beowulf

So that is your best argument for adding new laws that we know won't work? Very few people who fail the background check are prosecuted for attempting to purchase a firearm illegally. The NICS database isn't updated as well as it could be. Mentally ill people are often not flagged in the NICS background check due to it not being updated. There are other laws that we could do a better job of enforcing, but that is the first that comes to mind.

Doing something that doesn't work isn't better then doing nothing. Creating new laws in an attempt to stop people who already don't follow the existing laws doesn't make any sense. How about putting more effort into enforcing the existing laws?

Some people just like to create controversy and conspiracy theories. Apparently they have nothing better to do.

Chuck doesn't need to use his shoulder. He just fires it single handed like a handgun!

You seem to see what you want to see. The OP did not make this claim. I don't know if you are lying or what? What the OP was saying is that "Assault Weapons" can't take down an airliner from a mile out. And that is true. The weapon you trotted out isn't an "Assault Weapon". Since gun nuts assure us that "assault weapon" is a meaningless concept, how can you possibly make that claim (unless you want to have it both ways, that is)? Ah yes some more intentional ignorance. If you will notice I did put it in quotations. It's the term that is widely used even though it was never a classification of weapons. It was made up by the gun banning people to try and make their argument seem more meaningful. I only used it because it was used by Bloomberg. It's generally used to describe a shoulder fired semi automatic weapon, usually an AR15 or AK47 type rifle. Neither of which are advertised as being used to take down airplanes. The Browning M2 is not a shoulder fired weapon.

It's either ignorance or dishonesty. Either way it's still wrong. Considering that many have pointed out that the Browning M2 is not an "Assault Weapon" and he continues with his straw man argument, I am leaning away from ignorance.

And you continue with your straw man argument. Browning M2's are not "Assault Weapons". Those are Class 3 weapons that are very expensive to buy and shoot. It's obvious to anyone who cares to be honest about this argument that it's not what the OP or Mayor Bloomberg was referring to.

You seem to see what you want to see. The OP did not make this claim. I don't know if you are lying or what? What the OP was saying is that "Assault Weapons" can't take down an airliner from a mile out. And that is true. The weapon you trotted out isn't an "Assault Weapon".

I caught the end of the game. Very exciting! Kings managed to tie it up at 2 and the Red Wings scored in the last 30 seconds to win the game.

A Browning M2 is not the same thing as a BAR. They aren't even close to being the same thing.

It's really expensive to buy and the ammunition is really expensive also. I wonder if anyone has ever committed a crime with one of these in the US?

I have no idea what your point is in bringing up the Browning M2. It's nothing like the M1 Carbine. They don't even use the same ammunition. Also as others have pointed out, it's not an assault weapon. It's a tripod mounted machine gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine

I think it's more accurate to say Rich People at their worst. I don't think it necessarily depends on where the money comes from.

This is what I said. > Fewer guns does not equate to fewer murders. You need to overcome your prejudice also. This is from the link you posted. Notice how it says "major studies on this issue have not shown cause-and-effect". So while it doesn't prove anything one way or another it does support what I said.

Quote: "Some studies have found that murder rates are higher where guns are more prevalent." Just "some"? In other words, there are also places where guns are more prevalent with LOWER crime rates. Not to mention that second statement in that answer... Good example there Kallend, it pretty much disproves your use of that site as an example. Actually it disproves beowulf's claim, which is what I set out to do It doesn't disprove my claim, it just fails to prove it (which is quite different). No it doesn't. It doesn't prove or disprove anything. It just makes claims and doesn't provide anything to back them up with.

There is no evidence to support your claims. The NRA isn't out selling guns. They aren't exploiting mass murders like you claim. People are buying guns because of politicians wanting to ban them. There is no evidence that any of these new gun laws will decrease murders or crime at all. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

https://docs.google.com/file/d/1rduJhkGYWK672Ye7TdvY1J4fzhyhYQXCktuHd6EpAu6hcM_lcb6AqZIaxVX0/edit If you don't like the first one here is another one from Austria. Unless you are too caught up in your own prejudice to read it.

No The US has a violence problen Yet it is less than many other countries that have few guns 76% of US murders are committed with guns. You CAN figure it out if you really try to overcome your prejudice. Fewer guns does not equate to fewer murders. You need to overcome your prejudice also. You might want to check the statistics on gun ownership and murder rate in developed (first world) nations before making a claim like that. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Read for yourself. I wrote "FIRST WORLD" nations, you know, kind of like us. Not Belarus and Moldovia and Russia. Try Canada, Netherlands, Australia, UK, Sweden, France... Did you even bother to read it? It's quite clear that you are only relying on your prejudice. More countries were included. But you only read enough to satisfy your prejudice.

No The US has a violence problen Yet it is less than many other countries that have few guns 76% of US murders are committed with guns. You CAN figure it out if you really try to overcome your prejudice. Fewer guns does not equate to fewer murders. You need to overcome your prejudice also. You might want to check the statistics on gun ownership and murder rate in developed (first world) nations before making a claim like that. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Read for yourself.

No The US has a violence problen Yet it is less than many other countries that have few guns 76% of US murders are committed with guns. You CAN figure it out if you really try to overcome your prejudice. Fewer guns does not equate to fewer murders. You need to overcome your prejudice also.

Your credibility is sorely lacking. All you do is ridicule anyone who says anything you disagree with. Put your two cents out there and tell us what your solution is. Why don't you finally come out and say something that has any substance to it. Or are you just going to stick to your usual empty critics.

You are assuming that I agree with everything it says or that I didn't learn anything new in it. We all know what happens when we a assume. Did you even bother to read it?

What magazine are you talking about? I didn't see any magazine of any kind? Did you even read the study? Just noticed you said you didn't read it. Well try reading it. You don't even know why I would consider it to be relatively unbiased.

That is by far the best gun control study, as unbiased as it gets. Well worth reading.

Ha, but taking a single shot to kill two crosing birds in skeet is not allowed. Can be done, and easy to do even by mistake but doesn't count when scoring. You would only score one hit out of possible two hits for taking one shot to hit both birds. Shooting sports are great and challenging. I don't know anything about skeet shooting and I really don't care if Obama really shoots skeet all of the time. I don't agree with his stance on gun control regardless of his skeet shooting skills.