you know, the boiling frog slowly. Besides, how do people who don't know anything about guns know anything about gun safety? Straw purchasing is already a federal crime. How about serious sentencing for those who get caught? Under the Gun Control Act, they can get ten years, but usually get probation. Same for trafficking. What that really is is a nice way of saying registration.
Since, statistically, CCW holders are more responsible and law abiding than cops, how well laws restricting carry in some areas going to prevent anything? CT had registration, "assault weapon" ban, stealing a gun is still a federal crime, taking one to a school is still a crime, as is carry without a permit in CT, and that is before we get to murder. Yet Lanza violated all of these.
BTW, why won't MDA's research director openly debate opponents on CSPAN? He didn't have the guts to take on John Lott of all people.

And the only reason you're not on full ignore is that you're so predictable and entertaining.

Hate for the sake of hating, fear for the sake of fearing and ignorance for the sake of ignorance.

and your lack of a valid reply tells a lot. I never said I had moles. But if I did, they would be smart enough not to advertise that fact.

Is he wrong? Why or why not?

craniums of the regulars, but:

There is nothing anywhere in any of the anti violence organization's literature about confiscation. To claim otherwise is pure NRA gun nuttery. Restrictions that might reduce the amount of violence, yes, but confiscation no.

Straw purchasing is almost impossible to convict. The buyer just says they lost the gun or it was stolen and it's he said he said. Regulations like mandatory reporting of stolen guns and limits on guns/month make straw purchasing and trafficking much more difficult. Care to support either of those?

As for Lanza and Sandy Hook, I'll willingly give you the 20 children slaughtered there if the likes of Dylann Roof could be taken out of the gun culture. No one law will prevent all gun violence just as no speed limit sign will prevent speeding but I like traffic laws because my commute to work is exciting enough as is.

Why won't MDA debate Lott? Why the fuck did I post here thinking that there might be some reasonable response to people trying to reduce gun violence?

Clearly it was a mistake on my part.

Now we can have a discussion, at least for a while. (Apologies for the delay, by the way)

of the 30,000+ deaths and 100,000+ injuries a year. I am willing to ignore the mass shootings in favor of curtailing the daily slaughter of one victim at a time.

What you referred to as a hardware problem is really a people issue i.e. wrong people having access to the hardware. Fixing that problem can be done but opposition to even the simplest proposals is, at this point, impossible to overcome as evidenced by the other responses to this post.

Have they suddenly decided they don't want to ban and ultimately confiscate those? Because MDA/Bloomberg have long advocated banning such, even though rifles are the least misused class of weapon in the nation.

was a call to ban the most popular civilian rifles in the United States.


http://momsdemandaction.org/tag/assault-weapons/

They're also on record as supporting a ban on common 11 to 30 round magazines, yes?

Pretty much every proposed "assault weapon" ban that I've seen introduced in the last twenty years has been confiscatory, either immediately or upon the death of the owner. Never mind the fact that rifles account for less than 300 murders annually, or that rifles are underrepresented in suicides, or that altering stock shape or mandating pre-Civil-War magazine capacities won't save any lives whatsoever.

Also, I seem to recall they are pretty aggressive about attacking concealed carry by licensed non-LEO's, even though we have a much lower homicide rate than even LEO's do, never mind the population at large. It seems to me that whatever the opinions expressed at local meetings may be, the priority of the national leadership is to go after lawful gun enthusiasts, not violent criminals or the mentally ill, and many of their legislative proposals reflect that.

So there. If AR 15s are sooooo precious to you don't contribute. If, on the other hand saving lives makes a difference to you . . .

Why are they going by the least used weapons and magazines?

If it is really to save lives like you say, they should go after hand guns and standard low capacity magazines.

I guess that means you agree with no AWB or magazine size limits. I do not think you do though.

you suggested that an AR-15 bad would save lives, yet now an "AWB is a waste of time."

Yes, an assault weapons ban is one of the items on their long term agenda and I don't care. So there. If AR 15s are sooooo precious to you don't contribute. If, on the other hand saving lives makes a difference to you . . .

Fixing that problem can be done but opposition to even the simplest proposals is, at this point, impossible to overcome as evidenced by the other responses to this post.

one way or the other. I simply don't care.

I should not have come here. There are only gun crazy necroguniacs (with rare exception) here.

in the firearms debate, and use them as a model for "gun safety," I don't know why you're surprised that the actual positions of the organization are discussed, no less compared to other organizations or campaigns that make the same claims (e.g., Eddie Eagle) that don't have the explicit "gun control" and banning baggage.

I would suggest simply starting a thread about what actual gun safety or other measures you personally advocate, what gun control lines you would not cross in pursuit of those goals, how you would convince people of the merit and legality of those measures, and strategies to pass them into law.

You might be surprised that many here, definitely including myself (a non-gun owner and NYC lawyer), would be in agreement.

For instance, I personally would support means to provide or lessen the cost of gun locks and safes, reasonable training requirements for carry permits, universal background checks without registration lists, coordination and improvement of NICS data acquisition and distribution, limitations on open carry if "shall issue" concealed carry is available, harsher sentences of those convicted of crimes involving firearms, funding and resources to pursue straw purchases and failed background checks, and even government support for "smart guns" so long as restrictive laws like NJ are repealed.

You said it very well, thank you

I welcome debate with him (or her?) on the firearms issue or any other.

Unlike a number of other posters (particularly those who actually host or regularly post in GCRA), at least he has the courage and intellectual honesty to engage in actual discussions, rather then just Google news dump, kick their own posts, or engage in forum necromancy to resurrect old threads, generally without offering a single original or personal thought on a topic they claim is of the utmost importance.

If MDA is fighting to legislate rifle stock shape, then it has nothing whatsoever to do with "saving lives", and everything to do with sticking it to lawful gun owners.

You can't simultaneously claim that they aren't out to ban people's guns, and that they want to ban AR-15's and other popular rifles. And you can't claim that their focus is "saving lives" if one of their top legislative priorities is banning guns involved in fewer than 250 murders annually out of 12,000. They're after competitive shooting, recreational shooting, and the enthusiast culture, and that focus proves it.

And why would they stop there? If MDA is after centerfire .22's and slow .30's used in fewer than 200 murders annually, then why should owners of handguns or pump-action shotguns trust them?

parents about the Childsafe project and other aspects of gun safety in the home. Is that somehow a bad idea? Why are you so belligerent towards a group of people who want to reduce gun violence through education, simple background checks and enforceable anti-trafficking regulations?

that would really surprise me as all of the firearms manufacturers, retail sellers and gun rights organizations are the supporters of that project.
http://www.projectchildsafe.org/supporter-orgs


Bloomberg and his astroturf "gun safety" organization are not.

However I did mention the project to the organizers and they are open and eager to include it in any presentations we may be invited to offer.

We are interested in preventing gun violence in any way and with any tools available.

Why are you so belligerent to people who only want to prevent death and injury? Why hate so much?

I would just prefer that people advocate for things that would actually help and not feel good bull.

Good luck to you and I hope they do include it.

opinion of all things MDA or Everytown regardless of how or why they are mentioned.

MDA is trying to de-escalate the conversation and is educating it's members in how to phrase things so as not to build walls of animosity and actually have a conversation. Any chance you could take part in that?

We do not want to take the guns away. We do not want to repeal the 2nd amendment. We want to reduce the 30,000+ deaths and 100,000+ injuries that cost our society $230 Billion a year.

Surely there are people that we can agree should not have guns but get them anyway. Instead of shutting down and giving up why don't we, you and me, talk about why those people still get guns and how we might change things to make it more difficult for them? Instead of blustering about 'good guys with guns' why not work at reducing the number of bad guys with guns?

MDA trying to de-escalate, that is why their own talking points state to use emotions and every tragedy to push their points.

Not to mention the leader has been caught on video advocating taking weapons from all.

Focusing on mental health issues we are told is just an NRA talking point.

Bloomberg can't spend any of his billions on gun locks, gun safes or actual gun safety?

Let's strictly enforce existing laws, oops another NRA talking point.

The call for another AWB just kills any support you might get as us firearms owners know it is a cosmetic feel good measure that will do absolutely nothing. But keep pushing for it. Same with magazine limits, I like max of 20 but that is not good enough for you guys, it must be your way with no compromise, am I right?

only you want it your way with no compromise. So yes from you, it must be no as I am willing to compromise and hope to actually lower gun fatalities.

That is where i learned of Childsafe.

I, figuratively, offered my hand to you. You responded with more vitriol.

The history of your posts and the unrelenting attacks on any opposition speak or themselves.

I should have known better . . .

...and is conspicuously not on the list of organizations supporting
Project ChildSafe:

http://www.projectchildsafe.org/supporter-orgs

There is also no small amount of truthiness about the number of people alleged
to have taken their 'GunSense IQ' quiz- 90% of them seem to have vanished:

http://besmartforkids.org/take-the-quiz/


And given the demonstrable mendacity of certain MDA supporters here at DU...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175182

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175190

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175361

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175383

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175378



http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175450

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175457


...I'd say he is very wise to be that way.

Teaching young teens gun education and gun education is needed in public schools.

PTeens need to know how guns work so if they come upon them, they know how to disarm them.

If only I had read your safety list before I went to church.

Signed,

Dylan Roof

that claims they will hand out gun locks. In the day after it was launched their counter claimed ~15,000 people took the quiz and one lock would be donated for each quiz. That number varied up and down by a few thousand for a month or so. Now it is at 1,500 give or take a couple hundred.

Perhaps the OP can provide an update as to the 90% reduction and where these locks may eventually be distributed.

that is a sham and they have been caught

as those who demand abstinence care about "safe sex."

The vast majority of these organizations and their members want de jure or de facto gun bans, or incremental laws to ultimately achieve such ends (e.g., end "gun culture," become like Australia or the UK, the 2A is only a "collective right," etc.). The only reason why "gun safety" is their new catchphrase is because "gun control" has been proven time and again to be a great big political loser.

Nevertheless, I certainly do not oppose citizens exercising their constitutional rights to seek changes in the law or public opinion or even voluntarily giving up their own firearms. Similarly, for the minority who actually owns gun or really don't seek effective bans, I would encourage and approve the safe handling and storage of firearms.

We need to as a party fight to maintain our 2A rights, because lives are at stake.

I like to see people taking action on issues that they believe in.

I would prefer that you chose a group less effective at getting Democrats voted out of office but the best hope for change is from within.

The other night, some MDA "propaganda" was found left of cars in the parking lot one county over after "Open House" it caused quite a stir here locally..

So much so that the principal sent this out the next day...

I did not authorize the distribution of the fliers that people found on their vehicles last night and I would never approve a request to distribute such literature. Unfortunately, we cannot patrol our parking lots at all times and somebody did this without our approval or knowledge. Many at the faculty, including myself, were as displeased as you were to find this flier on their vehicle.

will be able to speak for them though.

The basic steps to secure weapons (from children or thieves) ain't rocket surgery, and it annoys the crap out of me when I read of an incident that could easily have been prevented with such steps.

I've been advocating recently for far better enforcement of the laws against straw purchases and illegal "street sales" to persons known by the seller to be prohibited. The problem isn't lack of such laws, it's actual enforcement. I realize these aren't crimes that can often be proactively enforced (we're not that much of a surveillance state yet), but when violations are discovered in the investigation of other crimes, violators need to have the book thrown at them. It's a serious offense that often results in a terrible outcome.

I was going to say the same but you did a better job.

Gun security / safety is always a good thing. No matter what group it is.

and his grandmother shopped for a shotgun, he selected it and left the store while she filled out paperwork and made the purchase. A few hours later he shot his eight year old son and then himself. Criminal charges were brought against both grandmother and store owner and neither charge stuck. The felon's widow sued the gun store and it took ten years to escalate the case to the Kansas Supreme Court where it was ruled that the store knew or should have known that it was a straw purchase and awarded $137,000 in damages to the widow, a small fraction of the legal costs.

There are things that can be done to make both straw purchase and trafficking more difficult. Requiring immediate reporting of lost or stolen guns to the police makes it difficult to pass guns to prohibited persons as well as giving law enforcement a tool for prosecution if/when the gun shows up in a relative's/SOs hands and limits on gun purchases/month make it difficult to buy enough guns to make trafficking worthwhile.

Neither violate any part of the 2nd Amendment and at worst are a minor inconvenience to legitimate gun owners.

fruit loops once they get to talking. I think you did a good thing bringing up Project ChildSafe, but I doubt Bloomberg HQ would approve of any public support from MDA for the project on any public forum including local outreach or social media. Why? Because you don't need gun locks f you don't have guns...and that is their ultimate goal. Always remember, "#meltthemdown."

would oppose a gun safety resource regardless of who sponsors it?

"Deeds not words"

It's easy to talk about gun safety, but what have any of Bloomberg's groups actually done to support safer gun storage, safe handling or anything besides the "don't have a gun" rhetoric?

He's been at this for about a decade now and maybe they have and I missed it. But he's spent millions of $ on political and advocacy campaigns for legislation, but I haven't seen anything about locks, safety classes or such.

Eddie Eagle is not a safety program it is a thinly disguised marketing program patterned after the tobacco industry's marketing. It markets to both parents (introduce your kids to guns early) and to children with the Joe Camel type character.

It is like Everytown volunteering to help advertise ammunition if the company just adds this disclaimer:



Ya' think RWS would welcome that ad co-op program?

but rather the end of gun ownership and "culture."

If the primary solution to "gun safety" is less or no guns, you belong to a gun control or banning group. You can call it whatever you like, and spin to your heart's content, but the actions and preferred outcomes are transparent, at least by a clear majority of the group's members. In fact, prior to recent judicial and electoral losses and gun rights polling trends, groups and individuals seeking to limit the number of guns in the country and who owns them were quite proud of the gun control label, including most of the new "gun safety" Democrats in Congress.

I no more view most gun control groups as "gun safety" organizations, than I view religious groups demanding abstinence as "safe sex" advocates, those opposing same-sex marriage as concerned about "family values, or groups demanding a border wall and mass deportations as concerned with "migrant safety."

If cigarettes are your marketing comparison, I would note that there is no "safe" way to smoke cigarettes, and "safety" is little more than code for bans or severe restrictions on access and use. The Joe Camel of yesteryear is not the Eddie Eagle of today, at least to most people who actually own, no less safely grew-up, with firearms.

However, it doesn't really matter. As I stated earlier, you are more than entitled to support any group, regardless of whether they truly advocate for "gun safety" without real objection to firearm ownership, if they want to repeal the Second Amendment and forcibly confiscate every gun in the country, and everything and anything in-between.

People are similarly entitled to view the organization however they wish. However, it's not lost on anyone following culture war battles like firearm rights that the same people calling for "gun safety" not too long ago were proud "gun control" advocates, including most of the purported new "gun safety" legislators in Congress.

I encourage you (and everyone else) to peacefully participate in the political process and advocate your chosen position concerning gun rights, culture and behavior. It is your right and arguably your responsibility.

While you and I apparently share different views and perceptions concerning firearms rights, as a rule, I do not seek to silence my opponents. However, if groups like MDA, Brady, Bloomberg, and the like are the vanguard of "gun safety," I doubt gun ownership will become much safer, and similarly believe that current trends supporting gun ownership and rights will continue.

branford, to FL: It appears that you would willingly accept or ignore the banning or effective confiscation of many millions of the most popular rile {rifle, ar15} in the country (no less all other "assault weapons&quot ,

That is misleading. Like saying the 22 pistol is the most popular pistol to commit suicide with. By PLURALITY the 22 is used more often than other particular caliber guns, but in actuality bullet calibers larger than 22 are used far more often to commit suicide, like around 80%+.
Similarly, saying the ar15 is the 'most popular' rifle in America is by plurality, iow likely 85% - 95% of OTHER rifles are more sought after than the bushmaster ar15.
And how or why is the ar15 popular? by sales? killing/incap ability, stopping power? by individual ownership? by multiple ownership by assault rifle afficiandos? by being a twin brother of an erstwhile 'popular' military rifle m16? under what standard is this ar15 called 'most popular'? I doubt home defense, as much against it as for it, even in gun magazines (readable types).

Branford: when all rifles represent a minuscule fraction of firearm crime and accidents

The predominance of gun control advocates have little grief when speaking of conventional rifles, whether bolt action or even most all semi-auto rifles, since they've been a staple for home defense & hunting for decades, and cannot be carried concealed except with difficulty; it is the assault rifle which causes the grief.
The TERM assault rifle has come to mean & imply a rifle previously designed for a battlefield, which had automatic capabilities, & which generally can be converted back to full automatic. The ar15 has such little recoil it can be accurately aimed for multiple shots without incurring 'rifle rise' which offsets the shooter's accuracy causing him to have to resettle the rifle & re-aim. The ar15 in semi-auto mode is more a killing machine than one in full automatic, unless you're in a packed stadium sardine can.

Branford: "Simple" proposals are like "common sense" solutions. The terms are entirely subjective and meaningless.

Right out of the nra playbook. People understand what 'common sense' means & implies. It's understandable to me why Branford has difficulty comprehending its meaning.

Branford: A "simple" solution could be the repeal of the Second Amendment, outlawing all firearms, and declaring martial law.

Branford considers his suggestion above 'simple'. Quite the opposite, it's quite complex, would take several acts of congress.

The "popularity" of the AR-15 platform, for whatever reason, is important, if totally not dispositive, in the context of regulation in light of the Heller and McDonald decisions. Whether you or others don't like or agree with the decisions (or reasons for the popularity of certain firearms) is irrelevant as these holdings are in fact the law of the land (just like Roe and its progeny are law despite the disagreement of pro-life advocates).

Arguing about what is truly "simple" or "common sense" is meaningless, depends entirely on personal perspective, and adds little to any political discussion. Simply state a position, defend its legality, and suggest a plausible means of enacting it into law or changing cultural norms. Everyone supports "common sense" and simplicity in the abstract, but debates involve actual policy proposals.

Lastly, I fail to understand why you are arguing about the definition of "assault rifle," as they are usually readily recognized, full-automatic, military combat arms that are already heavily restricted under the NFA. I assume you've either made a mistake or are attempting to conflate the term with "assault weapons," an actual subject of current firearms debate, in order to imply they are the same thing, a common, transparent and disingenuous (and unsuccessful) gun control strategy.

There simply is no recognized universal definition for "assault weapon," and most statutes define the term using components and accessories that have no bearing to the lethality of firearms (e.g., adjustable stocks, bayonet lugs, vertical hand grips, barrel shrouds, muzzle brakes, etc.). Your claim that these popular, widely-owned guns can be easily converted to fully automatic is ludicrous, and belied by the statistics that show virtually none of these weapons are used in crime, converted or otherwise.

Your further attempt to define "assault weapons" and/or "assault rifle" as just "previously designed for the battlefield" as a basis for regulation is similarly absurd. Virtually all weapons have some military "pedigree," although civilian arms are either demonstrably different from those on the battlefield (AR-15 vs. M16), or simply represent older, more widely distributed and effective basic technologies. Under your standard, everything from Revolutionary War muskets and your cited bolt-action rifles would be restricted. Your definition swallows the entire Second Amendment, and it's the reason why it's not the basis for most statutory restrictions, has no real popular support, and the proposed federal "assault weapons ban" after Sandy Hook couldn't even muster 50 votes when the Democrats controlled the Senate.

beevul: Theres a thread of similar fact-denialist whargarble from our friend here:

Oh yeah! memory lane! I remember that thread too, it was where you contradicted irongate:

beevul: Nobody here argues that conversions can't be done.
IRONGATE: .. no semi auto rifle made after 1986 is easily converted or generally capable of being converted, ATF has made sure of that, and the so called conversion kits? Those are tightly regulated by the ATF..

,"in my 12 years within the unit, and that's over 50,000 I would say, and these include ones from the hardcore gangs and the drug dealers, our unit has never, ever had one ak47 converted, one Ruger Mini 14 converted, an H&K 8193...never converted, an AR180 never converted, so this media blitz of these military style assault weapons being converted to fully automatic is not true."

You proved nothing to refute; I have not contended ar15s or aks were converted back en masse, I only said that they could be, and I have also posted that 98%+ of assault rifle owners would not want to do that. Indeed it would utterly foolish for a 'normal' criminal to convert to full auto, would be ridiculous. Only a large scale mass shooter would want to.....

branford: The "popularity" of the AR-15 platform, for whatever reason, is important, if totally not dispositive, in the context of regulation in light of the Heller and McDonald decisions. Whether you or others don't like or agree with the decisions is irrelevant as these holdings are in fact the law of the land

You must've given heller a skim through, missing scalia writing this: Like most rights, the {2ndA} right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Note: AR15's are not in common use, despite their pseudo 'popularity'; they are in limited use by a small fraction of americans &/or largely far right gun owners who trump up their value; they are best kept in safes due their higher price, predominantly being an upper class white man's toy, where they cannot be so easily stolen, & are best not carried in city or town streets due the alarm caused.

Lawrence Tribe: “Heller recognized that dangerous or unusual weapons may be and have historically been heavily regulated or banned,” Tribe’s testimony runs. “It is not inconceivable – indeed, it seems quite likely – that the court‘s pause to distinguish unusually dangerous weapons from widely possessed handguns had precisely the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which included a prohibition on high-capacity magazines, in mind. At the very least, the Heller majority recognized that the govt could keep machine guns —M-16 rifles and the like—out of the hands of civilians. The Supreme Court thus emphatically rejected the extravagant, or as Justice Scalia characterized it, startling notion, still promoted by some, that the Second Amendment could fulfill its original purposes only if citizens were guaranteed a right to arm themselves to the teeth, matching in their private armories essentially the full array of weapons possessed by the United States Military.”

Yes Lawrence, some gun enthusiasts want to enjoy all the benefits of possessing many of the more potent military style firearms, without having to serve one single day in any military force, whether army marines navy or well regulated militia.

tribe, cont'd: Even more important to the constitutionality of the assault weapons ban is the absence of any connection to the core {2ndA} right to defend oneself with a firearm. At this committee‘s hearing .. , several witnesses criticized the assault weapons ban on policy grounds, but in my role as a constitutional lawyer listening intently for arguments relevant to the proposal‘s {2ndA} propriety, I was struck by the failure of anyone‘s testimony to support these features as essential to self-defense. In fact, I have searched in vain for any reasoned arguments that pistol grips, forward grips, telescoping stocks, grenade or rocket launchers, and barrel shrouds are indispensable or even contribute to self-defense. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/30/can-the-government-ban-assault-weapons-constitutional-experts-weigh-in/

...occurs when a speakers' ego becomes so massive that they believe their every utterance
is axiomatic. They become entirely incapable of understanding that no, their listeners
will not automatically accept their words as one with those handed down from Mount Sinai
graven upon tablets of stone.

One of the few posters banned from this group is long notorious for just
such a thing, and persists in such behavior in other forums yea, unto this very month.

In short: Prove it. No one here gets to have their claims accepted automatically.

As an example, I give...

icon: One of the problems with near-Trumpian levels of self regard, James.....occurs when a speakers' ego becomes so massive that they believe their every utterance is axiomatic. They become entirely incapable of understanding that no, their listeners will not automatically accept their words as one with those handed down from Mount Sinai graven upon tablets of stone.

Gasp. Icon. You throwing beevul under the bus?

I wrote: AR15's are not in common use, despite their pseudo 'popularity'
Icon replied: Prove it. No one here gets to have their claims accepted automatically.

Only ~5% of gun owners own one (if that due multiple ownership), only about 1% of americans own one. You call that 'popular'? popular amongst far rightwing gun owners. 4 million ar15s out of 300 million guns in America.
What are they 'commonly' used for? target shooting seems to be the common theme, surely infrequently by a tiny portion of gun owners; you rarely hear of them being used for righteous purpose or dgu, moreso for mass shootings or prancing around town exercising the open carry rkba. They are not in common use, they are upper class white man's toys & status symbols.

icon: The mere word of the Stuart heir will not suffice as evidence, not when numerous writers and sources have nearly unanimously proclaimed the very opposite to be true.

Numerous writers and sources have NEARLY unanimously proclaimed the very opposite to be true? you cite some obscure segment of writers by using 'numerous' and you concede that not all of them even believe in your premise. Sentence structure needs work. 'numerous writers .... nearly unanimously'. Ha.
Practice what you preach icon, PROVE IT, that ar15s are in common use. For what?

PS: I'm not a pretender to the throne.

icon: You made the original assertion, you prove it. And your opinion of their suitability is irrelevant

Observe readers the sleight of hand employed by icon, ducking the question by making it seem I had reneged.
I was not contending you icon had to prove my assertion, I was contending you prove YOUR OWN ASSERTION, duh.
Which was when you wrote this:

icon: .. numerous writers and sources have nearly unanimously proclaimed the very opposite to be true.

Prove this by citing 'numerous writers & sources' who proclaim that ar15s are in common use. They are not. They are not used frequently in defensive gun uses, they are not used in any positive manner daily to outweigh their illegal or illicit shootings or potential at mass shootings. They may be used in an innocuous fashion to target shoot, but that is by a tiny fraction of gun owners (less than 5%, likely less than 1% imo).
Cars are in common use. Handguns are in common use. Bicycles are in common use. AR15s are NOT in common use. Stop with the hocus pocus icon.

icon: You made the original assertion, you prove it

I previously presented the argument below, you miss it?:
... Only ~5% of gun owners own one (if that due multiple ownership), only about 1% of americans own one. You call that 'popular'? popular amongst far rightwing gun owners. 4 million ar15s out of 300 million guns in America.
What are they 'commonly' used for? target shooting seems to be the common theme, surely infrequently by a tiny portion of gun owners; you rarely hear of them being used for righteous purpose or dgu, moreso for mass shootings or prancing around town exercising the open carry rkba. They are not in common use, they are upper class white man's toys & status symbols.

And it *is* moral panic-mongering and cultural warfare on our interlocutors' part
note the way he talks about AR15 owners

Nor are they especially dangerous

...election by the College of Cardinals.

your link: And due to the way the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms regulates AR-15s, the rifle’s configuration is easy to change. The ATF considers the lower receiver of the AR-15 to be the actual licensed firearm; most everything else is considered to be just parts. Given the rapid disassembly of the AR-15, owners can swap upper receivers quickly to suit their needs.

Today’s tricked out AR-15s also appeal to gun enthusiasts who want to use what the professional use. ARs are the rifle of choice for special operations units, police SWAT teams, competitive shooters; that elite caché has influence on what guns are bought by the general public.

Says it in a nutshell; aside from target shooting's minimal involvement (imo) most all ar15 rifle owners want to own military style rifles without having to ever serve a single day in the military or well reg'd militia. Some kind of elan', status symbol for upper class white men, like owning a porsche.

The AR-15’s immense popularity has thrust it to the forefront of the American gun control debate. The rifle was a target for the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and several states specifically mention it by name in their own assault weapon laws. Legislators focused on the cosmetic features of semi-auto rifles like the AR-15..

Immense popularity? amongst far right wing gun owners mainly. Most all gun owners would not want to own an ar15, and I mean nearly 99% of americans do not own one, & about 95% of gun owners do not. Its alleged popularity stems from a plurality strength, as I've said.

The AR-15 is perhaps the most ubiquitous firearm in American culture. The so-called “little black rifle” has become one of the most popular guns in civilian hands with an estimated four million AR-family rifles in circulation in the US, according to statistics gathered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
http://taskandpurpose.com/heres-ar-15-grew-become-americas-favorite-firearm/

different link: The AR-15 is at the heart of the gun control debate. The civilian version of the M16, it's the most popular rifle in the country, with some 4 million in the hands of gun owners and a wildly passionate fan base. Its use in the mass shootings in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo., thrust the AR-15 into the national spotlight.

just what we need in communities: .... "The AR-15 is, essentially, a gun that was designed to inflict maximum casualties, death, and injury, in close to medium range. That's what it does," said gun control advocate and former NRA member Tom Diaz. "The real problem is that we allow that kind of firepower to come into a theater or into a first-grade class."

NSSF contradicting Diaz above with blitherdom: "It's a question of cosmetics. It's not a question of functioning," said.. president of the National Sports Shooting Foundation. "The rifles are sane, safe, reliable types of firearms used by millions of citizens for lawful purposes. They are not just killing machines." http://www.cnbc.com/id/100673826

Out of an average of 45 shooters on the line at each match, I am the only one not shooting a AR based rifle. We schedule two matches at each meeting in order to let all of those who want to shoot an opportunity.

That makes 90 AR based rifles, and one lonely M1Garand.

Not all of the shooters compete every month, but the range is full at every match.

So any media references or personal observations *not* made by them will
be rejected as invalid

"AR's aren't in common use" might have been mostly true in 1989, when AR's were less common than Mini-14's and SKS's. It certainly isn't true now, and pretending otherwise only hurts your cause.

FWIW, I took my AR to the range Saturday, which was about 75% full. On the rifle side, I think every rifle but two were AR's or civilian AK's; the two that weren't were a pair of lever-actions. Yeah, AR's are popular.

I spent a couple of hours shooting paper and clay-bird fragments at 100 to 210 yards. Once I get it dialed in, I want to head to the other range near me and try various loads at 500, but that's for another day.

Have *you* shot a rifle range lately? Or to a sanctioned rifle competition?

"I have searched in vain for any reasoned arguments that pistol grips, forward grips, telescoping stocks, grenade or rocket launchers, and barrel shrouds are indispensable or even contribute to self-defense."

...if we could ban ARs, 285 people might still be alive.

What a major brain fart.

Branford: .. I fail to understand why you are arguing about the definition of "assault rifle," as they are usually readily recognized, full-automatic, military combat arms that are already heavily restricted under the NFA. I assume you've either made a mistake or are attempting to conflate the term with "assault weapons,"..

No mistake on my part, the several mistakes in your post are all entirely yours. You operate from 4 false premises; first, I did not provide any definition of 'assault rifle' - I clearly, in CAPITAL LETTERS, described what the TERM assault rifle has become:

I had written, +emph: The TERM assault rifle has come to mean & imply a rifle previously designed for a battlefield, which had automatic capabilities, & which generally can be converted back to full automatic.

Branford: Your claim that these popular, widely-owned guns can be easily converted to fully automatic is ludicrous, and belied by the statistics that show virtually none of these weapons are used in crime, converted or otherwise.

See readers? false premise #2 from Branford, since I did not say these rifles could be EASILY converted to full automatic, I just said that they generally could be - sometimes indeed done with difficulty. 98%+ of 'assault rifle' owners would not even want to convert them to full auto, it's just that the capability is there & it is inter alia what defines the TERM assault rifle.
Go ahead Branford, point out exactly where I said or implied that they could be EASILY converted.

branford: Your further attempt to define "assault weapons" and/or "assault rifle" as just "previously designed for the battlefield" as a basis for regulation is similarly absurd. Virtually all weapons have some military "pedigree

Branford misrepresents me again, creating another false premise #3; read again what I had written Branford: The TERM assault rifle has come to mean & imply a rifle previously designed for a battlefield, which had automatic capabilities, & which generally can be converted back to full automatic.

Not all 'military pedigree' weapons (re small arms) have automatic capabilities, mainly those which are termed 'assault rifles'.

Branford: Under your standard, everything from Revolutionary War muskets and your cited bolt-action rifles would be restricted.

No Branford, that would only be under your perversion of what I had written, since the musket & conventional rifles are not automatics/capable. Another of Branford's famous false premises #4.
I will ask you to stop twisting about what I write & putting your insulting words in my mouth, or sd&su. It actually makes you a liar several times over in your one post, you need to at least retract, tho I doubt a warranted apology will be forthcoming.

Branford: .. the proposed federal "assault weapons ban" after Sandy Hook couldn't even muster 50 votes when the Democrats controlled the Senate.

Despite being wanted by ~55% of the American people, accd'g to several reputable polls.

And what percentage of that 55% stems from the *intentional* conflation of non-automatic Title 1 civilian rifles with NFA Title 2 restricted automatic weapons in gun control literature and the corporate media? Or the lurid portrayal of "semiautomatic" as referring to unusually rapid-firing weapons, as opposed to simply the way the vast majority of civilian guns work? Or the intentional misleading of the public as to the magnitude of rifle homicide vs. shotgun, handgun, knife, club, and fist/feet homicide?

There are probably ten times as many AR-15 owners alone in this country than there are members of all gun control organizations combined...and that's not counting the millions more owners of SKS's, civilian AK's, Mini-14's, M1A's, M1 Garands, and other popular "assault weapons", or the millions and millions who own over-10-round Smith & Wessons, Glocks, Sigs, Rugers, Springfields, and heck, even Winchesters going back to the fricking 1860s.

The gun control lobby's irrational obsession with modern-looking rifles and their magazines---and obsession is what it is, since rifle homicide has been rare and falling for decades---has been its downfall. Gun control advocates faithfully recite the anti-"assault weapon" catechism and condemn their sinful sinning owners every chance they get, even when so doing wrecks policies that actually might otherwise have some common ground (like UBC's).

ezra: Or the lurid portrayal of "semiautomatic" as referring to unusually rapid-firing weapons, as opposed to simply the way the vast majority of civilian guns work?

The ar15 does not work "the way the vast majority of civilian guns work" - it's quite peculiar, & generally more effectively lethal.
I doubt there's a vast majority of semi-autos over nat gunstock of revolvers, sgs, et al.. Growing tho.

ezra: The gun control lobby's irrational obsession with modern-looking rifles and their magazines---and obsession is what it is .. ---has been its downfall.

If that's been the gun control lobby's 'downfall', why has the public kept up majority support for banning or proscribing assault rifles & hi-cap mags? if not majority, parity; it seems to have plateaued out recently to parity, which is a push.

"As you may know, Starbucks is asking customers to not bring guns into its stores. Do you think that is a good idea or a bad idea?" Good idea Bad idea Unsure 9/13 66 23 11

pew: ".. "A ban on assault-style weapons" Favor Oppose Unsure/Refused
7/15 57 40 3 5/13 54 42 4 2/13 56 41 3 1/13 55 40

cbs "Do you favor or oppose a nationwide ban on semi-automatic weapons -- including some rifles, pistols, and shotguns -- that have detachable magazines, allowing them to rapidly fire a high number of rounds?"
Favor Oppose Unsure/No ans
4/13 50 47 3 Republicans 41 56 2 Democrats 65 32 3 Ind 44 52 4
2/13 52 44 5 Republicans 28 67 5 Democrats 72 25 4 Ind 49 46 5

fox: "Banning assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons" 1/13 ... 54 favor ...42 .....3
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

cbs Would you favor or oppose a nationwide ban on the sale of high-capacity magazines that hold many rounds of ammunition?" Favor Oppose Unsure/No ans 2/13 59 38 3 Repubs 37 60 3 Dem 78 21 1 Ind 57 38 4

Quinn: "If a member of Congress who represents your district were to vote for a ban on the sale of assault weapons, would you be more likely to vote for that person, less likely to vote for that person, or wouldn't it make a difference?"
More likely Less likely No diff Unsure
ALL 37 31 30 3 Repub 19 48 29 4 Dem 61 11 26 2 Ind 30 33 34 2

That's exactly how 75% of civilian firearms sold annually work---you pull the trigger, they fire once and only once, and use some of the energy to reload the chamber.

The AR is unique in its modularity and accuracy, although other designs are catching up. It is not unique in its velocity (it's slower than a .270 or a .243, never mind a .22-250), or its power (compare .243 and .270, never mind fast .30's), rate of fire (same as any other civilian semiauto, one shot per trigger pull), or its terminal ballistics (same as any other centerfire rifle starting with a ".2&quot .

As to semiauto prevalence, if you look through the BATFE annual sales figures, about 75% of civilian firearms sold annually are semiautomatic, and this has been true since at least the 1980s.

The overwhelming majority of handguns have been semiauto since the early 1980s, both centerfire and rimfire. Revolvers were "old school" even when I was a teenager; I'm 44 now, and learned to shoot exclusively on semiautos owned by my parents. Most popular .22LR's are semiauto (Marlin Model 60, Ruger 10/22, Remington 597...heck, a 1966 Remington Nylon 66 semiauto was my first gun, handed down from my great-uncle to my dad to me). Bolt rifles still hold a majority of deer hunting, but only because they are the best way to pack >200% of an AR's power into a package that weighs less than an AR, and deer hunters are a small minority of gun owners.

"If that's been the gun control lobby's 'downfall', why has the public kept up majority support for banning or proscribing assault rifles & hi-cap mags? if not majority, parity; it seems to have plateaued out recently to parity, which is a push. "

All I got from that is:

*AR-style rifles are scary, and should be banned for reasons that are not exactly made clear

*There is supposedly a "NRA playbook" out there somewhere, which for some strange
reason no one can actually quote. Apparently 'neuralyzers'...

ref: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119654/?ref_=nv_sr_1

..are real, and the NRA uses them on people who read The Protocols of The Elders of
The National Rifle Associa...err, the NRA playbook

*Certain gormless posters still use logical fallacies, not realizing that the rest of us
didn't just fall off the turnip truck:

https://www.google.com/search?q=appeal+to+common+sense&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

I've worked in marketing for over 40 years and there's not a damn "promotional" thing in it.

"Stop, Don't touch, Leave the room, Tell an adult"; repeated ad nauseum and illustrated with cartoons of children doing what the words say. IIRC, the only gun shown is an old style shotgun found in an attic.

It's available publicly and I'd love to see someone point out the promotional aspects of that.

Perhaps you can share some of the child safety materials distributed by Brady or MDA, that isn't thinly disguised propaganda?

I am sure the OP will be right back with some!

Gun safety organizations my ass

for children?

Or is analogous to the abstinence only crowd's belief on sex-ed. That any program that provides education will lead to kids having sex?

Thank you for pointing out, unintentionally, why we can't trust you or the orgs you stump for:

So you admit you have no first-hand knowledge and let others tell you what to think.

It has some 40 responses and no one wanted to lock it for violation of SOP. As similar thread on NRA gun safety training was locked in about 6 responses. I don't understand.

By the way, what gun safety programs does MDA support or produce?

Serious question. Or the reciprocal what is currently unreasonable about where firearms may be carried lawfully?

You do have to realize that word "reasonable" is a worthless term. For some people everything up to a complete ban outside of the home is "reasonable" and for others even a restriction on legally carrying in a school would be "unreasonable".

I agree most gun owners are 100% ok with reasonable restrictions as long as they are reasonable.