market.

            So within 6 months of the bill being signed by the President, rifles functionally identical to, but cosmetically different from the banned guns were on the market. High capacity magazines were still available for many of the popular rifles and pistols. And an exception was made permitting the importation of the only Military Assault Rifle actually effected by the ban, reproductions of the lever action Henry Rifle used by the Union Army in the Civil War. It was banned because it had a 15 round tube magazine.

            Other then making the public feel safer, making some politicians more famous and making the value of pre-ban rifles and magazines go up in price, the “Assault Rifle” Ban changed nothing.

            The details of Senator Feinstein’s new “improved” “Assault Weapons”Ban are not out yet. But from press releases it appears that it works basically the same with longer lists of Banned and permitted weapons, a tweaking of the components listing, banning thumb-hole stocks, making changes in the grandfathering section and including a registration requirement. With the exception of the registration requirement, a major non-starter in the gun world, and the grandfathering provisions which may have 4th Amendment takings problems, it is not likely that the new bill will be any more effective the last one.

            You also asked about military ammunition. A International Law of Land Warfare conference, I believe it was the 1899 St. Petersburg one, produced a Law of Land Warfare Treaty that among many other things placed major restrictions on the types of bullets that could be fired at soldiers. Among the designs banned were, wooden bullets, Dum-Dum, hollow point and other expanding bullets that made hard to treat wounds. What was left were solid fully jacketed bullets. These lead bullets with a full copper covering or jacket were specifically designed not to expand or mushroom and to make nice clean wounds. Almost all military rifle, pistol and machine gun ammunition made since by both treaty signatories and non-signatories conforms to these standards. These standards do not apply to civilian ammunition, which can be made with hollow points, soft noses and other types of bullets with enhanced wounding capabilities many of which have hunting or target shooting application. So if you are going to be shot, something I most strongly do not recommend, you are better off being shot with a military bullet then a civilian one. While we are talking of hunting ammunition it is important to note that most big game animals are larger then a human being and have thicker hides so the cartridges developed to hunt them are much more powerful then military and police ammunition.

            I am sorry this is so long, but it is complex subject. If you have any further questions please ask them. The more people on all sides understand firearms the better the debate and the better the final product.

          • crabman34

            What rights are being ridiculed? The right to own a gun is not being ridiculed any more than the right of free movement is being ridiculed when you are asked to take a drivers test and obey the law while driving. You don’t like it? Then walk.

            The right to own a gun and use it responsibly is not being ridiculed. I think that sensible gun regulation includes universal background checks, limits on capacity, limits on ammo type, and limits on the types of guns you can own. If there is less of a demand for it, the market will dry up considerably. That isn’t to say guns can’t get into the hands of bad guys, but why can’t there be a few more hurdles? If you are responsible, sane, and can show you will be careful, then sure, have a gun.

            And really, the only concerns I ridicule are those like Alex Jones on Piers Morgan the other night. Both of those guys are fools who, in a rational world, would have no impact on public discourse. But while I think Morgan is an idiot, I think Jones is a dangerous ideologue with psychological delusions.

          • David from Mill City

            Crabman34– Not all the discussions of gun control are as civil as this one. If you go to the threads regarding gun control on Slate, Salon or the Huffington Post you will see the ridicule I am speaking of.

            Putting aside for the moment the fact that gun ownership is a right and driving is a privilege, I am reasonably sure that the purpose of the driving test (which is only required once if you keep your licence current) is to test a potential drivers skill and knowledge not to keep qualified people from driving because the author of the test does not think people should drive. I do not have a similar level of confidence in a test for gun ownership. Given the hoops the Republicans are currently creating around voting and historically how literacy tests and poll taxes were used to deny people the right to vote, I do not see that lack of confidence as unreasonable.

            As to drying up the market for “Assault Rifles” I have an off-the-wall out-of-the-box suggestion, permit the importation and sale of a limited number of modern fully automatic weapons to civilians who comply with the Class III firearms ownership requirements. Currently an individual with a federal Class III license can in some states (Oregon is one) can own a fully automatic machine gun. To date I believe that in the nearly 50 year existence of the program only two of these licensed weapons have ever been used to commit a crime. An extensive FBI background check with fingerprints is required before you can get a license.

            Those with the money will gravitate to the real thing, as will many of the manufacturers leaving the “Assault Rifles” to the posers. Thus creating negative peer pressure on the want-to-be junior Rambos as all owning a “Assault Rifle” would prove is that you are too poor to own the real thing..That would destroy the market.

          • valley person

            Gaining access to a drivers license and driving is also a “right.” The government can’t arbitrarily say you can’t drive. And owning a gun is a right but that right can be limited, as even Scalia wrote.

            You seem to be making circular arguments that start with a right and end with no regulation, because any regulation would interfere with that right. Sorry, but that isn’t supported by law or common sense. Ownership of weapons is in fact already limited, and the question is where lines should be drawn, not if lines should be drawn, or whether they can be drawn.

            I wouldn’t care if some people had assault weapons if the bar for ownership were set high, as it is for machine guns. Few people have them and the screening is intense, as it should be.

          • David from Mill City

            Driving is not a right it is a privilege. That is why they can revoke your license for refusing to “volunteer” for a breath or blood test at a DUII stop without running a foul of the 5th Amendment.

            Reasonable regulation is fine. The problem is who is defining reasonable. Years ago the weapon to ban was the “Saturday Night Special” the medias name for a cheap imported and not particularly reliable handgun . So a politician proposed a set of “reasonable” standards that a pistol needed to meet before it could be imported. Two problems, first the standards were so high that the expensive top of the line pistols had trouble passing them. So the standards were eliminated. Second problem, instead of importing the pistols, they imported the parts to make them. But over time the Market for Saturday Night Specials dried up. Thanks to drug money the gangers had the money to buy the good pistols.

            I support allowing private individuals access to the instant check system so there is a background check for all gun and ammunition purchases. Further I would like to see a photo of the purchaser and the ID used be part of the process. And that the check needs to be extended to everyone will the purchaser.

            As to the “Assault Weapons” ban, while I do not see the point or desirability of having a military looking rifle I do not support it first because the last one didn’t work and two because it is not possible to develop an objective standard for an “Assault Rifle” that does not include firearms that are clearly and historically hunting weapons and I do not like subjective standards based on appearance.

            As to the rest of the “reasonable” restrictions there are not enough details out yet, but what I have seen and read between the lines they do not at first glance seem to be “reasonable” from where I stand..

          • David from Mill City

            VP — Gun ownership is not and should not be a requirement for participating in a reasoned discussion of gun control. But what is needed is for all parties to have at least a working knowledge of guns, gun collecting, the shooting sports, existing gun related laws and a common set of terminology. And for all parties to recognize that the final product will be a compromise that protects the interests and rights of all parties.

            Part of the problem with the discussion here and elsewhere to date is that many of the gun control advocates seem to lack that working knowledge and are not using excepted firearms terminology making it difficult to determine exactly what they are really advocating for. For example take the term “high powered rifle” with in the gun owning community that term has a rather specific meaning which does not include what the press calls “Assault Rifles”, but does include most hunting rifles. So when we hear someone advocating the regulation or banning of “high powered rifles” the first assumption is that they going after hunting rifles. On the other hand the term “Assault Rifle” does not have a specific meaning as it does not seem to designate a distinct type of rifle. The must touted “Assault Weapons” Ban does not seem to have a workable definition but rather seems to rely primarily on subjectively derived lists of good and bad guns based on appearance rather then capability.

            Another problem is that there is a perception within a sizable portion of the gun owning community is that the real goal of Sarah Brady, Senator Feinstein , Congresswoman McCarthy, Mayor Bloomberg and the like is to ban the private ownership of all guns. So just like a good chess player is looking several moves ahead, some of the gun owning community is also looking several moves ahead and sees the groundwork for a total gun ban being laid. Hence their reasoned opposition to many of the “reasonable controls” being proposed.

            Then there is the problem of a lack of data. There are many calls for banning “Assault Rifles” yet we have no accurate information of how often they are used in a crime or are involved in an unintentional shooting because it is not tracked. Other significant data, such as how many times the presence of a gun prevented a crime, just does seem to be accurately collectable leaving us with estimates all of which are being made by biased parties. And then there are all the “studies” peer reviewed and otherwise which because of the nature of the discussion come from one side or the other and contain an element of bias.

            There seems to be a difference in the world view of the various parties to this discussion. Take the various reactions to the “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” bumper sticker slogan. I see it as being at the root an accurate assessment. But then I believe that there are no dangerous weapons only dangerous people. So I see the mass killing crises as a people problem rather then a gun problem. Others with a different world view see it as a gun problem. I also believe that, criminals do not obey laws, so there is a limit on the real effectiveness of gun control laws.

            Lastly, any meaningful response is going to take time, time to formulate, time to debate, time to adopt and time to implement. There are no quick solutions, just fast feel good band-aids which either will not have meaningful long term impacts or will result in the creation of other problems.

          • DavidAppell

            > I also believe that, criminals do not obey laws

            Simply put, you are choosing to be blind.

            Few, if any, of the mass shooters in recent years were “criminals” before their shootings. They were criminals afterward, but by then it is too late, isn’t it?

            Isn’t it?

          • David from Mill City

            No, I see very clearly, passing a law does not effect criminal behavior it only effects the behavior of law abiding people. Once an individual has decided to commit a murder-suicide the existence of laws regardless of the severity are of little effect.

            And yes, mass killers are a complex difficult problem as currently we only recognize them after they commit a horrific act. But 20-20 hindsight does seem to show that there seem to be advance indicators of this type of action. The yet to be answered question is are those indicators unusual enough to be of any practical use in a timely manner. Given the number of foiled school murder-suicide plots reported in the press this approach seems to have merit. But punishing millions of law abiding gun owners to possibly limit the activities of a handful of individuals does not seem to be a reasonable solution. Particularly as mass killings here and elsewhere in the world show that gun is not required to commit a mass killing.

          • DavidAppell

            Gun owners aren’t being “punished” by not being allowed to own an assault weapon — they have no legitimate need for one to begin with, and as we’ve seen, their risks are too great.

            Nor are their rights curtailed by licences, permits, permit reviews, and insurance — these are now necessary to ensure that guns do not get into the wrong hands. Unless — as I suspect — you don’t really care that high-powered guns get into the wrong hands.

          • David from Mill City

            To start with as gun ownership is a right, no justification of need is or should be required for the lawful exercise of that or any other right. And to permit a requirement of justification to be placed on any right invites a similar requirement on others. Currently under a “public safety” justification Public officials and law enforcement are placing increased restrictions on the ability of groups holding opinions contrary to those officials to peaceably assemble in protest. Lets not make it easier. And before you trot out the militia clause, let me point out that the phrase “the right of the people to…” appears 3 times in the bill of rights, (1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments) it can either indicate an individual right as the 2nd Amendment advocates and the Supreme Court hold or it can indicate a collective right that goes to the state government as many anti-gun people hold. A problem with the second interpretation is that when it is applied to the 1st and 4th Amendments results in the right to peaceably assemble and the right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures could also be argued as being collective rights rather then individual.

            As to the risks, in 2011 of the 12,644 murders only 323 involved rifles (of any type).356 involved shotguns, 1,694 involved knives, 496 involved blunt objects (clubs, hammers) and 728 involved Personal Weapons (hands, fists, feet and teeth but not including strangulation which was the cause of death 85 times )[FBI data] Given that “Assault Weapons” represent only a portion of all rifles the data does not support your contention that “Assault Weapons” impose a risk greater then other weapons.

            Aside from background checks, which do need to be expanded by permitting non-dealer access to the instant check system and requiring a check for ammunition puchases, none of the other (licences, permits, permit reviews, and insurance) keep guns out of the wrong hands.

            Question, would you support a proposal to require a Breathalyzer ignition interlock to be installed, at the owners expense, in all automobiles as a way to prevents deaths and injuries caused by drunk drivers?

          • DavidAppell

            All rights have limits, including the 1st Amendment, and including the 2nd Amendment. See DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER.

            You haven’t gotten back to us with per capita gun deaths in school shootings in the US vs world. Where is that calculation?

          • valley person

            You conveniently left handguns off your list. Why?

          • David from Mill City

            The discussion to this to this point has been about “Assault weapons” not pistols. Since you asked Pistols 8,583 other firearms 97, firearms type not stated 1,587. Poison 5, Explosives 12, fire 75, Narcotics 29, Drowning 15, Asphyxiation 89 and other weapons or not stated 853

          • AntiCitzenOne

            If there is no legitimate need to own an assault weapon – why do the police still get to have them when they face the same types of criminals as we do?

          • valley person

            Isn’t the lack of data a direct result of the NRA getting its lacky’s in Congress to ban aspects of data collection on guns?

            As for the slippery slope argument, you can use it on any issue under the sun. The fact is, no one is calling for a total ban on gun ownership and that is not feasible in any case. Limiting who can get guns, limiting the capacity of guns people can get, testing, licensing, maybe insurance….these are all reasonable positions.

            There are no quick solutions, but these requests have been on the table for years.

    • DavidAppell

      My sister (mother of 2) was at the Clackmas Mall when the shooting occurred, and had to run out of the store in a panic. Is that good enough for you??

    • 3H

      I did, at one point, own a 30-30

  • DavidAppell

    David from Mill City wrote:
    >> As to your comment regarding the mass killers you named, as best as I can determine they all had mental conditions that should have precluded their lawful ownership or possession of any form of firearm. So they were not ever using firearms properly. <<

    Should have, but didn't. They all had guns that were legally purchased and legally owned. Just wait for the gun nuts to squawk once the government starts deciding who should and who shouldn't have a gun based on their mental condition.

    No one needs assault weapons. Period. End of story. And no one should possess them.

    • 3 yrs to 2016 & agenda 21

      Assault weapon armed Communist Red Army soldiers riddled to death defenseless relatives during the 1956 Hungarian revolution. Go gargle (google) your tonsils on this site http://www.johndclare.net/cold_war14.htm

      • DavidAppell

        Have you noticed this isn’t 1956, nor Hungary? Frankly I’m far more worried about gun fetishists going rogue than the US government.

        • 3 yrs to 2016…

          Uncork your head from where the sun don’t shine Mr. DA Naivete’-Chamberlain.

    • Freedom Isn’t Free

      Czech` mark for DA to read GunPolicy.org and accept the 2nd Amendment forming a cowcatcher to set aside ‘potentially’ tyrannical government from impeding Bill of Rights routes.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)