Dear Mr. Bruce Vanwyngarden,
Mr. 38103 is a person of both intelligence and common sense, whereas you are not, therefore it is my opinion that he should be the publisher of Memphis Flyer from this point forward. That is all. Thank you.
RnR -- thanks for "bearing the price" of my civil rights. I'll continue to defend your Constitutionally protected freedoms too, like your right to say things on the internet that are not very clever, even if I don't like them. Think of it as the brotherhood of man!
Those killed in mass shootings by someone using semi-automatic weapons still don’t make a case for some [one] having to wait a while before they can get their Smith & Wesson M&P15.
There ya go. Tortured syntax and all. =^)
Barf, you may be copy-pasting from the Brady site or something? You aren't making sense. "Semi-Automatic" describes virtually every handgun that is not a revolver, and it describes many rifles with small capacity mags that are not "assault weapons". There are tens of millions of such guns out there. Crimes involving assault rifles (by which I mean semi-auto carbines with high-capacity magazines) are actually comparatively quite rare, though they make for great lurid news stories.
So if "semi-automatic" gun crime fell significantly after the assault weapons ban, something else is at work. I doubt it really did though.
> why are you so hell bent on preserving the ability for a asylum nominee to purchase a semi automatic assault rifle along with the ability to stockpile asinine amounts of ammunition in a very short time span?
Because you aren't advocating banning them from sale to crazy people. That is already illegal. You are advocating banning them from sale to people who have every right to own them, and have demonstrated no inclination to harm anyone.
BTW recreational shooters use most of the ammunition, not mass murderers. It is not hard to squeeze off 500 rounds in one hour of lane time at the range. Buying/possessing large amounts of ammunition means nothing except that they buyer has an expensive hobby.
Grovereb, agreed. Gun violence correlates geographically with high poverty and high rates of illegal drug sales, ==not== with prevalence of, or easy access to, guns.
Barf, the Clinton assault weapons ban made no discernible difference before it expired. It was designed to placate folks like you, and it did, but that's all it did. Demented individuals get large magazines because they look badass, not because it takes more than 1.5 seconds to eject a small capacity magazine and put in another one.
Some countries with gun bans are missing from your chart. Mexico, for instance, has strict gun control and extremely unpleasant prisons. Same with Jamaica. Yet they both have spectacular gun crime. Banning guns (even scary-looking black rifles) is an emotional, reflexive non-solution born of intellectual laziness.
As for whether people "need" high-capacity refiles, I refer you to certain Korean shopkeepers in L.A. during the Rodney King riots whose lives and property are intact only because they had assault weapons and plenty of ammunition (which I hope they got mail order).
oldtimeplayer--the Army could presumably destroy Afghanistan as easily as Shelby County. But they haven't (and not because it would be considered barbaric--any such limp wristed pussy considerations as civilized behavior were abolished by Bush/Cheney, I thought you heard). Small arms and good ole American ingenuity could still defeat a major power such as, well, America. It happens all the time _to_ us, I don't see why it couldn't happen _for_ us.
So, insofar as I am able to follow you, I think gun control is a bad idea in case we have to fight back, because we can in fact fight back.
All Comments »
By Toby Sells
download this issue
click here to see more »