U.S. gun sales soar as owners fear new regulations

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • 2

    semperfi

    The dog chasing its tail . . . . . .USA is imploding on itself. . . .SAD !

  • 1

    whiskeysour

    Wild old man ambushed & killed 2 firefighters Monday Christmas Eve in America.... This guy killed his grandmother with a hammer and just got out of jail serving 17 years behind bars.. America SHOULD re-think about assault weapons, rifles, hunting rifles and handguns.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/nyregion/gunman-who-shot-firefighters-left-chilling-note.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

  • 0

    knight_of_Honour

    There were pistols only used in the Newtown shooting. the rifle was found in the trunk of the shooter's car and reported as such before they changed the story, it was not used in the school. Media keeps changing what happened to coincide with their anti gun agenda. The shooter was in possession unlawfully of the guns, basically stolen from his mother.

  • 4

    yabits

    The shooter was in possession unlawfully of the guns, basically stolen from his mother.

    Should the mother have been allowed to possess firearms in the manner that she did?

  • 2

    Probie

    A lot of these gun sales are due to people worried about losing the 2nd amendment or having stricter gun laws and not being able to get the guns they want.

  • -1

    Dara Danh

    all news are basically talking banning of assault rifles and hi-capacity weapons, but what about the handguns, pistol and revolvers and shotguns and hunting rifles? would those be banned/ regulated as well.

    If the ban ever pass and turns into a law, what would happen to the existing firearms currently own by civilians? would they force them to turn it over to law enforcement and authorities?

  • -4

    Onniyama

    YeeeeeeeeeeeeeeHaaaaw!

  • -1

    zenkan

    Normally, if a product is likely to be in short supply, a tendency to panic-buy becomes apparent. Foodstuffs and gasoline are two examples in point. In the case of firearms in the USA, it's not as if the supply aspect is going to change, and yet people are rushing to purchase weapons. It seems so pointless. President Obama should pursue a new gun control policy, regardless of when weapons were purchased - if only he had thought to mention that before everyone ran to the shops.

  • 1

    Frungy

    yabitsDec. 26, 2012 - 08:50AM JST Should the mother have been allowed to possess firearms in the manner that she did?

    Well, I sympathise with the mother possessing a firearm (note the singular), as she had someone living in her house who was mentally unstable and violent (her child).

    Where I think that perhaps the mother needed a mental exam though was when she acquired two pistols AND a semi-auto rifle? I mean honestly how many hands does she have? Was she planning to hold a pistol in each hand and hold the rifle in her mouth and fire it with her tongue?

    I also question that sanity of anyone who has a disturbed individual in their house... and then fails to keep the guns securely locked away from that person. How did this guy get access to these guns? If it was me and I felt in danger I would keep the key to the gun safe on my person at all times. I certainly would NOT leave it anywhere the mentally unstable person could get at it.

    They say that insanity runs in families, and I think in this case its true. Sadly large chunks of the U.S. seem equally unstable. Honestly, who needs a large magazine rifle? For hunting? I think not, if you can't kill cleanly with one bullet then you have no business hunting. For home defence? A rifle is a liability in close quarters like in a home. The only possible use for a large magazine rifle is for those too lazy to change a clip every now and again (and if you're too lazy to change a clip then you're too lazy to go hunting), and for those planning on protracted firing on large concentrations of people.

  • 2

    OssanAmerica

    Dara DanhDec. 26, 2012 - 09:13AM JST all news are basically talking banning of assault rifles and hi-capacity weapons, but what about the handguns, pistol >and revolvers and shotguns and hunting rifles? would those be banned/ regulated as well.

    Hunting firearms as well as revolvers do not have the high capacity magazines that are found on military-style rifles ("assault rifles") and semi-automatic pistols. As a result they are not as much of a threat as the latter. Criminals who use hunting arms with limited ammunition capacity would be completely "outgunned" by the law enforcement officers that they would invariable have to confront. Additionally, there are far far more hunting guns owned by Americans that the "military-type" so any attempt to take them away from civilian ownership would unrealistic. Even in the mid 90s when then President Bill Clinton passed the "Assault rifle ban" he was quick to have his picture in the news out bird hunting with a shotgun,

    If the ban ever pass and turns into a law, what would happen to the existing firearms currently own by civilians? would >they force them to turn it over to law enforcement and authorities?

    There will never be a "complete ban" on private firearms ownership in the U.S. You will see bans on certain "types" of firearms, as we have had before.

  • -1

    AiserX

    People whom advocate for so called "gun-control" use deceptive methods for what they actually mean. Deceptive in the sense that they fool others into believing that they are somehow trying to protect some group of people or trying to fight crime.

    What they actually advocate for is the centralization of gun control from the private citizen to the Govt. A cursory view at history proves this has never been a good idea.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Yabits, Frungy

    Should the mother have been allowed to possess firearms in the manner that she did?

    I also question that sanity of anyone who has a disturbed individual in their house... and then fails to keep the guns securely locked away from that person.

    In an increasingly rare random act of actual journalism CNN actually was unbiased in this reporting. Excerpts of some perinent facts:

    Sure, she liked guns, say people who knew her. But she was responsible with them. She knew how to handle the weapons she collected.

    How Adam Lanza apparently got hold of at least a few of them to commit a massacre in an elementary school is still unclear.

    A friend of Nancy Lanza, who had done contracting work for her, was last in the home eight months ago and remembers **seeing a lock box in the basement **where Lanza kept her guns.

    They've painted her as some irresponsible gun freak, but she wasn't," he said. "She was a paragon for gun safety. She taught the boys how to use the guns responsibly."

    Police Chief Donald Briggs Jr. said he, too, knew Nancy Lanza.

    "She was a great person who would do anything for you, a heart of gold," he told the Union Leader newspaper

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/16/us/connecticut-nancy-lanza-profile/index.html

  • 1

    lucabrasi

    @sailwind

    They've painted her as some irresponsible gun freak, but she wasn't," he said. "She was a paragon for gun safety. She taught the boys how to use the guns responsibly."

    And the result of which is twenty-six dead kids.

    Doesn't look good for the pro-gun lobby.

  • -3

    lucabrasi

    @Ossan

    Criminals who use hunting arms with limited ammunition capacity would be completely "outgunned" by the law enforcement officers that they would invariably have to confront.

    But the point of the second amendment is that citizens should be able to fight an oppressive government. If they're so "outgunned" by the authorities, then the argument for guns loses any meaning.

  • 0

    Argus Tuft

    What they actually advocate for is the centralization of gun control from the private citizen to the Govt. A cursory view at history proves this has never been a good idea.

    and yet

    people in America are 20 times more likely to be killed by a gun than someone in another developed country.

    Developed countries that seem to be doing just fine with government centralized gun control

  • -3

    Alphaape

    What they actually advocate for is the centralization of gun control from the private citizen to the Govt. A cursory view at history proves this has never been a good idea.

    Excellent point. Look at what happened in Nazi Germany when Hitler outlawed personal firearms, or the Soviet Union under Stalin who did the same. Also take a look at Turkey around 1911 and their gun control laws and look what happened to the Armenians. Cambodia as well as China can also provide excellent examples of what happens when gun control measures are taken by the government.

  • -2

    sailwind

    And the result of which is twenty-six dead kids.

    Don't forget Including the Mother. Doesn't change any facts that I can see that she actually didn't practice gun safety and kept the weapons secured and locked up when not in use. As one would expect from any law-abiding gun owner.

    Understandable that many people would want to paint her as some sort of monster, I had the very same inclinations myself at first, but so far from what I've seen and have gathered is that even she didn't see or could fathom what her son was plotting and actually capable doing. I honestly don't think anybody could have.

    She also paid with her life also in this when he snapped, I think it's important we also don't forget that.

  • 0

    lucabrasi

    even she didn't see or could fathom what her son was plotting and actually capable doing.

    Couldn't agree more and I've got every sympathy for her. But if guns were harder to get hold of then this might well not have happened and she'd still be alive today. The government really has to grasp the nettle and take on the NRA. And now's got to be a good time.

  • 2

    yabits

    Sure, she liked guns, say people who knew her. But she was responsible with them.

    Really? I'm reasonably certain that if we could interview Nancy Lanza from her grave she'd agree that she wasn't responsible enough. It may unclear how the son got the weapons, but that's rather a moot point: Whatever method of safeguarding the weapons was chosen, it was insufficient.

    The problem is that the gun advocates make it appear that there are no lessons to take away from this situation that society can apply to what likely are many hundreds or thousands of similar situations. And so they throw up irrelevancies like how nice the person was.

    Airline travel is as safe as it is because investigators have learned from past disasters and errors and have applied that learning through new standards, methods, technology, and reducing reliance on self-inspection and self-regulation.

  • 1

    tkoind2

    Yes Americans buying more guns will make your world a better, safer place. The idiocy involved in keeping high capacity weapons available in our society is staggering. Guns do not make you safe. Statistics show that guns pose more danger to owners than good. And yet these people keep buying up weapons.

    If I had my way I would ban all high capacity weapons, heavily regulate all other weapons and make ammunition so limited that it would be difficult to obtain. Likewise I would make possession of illegal weapons a strong jail sentence penalty.

  • -1

    yabits

    Doesn't change any facts that I can see that she actually didn't practice gun safety and kept the weapons secured and locked up when not in use. As one would expect from any law-abiding gun owner.

    That those guns were locked up is pure conjecture. You know, what you wrongly tried to claim about the description of the 44-year-old "law-abiding gun owner" in Pennsylvania whose mental health deteriorated over a matter of years until he finally went over the brink and killed three people.

    In the case of Lanza, what weapons were absolutely needed for home protection could have been kept locked at home, while those with the capacity for killing scores of people would have been better off stored in an armory. The ones at home could have been further protected with some biometric means -- keyed only for the mother to use.

    Understandable that many people would want to paint her as some sort of monster,

    Nobody has painted Nancy Lanza as anything of the sort. I would question her judgment for taking her mentally-deranged son out to shoot guns, but I put the onus on the community for sitting by and letting her bad judgment -- which she paid for -- cause such horrible consequences for them all.

  • 2

    globalwatcher

    AiserXDec. 26, 2012 - 10:33AM JST

    What they actually advocate for is the centralization of gun control from the private citizen to the Govt. A cursory view at history proves this has never been a good idea.

    Sounds like a cave man talking who fears the government and has been isolated from civilization for years. We are in the 21st Century. We need to overhaul the current gun law prohibiting all Assualt Automatic Weapons and the magazine clips. They do not belong here. People like you will never wake up until your loved ones are gunned down. Good luck.

  • 0

    sailwind

    You know, what you wrongly tried to claim about the description of the 44-year-old "law-abiding gun owner" in Pennsylvania whose mental health deteriorated over a matter of years until he finally went over the brink and killed three people.

    I claimed no such thing and I do not appreciate the smear. For the record: I responded to a quote you made on that incident before the facts, it was you who had conjectured before the facts that came out. I posited a simple question to you highlighted below.

    Dec. 23, 2012 - 03:01PM JST

    No matter how anti-social or seemingly hostile the behavior of the person was, the pro-gun crowd supported his right to have deadly weapons right up until the very moment he started to turn them against other people.

    Pure conjecture, we do not even know the mans name, if he had a criminal record or anything about the man or the situation at this point other than this man shoot people and the police killed him. We don't know if he purchased weapons, stole them, or asked if he could use one for whatever reason. You've made huge jumps in leaps of logic and made a whole storyline out of one statement.

    Could we at least wait for the facts here first?

    Posted in: 4 dead, 3 police wounded in Pennsylvania shooting

  • 0

    johnnybravo

    Was at another gun store and they had like 20 AR15s. All sold in just two days.Ammo shelves were complete empty too.... Also looks like Obama and Reid are putting the brakes on gun control.....

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-reid-slam-brakes-on-gun-control/article/2516406?utm_campaign=obinsite

    Looks like maybe they're finally waking up and finally realizing that the bad guys don't follow gun laws...

  • 0

    sailwind

    Airline travel is as safe as it is because investigators have learned from past disasters and errors and have applied that learning through new standards, methods, technology, and reducing reliance on self-inspection and self- regulation.

    It sure is and they sure have learned: They'd like to expand on some things though.

    Armed pilots want to carry guns outside cockpits

    "That would put us in line with standard law enforcement," said Marcus Flagg, president of the Federal Flight Deck Officer Association, which represents thousands of armed pilots.

    He declined to say exactly how many pilots now carry guns, but he said the number is just behind the FBI, which has about 13,800 armed agents. Since being given permission to pack heat 10 years ago, no U.S. pilot has ever had to draw a weapon against a passenger.

    http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-01-22/news/fl-cockpit-guns-201201201federal-flight-deck-officers-armed-pilots-federal-air-marshal-service

  • -1

    sveinnyves

    and I thought the tragedies would reduce the number of people buying guns... some people just dont learn....

  • 2

    Frungy

    sailwindDec. 26, 2012 - 11:39AM JST Don't forget Including the Mother. Doesn't change any facts that I can see that she actually didn't practice gun safety and kept the weapons secured and locked up when not in use. As one would expect from any law-abiding gun owner.

    Locked up? Yes. Secure? No. She knew her son was mentally unstable. She knew he had violent spells. Despite this she had at least THREE guns in the house, including a semi-auto rifle. She then failed to secure the key sufficiently well or failed to lock them up (we're unlikely to find out which). She may have been a "law-abiding gun owner", but that just shows how idiotic the current laws are. She was negligent.

    Understandable that many people would want to paint her as some sort of monster, I had the very same inclinations myself at first, but so far from what I've seen and have gathered is that even she didn't see or could fathom what her son was plotting and actually capable doing. I honestly don't think anybody could have.

    I didn't say she was a monster. The word that comes to mind is "idiot" or possibly the phrase "brainwashed by NRA pro-gun culture". Did her guns make her any safer? Hell no, the evidence speaks for itself. If she'd had no guns she would have been safer.

    She also paid with her life also in this when he snapped, I think it's important we also don't forget that.

    Ahh, pulling out the old "respect for the dead" taboo. I don't buy it, it's illogical nonsense. If we don't learn from those who died then we'd still be up in the trees wondering why Timmy stopped moving after he ate that red fruit. That she died is just karma. She bought the guns, she failed to secure them sufficiently despite knowing that her son was mentally unstable, her negligence resulted in the death of 26 children. She is an accessory to the crime. She should have disposed of the guns and bought a tazer, unless she planned to kill her son if/when he attacker he, because that's all that hundguns are good for, killing people.

  • -4

    Alphaape

    For those who say that the USA is just a "shoot-em-up" society and a society based on violence, let me ask this question. If all guns are banned, that means that those who have bought them legally would have to turn them in. So are you telling me then that once guns are gone, the level of crime in the USA will go down, and we will no longer have cases of home invasions or armed robbery anymore in the USA or that somehow they will reduce. Since those who normally make their living outside of the law will probably not follow the rule and turn in their guns.

    We do have stricter sentencing laws in effect that make a crime committeed with a gun and you get a longer sentence, but is that really working? I mean this guy killed his grandmother and is out on the streets. So do you think a guy who breaks into a home with a gun is really worried about a stiffer prison sentence if caught since he used a gun?

    I say you can modify the assault weapons and maybe limit the numbers of guns, but to just go out and ban all guns is not going to solve the problem.

  • -5

    AiserX

    I didn't say she was a monster. The word that comes to mind is "idiot" or possibly the phrase "brainwashed by NRA pro-gun culture". Did her guns make her any safer? Hell no, the evidence speaks for itself. If she'd had no guns she would have been safer.

    The thing is most pro-gun people are probably not even aware of the NRA's existence. I was pro-gun before I even knew about that org. As for Adam Lanza's mother, would she be safer without the guns? I would say no. Simply because the ed result would have been the same. Adam would have acquired firearms via different method, or killed his mother in a manner that would not have required a firearm. Adam if you read his letters and testimonial from people was anything but some mediocre individual on an intellectual level. In fact Adam himself was much more intelligent and technical then most people on this thread. I don't doubt that he would have had the intelligent means to create lets say a high explosive weapon..... then what?

  • -1

    AustPaul

    Banning all firearms will not happen and I wouldn't expect it to. However, despite your 'second amendment' I think this is the opportunity to work on legislation towards banning possession of certain weapons. It would have to be retrospective and involve buy back schemes at a national level.

    I am familiar with firearms having used them here in Aust but am amazed at what is available to Joe Public in the states.

  • -2

    sailwind

    She knew her son was mentally unstable. She knew he had violent spells.

    I've read nothing at all that confirms that or even goes toward that direction prior to his snapping. Everything I've seen so far indicates that this individual was diagnosed with Asperger's, a milder form of autism and that was his obvious mental health condition. That this affected him in the way typical of those who have this disorder as being extremely shy, socially inept and in his case as happens in a percentage of those with this malady, unable to really feel any physical pain if injured. Nothing along the lines of violent spells as in a bi-polar disorder or a schizophrenic type illness or outward paranoid delusions, actually nothing that would show that he was even capable of this type of violence.

    I might even go so far as to say, given that shyness is a dominate outward sympton of this condition it may in fact have lulled everybody that interacted with him to not even notice anything else that may have been a pre-curser warning sign that something was starting to go very, very wrong with him and that he needed to be seen by a mental health expert to diagnose a cause other than the previously identified Aspergers. I a bit inclined to think after looking into this that his Mother was told by mental health experts that her son with Aspergers would not be the sort to be violent at all and that really wasn't going to be a concern for her as she coped with parenting for the condition. Might be why she never felt he was a danger if she kept guns in the house for her hobby as a target shooter.

    Just conjecture on my part I admit, but I think it's very plausable based on what I've learned of the condition he had and that his Mother was actively involved with him. A Good background article on this.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/16/sandy-hook-school-shooting-asperger-violence/1772589/

    While an official has said that the 20-year-old gunman in the Connecticut school shooting had Asperger's syndrome, experts say there is no connection between the disorder and violence.

    Asperger's is a mild form of autism often characterized by social awkwardness.

    "I think it's far more likely that what happened may have more to do with some other kind of mental health condition like depression or anxiety rather than Asperger's," Laugeson said.

    She said those with Asperger's tend to focus on rules and be very law-abiding.

    "There's something more to this," she said. "We just don't know what that is yet."

  • 2

    TorafusuTorasan

    Odd how gun fetish types are so easily controlled by Bloomberg and Obama. Anytime they hear the suggestion that we regulate a dangerous product, they will drain their bank accounts to buy guns and thousand dollar crates of ammunition. Then, when their conscience, spouse's nagging, or financial problems set in, they head back to the gun shop only to find out they don't want to buy used guns from customers. Thus, black market selling, guns getting to felons, and so on.

    Doesn't it bother you that certain gun stores are designated "crime gun stores" by law enforcement due to the high percentage of their products used to commit crimes? You think "straw buyers" is just a rhetorical strawman?

  • 2

    Onniyama

    How would any gun allow you to defend against an Apache attack chopper that can obliterate your house from about 10 km away? This is not 1794! Bearing arms to keep the state in check is no longer applicable.

  • -2

    smithinjapan

    Scrap the second amendment completely, allow no more guns to be sold to those unwilling to strict registration (and only then, hunting rifles) with names and addresses available to the public, and offer cash for guns promotions on a massive basis. The constitution is out of date, so change it.

  • 1

    Frungy

    sailwindDec. 26, 2012 - 02:45PM JST

    She knew her son was mentally unstable. She knew he had violent spells. I've read nothing at all that confirms that or even goes toward that direction prior to his snapping.

    She was trying to have him committed to a psychiatric institution. To be committed against your will you need to be a danger to yourself or others.

    Clearly you haven't read enough about this case.

    P.S. Your theories about aspergers being the cause of his behaviour are dead wrong. There's something called "comorbidity", i.e. when someone has two or more conditions at the same time. Sometimes the conditions are related, for example getting influenze (a viral infection) that leads to bronchitis (a bacterial infection). Often conditions are unrelated (e.g. athletes foot and heart disease). Adam Lanza may have suffered from some form of aspergers, but also clearly suffered from some schizotypal disorder. It was the schizotypal disorder that caused the violence and school shooting.

    Most often Aspergers syndrome kids are the victims of bullying and violence, not the perpetrators, and there is no evidence that they show a higher level of violence than the average person.

  • -1

    The_True

    This is not nice to do, but, LOL!!

  • -2

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    it runs deeper than politics. It is the basis for our democracy and what makes us free citizens. It was firearms which turned back the repressive British monarchy. It is firearms which keep us a free people today.

    I will paraphrase and shorten a very good article I came across:

    There are two ways you can inflict your will upon me. You can either convince me through a logical discussion - or you can attempt to use force.

    A firearm in my possession removes the second alternative.

    This is why the left is so rabidly anti-gun. Its not the dead victims - thousands are murdered every year in our inner cities and liberals could not care less. When the entire liberal machine revved up to its redline over the Travon Martin shooting - there were FORTY shootings and ten dead in Chicago the very same weekend. Where were holder, obama - weird al sharpton? They could not care less.

  • 0

    The passage

    Scrap the second amendment completely, allow no more guns to be sold to those unwilling to strict registration (and only then, hunting rifles) with names and addresses available to the public, and offer cash for guns promotions on a massive basis. The constitution is out of date, so change it.

    @smithinjapan - Yes and no! The "No" first: The Second Amendment clearly states without a doubt that to protect free states, well organised militia can bear arms. How this got translated to be anyone and everyone needs to be reviewed and corrected.

    This is the actual text: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    But "Yes", there should be no more need for organised militia in a civilised society. Indeed they faded out long ago as State and Federal protection agencies grew to cover that role (Police, FBI, State Troopers, National Guard, etc).

    @Herve Nmn L'Eisa - I don't think the British Monarchy, or any other national body has designs on invading the US. If they did, a random collection of individuals with guns would not be very effective. In addition to the protection agencies I listed above, you have the most effective and well trained miliatary on the planet. The fact that you still feel the need to possess guns would suggest that you are anything but "free", which I think is a tragedy for anyone living in a modern economy

  • 0

    sailwind

    She was trying to have him committed to a psychiatric institution. To be committed against your will you need to be a danger to yourself or others.

    Only one source has claimed that and it is Joshua Flashman, 25. There has been countless interviews with her other close friends since this tragic incident and not one other person has mentioned or confirmed this. This has not been verified by a second party and no court papers have been filed or any other public record that I know of. I do understand privacy laws and Conn may not allow a filing to be public record, though I consider it quite suspect that she would confide this most personal of information to a 25 year old man and not to anyone else as I have read she had many close friends to turn to. She was not a recluse by any means.

    I do know that she confided to more than one of her friends that she was seriously contemplating moving to Washington State and she mentioned there was a school or program there she had found that dealt with her son's condition. Also a common thread in the sources that I've read and verified by more than one person is that it does appear that she was at her wits end in dealing with him. Joshua Flashman may have confused all this talk about moving away with having him committed, I do not know. I just know I can't find any other source to verify this and due to the intense coverage one can reasonably conclude that at least other sources would have backed up him up.

    If you can find a second source I'd appreciate it but for now I can't put stock into this from just one source and no others.

  • 1

    Frungy

    sailwind Dec. 26, 2012 - 05:50PM JST Only one source has claimed that and it is Joshua Flashman, 25. There has been countless interviews with her other close friends since this tragic incident and not one other person has mentioned or confirmed this.

    What numerous other sources HAVE confirmed though is that he was "troubled", "subject to outbursts", and similar descriptions. Furthermore reports are now surfacing that he was on an anti-psychotic drug called Fanapt... which is NOT used to treat aspergers, but is rather in the neuroleptic class, a class of drugs used to treat conditions like schizotypal disorders. These disorders are closely linked to violent behaviour, and notoriously resistant to treatment.

    Despite this his mother collected guns, took him to the range and taught him to use them.

    Sailwind, if you were a parent and your child was on anti-psychotic medication and "troubled" would you not take extraordinary precautions to ensure that the guns were kept well away from them? I think that any responsible and reasonable parent would.

    I'm not anti-gun, I'm anti-idiot.

  • 1

    TorafusuTorasan

    @Herve's two ways "you can inflict your will on me"

    The odds are that the people who ask you to submit to their "will" are the police, who are not inflicting their own will, rather the will of the legislators and laws. A firearm in your possession may work to prevent the average Joe from enforcing his will on you, or it may not, but it does not guarantee your freedom from consequences of shooting Joe. It is rare for non-police to use a firearm against others and not face legal ramifications--look at the Trayvon Martin case--so getting tied up in the legal system would contradict the idea of preserving absolute freedom. You may be talking about freedom from consequences of shooting someone in a lawless anarchic society that thankfully doesn't exist in the USA.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Frungy,

    You've got to quite believing anything the Media prints when it isn't embarrassing itself by its liberal bias it prints pretty much garbarge anymore without even bothering to check its facts.

    What numerous other sources HAVE confirmed though is that he was "troubled", "subject to outbursts", and similar descriptions. Furthermore reports are now surfacing that he was on an anti-psychotic drug called Fanapt

    Here's the retraction by from the originator of this reported tripe by the New York Magazine:

    New York Magazine wrote a piece about shooter Adam Lanza's supposed "aspergers" syndrome as a "red herring" meant to distract from the real problem (guns, of course, the subject goes without mentioning).

    Inside the piece though they report Adam Lanza's uncle said the boy was prescribed Fanapt, a controversial anti-psychotic medicine.

    UPDATE: Since the publishing of this article, New York Daily News has removed the reference, the originator of the quote from Lanza's "uncle," because they believed him to be an "imposter."

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/adam-lanza-taking-antipsychotic-fanapt-2012-12#ixzz2G5fMBcaO

  • 0

    Vast Right-Wing Conspirator

    It's sad, but for the US, the toothpaste is out of the tube. There are already far too many guns in circulation to ever hope to do anything about them. Even if you stopped the production of firearms today, the ones available would last to the end of the century

    Banning classes of weapons is futile. Each such law has a "grandfather clause" that allows current owners to keep their weapons. Otherwise, what is the option- confiscation? Good luck with that. House to house search? Never going to happen, and also useless. Guns are small enough to hide/bury/store in the attic. Ditto for banning high capacity magazines. Can't be done, can't get rid of the ones already in existence. Not to mention, the people who would voluntarily comply with either of the above laws aren't the people we need to worry about. Bad/criminal/paranoid people will simply ignore the laws. Result? The ratio of good gun owners to bad gun owners would tilt to the latter.

    Solutions? First, automatic non-negotiable sentence extensions on crimes committed with guns (10 years extra?). Second, require insurance purchase with firearms, similar to liability insurance purchased with your car. Third, a national campaign/database to document those mentally unstable enough to deny them firearms.

    Not foolproof, but a start...

  • -1

    SS Abe

    Third, a national campaign/database to document those mentally unstable enough to deny them firearms.

    Can you really draw that line for Americans?

  • 0

    sailwind

    Sailwind, if you were a parent and your child was on anti-psychotic medication and "troubled" would you not take extraordinary precautions to ensure that the guns were kept well away from them? I think that any responsible and reasonable parent would.

    I'm not anti-gun, I'm anti-idiot.

    I agree with you100 percent. I'm also anti-idiot its just that have a healthy and well earned distrust of what the Media puts out and I tend to dig for the truth outside of the whatever narrative they are pushing. So far I've seen nothing that is leading me to conclude this individual was giving signals that he was a true monster inside or that his Mother was really the negligent Mom from Hell. If I saw it I'd be the first one to slam her also.

    So far with a few exceptions like CNN (surprisingly) I haven't seen much real balanced stories covering this tragedy at all. For the most part its been National Enquirer type reporting, advocacy journalism pushing a gun ban agenda dressing it up as news and some real poorly sourced reporting.

  • -1

    Serrano

    "the president... basically said, "if you want a gun, you better get it now."

    Cripes!

  • 0

    zurcronium

    "The momentum is clearly now in the direction in finding some way to . accommodate and deal with reality," Gingrich said.

    Republicans and reality? Oil and water.

    Fact is Americans know they need gun control to prevent kids being killed so easily. Only the paranoid and the weak would think otherwise.

  • 0

    Madverts

    Yes, but you forget to mention the increase in spree killings.

    But more importantly, that article came from the MSM, so can I trust it?

    Can I take it the MSM aren't actually biased when they're printing something you agree with?

    Heh, at some point you're surely going to realize that a society where everyone takes their kids and their .44, to feel safe watching a movie in case another nut starts pumping rounds into the crowd has a terminal disease.

    Oh, and as to your media conspiracy obsession, you still going to have to come up with the answer as to "why", before it can even be discussed outside the realms of wearing the tin-foil hat toting glitterati.

  • 0

    yabits

    I'm also anti-idiot its just that have a healthy and well earned distrust of what the Media puts out and I tend to dig for the truth outside of the whatever narrative they are pushing.

    What you don't know, or care to know, is when that "distrust" crosses a line and becomes "unhealthy.'"

    Your stance reminds me of the George C. Scott character in Dr. Strangelove -- the general who, when presented clear evidence that General Jack Ripper had totally sealed off his base while sending his bomber squadron to attack the USSR, kept saying "Let's not rush to any hasty judgments, before all the facts are in."

    Well, in this case, the "Big Board" shows over 25 innocent people murdered in cold blood -- many of them little kids shot multiple times.

    What we can piece together about Nancy Lanza is that she appears to have been a survivalist: One of those paranoid types stockpiling food and weapons to use against.... well, ultimately, fellow citizens. She had been a member of a women's club for years. But, funny thing, in all those years while the regular meetings were held at members' homes on a rotating basis, Lanza never allowed it to be held in her home.

    The best that can be said for Adam Lanza's behavior was that it was completely unpredictable. Not exactly the kind of person you want to keep firearms around. I'm not certain what we can surmise from the fact that Nancy Lanza "regularly" took her mentally disturbed son to the gun range, other than that she trusted him around guns to some extent. In a survivalist situation, would she have counted on him to help her defend the home -- thereby making the weapons accessible to him?

    I believe that a healthy skepticism -- call it "distrust" if you want to -- should be applied to individual citizens who exhibit anti-social, paranoid behaviors and /or who have mentally ill people living in the household -- AND who want to obtain and possess firearms in their home.

  • 0

    Ah_so

    it runs deeper than politics. It is the basis for our democracy and what makes us free citizens. It was firearms which turned back the repressive British monarchy. It is firearms which keep us a free people today.

    Amateurs with small arms cannot defeat armies any more. In the eighteenth century the British-American rebels had enough arms to beat the combined British troops/ loyalists/rebel slaves/native American forces, but that would not be the case any more. To hark back to events of more than 200 years is pointless and meaningless.

    Arms do not keep you free today - they imprison you. Tell the dead children of Newtown and their families that guns keep them "free".

    Guns bring fear and death. To confuse them with freedom shows evidence of brainwashing.

  • 1

    yabits

    Pure conjecture, we do not even know the mans name, if he had a criminal record or anything about the man or the situation at this point other than this man shoot people and the police killed him. We don't know if he purchased weapons, stole them, or asked if he could use one for whatever reason. You've made huge jumps in leaps of logic and made a whole storyline out of one statement. Could we at least wait for the facts here first?

    The facts came in: The man did not have a criminal record and owned his guns legally. He exhibited declining mental stability that was evident to many around him. For years.

    No matter how anti-social or seemingly hostile the behavior of the person was, the pro-gun crowd supported his right to have deadly weapons right up until the very moment he started to turn them against other people. No current standard for gun ownership would be supported by the pro-gun advocates which would have authorities inspecting and removing firearms from a situation deemed to be unstable or unpredictable. That is the massive gray area between legal responsible gun-ownership and outright criminality.

  • 0

    sailwind

    What you don't know, or care to know, is when that "distrust" crosses a line and becomes "unhealthy.'"

    You actually blamed Gabrielle Giffords shooting on Palin's map, Yabits.

    • Moderator

      Back on topic please.

  • 0

    yabits

    From the article:

    The United States has suffered an explosion of gun violence over the last three decades including 62 mass shooting incidents since 1982. The vast majority of weapons used have been semi-automatic handguns and rifles obtained legally by the killers.

    Since the killers have been obtaining their weapons legally, we haven't seen any proposals coming from the pro-gun crowd that would analyze just how this is happening and attempt to prevent it from happening again. In every one of these 62 mass-shooting cases, no matter how anti-social or seemingly hostile or mentally imbalanced the behavior of the person was prior to the event, the pro-gun crowd supported their right to have deadly weapons right up until the very moment they started to turn them against other people.

  • 0

    sailwind

    From a different article:

    Mass shootings are not growing in frequency, experts say

    Most victims of gun violence know the person who fired the fatal bullet, experts say. Mass shootings, like in an Aurora movie theater, Portland mall and Conn. elementary school, are not becoming more common.

    Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.

    Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning.

    Still, he understands the public perception — and extensive media coverage — when mass shootings occur in places like malls and schools. "There is this feeling that could have been me. It makes it so much more frightening."

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/rise-mass-killings-impact-huge-article-1.1221062

  • 0

    OssanAmerica

    lucabrasiDec. 26, 2012 - 11:12AM JST @Ossan "Criminals who use hunting arms with limited ammunition capacity would be completely "outgunned" by the law enforcement officers that they would invariably have to confront." But the point of the second amendment is that citizens should be able to fight an oppressive government. If they're >so "outgunned" by the authorities, then the argument for guns loses any meaning.

    My response was to answer the OP's question as to why certain guns appear to be targeted for regulation rather than all of them. It was intended to address the difference in potential damage level between military-style firearms and the average hunting firearm. It was not intended to address ownership or 2nd Amendment issues. The point you raise would support the NRA position on the matter. But realistically, the military-style firearms that US civilians can own are semi-automatic versions of what are full-automatics in the military. In other words they "look" scarier than they really are. Civilian ownership of full-auto forearms has been banned on a Federal level for ages. In today's world if a civilian wanted to own weapons sufficient to stand up to the "authorities", one would have to not only own full-auto firearms but grenades, shoulder mounted rocket launchers, etc etc to the point that it would get ridiculous unless one were planning a full scale insurgency.

  • 0

    OssanAmerica

    TorafusuTorasanDec. 26, 2012 - 03:03PM JST Odd how gun fetish types are so easily controlled by Bloomberg and Obama. Anytime they hear the suggestion that >we regulate a dangerous product, they will drain their bank accounts to buy guns and thousand dollar crates of >ammunition.

    Really no different than if certain action figures were going to be banned. There would be a rush on purchases.

    Then, when their conscience, spouse's nagging, or financial problems set in, they head back to the gun shop only to >find out they don't want to buy used guns from customers. Thus, black market selling, guns getting to felons, and so o on.

    I don't know where you are getting your information but nearly all gun shops will buy used guns ands/or carry them for sale on consignment. The black market in illegal guns is entirely different.

    Doesn't it bother you that certain gun stores are designated "crime gun stores" by law enforcement due to the high >percentage of their products used to commit crimes? You think "straw buyers" is just a rhetorical strawman?

    Such stores have been and are the target of BATF investigations. They are few in number, in the southern part of the country with looser gun laws and have little, if anything, to do with the vast majority of legal gun stores and people who legally buy from them.

  • 1

    AkariYoshida

    The right to own a gun is a right that americans have. The government should never be allowed to take that away

  • 0

    yabits

    The government should never be allowed to take that away

    Who is taking away that "right" from convicted criminals and the mentally impaired, if not the government?

  • 1

    2020hindsights

    What they actually advocate for is the centralization of gun control from the private citizen to the Govt. A cursory view at history proves this has never been a good idea.

    But the point of the second amendment is that citizens should be able to fight an oppressive government. If they're so "outgunned" by the authorities, then the argument for guns loses any meaning.

    So the idea is that if the US turned on it's own people then they would be able to fight the US military? The idea is so ludicrous. But the gun lobby clings to it. And some butters (preppers) even believe it.

  • 0

    2020hindsights

    The right to own a gun is a right that americans have.

    It's not a right. It's a privilege.

  • 0

    Alphaape

    The odds are that the people who ask you to submit to their "will" are the police, who are not inflicting their own will, rather the will of the legislators and laws.

    Not true. Go try to smoke someplace, even in some homes you can't smoke because it may afect the neighbors. People who have some agenda will try to force their opinions on others. Same can be drawn with the attempts for banning guns. We do have the requirement to register guns and background checks, yet some want to make it harder for the law abiding people to get a gun. I can see modifying the assault weapons ban, but the gun control people will want to take it further. Remember, at first smoking was banned in the workplace, then it was banned out in public places like parks and beaches. Next came the ban on smoking in bars and now in some apartment/condos. Same type of creeping rules will occur with the gun controllers. First it will be the assault weapons, then handguns with magazine loading, and then revolvers, etc, etc, etc.

  • -1

    sailwind

    He exhibited declining mental stability that was evident to many around him. For years.

    And of that many, not one reported it to the authorities that I can gather. That step has to be done before any official action by the Government can be initiated or to even start an investigation.

    No matter how anti-social or seemingly hostile the behavior of the person was, the pro-gun crowd supported his right to have deadly weapons right up until the very moment he started to turn them against other people.

    Not based on anything close to reality, no sane person pro-gun or anti-gun is is going to condone or allow a hostile or anti-social person that they feel is going to be threat to public safety to own have a firearm, they'll call the police first and hope for an arrest or at least start an investigation as step 1. The only thing the pro-gun crowd supports is the right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, and that right was upheld when the Supreme Court decision in Heller vs D.C that established that the Second Amendment does indeed protect the right of an individual to possess a firearm and cannot be just banned outright or carte blanche as it is unconstitutional. .

    No current standard for gun ownership would be supported by the pro-gun advocates which would have authorities inspecting and removing firearms from a situation deemed to be unstable or unpredictable.

    There is a current standard that does exist for authorites to remove weapons and it is used all the time and is supported by any pro-gun advocates. Courts issue restraining orders all the time and can stipulate if they deem it proper to ban firearm possession on the person served as one of the stipulations. Your going to be hardpressed to make any sort of sane case that pro-gun advocates are against people going to court and getting a restraining order on a person that they feel threatened by to legally restrain them from attempting to harm them by disarming them legally through a court.

  • 1

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    " Amateurs with small arms cannot defeat armies any more. In the eighteenth century the British-American rebels had enough arms to beat the combined British troops/ loyalists/rebel slaves/native American forces, but that would not be the case any more. To hark back to events of more than 200 years is pointless and meaningless."

    Oh, really?! How about that Afghan thing? Those "amateurs" fighting for their own country have been successful in defeating the Soviets, and the much more highly technically advanced NATO/US forces have taken a beating and will also exit in defeat. Just for one current example.

  • 0

    2020hindsights

    The only thing the pro-gun crowd supports is the right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, and that right was upheld when the Supreme Court decision in Heller vs D.C that established that the Second Amendment does indeed protect the right of an individual to possess a firearm and cannot be just banned outright or carte blanche as it is unconstitutional.

    In a 5 - 4 vote by a SCOTUS loaded with conservatives.

    But it's true. Many Americans want to keep their guns and the constitution won't be changed because it needs too many votes. Americans reap what they sow.

  • 0

    Alphaape

    Oh, really?! How about that Afghan thing?

    @ Herve: Good point. I find it interesting that when the movie "Red Dawn" came out in the 80's one of the scenes showed the Russians going through the files in a sporting goods store looking for the people who had legally purchased their guns, so that they would probably have some idea of where to start looking first. I think that the Hollywood types who made the film may have had that scene backfire on them, since I remember at the time it was a major talking point about gun control debate back then. Yet the same Hollywood leftist want to disarm Americans, at the same time making a remake of the movie "Red Dawn" again showing how just a bunch of locals armed with guns are willing to fight for their freedoms and what they believe in.

    Gun control laws do work. The guy who shot the firemen shouldn't have had a gun, but the laws did work at preventing him from getting them.

  • 0

    2020hindsights

    Oh, really?! How about that Afghan thing? Those "amateurs" fighting for their own country have been successful in defeating the Soviets, and the much more highly technically advanced NATO/US forces have taken a beating and will also exit in defeat. Just for one current example.

    Hardly a civil war. In Afghanistan they couldn't stop the Taliban, which was a civil war.

    But that's hardly the point. The US is a democracy that isn't about to oppress it's people, so the point of the 2nd amendment to provide for a civil militia is irrelevant.

    There are some nutters out their that think the UN are about to invade, once the government let's them in but that's a rather extreme view.

    • Moderator

      Readers, Afghanistan is not relevant to this discussion.

  • -2

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    Myth #4: You can easily buy "Assault" rifles in America

    Although people banter around the term "assault rifle" a bit too casually, in truth you cannot buy an assault rifle in America without going through an extensive ATF investigation and spending $20,000+ (usually $40,000 or more) on a rare firearm.

    What makes a rifle an "assault" rifle? It must have a fire selector switch that can select between single shot, a three-round burst shot, or full-auto fire. None of the civilian AR-15s have these features. Neither do any of the "scary-looking" battle rifles sold in gun shops.

    Liberals call something an "assault rifle" because of the way it looks. If it looks "scary" (i.e. has a black composite stock instead of wood) then it must be a BAD gun. Seriously. This is how they think. But in truth, even a composite stock AR-15 purchased at a gun shop right now has absolutely no capability for a 3-round burst or full-auto. That firepower is reserved exclusively for the U.S. military.

    So when Obama says things like, "We don't need military rifles on the streets of America," he is LYING to you. We don't have military rifles on the streets of America. What we have is semi-auto, single-shot rifles in the hands of Citizens. Virtually no one has a military "assault" rifle. (The media routinely lies about this...)

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."

    ~ Patrick Henry

  • -2

    The passage

    Herve, You seem to have gotten sidetracked. The issue is simply guns being available, doesn't matter what type they are because 26 people died because someone had access to firearms. Twenty six human lives lost. General citizens aren't part of militia, and don't need guns to protect a free State. Gun deaths and massacres like Newtown just prove they can't be held responsibly. Guns need to go, and go quickly.

  • 0

    Alphaape

    Gun deaths and massacres like Newtown just prove they can't be held responsibly. Guns need to go, and go quickly

    It was tragic in Newton, but your statement doesn't take into account that some say there may be at least 200 million guns in the USA (I doubt if it is that high), and if we can't control ourselves, we should be hearing about mass murders like the tragedy in Newton daily. Yes, people do get killed by guns, but the majority of those who do are killed by people who shouldn't be able to own a weapon in the first place, i.e criminals. Yet when a tragedy like this occurs, people with their own agendas to push want to make rules for everyone. If you don't like guns, then don't buy one. And if you should get robbed one day (which I am not wishing on anyone regardless of their belief in gun ownership), if the person is robbing you with a gun, then I hope you let them know that what they are doing should be illegal (using the gun that is).

    Sad thing about the American media, when Treyvon Martin was killed by a gun in FL, it was all the rage in the new of whtie on black killing. Yet that same weekend in places like Chicago and Detroit and New Orleans, you had cases of Black on Black gun killings done, yet they don't get any attention.
    .

  • -1

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    The passage, not sidetracked at all. The issue is not availability. That's the authoritarian media's ruse to further diminish the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens, and nothing else.

  • -1

    The passage

    Herve - According to the 2nd amendment, Citizens don't have rights unless they are part of a well organised militia protecting the freedom of individual states. This is the pro-gun lobby's "ruse" to hang on to weapons that make them feel good, and er, nothing else.

    Alphaape - The number is closer to 300 million, and honestly speaking one Newtown in a lifetime is way too often. The guns need to go and yes it will be a huge task. If someone wants to rob me, I'm pretty sure that they will find the means even if guns aren't available. If the robber had a gun and lets say I did too - the chances of me winning now depend on how well trained I am and how much firepower he (or she) has. Not convinced of the odds of success frankly!

  • 0

    2020hindsights

    Although people banter around the term "assault rifle" a bit too casually, in truth you cannot buy an assault rifle in America without going through an extensive ATF investigation and spending $20,000+ (usually $40,000 or more) on a rare firearm.

    What makes a rifle an "assault" rifle? It must have a fire selector switch that can select between single shot, a three-round burst shot, or full-auto fire.

    Wrong. We aren't talking about assault rifles, but assault weapons that were banned in the US between 1994 and 2004.

    None of the civilian AR-15s have these features. Neither do any of the "scary-looking" battle rifles sold in gun shops.

    True. But they are assault weapons. That's what Obama wants to ban.

  • 0

    presto345

    For those who say that the USA is just a "shoot-em-up" society and a society based on violence, let me ask this question. If all guns are banned, that means that those who have bought them legally would have to turn them in. So are you telling me then that once guns are gone, the level of crime in the USA will go down, and we will no longer have cases of home invasions or armed robbery anymore in the USA or that somehow they will reduce. Since those who normally make their living outside of the law will probably not follow the rule and turn in their guns.

    So are you telling me, etc., crime in the USA will go down, etc. Answer: probably not, because there still is the mentality problem to deal with, and the fact that lethal weapons do not belong in the homes in a developed, civilized country which can protect its populace, or is supposed to, like in developed countries with strict gun control/prohibition in other parts of the world. Have a look at gun related shooting/killing statistics world wide and then come again.

  • 0

    HonestDictator

    Honestly its mostly the gun "enthusiasts" that are buying as many assault weapons as possible because they like shooting off their guns. No need for more than one or at the most 2 weapons in the home (for hunting or self defense), but these folks gotta have time to play with many different kinds of weapons.

    For the record, I've been alive over 30 years and have yet to need a gun to "protect" myself. Law enforcement seems to be doing a pretty decent job about that, plus I pay enough attention around myself to avoid unreasonable situations/areas.

  • 0

    Alphaape

    the fact that lethal weapons do not belong in the homes in a developed, civilized country which can protect its populace, or is supposed to, like in developed countries with strict gun control/prohibition in other parts of the world. Have a look at gun related shooting/killing statistics world wide and then come again.

    @ presto345: So according to you, I am just supposed to "hope" that the authorities will be there in time to protect me. Even in your statement you say that the government is "supposed to" be able to do that. So what does one do when they fail on their part? Just take it and get over it?

  • -1

    Suzu1

    in truth you cannot buy an assault rifle in America without going through an extensive ATF investigation

    Extensive ATF investigation? Other than submitting a photo and fingerprints, the clearance is based on the same criminal history check as ordinary firearms. It is not more stringent in what could disqualify you from the transfer.
    Historically, the term assault rifle was used to describe semi-automatic firearms with characteristics typically seen in miltary/law enforcement use - ability to accept large capacity magazine, folding stock, flash suppressor, threaded barrel, pistol grip, etc. Then when the 10 year ban was implemented in 1994, the pro-gun crowd started declaring that the ability to fire full auto was the only factor to call a firearm an assault weapon. They ignored the terminology used in the gun press itself for decades.

  • -2

    Noliving

    According to the 2nd amendment, Citizens don't have rights unless they are part of a well organised militia protecting the freedom of individual states.

    Then why did the supreme court state the opposite? That gun ownership is an individual right and that the owner does not need to be part of an organized or state militia and that the individual right is necessary in order to form an unorganized/non state militia?

  • -1

    Noliving

    Historically, the term assault rifle was used to describe semi-automatic firearms with characteristics typically seen in miltary/law enforcement use

    No historically the term assault rifle has been used to describe fully automatic rifles with a detachable magazine and one that fires an intermediate power cartridge. That is the official and historical definition of an assault rifle.

    Media and marketing has/have historically for the past 20 years or so have used the term incorrectly to refer to any semi-automatic rifle that looks the ones that are used by the military. The reason for that especially by marketers is because it wasn't a trademark. It was only when the Brady campaigned started using the term assault weapon back in early 90's did semi-automatics started being called "assault weapon" or assault rifles.

    Do you really honestly believe that Assault Rifle was a term used back in the 40, 50, 60's by the militaries and law enforcement around the world to refer to semi-automatic only rifles? Do you honestly believe that gun owners only started saying that fully automatic rifles were assault rifles and not semi-automatics after the 1994 assault weapon ban?

  • -1

    Suzu1

    Do you really honestly believe that Assault Rifle was a term used back in the 40, 50, 60's by the militaries and law enforcement around the world to refer to semi-automatic only rifles? Do you honestly believe that gun owners only started saying that fully automatic rifles were assault rifles and not semi-automatics after the 1994 assault weapon ban?

    Yes, I do. Because I've read the literature and have been a regular reader of Guns and Ammo, Shooting Times, Shotgun News, etc. It is similar to the term "automatic". Currently that is accepted as meaning full-auto. However, it used to be interchangeable with what is now called "semi-automatic". Spend some time with any old FFL and you will see that they recorded plenty of semi-automatic guns as "automatic". But now gun rights people go nuts if anyone dare refers to a semi-automatic rifle as an automatic rifle.

  • -1

    Noliving

    Yes, I do. Because I've read the literature and have been a regular reader of Guns and Ammo, Shooting Times, Shotgun News, etc. It is similar to the term "automatic". Currently that is accepted as meaning full-auto. However, it used to be interchangeable with what is now called "semi-automatic". Spend some time with any old FFL and you will see that they recorded plenty of semi-automatic guns as "automatic". But now gun rights people go nuts if anyone dare refers to a semi-automatic rifle as an automatic rifle.

    That doesn't address my point, you can call semi-automatic rifles an automatic but you need to make sure your audience understands the context, the average civilian believes that automatic means fully automatic, they don't realize that automatic can also refer to semi-automatic. Assault Rifle has always referred fully automatic/machine gun never semi-automatic only rifles.

    Show me a time when militaries and law enforcement stated that semi-automatic only rifles were assault rifles during the 40s. 50s, and 60s.

    By your own admission automatic back then only meant fully automatic/machine gun so when they called the gun back then an automatic it mean machine gun not semi-automatic only. So when they recorded those guns as automatic it meant and only meant fully automatic/machine gun back then. Due to the fact that automatic can now be used to refer to either one of them it is important to point out the differences.

    Why can't they go nuts? They know that when civilians hear automatic they only think machine gun not semi-automatic and as a result they want to ban guns they think are machine guns the problem is that due to their ignorance they are going to end up banning semi-automatic only firearms as well. Would you sit back and let the public ban something due to their ignorance and not put up a fight?

Login to leave a comment

OR
  • 海外営業事務

    海外営業事務
    株式会社セドナエンタープライズ、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥220,000 ~ ¥400,000 / Month Negotiable
  • African Speaking Sales manager

    African Speaking Sales manager
    JPC TRADE CO.,LTD. (株式会社JPC)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥200,000 ~ ¥450,000 / Month Negotiable Basic Salary + Incentives
  • Recruitment / HR Generalist

    Recruitment / HR Generalist
    Temple University, Japan Campus - テンプル大学ジャパンキャンパス、Tokyo
    Salary: Commensurate with experience plus transportation from/to TUJ
  • Program Assistant

    Program Assistant
    Temple University, Japan Campus - テンプル大学ジャパンキャンパス、Tokyo
    Salary: Commensurate with experience plus transportation from/to TUJ
  • Portuguese Speaking Sales Manager

    Portuguese Speaking Sales Manager
    Autocom Japan (オートコムジャパン株式会社)、Kanagawa
    Salary: ¥270,000 ~ ¥800,000 / Month Commission Based

More in World

View all

View all