3 killed, 28 hurt in shootings since Friday night

[Big Don]

[h=2]3 killed, 28 hurt in shootings since Friday night[/h]
Chicago SUN-TIMES


Last Modified: Jul 23, 2012 09:30AM EXCERPT:


Three men are dead and at least 28 other people wounded from gun violence across the city since Friday night.

The weekend’s first fatal shooting happened in the 400 block of North Austin Boulevard, after a man intervened in a domestic argument between the suspect and a woman, police said. The suspect left to get a handgun, then returned about 12:50 a.m. on Saturday and opened fire, striking the man and two other people.


Akil Partee, 19, of the 5900 block of West Lake Street was dead at the scene, according to the Cook County Medical Examiner’s office. A 29-year-old man was shot in the abdomen and was in critical condition at Loyola University Medical Center in Maywood. A 20-year-old man was shot in the buttocks and taken in fair condition to John H. Stroger Jr. Hospital of Cook County. Authorities think the gunman may have shot the men from a light-colored vehicle.

Another man died after he was shot in the abdomen in the 4200 block of North Milwaukee Avenue at 1:46 a.m, police said. Pablo Hernandez, 41, of the 3500 block of South 60th Court in Cicero, was pronounced dead at Masonic at 3:37 a.m., according to medical examiner’s office.

About 6 a.m. on Saturday, Gerry Woods, 37, was shot at his home in the 4500 block of South Wood Street after he had apparently been in a fight with another man, authorities said. The other man returned to the scene with a semi-automatic handgun and fired several shots at Woods, authorities said, adding that the shooting may have been gang-related.

At least 26 other people were hurt in shootings on the South and West Sides since about 8 p.m. Friday evening.
END EXCERPT
Tell me again how gun control laws help... It is so fiendishly difficult for the law abiding to get a gun in Chicago, people have had to go all the way to the US Supreme Court.
Gun laws keep the law abiding from arming themselves. Their effect on criminals is negligible at best.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Well Bill, if you think Chicago's bad, can you imagine how high the crime rate is in Vermont (legal carry), Texas (legal carry), and even Sweden (mandated ownership of assault weapons). Kennesaw Ga (mandated ownership) has to be like Tombstone.

I wonder what the stats are there....

 

[Tez3]

Not sure why you brought Sweden into it, their 'murder by firearms' rate is lower than Switzerlands which has no gun laws.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

 

[Cryozombie]

Not sure why you brought Sweden into it, their 'murder by firearms' rate is lower than Switzerlands which has no gun laws.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

That was the point. The places here with the Most Restrictive gun laws like CA, IL, MA all have extremely high rates of Violent crime, and the places he mentioned that have the most relaxed laws, Vermont, Texas, Sweden etc have some of the lowest... which is in direct opposition to what we are constantly bombarded with by the Anti-Gun crowd, who refuse to look at pesky things like Facts and Truth.

 

[Tez3]

That was the point. The places here with the Most Restrictive gun laws like CA, IL, MA all have extremely high rates of Violent crime, and the places he mentioned that have the most relaxed laws, Vermont, Texas, Sweden etc have some of the lowest... which is in direct opposition to what we are constantly bombarded with by the Anti-Gun crowd, who refuse to look at pesky things like Facts and Truth.

Why bring other countries into it though? We are all very different cultures from America so comparing crime let alone gun crime between the countries isn't going to give you anything you can use for either side of the argument. Sweden is a very different place from America, the culture and the national mindset is different so perhaps it's nothing to do with gun laws that the gun crime is down more to do with the way people are there. You can only compare like with like. Trying to prove something by involving another country is pointless for both sides of the argument, as I said yours is a unique debate, only South Africa seems to be debating this with the same intensity and even they have different problems to yours.

 

[Big Don]

 

[MJS]

3 killed, 28 hurt in shootings since Friday night


Chicago SUN-TIMES


Last Modified: Jul 23, 2012 09:30AM EXCERPT:


Three men are dead and at least 28 other people wounded from gun violence across the city since Friday night.

The weekend’s first fatal shooting happened in the 400 block of North Austin Boulevard, after a man intervened in a domestic argument between the suspect and a woman, police said. The suspect left to get a handgun, then returned about 12:50 a.m. on Saturday and opened fire, striking the man and two other people.


Akil Partee, 19, of the 5900 block of West Lake Street was dead at the scene, according to the Cook County Medical Examiner’s office. A 29-year-old man was shot in the abdomen and was in critical condition at Loyola University Medical Center in Maywood. A 20-year-old man was shot in the buttocks and taken in fair condition to John H. Stroger Jr. Hospital of Cook County. Authorities think the gunman may have shot the men from a light-colored vehicle.

Another man died after he was shot in the abdomen in the 4200 block of North Milwaukee Avenue at 1:46 a.m, police said. Pablo Hernandez, 41, of the 3500 block of South 60th Court in Cicero, was pronounced dead at Masonic at 3:37 a.m., according to medical examiner’s office.

About 6 a.m. on Saturday, Gerry Woods, 37, was shot at his home in the 4500 block of South Wood Street after he had apparently been in a fight with another man, authorities said. The other man returned to the scene with a semi-automatic handgun and fired several shots at Woods, authorities said, adding that the shooting may have been gang-related.

At least 26 other people were hurt in shootings on the South and West Sides since about 8 p.m. Friday evening.
END EXCERPT
Tell me again how gun control laws help... It is so fiendishly difficult for the law abiding to get a gun in Chicago, people have had to go all the way to the US Supreme Court.
Gun laws keep the law abiding from arming themselves. Their effect on criminals is negligible at best.

Certainly some crazy ****. Its the same here in Hartford, New Haven and Bridgeport, with shootings pretty much on a daily basis. All the idiots running around, since the Co. shooting, talking about gun control. Sorry, doesn't work the way THEY want it to or think it should. The badguys can still get the guns, while the good guys, like you said, have to jump thru endless hoops.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I thought this was interesting. It does contradict what Bob is saying, but I'm not saying that Bob's wrong on this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ix-facts-about-guns-violence-and-gun-control/

Six facts about guns, violence, and gun control
Posted by Ezra Klein on July 23, 2012 at 11:51 am
The aftermath of the Aurora, Colorado shootings has been thick with calls to avoid “politicizing” the tragedy. That is code, essentially, for “don’t talk about reforming our gun control laws.”
Let’s be clear: This is a form of politicization. When political actors construct a political argument that threatens political consequences if other political actors pursue a certain political outcome, that is, almost by definition, a politicization of the issue. It’s just a form of politicization favoring those who prefer the status quo to stricter gun control laws.
That said, it’s important to be clear about what Aurora is: A tragedy that may or may not tell us anything useful about the general trends in guns and violence in the United States. And so this post is about those trends, some of which may surprise you.

Now when you read the story I've linked to, keep your mind clear until you read the entire thing - try to get through it all without blowing a gasket. I suspect that this piece will satisfy neither gun-grabbers nor gun-owners, because it doesn't cleave to one 'side' or the other. However, I find that refreshing.

I suspect that people with an agenda for or against gun control are going to either hate this piece or try to take it apart. But the part I found most useful was at the very end:

6. Gun control is not politically popular.
Since 1990, Gallup has been asking Americans whether they think gun control laws should be stricter. The answer, increasingly, is that they don’t. “The percentage in favor of making the laws governing the sale of firearms ‘more strict’ fell from 78% in 1990 to 62% in 1995, and 51% in 2007,” reports Gallup. “In the most recent reading, Gallup in 2010 found 44% in favor of stricter laws. In fact, in 2009 and again last year, the slight majority said gun laws should either remain the same or be made less strict.”

I do believe that is the case. The gun grabbers have become far quieter in recent years. My suspicion is because there just aren't that many of them anymore. The political will just isn't there for significant changes to gun control laws in the USA. That's not to say things could not change - the public is fickle and has a short attention span. But it's just not the kind of battle it was back in the 1980's and 1990's.

If I were to hazard a guess, it would be that the only type of gun control legislation that might stand a chance of passing in this season would be some type of control on ammunition, especially restricting the sale by mail of ammo. A lot of citizens were unaware that you can buy ammunition by mail in the USA without any kind of license or background check, etc. That might be seen as low-hanging fruit that a gun-grabber could use to get something out of the current situation. Other than that, I'm not seeing anything here.

 

[billc]

The solution to this problem is very easy. We need more laws on the books outlawing murder. Obviously, the laws that we have are not working. If we made it even more illegal to murder someone society would be much safer. On the bonus side, if we had more laws prohibiting murder that would also take care of any issues we have with guns.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The solution to this problem is very easy. We need more laws on the books outlawing murder. Obviously, the laws that we have are not working. If we made it even more illegal to murder someone society would be much safer. On the bonus side, if we had more laws prohibiting murder that would also take care of any issues we have with guns.

I think you're fighting a battle with an invisible opponent this time around. No one is howling for more gun control laws at the moment but the media, and that's dying down quickly.

I have seen the media attempts to do the 'ooh, scary gun' thing on TV with the AR-15 and the AK-47 and the drum magazines and the intentional blurring of the lines between an 'automatic' weapon and a 'semi-automatic' weapon, but it just doesn't seem anyone is biting this time around. No one is getting furious and demanding that 'something be done' this time around. I think the political will just isn't there. I could be wrong, but I'm just not seeing it.

 

[Cryozombie]

Why bring other countries into it though? We are all very different cultures from America so comparing crime let alone gun crime between the countries isn't going to give you anything you can use for either side of the argument. Sweden is a very different place from America, the culture and the national mindset is different so perhaps it's nothing to do with gun laws that the gun crime is down more to do with the way people are there. You can only compare like with like. Trying to prove something by involving another country is pointless for both sides of the argument, as I said yours is a unique debate, only South Africa seems to be debating this with the same intensity and even they have different problems to yours.

You certainly have a point... that said, it never stops anyone from comparing our Healthcare system with that in Canada or Europe despite the fact that they are very different places from America as well...

*shrug*

 

[Cryozombie]

I think you're fighting a battle with an invisible opponent this time around. No one is howling for more gun control laws at the moment but the media, and that's dying down quickly.

Jan Schakowsky (D - IL) is.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Tez is right. You really can't compare the US to Sweden or Switzerland or France.

But then again, should we be comparing say Texas to Vermont to Illinois too?

 

[MJS]

The solution to this problem is very easy. We need more laws on the books outlawing murder. Obviously, the laws that we have are not working. If we made it even more illegal to murder someone society would be much safer. On the bonus side, if we had more laws prohibiting murder that would also take care of any issues we have with guns.

I agree. Instead of making the prisons feel like Club Med country club, get back to making them such a miserable place, that nobody would want to spend a day there. Problem is, the BHC (Bleeding Hearts Club) and their followers will cry foul. The threat of the death penalty...well, we've beat that horse 50 times already, so......

But yes, something needs to be done. What, I dont know.

I think you're fighting a battle with an invisible opponent this time around. No one is howling for more gun control laws at the moment but the media, and that's dying down quickly.

I have seen the media attempts to do the 'ooh, scary gun' thing on TV with the AR-15 and the AK-47 and the drum magazines and the intentional blurring of the lines between an 'automatic' weapon and a 'semi-automatic' weapon, but it just doesn't seem anyone is biting this time around. No one is getting furious and demanding that 'something be done' this time around. I think the political will just isn't there. I could be wrong, but I'm just not seeing it.

Sadly, despite all the background checks that're done, if a dirtbag wants a gun, he'll get it. I'm certainly not anti gun, in fact I'm the opposite. If a alw abiding citizen wants a gun, then by all means, let 'em have one. One thing that I've often wondered about is the type of gun. Using the latest nutjob in CO as an example....who the hell, aside from LE and Military, would need assault type weapons? Furthermore, why was it so easy for this guy to buy body armor online?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

One thing that I've often wondered about is the type of gun. Using the latest nutjob in CO as an example....who the hell, aside from LE and Military, would need assault type weapons? Furthermore, why was it so easy for this guy to buy body armor online?

I know that you know the drill on this question, but I'll run through it again for the sake of others who haven't heard it before.

Your question, restated, is what use do citizens have with military-style weapons that have no purpose except to kill human beings? That is, they're not hunting, sporting, or target weapons, so why permit them? (Correct me if I am wrong on what you're asking).

The answers, in no particular order, and without malice or anger, are these:

1) The 2nd Amendment says nothing about what a weapon looks like. There is no 'and the gun has to have a particular purpose before it can be legal' clause in it.
2) Banning guns generally starts with low-hanging fruit - first ban the 'scary' guns. It's part of a long-standing 'divide and conquer' strategy amongst gun-grabbers.
3) There is no realistic definition of an 'assault' rifle. The weapons commonly referred to as 'assault' rifles are like military weapons in appearance only. They cannot fire fully-automatic as real 'assault' weapons do.
4) There is precious little difference between an 'assault' rifle and any other kind of rifle. Take a standard hunting rifle, such as a Ruger Mini-14, and put a 'tactical' black stock on it, and it's an 'assault' rifle that looks strikingly like the military M14 scaled down. In what way has it become a more dangerous weapon by making it black instead of wood colored?
5) The most common argument against so-called 'assault' weapons is that they can hold magazines of large capacity. As demonstrated in the recent shooting, large-capacity magazines jam frequently and are poor choices for any experienced shooter.
6) Most criminals do not use assault weapons, although their have been some very high-profile exceptions.
7) Of course they are designed to kill. All guns are designed to kill. And most of them can kill humans very effectively. That a gun has 'only' the purpose of killing humans is a poor reason to ban it; that would require also the banning of all home-defense weapons, as they also were designed specifically to kill human beings.

There was, for a period of time, an 'assault rifle ban' in the USA. It served very little purpose. Certain magazines with extended capacity were illegal. But the weapons it sought to ban were simply modified before importation - instead of a black plastic stock, they got a wooden stock. Instead of a bayonet mount, they ground them off. The weapons were renamed. But they remained the same weapons for all intents and purposes. Little of consequence actually happened, by most accounts. Even the most ardent gun-grabbers (Diane Feinstein) stated that it was effective because it 'drove up prices.' Ooh, wow.

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

In reality, most people who are against additional gun control are deeply suspicious of attempts to ban 'scary' guns. Whilst non-gun owners may see these black, hulking, weapons of the basic design commonly carried by the military and police as frightening, they are essentially no less and no more dangerous than any high-powered firearm. The main complaint seems to be the extended magazine capacity; in all other respects, they function the same way, they carry the same (or even less-powerful) ammunition, and they're quite often less accurate than hunting weapons.

And ultimately, my most common statement regarding demands that weapons be restricted on the basis of 'need' is that free speech is also a civil liberty. No one asks why a person 'needs' to speak freely. What guns I choose to own as a free citizen simply aren't available for question regarding what I 'need' with them. What need have you to speak in public? What need have you to be free from unreasonable search and seizure? Right; the law doesn't ask that question; nor should it. It's just not an appropriate question to ask.

If the actual purpose of banning guns was to reduce crime, one would think that one would focus on the guns most used by criminals. But instead, we seem fascinated and frightened by the 'scary-looking' ones. That really isn't an effective way to think about reducing gun crime, IMHO.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I've read that law enforcement upgraded their personal carry from .22 to .35 to .45 to 9mm etc in order to keep pace with the criminals. Swat teams in some areas are now equipped with the same gear as an infantryman in Iraq. So if the idea is "self defense against criminals" why shouldn't the average citizen also have access to equalizing firepower? There are guys walking the streets in Buffalo (which is not a high crime town) that have been shot 5, 10, 15 times with .22's. Criminals are getting body armor...so why can't I have it too?

There are about 313 million Americans.
That's 313,000,000.
There are an estimated 300,000,000 firearms in US civilian hands. This does not include illegal guns in criminal hands, or those used by LEO or military.
An estimated 45% of Americans own at least 1 firearm.
That's 140,000,000 people own guns.

Deaths by guns in 2010 were under 9,000.

If it was a huge epidemic, we'd be losing a lot more people faster.


Some observations: (pulled from facebook here on)

The places in the US where we're seeing these massacres happen (Columbine, Aurora, The Giffords shooting) were "Gun Free Zones". In cases where the shootings happened that weren't "Gun Free", other armed citizens took out the psycho. There's a video on YT of a woman who lost both her parents to a crazied gunman, testifying in front of Congress calling on more gun ownership, not more laws (that criminals won't follow anyway).

If gun access = high crime, then Vermont, Kennesaw GA, and Sweden would have high gun crime rates. Wonder what the actual rates are.

I don't see more laws as the answer to stopping these crimes. I see proper enforcement of the ones we have, better education of citizens period, harsher penalties for misuse, and a better focus on safety for owners. You can argue the whole 'lots of people dying from guns, not so many tyrants' BS. But the DOJ says gun crime has been in a decline. Specifically "Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993. Nonfatal firearm crime rates have declined since 1994. After 1996, less than 10% of nonfatal violent crimes involved firearm" (source DOJ)

All that happens with more difficult access is that law abiding citizens are disarmed and left defenseless against a criminal element that will ignore the law and obtain firepower illegally. If that wasn't true, then places with hard access and low availability like Chicago, NYC and DC would be low crime. DC's crime rate fell after Heller.

Now personally, if guns vanished tomorrow I wouldn't shed a tear. But, when a tragedy such as this occurs, the emotional instinct is to pass sweeping poorly thought out legislation. This must be opposed, until all the facts are in, and emotions have cooled and rational thought can prevail. With an estimated 45% of US households having at least 1 of the 300+million firearms in circulation, where is the logic in passing restrictive laws because a handful of the 138,000,000 legal civilian gun owners are nutcases?

We all know that criminals respect the law, and harder laws and harsher penalties would serve as a deterrent. That's when we have so few repeat offenders. Easy access to guns is a sure recipe for disaster. That's why Vermont, Texas and Arizona have the worst gun violence, and Chicago, NYC and DC (pre Heller) were so safe. That's also why Switzerland with it's mandated ownership of assault rifles must be worse than Somalia these days.

The US has an estimated 300,000,000 guns in civilian hands. That number does not include military or law enforcement. 45% of the US population is estimated to own at least 1 firearm. That's over 100,000,000 people.

9,484 out of 313,000,000 died from guns in 1 year.
In 2010 (the lowest in years) 33,808 Americans died due to automobiles.
3X as many people die from cars as guns...

Can we ban the car please? It's fricken lethal!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Jan Schakowsky (D - IL) is.

What legislation has she proposed? It's noise, IMHO.

The only comment on the actual floor of the House or the Senate so far is this one:

https://scout.sunlightfoundation.com/item/speech/CREC-2012-07-23-pt1-PgH5117-2.chunk1
Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), on Jul 23, 2012

Mr. Speaker, the tragic events that happened in Aurora, Colorado just shows us in this country that if we don't have sensible gun control legislation, then shame on us; then we're the fools.

Nobody is against Second Amendment rights, and nobody is not for giving legitimate people the ability to own guns. But what the shooter was able to obtain on the Internet or in a gun shop, without any kind of background check whatsoever, to me, is unconscionable and makes no sense whatsoever.

I think that this Congress has to come together and find out what language we can put in sensible gun control legislation to make sure that when someone buys weapons, they don't have 100 and 200 and 300 and 1,000 times the amount of ammunition that they would need, that a reasonable person would need, for any reasonable event.

My heart goes out to the victims in Aurora and to their families. This tragedy should never happen again.

But has proposed nothing so far. Just made a speech. To be expected.

And, of course, for those who do not know it, he is lying. One cannot buy a firearm legally in the USA from a gun dealer 'without any kind of background check'. That's a lie. Furthermore, the background check that WAS DONE on the accused shooter came back clean - he apparently had nothing more than a speeding ticket in his past.

As to the ammunition he purchased, the news media is reporting that he bought it over many months. Even if controls were put in place regarding the amount of ammunition a person could buy (which won't happen), he could still have amassed a large amount of ammunition given his time frame. And finally, he of course did not expend anywhere near that number of rounds. Not to be grisly, but it would appear he fired at most several hundred rounds - quite possible even with stringent controls over the purchase of ammunition. The 6,000 rounds he is alleged to have simply didn't play a part in his crime; he didn't use them. Hell, he could not have carried them.

 

[MJS]

I know that you know the drill on this question, but I'll run through it again for the sake of others who haven't heard it before.

Your question, restated, is what use do citizens have with military-style weapons that have no purpose except to kill human beings? That is, they're not hunting, sporting, or target weapons, so why permit them? (Correct me if I am wrong on what you're asking).

Yes, in a nutshell, thats what I was asking.

The answers, in no particular order, and without malice or anger, are these:

1) The 2nd Amendment says nothing about what a weapon looks like. There is no 'and the gun has to have a particular purpose before it can be legal' clause in it.
2) Banning guns generally starts with low-hanging fruit - first ban the 'scary' guns. It's part of a long-standing 'divide and conquer' strategy amongst gun-grabbers.
3) There is no realistic definition of an 'assault' rifle. The weapons commonly referred to as 'assault' rifles are like military weapons in appearance only. They cannot fire fully-automatic as real 'assault' weapons do.
4) There is precious little difference between an 'assault' rifle and any other kind of rifle. Take a standard hunting rifle, such as a Ruger Mini-14, and put a 'tactical' black stock on it, and it's an 'assault' rifle that looks strikingly like the military M14 scaled down. In what way has it become a more dangerous weapon by making it black instead of wood colored?
5) The most common argument against so-called 'assault' weapons is that they can hold magazines of large capacity. As demonstrated in the recent shooting, large-capacity magazines jam frequently and are poor choices for any experienced shooter.
6) Most criminals do not use assault weapons, although their have been some very high-profile exceptions.
7) Of course they are designed to kill. All guns are designed to kill. And most of them can kill humans very effectively. That a gun has 'only' the purpose of killing humans is a poor reason to ban it; that would require also the banning of all home-defense weapons, as they also were designed specifically to kill human beings.

There was, for a period of time, an 'assault rifle ban' in the USA. It served very little purpose. Certain magazines with extended capacity were illegal. But the weapons it sought to ban were simply modified before importation - instead of a black plastic stock, they got a wooden stock. Instead of a bayonet mount, they ground them off. The weapons were renamed. But they remained the same weapons for all intents and purposes. Little of consequence actually happened, by most accounts. Even the most ardent gun-grabbers (Diane Feinstein) stated that it was effective because it 'drove up prices.' Ooh, wow.

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

In reality, most people who are against additional gun control are deeply suspicious of attempts to ban 'scary' guns. Whilst non-gun owners may see these black, hulking, weapons of the basic design commonly carried by the military and police as frightening, they are essentially no less and no more dangerous than any high-powered firearm. The main complaint seems to be the extended magazine capacity; in all other respects, they function the same way, they carry the same (or even less-powerful) ammunition, and they're quite often less accurate than hunting weapons.

And ultimately, my most common statement regarding demands that weapons be restricted on the basis of 'need' is that free speech is also a civil liberty. No one asks why a person 'needs' to speak freely. What guns I choose to own as a free citizen simply aren't available for question regarding what I 'need' with them. What need have you to speak in public? What need have you to be free from unreasonable search and seizure? Right; the law doesn't ask that question; nor should it. It's just not an appropriate question to ask.

If the actual purpose of banning guns was to reduce crime, one would think that one would focus on the guns most used by criminals. But instead, we seem fascinated and frightened by the 'scary-looking' ones. That really isn't an effective way to think about reducing gun crime, IMHO.

Like I said, Bill, I'm not against people owning guns. I, just like many others, (not necessarily anyone on this forum) are asking the purpose of the average joe citizen, owning an 'assault type' weapon. But hey, that's just simply my opinion. If the law allows that, then have at it.

As for the last paragraph....I don't know, but it'd seem to me that the common guns used by criminals, are the same ones used by you and I and every other law abiding citizen, no? I mean, when was the last time we heard of a car jacking, and the BG had an uzi, or AK?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Like I said, Bill, I'm not against people owning guns. I, just like many others, (not necessarily anyone on this forum) are asking the purpose of the average joe citizen, owning an 'assault type' weapon. But hey, that's just simply my opinion. If the law allows that, then have at it.

I understand, but I was trying to provide context to the question itself. It seems a simple question to ask "What need do you, Joe Sixpack, have for an Uzi?" The answer isn't to explain why Joe needs an Uzi. The answer is to explain why that question would not be considered a valid question if you applied it to other civil liberties. "What need do you, Joe Sixpak, have for a hate-based website?" Or a belief in a religion that isn't mainstream? or a political belief in Anarchy or Communism? No one has a 'need' for any of their rights, at a fundamental level, presuming we're all alive and relatively well and free. But we don't have to defend our 'need' to have rights; we just have them. By that token, then, there is no requirement to have a 'need' for an Uzi. It's just not a valid question to ask.

As for the last paragraph....I don't know, but it'd seem to me that the common guns used by criminals, are the same ones used by you and I and every other law abiding citizen, no? I mean, when was the last time we heard of a car jacking, and the BG had an uzi, or AK?

And that was my point. If the argument for gun control is to reduce the availability of guns to criminals, then assault weapons are unlikely to have an effect, by anyone's standards. It's like saying that termites are eating my home, but I can't seem to stop them, so I'll go after the ants instead. In what way will that fix the termite problem? It's like that old anti-gun argument, "Well, we have to do SOMETHING!" Actually, doing the wrong thing or the ineffective thing is worse than doing nothing, so why propose it?

 

[WC_lun]

I'm not arguing for or against gun control, but people cite the second ammendment as the reason all guns are legal yet forget the part about the militia. Gun ownership in the constitution was specifically so men would have firearms while in the state militia. How many gun owners are part of thier state militia/

I do think there can be some common sense laws that responsible gun owners and non-gun owners alike can agree on. Such as closing loop holes allowing very easy purchase of guns in shows and flea markets. A lot of the weapons in criminals hands are from gun shows and flea markets.

No one is really championing strict gun control laws, even those that believe in them. The NRA and gun lobbyist just have way too much influence for those type of laws to be discussed, much less passed.