Mass Shootings the last six months

[Townsend]

Which, of course, don't do anything to fix the actual "problem".

Another thing in which we agree.

[Townsend]

New York's Weapon Ban Could Be Economic Tool for Oklahoma

http://kwgs.com/post/new-yorks-weapon-ban-could-be-economic-tool-oklahoma

In light of a New York ban on assault rifles, state Rep. Dan Kirby said today he would like to invite Remington to consider Oklahoma as a gun manufacturing location.

"I was just reading about the backlash from an Ilion, N.Y., Remington gun factory and I wanted to get the word out that many Oklahoma lawmakers would welcome gun manufacturing jobs in our state and would like an opportunity to talk to Remington about our incentive programs and friendly business climate."

Kirby said Oklahoma has a deeply embedded gun culture and will unlikely ever consider any type of ban on guns.

"Support for Second Amendment rights is bipartisan and overwhelming," said Kirby. "Really, I think most Oklahomans would be proud to welcome gun manufacturers to the state."

Kirby noted that Oklahoma has several manufacturing incentives available to companies that bring jobs to the state such as the Oklahoma Quality Jobs Act and a 5-year property tax exemption for manufacturers. State lawmakers have enacted lawsuit reform in past year and are working this year to reform the state workers' compensation system.

"You can't get much more business-friendly," said Kirby.

[heironymouspasparagus]

But I don't want you to have one. That is all the answer I need.

If you want a rifle that propels grenades, you don't get one. That has been determined to be a reasonable restriction on weapon ownership. You can say you want one all you want, but that doesn't matter.

I have a right to life and liberty. Your wants don't trump my rights.

As long as I don't do anything to intrude on your rights, you have no right to intrude on mine.  So, by definition, it is NONE of your business what I have or don't have.

If the law allows me to go through the procedure that gets me a rifle propelled grenade, it is NONE of your business, as long as I don't shoot it at your house.

And nothing I do with a 30 round magazine or a rifle propelled grenade or an F-16 intrudes not a whit on your right to life or liberty.  Whereas YOUR proposal does exactly that - intrudes on MY liberty!

[heironymouspasparagus]

I'm not a fan of suddenly becoming a criminal if a weapon I own is deemed illegal.  I would not turn my property in simply because someone decided I shouldn't have it.

Would you let a law enforcement officer in your house to make sure your guns are all okay for you to own?  I would not.

You are apparently too young to remember Waco, TX or Ruby Ridge....

[Townsend]

You are apparently too young to remember Waco, TX or Ruby Ridge....

No, I'm there.  Different circumstances. 

[DolfanBob]

And another one.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2271494/Student-14-shot-head-Atlanta-middle-school-shooting.html

[nathanm]

And nothing I do with a 30 round magazine or a rifle propelled grenade or an F-16 intrudes not a whit on your right to life or liberty.  Whereas YOUR proposal does exactly that - intrudes on MY liberty!

Ok, let's pretend that I agree that you have an inalienable right to own a rifle with an attached grenade launcher. How about you get some liability insurance on that so that when you accidentally blow someone's arm off with it they're not stuck with the bill? You can't legitimately push the costs of your own choices onto other people, but that's precisely what the gun lobby insists we allow. Any restriction is a bridge too far in their view.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Ok, let's pretend that I agree that you have an inalienable right to own a rifle with an attached grenade launcher. How about you get some liability insurance on that so that when you accidentally blow someone's arm off with it they're not stuck with the bill? You can't legitimately push the costs of your own choices onto other people, but that's precisely what the gun lobby insists we allow. Any restriction is a bridge too far in their view.

Oh, puullllleeeezzzzeeeee!!  Come on... you are much better and sharper than that!  That liability thing pretty well applies to anyone with any sense of self preservation in this world today.  And since I don't have a grenade launcher - yet - it won't really matter just now anyway.  Hopefully soon, I can change that....

I also keep auto insurance.  And health insurance, so I can help subsidize all those people who aren't required to have it yet.

As you can't push the costs of your own choices on to other people....

[AquaMan]

Everyone knows criminals don't buy there guns at the gun show or register them. They steal them from people who do. So, go ahead and get that grenade launching rifle. It will soon be on the street.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Everyone knows criminals don't buy there guns at the gun show or register them. They steal them from people who do. So, go ahead and get that grenade launching rifle. It will soon be on the street.

Probably not, given past experience, but anything can happen at any time.

[RecycleMichael]

I hope that heironymouspasparagus is responsible with his guns, but many, many gun-owners are not. It is not irresponsible to close loopholes at registration of guns. We all know that a large percentage of guns are just traded, handed around, stolen, and that many of these guns are used during a crime.

You can scream your want to have no paperwork on your guns and no restrictions on what types of magazines you want, but because of other people behaving badly, something has to be done.

Your demands are unreasonable, and reasonable minds will settle this debate.   

[Red Arrow]

I hope that heironymouspasparagus is responsible with his guns, but many, many gun-owners are not. It is not irresponsible to close loopholes at registration of guns. We all know that a large percentage of guns are just traded, handed around, stolen, and that many of these guns are used during a crime.

You can scream your want to have no paperwork on your guns and no restrictions on what types of magazines you want, but because of other people behaving badly, something has to be done.

Your demands are unreasonable, and reasonable minds will settle this debate.   

Flintlocks for everyone.

[patric]

Flintlocks for everyone.

Then black powder becomes "bomb-making materials" and you become a terrorist for possessing something you legally purchased over the counter at Dongs.

[AquaMan]

Can't we at least pass legislation to change the name of Dong's?

[Gaspar]

I hope that heironymouspasparagus is responsible with his guns, but many, many gun-owners are not. It is not irresponsible to close loopholes at registration of guns. We all know that a large percentage of guns are just traded, handed around, stolen, and that many of these guns are used during a crime.

You can scream your want to have no paperwork on your guns and no restrictions on what types of magazines you want, but because of other people behaving badly, something has to be done.

Your demands are unreasonable, and reasonable minds will settle this debate.   

First of all, I don't think anyone is screaming to have "no paperwork."  In fact I think we all agree, registration is both reasonable and necessary to keep guns out of the hands of those for whom it is illegal to purchase firearms.

Second, we keep going down this road on restrictions to magazines, or handles, or flash suppressors, or plastic grips.  None of which have anything at all to do with crazy people getting guns and shooting kids.  So to say that "reasonable minds will settle this debate" is actually quite true.  Reason is necessary to look at these tragedies as well as other current and historical statistics from a logical standpoint and deduct the cause, and therefore remedies for such gun violence.

President Obama is far from stupid.  He had an opportunity, with the stroke of a pen to sign an executive order reinstating the assault weapons ban, and implementing new restrictions of magazines in all weapons.  Many, both Republican and Democrats thought that was exactly what he planned to do.  However, he knew that the facts behind the violence could not support such action even if the emotion did.  So he provided 23 orders designed to follow a far more logical path, and address the very real issues of mental health.  He chose, perhaps for the first time in his career, to impact the problem rather than play politics.

Because the president is not stupid, he also knows that this is as far as this debate will go.  The senate will not address it, because to do so would mean the loss of at least 6 Democrats, and shift the balance of power to the Republicans.

So, the president acted on three logical prepositions.
1. Mental illness combined with already illegal access to weapons resulted in these deaths.  Basically, an enforcement issue.
2. Executive or legislative action directed at gun ownership would have had no effect in preventing the events at Sandy Hook or Auora.
3. Allowing Congress to address the issue is the most logical path of action to preserve his power structure in the senate.

The public debate will certainly continue, but any legislative action will be symbolic at most.