http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html

After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn't Had a Similar Massacre Since.... The US is as good as Australia, isn't it? We love our children as much, don't we?

You're right. We should do whatever we need to to make our children safer. On that note, given that virtually all mass shootings occur in areas declared to be "gun free zones" I think it is imperative that the federal government ban "gun-free zones" except if they have manned metal detectors at all entrances or armed security guards to ensure the safety of the disarmed people inside said zones. Any business or institution which posts a "gun free" zone should be subject to civil and criminal liability if they do not so protect their disarmed clients and employees. We should ignore the rantings of the "gun-free" zealots, for the sake of the children.

That's right David... Let's turn America into a nightmare where everyone walks in fear.

Jan,
Why would you walk in fear under my proposal? Most places are not now "gun-free zones" -- do you walk in fear every time you walk in public?

False analogy.

Even the last NRA convention banned guns.

I'm do believe that it's necessary for gun reform, but also favor gun carrying! High capacity clips and assault rifles are not necessary for Americans that wish to protect their homes. True. But "shocked" that after Columbine, Virginia Tech, Newtown and many, many others, That NO ONE is talking about law abiding teachers and professors in every single school and college in America carry a firearm! So called "no gun zones" in America have caused the slaughter of even little children now (the beloved and 100% innocent ones!) It's time for Obama and his administration to start ARMING teachers and professors across the entire nation! It's time for us to WAKE UP!

I'm pro choice ,that being said ,more children die from abortions than school shootings but we dont see you hypocritical lefty's trying to ban that

How do you know that?

Dealers at a gun show have to perform background checks, just as they would at their shop. Nondealers can sell a personal firearm at a guns show without a background check, just as they can at their own home. So "gunshow loophole" is a misnomer, though not one entirely without meaning.

Ray - There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole", the exact same laws apply there as anywhere else:

If the seller is a Federally Licensed Dealer then the process is handled the same as in a gun shop - a 4473 form is filled out and a call made to NICS to run a background check.

If the seller is not a dealer then the sale can only happen if both are NH residents and the purchaser is personally known to the buyer or can show the buyer a NH Pistol and Revolver license (which requires a background check, 3 references etc).

It is also a class B felony in NH to sell a firearm to a felon.

40% of all guns sold in the US are sold by non-registered dealers in private sales. No background checks, no waiting periods. Felons, crazies, terrorists, anyone that wants one, step right up, get your Bushmasters here. It's not a gun show loophole, it's a tunnel that you could drive a mack truck through to go pick up your gun shipment.
Only 16 million guns were sold in the first 10 months of this year, so add 4 million for the last 2 ( because sales are going through the roof), that comes to 20 million guns sold, 40% with no checks at all, so that's only 8 million guns sold with no check whatsoever on who bought them and why.
And those are the ones we know about.
Yeah, we don't need no gun control.

Steve - Where did you get that 40% number? if those sales are untraceable and don't include a background check how can anyone know how many there are?

I say again, in New Hampshire it a felony for a private individual to sell a firearm to anyone other than someone they personally know (and know is not a felon) or someone with a Pistol and Revolver License (who has had a background check and is not a felon).

Mark, if I speak to you for 3 minutes, can I say I know you? Of course I can. If I know you, can I believe you when you say you are not a felon? Of course I can. Here is your gun.

John - if someone sold a firearm in that manner to someone who isn't really personally owned to them they would be committing a crime.

I don't know of any court cases in NH that have addressed the legal definition of personally known but if there was one that transaction as you described it wouldn't be acceptable.

Actualy Ray acording to atf stats less then 3 % of guns sold at gun shows are not transferred thru an ffl.As the atf considers it to be " such a small amount its a non issue"

Why do you assume this Ray, ? Because thats wht you have been told. Truth is less then 3% of guns purchased at gun shows dont go thru a background check.

Can you please stick to one issue at a time here.

So its all OK with you then, that some children had as many as 11 bullet holes in their broken little bodies?

A pen cap! Good grief...

John,
It's clear that you want to distract from the issue. Please write back when you want a serious conversation regarding how we can keep innocent school children safe.

Jan, I agree....What does abortion have to do with this thread? I also think "TJG" should be required to use it's full name, as the rest of us are.....But I also think it's pretty vile that you surmise from what I wrote that I think it's ok for some nutjob to go around blasting holes thru innocent people for no reason other than to gain posthumous notoriety. And Ray, I clearly stuck to the issue if you read the article....

John, you stuck to the issue alright,
Soup ladles put people in danger all the time.

You're not taking the issue seriously. You want to avoid the hard choices we have to make. You want to avoid taking any real action.

John, this has got to stop here, and we won't do it by talking about pen caps as assault weapons.

Yes, you stuck with the issue of guns - but you didn't stick with the issue of solving the problem the US has with gun violence. You dodged it by sidetracking the discussion - deadly weapons have to be addressed in this country - along with mental healthcare and lobbying by groups just out for higher and higher profits at the cost of our children's safety.

Is the probem that other countries love their children more than we do?

I certainly DO take this seriously, Ray. I have seen the bombs made with a tennis ball and the "knives" made with a toothbrush. I have also worked as a janitor in an elementary school. When Karl in The Breakfast Club said that janitors are the eyes and ears of the school, he was right on the money. When I was at that school, IO posted a sign at the playground entrance that said "This door is to remain locked at all times." I was berated and reprimanded by teachers AND admin. Why? because they didn't want to be bothered to unlock the door when it was time to come. I could go on and on with the "behind the scenes" stories, but who would listen to the janitor? Have you ever heard of a nurse calling the janitor when a student puked in her office?

John,
stop talking about soup ladles, and start talking about the subject at hand, guns.

That's fine, Jan. I can see that you and Ray are going to be right in your own mind, just as I will be right in mine, and that's ok. This thread is, I thought, for everyone to voice their opinions, so go ahead.....and leave me to voice mine.

John, "assault weapon" is indeed a poorly defined term, as it applies to a variety of firearms based in large part on cosmetic and irrelevant features, such as flash suppressors or pistol grips. But it does not apply to your silly examples, whose silliness makes the gun-banners think they must obviously be right.

And pass laws to strictly limit sugar content in all foods. If we can't stop obesity then we won't be able to stop guns.

I am absolutely serious. You think the demand for guns will not be there? The demand is there for all sorts of drugs and they make it here, what makes anybody think guns would be different?

PS, they banned the big slurpy.....is that enough of a sugar ban for ya?

We have been fighting the drug war from the supply side and losing for 40 yrs. Trying to fight this problem from the supply side will have the same results.

Very well stated. I agree.

Or we could just wait for the next tragedy and do this all over again. As we have done so many times before.

Really David? You show your true colors with statements like that. BTW: I voted for Romney and am by far a liberal. I am just sick and tired of all the violence in this country, and we certainly cannot maintain the present course.

And yet, David Campbell can go out and buy a gun no questions asked and have it in his hands in an hour. Less, if he's closer to the gun show or his neighbor wants to sell him one.

perhaps someone should explain the Second Amendment to todd its obvious he doesent get it

You are missing the point; your hobby cannot be reliably self-regulated. It just can't. Just like cars (hey, you brought it up :-)), medication, and food, it needs to be regulated. And part of the regulation needs to be about having weapons that are too big and too powerful for the general population. Would you trust people having nuclear weapons in their backyard? I wouldn't. And I certainly wouldn't trust people having assault rifles. It's an accident waiting to happen.

That being said, if you want to play with an assault rifle, I recommend possible regulation being that they are available at gun ranges, and that's it.

The car was not manufactured for the express purpose of killing people. Cars have a purpose that is so useful that we cannot and should not ban them.
However, if a car is found to be unsafe, or the tires on it, or the brakes it is "banned" until the problem is fixed. Texting while driving is banned, and so is drinking, because it makes the car unsafe. Cars are inspected regularly, and drivers have to prove that they can actually drive.
NONE of this is applied to guns, especially here in NH, where our current legislature passed laws at the request of your NRA and the FSP to make guns even more readily available and completely unregulated, one of them even wrote a bill that would allow convicted felons to carry a weapon. Put them all together, and a convicted felon could buy a gun and conceal it without a permit, completely legal. Then, they _passed_ a bill that prohibit restrictions on where a gun could be carried, so that students could take them to school and sporting events, fans to hockey games, concert goers to concerts, in the belief that the answer to gun violence is more guns.
Ask a cop sometime what you need to buy a gun legally in NH, how long you have to wait, and how much proof you need that you are suitable.
You will be surprised, and hopefully shocked to hear the answer.
Practically speaking, there is no control or restrictions on guns whatsoever.

Nice NRA talking points there...

you forgot the armed bears thingie though

Actually, the Chinese man in question stabbed 20 children, but none of them died. So that story isn't so useful to the cause of keeping guns legal. I think we have to concede that guns are of course a more efficient tool for murdering people than are knives or bludgeons. But that doesn't mean that vague calls to get "assault weapons" "off our streets" are useful to the topic at hand. If a politician is trying to get people who have never harmed anyone to give up their constitutional rights, then she owes us honesty and competence on the issue, neither of which is shown in Ms. Shaheen's editorial here.

Thing is going after the gun is easy. Going after the mental health problem is not. Americans prefer to take the easy way even if it dosnt do anything.

>Quite simply: Guns do not kill people. That is a fact.
Only if you throw them instead of shooting them. When you pull the trigger they actually do kill people.

David - In 2010 and 2011 there were a number of knife attacks in China that killed 21 and injured nearly 100.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932011)

The Senator is expressing an idea here, not writing the law for you to read on a short article. Save your breakdown for when the law is written.

And while we"re at it, let's make a few more laws that make it safe to be a child in America. Like licensing gun owners and registering all guns, and limiting the number of rounds you can buy at a time, requiring all guns to be sold through registered dealers... even private sales. Let's make this a federal law so that the gun sale in NH won't put a bullet through a college student in Boston.

Let's take this time to do it, and do it right.

Yes, absolutely, take guns away from people. Not all of them, but you don't need all of them. The constitution does not say that you get to have any weapon you want.

Jan,
1) Yes, the "Senator is expressing an idea" -- but I pointed out why it was a silly and ill-informed idea, a meaningless phrase with ill-defined terms. Your "breakdown" ad hominem is beneath you.
2) Connecticut licensed the shooter's mother.
3) Limiting the number of rounds you can buy at one time is another silly response. People shoot hundreds of rounds when they go to the range, more than enough for a rampage, so there is nothing unusual about buying 200+ rounds at a time, and nothing reasonable about disallowing such purchases.
4) "requiring all guns to be sold through registered dealers... even private sales" -- that at least is a coherent suggestion, although it would not have affected this, or most, mass shootings.

So you think a single action hunting rifle, or a shotgun, or any other weapon made for hunting is no different than a semi-automatic assault rifle with a high capacity magazine loaded with ammunition meant to shatter inside tissue to maximize damage and effect maximum killing capacity?
Do you think your husband, with his shotgun or hunting rifle would be able to shoot his way into a building and put 3 to 11 bullets into 20 6 and 7 year old kids and 6 adults inside of 8 minutes?
You call this a knee jerk reaction? 20 kids killed in a school - again - and you think people are over reacting?

Steve - Yes people are over-reacting. It is of course horrific that 20 children were killed by a madman (who might already have been committed if CT hasn't failed to pass SB452 earlier this year) but children unfortunately die all the time from causes we cannot control.

800 children were killed last year while being driven to and from school, 26 children died last year getting on and off school buses, the list goes on and on. Should we ban people from driving their own children to school?

Banning some of the 250 million legally owned guns in the country will not protect our children, turning the 98,000 public schools in this country into virtual prisons will not protect our children, the problem is the mentally ill and we need to take care of them better, evaluate them regularly, and commit them if they are a threat.

I was there that day Rick Jones and what your portray is not exactly what happened.

You sir are a "nut job" and your comments support that.

Riley, so what did happen "exactly", and why is it ok that guns are allowed in the statehouse? Why do these idiots think they need to be armed at all times?

Steve - because gun-free zones are easy targets for criminals and psychopaths, why do you think all the spree killers choose gun-free zones? schools, malls, etc, because they want to be in control and they can only do that if they are the only one with a gun.

Mark, it's because that's where the people are.
And you're still wrong. Ft. Hood is hardly a gun free zone, yet it happened there. People with guns kill cops with guns, it happened Sunday. It happens all the time.

Steve - The Fort Hood shooting was in a gun-free zone.

Soldiers at Ft. Hood weren't allowed personally-owned weapons on base, military weapons were only issued for firing practice and exercises so no-one was armed when Major Hasan shouted Allahu Akbar and started shooting.

Soldiers had to hide or flee just like the kids in Newtown and Hasan was eventually stopped by civilian police after killing 13 and wounding 30.

Come on - the answer is to put guns everywhere? Again, people still shoot cops, and they have guns and know how to use them. The only thing that will happen when everyone is carrying a gun is that more people will die by gun violence. The answer to guns violence is not "guns are the answer" - that's just stupid.
If that were the answer, then Iraq and Somalia, where everyone has a gun, would be the safest places in the world.

Steve - gun laws in Iraq are surprisingly strict - each household is allowed to own one gun, that must be kept in their house, and must be registered with the police after undergoing a background check and getting a license.

Despite those draconian gun laws the bloodshed in Iraq continues.

We are not talking about gun laws. We are talking about a society where everyone has a gun, which you and others insist would make us safer. I am saying that if that were true, then societies where everyone DOES have a gun, like Baghdad Iraq and Mogadishu Somalia would be the safest places on earth.
They are instead the most dangerous.

You are right on the money. The loonie liberals have created a secular, permissive society where anything goes. And the chickens have come home to roost. They scoff at the conservative religious and moral values which, if they were still prevalent in this country, would have prevented the shooting at New Town along with countless other criminal activity.

Jonathan you hit it on the nose. The gun is just the delivery meathod. Take it away and freaks will find another.

http://ssristories.com/index.php?p=school

Common problem, give drugs and don't follow up.

Steve - The medical examiner (and the journalists expanding on his statement) have it wrong (based off a myth dating back to the Vietnam war).

The .223 Remington cartridge is loaded with a fully jacketed bullet that doesn't expand, shatter or tumble (unlike the hollowpoint bullets in his handguns), as seen in Newtown each shot penetrates multiple children resulting in the large number of injuries per child compared to the total rounds fired.

US Soldiers regularly complain that 5.56mm (the military equivalent to .223) is ineffective at putting down their enemies and multiple shots are needed for a kill.

Changing magazines is also extremely easy so the difference between using one 30 round magazines and 3 (physically smaller) 10 round magazines would only be a couple of seconds. Indeed he would have been just as lethal using a common hunting rifle with 5 round or 10 round magazines (possibly more lethal as they use larger caliber ammunition which would do more damage).

To address your "fully automatic" comment - yes it is possible to convert an AR-15 to fully automatic but it isn't as simple as the file down the pin BS, you need a fully automatic fire control group (gun parts) that the AR-15 is designed not to accept, so you would then need to machine out a section of the lower receiver and drill holes to make them fit. Doing so is a Federal Felony punishable by 10 years in prison.

Finally there is no benefit to a fully automatic weapon unless you just want to keep people's heads down, they are very difficult to control and fire accurately and would result in less casualties than careful aimed fire from a regular AR-15 (or any old hunting rifle).

You're saying the state police who were on the scene and the medical examiner who took the bullets out of those kids don't know what they are talking about?
And who says he used .223 Remington cartridges? Why not Hornady or similar .223 Varmint bullets (explosive on -target performance, description below), available at Bass Pro or on line at Cabelas?

=========================================
Optimized for performance with semiautomatics, these American-made rounds offer high-volume shooters flat-shooting, long-range accuracy and explosive on-target performance. And each of these 300-round packages is loaded in a FREE brand new, military-spec ammo can (a $20 value). Versatile 50-grain, polymer-tipped bullets are perfect for targeting prairie dogs, coyotes and other varmints. A muzzle velocity of 3,350 fps provides laser-like trajectories for extreme-distance shots. Sealed primers for reliability in wet and humid environments. Per 300. Made is USA.

Or this, from Remington:

=========================================================
Now you see him. Now you don’t. Introducing new Disintegrator® Varmint. Loaded with new lead-free frangible bullets that meet the requirements of non-toxic hunting areas, this ammunition delivers radical, explosive expansion that shatters the capabilities of conventional lead core/copper jacketed bullets.

Because they break into tiny fragments at impact, Disintegrator Varmint bullets will not ricochet, offering added peace of mind wherever you shoot. Extremely tight manufacturing tolerances combined with our industry-leading components produce tiny groups on paper as well. Get the supreme accuracy you expect from Remington with spectacular on-game results in two popular calibers: 223 Remington and 22-250 Remington, both with 45 gr. JHP bullets.

To address my "fully automatic" comment, I said it is easy to find instructions on how to convert an AR-15, and it is. The hardware needed to do so is apparently available for $100 - $200, and can be made legal with a license costing $7500 dollars or so. It is called a drop in auto sear. You can get step by step installation instructions with photos, just do a search.
Tell me again why it should be so easy to buy these weapons?

Oh wait, all you have to do is buy a "TriBurst", which allows you to fire 3 bullets with every trigger pull. Other contraptions allow you to fire 4. No license allowed, about 20 bucks.

Steve - it is obvious you know little about guns. A cartridge is the whole thing you load into a magazine, It has a (usually) brass case *that contain the powder and primer) and a bullet.

The AR-15 is usually chambered for a .223 Remington cartridge that usually has a 62 grain jacketed bullet (the military M855 standard) that will typically penetrate 15 to 20 inches of soft tissue.

The two cartridges you list are .223 Remington cartridges with lighter bullets designed for varmint hunting and would be less effective against humans than the standard bullets.

Most police departments prefer a heavier bullet for more stopping power and currently the Hornady TAP 75 grain ammo is preferred, the downside to this is you need a more expensive rifle than the bushmaster with a tighter barrel twist (1 in 7 compared to 1 in 9 with the bushmaster). Without the better barrel the ammo is often inaccurate.

Steve - once again you show your lack of knowledge.

It is illegal to make a new drop-in auto sear (DIAS) as that part counts as a "machine gun" under federal law. You cannot make one and get a license for $7,500 to make it legal.

It has been illegal to own or register a new machine gun since 1986, and the only machine guns or DIAS available to the general public are those that were registered on or before May 19th 1986.

Can you buy one of those machine guns or buy a DIAS to make an AR-15 fully-automatic? yes you can but it is a long process that requires a $200 tax stamp that you can only get with an application to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, a FBI background check, and the approval of your local chief of police (the same process applies to buying a silencer or short-barreled rifle). Currently that whole process is taking 6+ months until you get your stamp and can take possession of the firearm (or DIAS, or silencer) and because of the scarcity those items cost many many thousands of dollars.

Possession of a DIAS without the Federal Tax Stamp is a felony punishable by 10 years in prison.

Mark, these humans were smaller than a coyote and shot from a distance of a couple of feet. Which part of
"these American-made rounds offer high-volume shooters flat-shooting, long-range accuracy and explosive on-target performance"
are you having trouble with? That verbiage is straight off the spec sheet for the ammunition.
And I didn't say it was easy or legal to make an AR15 fully automatic, I said it was easy to find out how, and very easy to get the AR15 in the first place.
On the one hand, you people say "If guns were taken away or made illegal only bad guys would have them", and then you say on the other hand "well it's impossible to do that, it's illegal, not made anymore ... " - which one do you mean? Sounds like the point you are really making is that restrictions DO work.

Steve - That is marketing speak - "flat-shooting long-range accuracy" refers to a smaller lighter bullet leaving the barrel at a higher velocity (as it is lighter), lighter bullet at a higher velocity = higher penetration but less damage. "explosive on-target performance" is hyperbole, it doesn't mean the bullet is explosive.

If you really think those varmint bullets "tumble, shatter, sending shards into organs and brain" then why don't the police use them instead of the heavier Hornady TAP ammo they prefer?

With regards to the rest of your comment - everything you have suggested and everything these criminals do is already illegal. By doing those things (illegally buying a weapon or stealing a weapon or magically converting a weapon to automatic) they are committing a serious felony, why do you think any new restrictions will work?

Do you really think that a mentally-ill psychopath will change his mind because as well as murder he will be charged with illegal possession of a "high-capacity" magazine? or are you just using this horrific tragedy as an excuse to push your anti-gun agenda?

Not to mention the resources needed to put him back together.

Steve - this supports my argument that an AR-15 is less effective at killing than a good old hunting rifle.

if you really meant that - it should get you banned from Patch!...

perhaps you meant repository?

Have I offended you in some way? No - I don't work for the Senator, and if you're really interested in who I am - try using the google.

I assume it is the same Jan Schmidt that was recently elected to the NH House as a Democrat representing Ward 1 in Nashua.

In the interests of full disclosure - I am not a politician, I am just an average Citizen who cares about his country and the principles it was founded on.

Yes, I am a State Rep. Mark - brand new and ready to work for the people of my ward.

I also responded to a constituent today that was horrified that something isn't being done to make WMD's less available as well as improving mental healthcare and making it more responsible and responsive for people who are on medication that has proven to increase violent behavior.

" try using the google"

Belittling and condescending.

I don't want your gun. I grew up around guns - and NRA's classes and deer hunting. I can understand hobbies and target shooting. But I think we've had the rights of some shoved down our throats long enough.

- I want to see weapon ownership regulated like my inalienable right to vote has been and my right to make decisions about my body have been. No right is without some regulation. Its time, and you could help instead of whining about it.

Help us make fair regulations.

Jan - I understand where you are coming from but I want to make two comments:

1) The 2nd amendment protects a pre-existing right of all people from infringement by the US and State Governments whereas the 15th, 19th and 26th amendments determine who has the right to vote (Citizens of any race, any sex, aged over 18). One is a pre-existing right the Constitution protects, the other is a right created because of the form of Government defined in the Constitution. Do you see the difference?

2) We already have substantial regulation of guns covering type of operation (no full auto/short barrel/silencer without complicated tax stamp process), manufacture (no new full auto), registration/inspection of manufacturers, registration/inspection of gun shops, background checks at gun shops, no private sales across state lines, restricted from felons, restricted from mentally ill, no sale to minors, armor-piercing bullets banned etc etc, many States have stricter regulations (CT has an assault weapons ban, a permit to purchase handguns, and a two week waiting period for new purchases of rifles for example). What makes you think more regulations is the answer?

when you stop using our money to fund your decisions that you make about your body then we'll stop demanding that we have some say in it.
the Clinton ''assault weapons'' ban did nothing to curb gun violence, mass murders or crimes so when you start proposing real fair regulations that might actually do something then we will support them, till then they are nothing but ''feel good' laws that dont solve anything.

Uhhhhh......The right to self-preservation?

Query: Do you feel the 300 million people in America who did NOT shoot those kids in Connecticut are required to provide to you a "good reason" to keep and bear whatever weapons they want to? Are you unconcerned with the letter and purpose of the 2nd Amendment? Are you unconcerned about limiting in some way the fundamental and inalienable right to self defense? I presume your answer is "yes" to these questions. The rest of us don't share your rather large blind spot.

Weapons out of the box do not shoot any rounds. It takes someone to pull the trigger!

No, I don't think you have a right to "keep and bear whatever weapons" you want to.
You people think you need that kind of firepower for self preservation? Really?
And Mark says I'm the one who is unhinged?

Hey, we should all get a little unhinged.
And don't take my word for it, go to - http://www.xs-products.com "X-91 coil mag. Machine gun rated, 850 rpm." That's where I got it from.
2 seconds to fire one shot? Aiming? Why would you take the time to do that? If you barge into the middle of a movie theater or a 1st grade classroom with an AR-15, explosive ammunition and a bunch of 30 or 50 round magazines, there's no need to aim or take your time, and I'm pretty sure that's the point.

I got the "30 rounds in ten seconds or less" from someone who has one:
==============================================
Fun because of the semi-automatic feature. "You can shoot 30 rounds in 10 seconds or less. It's kind of an adrenaline rush." It's comfortable, too. "The gun doesn't produce enough kick to hurt you." And, if you don't want to use the semi-automatic feature, "You can squeeze the trigger one by one and get a different feeling."
=============================================
Here's the whole story:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/bushmasters-disappearing-stores-newtown/story?id=18008427#.UNHsC6rsND5
Sorry Mark, we have to come to the realization as a society that this stuff is not ok, like we did with Drunk Driving and smoking at work.

Steve - the 850 rounds per minute refers to the theoretical maximum rate of fire of a fully-automatic weapon, think about it, there are 50 rounds in that drum, how is it physically possibly to fire 850 rounds in a minute when you have to change drums 17 times in a minute? The only weapons that get that sustained rate of fire are belt-fed weapons, there are only a handful of those privately owned in the country and the cost tens of thousands of dollars.

Yes, you do still need to aim, the military rarely uses full automatic fire as it is extremely inaccurate and you get muzzle rise - the front of the barrel goes up with every shot making most of the round go over everyone's heads.

That ABC story is also wrong, semi-automatic is squeezing the trigger one by one, that is the legal definition - one bullet per pull of the trigger, anything more is an illegal full auto weapon. Just because a random electrician interviewed by a journalist says so does not make it magically correct.

Finally - explosive ammunition is a marketing term, there is no such thing as true explosive ammunition for an AR-15 (i.e. ammunition that contains an explosive that detonates on impact).

See Mark, there is no practical difference between automatic rifles and the ones you can buy off the shelf, you just have to make a few mods. Pretty cheap and easy ones too, from what I'm reading.

Yes, if you practice a lot you can "bump fire" some rifles, but again we get back to the fact that fully automatic is a lot less effective than aimed semi-automatic fire.

Do you know how many times a legally owned/registered fully automatic weapon has been used in a crime in the last 78 years? Since 1934, only one legally owned machine gun has ever been used in crime, and that was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison.

In addition in 1992 a Seaside Heights (NJ) police officer named Edward Lutes used his department issue fully automatic MP-5 in a shooting rampage that killed 5 and wounded another.

So what you're saying is that tightly controlling automatic weapons works?
By extension, I'm assuming that we could expect the same result with an assault rifle and extended magazines if we had the nerve to stand up to those who think all of that should remain readily available - we should do nothing. Apparently a lot of people think there should be no restrictions whatsoever, that the 2nd amendment allows us to keep and bear whatever killing machine we want.
That may not be your point, if not I'm not sure what your point is.
My point is that if you want to get a gun that would allow you to kill a lot of people in a short period of time you can do so very easily - in this country. If it's hard in your state (hey, lucky for us here in NH it's really easy!) just drive to the next one over.
If you want to live out your fantasies, go out in a blaze of glory and take a whole lot of people with you, the enormously screwed-up gun culture that seems to be running this place has made it attractive and absurdly easy for you to do so.
Com on, get real - there are a lot of people who get their rocks off blowing up pumpkins and turning groundhogs into red mist, and that's the real reason we have to suffer as a society with the ridiculous proliferation of guns. Because people want their toys. Or are paranoid enough to believe that the UN is about to take over, or aliens.

And by "Europe" or the collective countries represented in this figure, here is the list of countries being looked at and included to come to that figure...

Albania
Andorra
Armenia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Monaco
Montenegro
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Republic of Moldova
Romania
Russian Federation
San Marino
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Tajikistan
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Uzbekistan

Hey News Fish, how embarrassed are you at the ease with which your posts are dissected, contextualized and proven irrelevant? The election may be over, but there will always be people like myself here to point out how goofy your posts are.

"Contextualized..." What a great word! Gives me a little frisson of superior delight. Hey Watts, YOU are the one who's irrelevant, your postings not needful of dissecting; they generally need only be responded to with "SO? And your point is?"

The "so" of my post should be obvious to most, but if it really needs explaining to you, Tim...

News Fish tries to make a point that alludes to the idea that these figures show a significant amount of knife killings in Europe, knowing that the reference to "Europe" generally brings to mind for most Americans a collection of the 18 countries that comprise Western Europe. Which in itself if over 400mill people (about 30% greater than the population of the US), but the figures for WHO (News Fish's point of reference) are taking into account all 55 countries that comprise all European regions. So to provide context, is to show how much less significant (although not any less tragic) these figures become when looking at the homicide rate of all of Europe.

So Tim, if this is all too much for you to get your mind around and maybe you are appreciative of the adolescent logic that News Fish famously and repeatedly uses in their posts, then you are certainly free continue to try to come to his/her defense. But I have faith that most people are much smarter than that and don't take Fishy's posts for anything more than goofy conservative punchlines.

A distinction without a meaningful difference to anyone but you, Watts. The only "goofy punchlines" being tossed around in this discussion are yours. Of course, you may have trouble wrapping your mind around that....

"Tim Condon
7:56 am on Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Obama has already lost Florida. He will also lose New Hampshire and Ohio. Romney will win the Presidency, and deservedly so, especially in light of their respective performances in the debate last night."

http://amherst.patch.com/articles/who-won-the-presidential-debate-a22bb083#comments

Oh right...how could I forget that it is me and not you, who is the joke on this site. So you just keep on living your life of delusion and the rest of us will partake in the real world.

LOL. I was certainly wrong in *those* predictions. And so...your point is? Other than personalizing and attempting to smear people, as you Regressives always do? I mean, so I was wrong about the outcome of the election. So that has something to do with this discussion thread? Again (one gets tired of this): "...and your point IS?"

In case you haven't noticed, my point has been made and it is you alone who still hasn't understood it.

It's difficult to apprehend a point when there is no point made, or when the "point" is irrelevant to the discussion. You score on both facets.

Answer this; what was News Fish's point with his/her post?

Read it yourself. And grow up. I swear...political Regressives....

And, to update those of you who think outlawing guns will make you safe: From today's Wall Street Journal, a column by law professor Joyce Malcolm: "After a school massacre, the U.K. banned handguns in 1998. A decade later, handgun crime had doubled." The article is at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

It seams most of the hysterical gun grabbers on the left like jan and mark dont understand what the second Amendment is really about, when the govt gives up their high capacity mags and ''assault weapons'' then they can demand we the people do the same.......I'm more afraid of my govt than some deranged kid on a killing spree at least against the deranged person gun owners have the right to be on equal ground as far as fire power goes.
They think taking away high capacity clips is going to make a difference somehow.
I wonder how many 5 round clips a determined killer can go through in the time it takes the cops to show up and stop him

Jim - I think you have me confused with someone else if you are calling me a hysterical gun grabber.

oops .sorry Mark I meant stevie from NH

ya stevie your so rational ...you seam to be able to read ,to bad you suck at comprehension

“We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” – Ronald Reagan

Name calling is no sign of inteligence...

Whats the differance between a non felon carrying concealed without a license and on carrying concealed with one?

Steve Forte, the answer to your question is a 10 dollar donation to the policeman's ball

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence.... From the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable.... The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place of honor with all that's good... A free people ought to be armed." - George Washington

Have you ever been to a gun show Steve? Then your argument is moot.

And you, of course, have a reliable citation for this claim; you just forgot to provide it to us.

I don't normally find myself in a situation of (at least partially) validating a JIM post, but Fairfield Hills was a famous state institution that actually was located in Newtown, but that location is just a coincidence. It wasn't there specifically for the people of Newtown, but was a state facility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairfield_State_Hospital

And it was closed, as were thousands of such large facilities over the years, as such institutionalization was phased out except in the most extreme cases. But I don't know how much of that phasing out could be considered "progressive." It was always my understanding that this was similar to the outpatienting of Americans for all medical issues, which seems to track back to insurance companies wanting to save on their costs under patient coverage.

> It was always my understanding that this was similar to the outpatienting of
> Americans for all medical issues, which seems to track back to insurance
> companies wanting to save on their costs under patient coverage.

That was my impression as well, combined with the fact that many folks were turned out of institutions during the Reagan Administration and their cutbacks on social spending. We are reaping some of what was sown long ago...