Profile of Mass Murderers

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

Let me guess, most conservatist are mass murderers since the liberals don't carry guns.

that's probably the point some are trying to make.

You're projecting - a straw man.

The whole reason why I started this thread was a response to the long standing argument made by the gun lobby that an AWB only keeps these military type weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens and not the criminals...which is a false argument. It's the so-called 'law abiding' citizen with an affinity for assault weapons that are the ones who snap and go on killing rampages. Random acts of violence are what I'm most concerned about, however, the AWB did keep such weapons off the street when it was in place from 1994-2004.

yawn. this is gonna be like a global warming/bush sucks/obama is great/alternative energy thread/etc where you don't keep on ranting on about whatever agenda you are trying to push.

if the gun lobby annoys you, write them a letter. carrying on about it on vj won't resolve it.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Let me guess, most conservatist are mass murderers since the liberals don't carry guns.

that's probably the point some are trying to make.

For sure. If someone wanted to commit a mass killing then they would not need a AWB. So what next after to make sure no one uses any weapon for mass killing? Outlaw cars? Household products that can be made into bombs, etc. This can go on and on. No this is about every time the Socialists get into office they start attacking the rights we have always had.

The lord and protector Obama is in office and the Socialists rule so the sheep are bleeting in unison and following as usual.

[natty bumppo 297]

Let me guess, most conservatist are mass murderers since the liberals don't carry guns.

that's probably the point some are trying to make.

You're projecting - a straw man.

The whole reason why I started this thread was a response to the long standing argument made by the gun lobby that an AWB only keeps these military type weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens and not the criminals...which is a false argument. It's the so-called 'law abiding' citizen with an affinity for assault weapons that are the ones who snap and go on killing rampages. Random acts of violence are what I'm most concerned about, however, the AWB did keep such weapons off the street when it was in place from 1994-2004.

how did it keep the existing firearms off the street? there were still thousands legally of owned firearms and more being manufactured less the "cosmetic bad features". these firearms still mechanically functioned identically to those firearms deemed "bad".

Support your position. How many of these AWB firearms have been used in US crimes during the past 5 years?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Let me guess, most conservatist are mass murderers since the liberals don't carry guns.

that's probably the point some are trying to make.

You're projecting - a straw man.

The whole reason why I started this thread was a response to the long standing argument made by the gun lobby that an AWB only keeps these military type weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens and not the criminals...which is a false argument. It's the so-called 'law abiding' citizen with an affinity for assault weapons that are the ones who snap and go on killing rampages. Random acts of violence are what I'm most concerned about, however, the AWB did keep such weapons off the street when it was in place from 1994-2004.

I am sorry Steve, but you are living a fantasy. Show me one fully functional military issued weapon that was outlawed by the previous AWB.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Let me guess, most conservatist are mass murderers since the liberals don't carry guns.

that's probably the point some are trying to make.

You're projecting - a straw man.

The whole reason why I started this thread was a response to the long standing argument made by the gun lobby that an AWB only keeps these military type weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens and not the criminals...which is a false argument. It's the so-called 'law abiding' citizen with an affinity for assault weapons that are the ones who snap and go on killing rampages. Random acts of violence are what I'm most concerned about, however, the AWB did keep such weapons off the street when it was in place from 1994-2004.

I am sorry Steve, but you are living a fantasy. Show me one fully functional military issued weapon that was outlawed by the previous AWB.

Bill, what gun manufacturers have done is to circumvent existing laws against fully auto weapons, by making legal versions...and those version can and have been customized to replicate some of the very features that the existing laws were restricting.

for example...

The name AR-15 is now used almost exclusively to refer to the semi-automatic (commercially available) civilian version(s) of the M16 and M4 assault rifles. All standard AR-15 rifles accept detachable magazines of widely varying capacities, and have a pistol grip that protrudes beneath the stock. AR-15 rifles are highly configurable and customizable, and are commonly fitted with several accessories, including bipods, bayonet lugs, folding or collapsing butt stocks, threaded barrels for the attachment of a flash suppressor or other accessories, and a Picatinny rail in place of the fore grip for the attachment of vertical grips, flashlights, laser sights, telescopic sights, and other accessories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Let me guess, most conservatist are mass murderers since the liberals don't carry guns.

that's probably the point some are trying to make.

You're projecting - a straw man.

The whole reason why I started this thread was a response to the long standing argument made by the gun lobby that an AWB only keeps these military type weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens and not the criminals...which is a false argument. It's the so-called 'law abiding' citizen with an affinity for assault weapons that are the ones who snap and go on killing rampages. Random acts of violence are what I'm most concerned about, however, the AWB did keep such weapons off the street when it was in place from 1994-2004.

I am sorry Steve, but you are living a fantasy. Show me one fully functional military issued weapon that was outlawed by the previous AWB.

Bill, what gun manufacturers have done is to circumvent existing laws against fully auto weapons, by making legal versions...and those version can and have been customized to replicate some of the very features that the existing laws were restricting.

for example...

The name AR-15 is now used almost exclusively to refer to the semi-automatic (commercially available) civilian version(s) of the M16 and M4 assault rifles. All standard AR-15 rifles accept detachable magazines of widely varying capacities, and have a pistol grip that protrudes beneath the stock. AR-15 rifles are highly configurable and customizable, and are commonly fitted with several accessories, including bipods, bayonet lugs, folding or collapsing butt stocks, threaded barrels for the attachment of a flash suppressor or other accessories, and a Picatinny rail in place of the fore grip for the attachment of vertical grips, flashlights, laser sights, telescopic sights, and other accessories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

But, they are still not fully automatic weapons, unless you want to break the law, at which point, the gun can be taken away from you, and you can go to jail, without the AWB. So what purpose does the law serve, other than to make lawmakers feel like they have done "something"?

If you want to outlaw semi-automatic weapons, then pass a SAWB.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

But, they are still not fully automatic weapons, unless you want to break the law, at which point, the gun can be taken away from you, and you can go to jail, without the AWB. So what purpose does the law serve, other than to make lawmakers feel like they have done "something"?

If you want to outlaw semi-automatic weapons, then pass a SAWB.

The point is - by having these essentially military type weapons, it makes it easy for someone to potentially have a deadly arsenal equivalent to a soldier. And getting back to the OP of Mass Murderers, they tend to have an affinity for such kinds of weapons. Unless you are advocating the ATF do random raids on anyone who owns these civilian versions to make sure they haven't militarized them, we are crossing our fingers, hoping and praying that none of our loved ones will fall victim to another senseless mass shooting.

[Nagishkaw 510]

*yawn*

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

But, they are still not fully automatic weapons, unless you want to break the law, at which point, the gun can be taken away from you, and you can go to jail, without the AWB. So what purpose does the law serve, other than to make lawmakers feel like they have done "something"?

If you want to outlaw semi-automatic weapons, then pass a SAWB.

The point is - by having these essentially military type weapons, it makes it easy for someone to potentially have a deadly arsenal equivalent to a soldier. And getting back to the OP of Mass Murderers, they tend to have an affinity for such kinds of weapons. Unless you are advocating the ATF do random raids on anyone who owns these civilian versions to make sure they haven't militarized them, we are crossing our fingers, hoping and praying that none of our loved ones will fall victim to another senseless mass shooting.

You can put all the chrome and dingle balls you want on your car, and that won't make it a race car. The same thing applies to any semi-automatic weapon. Unless you change the workings of the rifle itself, then you still essentially have a semi-automatic rifle.

As far as your second point, then you better outlaw all semi-automatic weapons. Rifle, or pistol, they all essentially work the same way, and the same modifications you would make to an AR15 to turn it into a fully automatic rifle would work for a Remington Woodmaster as well.

[justashooter 430]

Bill, what gun manufacturers have done is to circumvent existing laws against fully auto weapons, by making legal versions...and those version can and have been customized to replicate some of the very features that the existing laws were restricting.

for example...

The name AR-15 is now used almost exclusively to refer to the semi-automatic (commercially available) civilian version(s) of the M16 and M4 assault rifles. All standard AR-15 rifles accept detachable magazines of widely varying capacities, and have a pistol grip that protrudes beneath the stock. AR-15 rifles are highly configurable and customizable, and are commonly fitted with several accessories, including bipods, bayonet lugs, folding or collapsing butt stocks, threaded barrels for the attachment of a flash suppressor or other accessories, and a Picatinny rail in place of the fore grip for the attachment of vertical grips, flashlights, laser sights, telescopic sights, and other accessories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

double idiot alert.

the first AR15 made back in the early 60's and issued to force security in the US air force were semi-automatic only in function by order of the consumer. automatic function was not installed until some years after they were issued, and later in the M16, which was the variant issued to the US army.

the gun manufacturers did not "circumvent existing laws" against full auto weps. they continued to manufacture the standard semi-auto wep exactly as before, but without threading the ends of the barrels (no flash hiders / grenade launchers), adding folding stocks (original design was a standard stock), or installing the standard bayo lug (no bayo could be attached).

please learn a little about the subject before you speak.

the writer of the wiki article also needs to learn a thing or two. folding stocks on an AR are not technically possible, except in a few custom guns. the recoil spring is housed in a tube that extends 8" to the rear of receiver in the original design. a few custom guns have specialised recoil systems that move the spring up over the barrel, at a cost of about $1000. not all AR15 have a "conspicuously protruding pistol grip". some california compliant guns have a sporter styling that eliminates the pistol grip.

don't believe everything you read on wiki.

Edited March 28, 2009 by justashooter

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

Bill, what gun manufacturers have done is to circumvent existing laws against fully auto weapons, by making legal versions...and those version can and have been customized to replicate some of the very features that the existing laws were restricting.

so how does it feel to be 45 years late to the party?

In 1964, Colt introduced a semi auto only version of the M-16, for civilian sales. The advertisement, shown to the right, is the initial announcement of the rifle, and was taken from an old magazine. Note the price (circa 1964) of $189.50.

link

you're trying to sound like the ar-15 was sold just prior to the first awb, which is obviously not the case.

[*Robert* 2]

What is so funny, or maybe not, are the people quoting the 2nd amendment like it was written yesterday!!! For Pete's sake, when the Bill of Rights was written, the only guns they had were black powder, single shot. Not friggen fully automatic rifles!!!

People need to wake up and stop taking a document written over 200 years ago so literally, and as if it still applies to today's standards. That's why we have a Supreme Court.

Seriously, arguing with some of these people is like talking to a brick wall. All I hear is Waa Waa Waa… Waa Wa Wa Waa!!!

Let's keep the past separate from the present. Jeesh!!!

like you are exercising your freedom of speech ... like the internet was available 200 years go. Context .... got a brain? Use it.

Oh like the two even compare? That is so lame! You should take your own advice and try using your brain.

I know it's beyond you ... the internet is so 1700's ... Since the correlation is lost .. well guess you need help:

"that is so funny, or maybe not, are the people quoting the 1st amendment like it was written yesterday!!! For Pete's sake, when the Bill of Rights was written, the only media they had were public speeches (personal audience), newspapers, books, pamphlets. Not friggen videos, TV's, internet, instant broadcast !!!! "

Keep trying... one day you might make a legitimate point.

1st, 2nd, 4th amendments specifically grant rights to the people in case you haven't read the Constitution. All were written as you stated over 200 years ago. technology changed since then in case you haven't noticed and all the original amendments are thus impacted. The document was crafted very well to anticipate these changes.

Your cavalier approach to the rights listed in the doc speaks volumes in regards to your beliefs. Glad to see you can interpret the 1st 10 amendments individually to your way of thinking and not as a whole in the context for which they created.

Wow, a scholar of the Constitution. I'm so proud of you! You're right, I never learned anything about it! So you mean to tell me that the founders of the Consitituion anticipated Assault Weapons and the Internet?!!! Dayum!!! Those guys were smarter than I thought!

Quit stalking me dude... I'm not interested in some sort of "bromance"!

How about instead of taking pot shots at my posts, you actually state your postion, and what you feel the law should read. Otherwise, gtfo!

[natty bumppo 297]

What is so funny, or maybe not, are the people quoting the 2nd amendment like it was written yesterday!!! For Pete's sake, when the Bill of Rights was written, the only guns they had were black powder, single shot. Not friggen fully automatic rifles!!!

People need to wake up and stop taking a document written over 200 years ago so literally, and as if it still applies to today's standards. That's why we have a Supreme Court.

Seriously, arguing with some of these people is like talking to a brick wall. All I hear is Waa Waa Waa… Waa Wa Wa Waa!!!

Let's keep the past separate from the present. Jeesh!!!

like you are exercising your freedom of speech ... like the internet was available 200 years go. Context .... got a brain? Use it.

Oh like the two even compare? That is so lame! You should take your own advice and try using your brain.

I know it's beyond you ... the internet is so 1700's ... Since the correlation is lost .. well guess you need help:

"that is so funny, or maybe not, are the people quoting the 1st amendment like it was written yesterday!!! For Pete's sake, when the Bill of Rights was written, the only media they had were public speeches (personal audience), newspapers, books, pamphlets. Not friggen videos, TV's, internet, instant broadcast !!!! "

Keep trying... one day you might make a legitimate point.

1st, 2nd, 4th amendments specifically grant rights to the people in case you haven't read the Constitution. All were written as you stated over 200 years ago. technology changed since then in case you haven't noticed and all the original amendments are thus impacted. The document was crafted very well to anticipate these changes.

Your cavalier approach to the rights listed in the doc speaks volumes in regards to your beliefs. Glad to see you can interpret the 1st 10 amendments individually to your way of thinking and not as a whole in the context for which they created.

Wow, a scholar of the Constitution. I'm so proud of you! You're right, I never learned anything about it! So you mean to tell me that the founders of the Consitituion anticipated Assault Weapons and the Internet?!!! Dayum!!! Those guys were smarter than I thought!

Quit stalking me dude... I'm not interested in some sort of "bromance"!

How about instead of taking pot shots at my posts, you actually state your postion, and what you feel the law should read. Otherwise, gtfo!

The law already stands ... and is supported. Surprised you haven't picked up on that yet? Or ... is that what you don't want to read/ see?

Constitutional scholar ... your projected words.

Stalking? On a public internet forum? Where multiple people are asking/ answering questions? Are you that insecure? Or simply fantasizing again?