Robert Hawkins SKS Assault Rifle

patrickk -

Thank you for answering my question.  Admittedly, I had to read through 7 paragraphs of blather and diatribe before I got to your answer, but thank you anyway.

So:  You believe that the "expedited passing of a new and more robust" Assault Weapons Ban, coupled with "stronger sentencing guidelines" is the answer to this particular situation.

Not just any type of situation mind you - you specifically claim that your plan would apply to this SPECIFIC case - to "THIS TYPE OF HORROR".

Do you honestly believe that legislation can control the actions of a deranged individual who is willing to commit multiple felonies and other lesser crimes that then culminate in this horrific act?

Do you honestly believe that "stronger sentencing guidelines" is of any consequence to a mentally-ill person who plans to kill himself after he competes his plan?

???

Not only do you apparently believe these things with every fiber of your being, you are willing, in a public forum, to assert that "patricck's plan" would not just hopefully limit this type of horror, it would (and I quote):  "drastically limit the possibility for this type of horror from being repeated".

The glaring and gross fallacy of your argument sir hinges on the presumption that if Hawkins could not have gotten his hands on this one particular type of semi-automatic rifle, he wouldn't have done this act.  The fact that this firearm was somehow available - EVEN IF OBTAINED COMPLETELY ILLEGALLY -apparently allowed him to do this or maybe even forced him to do this heinous act. 

You wish us to believe that Hawkins was a madman with discriminating tastes, and not just any firearm would do for his plan.  No:  He wouldn't have STOLEN a scoped semi-automatic hunting rifle, a semi-automatic pistol or a semi-automatic shotgun to do this deed (with all of those firearms being firearms that you theoretically assert that that you support people owning).  Nope.  None of those firearms would do and you apparently know this with a fairly high degree of certainty!

Plain and simple:  Your "plan" would logically have had ZERO effect on this particular case as you cannot legislatively control a madman, no matter what you assert, no matter what claims you make.

Which leads me back to my earlier statement.  You and those of your ilk doggedly seize upon any opportunity to push your perhaps well-intentioned, but none-the-less ridiculous agenda, and you attempt to beat your drum on the heels of a tragedy to which your "solution" could not possibly apply.

As a point in passing that I seriously doubt you will be able to absorb:  The Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to expire because it was absolutely full of ridiculous contradictions.  One type of firearm was illegal because it had an "evil" pistol grip stock, but put that exact same firearm into a non-pistol grip stock and it was suddenly legal.  One type of firearm was illegal with a 15 round detachable magazine in it, but that exact same firearm was legal with a 10-round magazine in it.

And I'll only mention in passing that the results of virtually all studies of that FAILED legislation indicate that it had an inconclusive impact on crime.

Ahh - but I forget the your "new and more robust" (dare I say - new and improved?) plan would address all this - presumably by outlawing whatever firearms meets your Assault Weapons definition de jour.

Gee patrickk:  Where are you with planned legislation to prevent Natural Disasters?  Can you "drastically" reduce those too?

VTsharpshooter:

You have deliberately misrepresented and drawn unfounded inferences from my statements. I stated what I believed would be sensible and measured legislation which could mitigate and possibly prevent similar tragedies, not that it would magically resolve the horror of the Hawkins massacre. Your deceitful insinuation that I tried to claim that and subsequent conceited admonishing is a straw man: you're arguing against a position or view that I didn't advocate. 

I completely stand by my views and I reaffirm that I do believe that such tragedies can be reduced if the convenient and precise instruments of their implementation are more strictly controlled and/or prohibited. This is essentially the position of police unions across the country. 

You go on to make any manner of absurd and self-debasing assumptions about what you think I believe rather than considering what I've actually said. I did not make any presumption at all that Hawkins wouldn't or couldn't have committed murder had he not had access to an AK-47 type semi-automatic assault rifle. I believe instead that his ready access to said weapon and its firepower ENABLED him to commit a mass murder swiftly and efficiently. Could he have accomplished the same thing with other weapons? Its certainly possible, but the nature and operation of an assault weapon make it ideal for carrying out such an attack, particularly by a shooting novice such as Hawkins. The muzzle velocity, ammunition, magazine capacity, size and operation all contribute to the lethality. This is why I believe that such weapons should be prohibited or be heavily regulated, similar to Title II weapons.

Your aggressively ignorant attack on what you think I believe reveals more about you than you probably intended. This is exactly what I expected when I predicted a reactionary push-back against even the mere consideration of gun control measures in the wake of a gun massacre. No matter how hard you try, it will never be taboo in our society to examine the facts of such incidents and conceive of informed solutions as a result. Thinking people do this routinely. Those motivated by fear attempt to fashion contrived social proscriptions against rational thought because they feel that such thought will somehow harm them. Some just make a pastime out of being offended, but it is neither distasteful nor exploitive to do what I and others have done. Your desire to restrain logical thought out of regard for the easily-offended gun lobby and associates is complete BS, and I'm calling you out on it.

I find your two examples of "problems" with the former AWB to actually undermine (and mock) your own argument. There's and clear qualitative difference between a pistol grip and a long-rifle stock grip. There's an obvious quantitative difference between 10 rounds and 15 rounds.  Delineating prohibited weapons based on these features is not wrong. Incidentally, legislation can be amended, it does not have to be thrown out wholesale, contrary to what you suggest. If anything, its weaknesses are a result of the nature of legislative compromise that is inherent to our democratic process. That's why I supported measures to clarify and enhance its spirit and literal wording so as to avoid much of the profoundly ignorant myths surrounded it. 

When you're ready to dispense with the condescension and sarcasm and actually debate gun issues, I'm all for it. In lieu of that, please explain how the AWB can be considered failed if objective judgment is as yet inconclusive, because your contradiction suggests that you don't really care to know objective truth.

Patrickk -

I am entirely ready to have a cordial discussion with you.  I will most assuredly cease my derisive tone if you would please reciprocate by toning down your own acerbic statements and refrain from offering insults through inference.

As an olive branch of where we might find agreement:  I will state that I am also in favor of stronger guidelines for firearm-related crime, whether it involves “Assault Weapons” or not.  Our courts do not punish firearm related crime harshly enough, and often disregard existing sentencing guidelines / mandatory sentences when punishing a criminal.

If you like, I would be happy to debate firearms issues with you, and in the mean time (since you asked):  Let me explain why I feel that the Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) can and should be considered as having failed.

First off, what we have been referencing as the AWB was actually called the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.  As the first part of the name implies, the Act was intended to control crime, specifically violent crime that involved the use of certain “military style” firearms.  Simplistically, the Act prohibited the sale of a list of newly manufactured semi-automatic assault rifles, it prohibited the sale of high-capacity magazines, it restricted the sale of other semi-automatic rifles and pistols that could accept detachable magazines (and which also had a specific list of additional special characteristics), and it also contained restrictions on certain types of shotguns.

The author of this Act is on record as asserting that the AWB would only affect 19 types of firearms.  The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) however disagreed, and they suggested that the Act effectively banned 45 types of firearms.  Since the Act often used generic definitions to describe the firearms that were affected, there are experts that suggest that the Act actually covered approximately 150 types of firearms. 

Since the AWB was enacted to primarily reduce violent crime, specifically violent crime that involved the types of firearms being banned, I suggest that it is logical to gauge the Act’s success or failure on how the Act impacted the violent crime it was intended to reduce.

Since the AWB’s expiration in 2004, I suggest that there have been many, many studies that have very carefully analyzed what the Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) may have accomplished across the 10 years that it was Law.  By analyzed, I mean to say that statistics on violent crime from before 1994 and after 1994 was exhaustively examined to ascertain if there was a statistically significant reduction in the type of crime that the AWB was specifically designed to address.

Beyond that examination, other studies have attempted to analyze what the effect has been on violent crime with the expiration of the AWB.  By analyzed, I mean to say that statistics on violent criminal data from 1994-2004 has been exhaustively examined in comparison to violent crime from 2004 to the present, specifically looking to see if there has been a statistically significant increase in the type of violent crime that the AWB was designed to address now that it has expired.

From my extensive research, it appears that the best that can be said about all of the analysis concerning the effectiveness of the AWB is that the results are “inconclusive”.

I interpret “inconclusive” to mean that there was a lack of anything conclusive, or in other words:  It Did Not Accomplished Anything That Can Be Measured.

I submit that since the AWB did not produce any positive results that can be measured after a window of 10 years, it therefore did not work as intended, because if it did work as intended one presumes that some measurable results could be seen.  In the absence of measureable results, I believe it safe to say that the Act Failed to meet it's designed goal.  In the absence of seeing any measureable results whatsoever - I am very comfortable is saying that it Utterly Failed.

Having answered your question, I believe it is now my turn.

You are on record as stating that you believe that an expanded AWB and stronger sentencing guidelines is what is needed to stop violent crime that relates to the use of Assault Weapons, and that enacting an expanded AWB would drastically reduce the possibility of violent crime related to Assault Weapons.

Given the fact that the AWB of 1994 did not apparently produce any measureable results towards a reduction in violent crime; can you help me understand the logical basis for how you can assert that an expanded AWB would deliver a “drastic” reduction in violent crime?

In lieu of that, would you be so kind as to explain how the AWB was a success in reducing violent crime, and what you base that measureable success on?

The recent massacres / genocides in Africa were carried out largely with machetes... and not even semi-automatic ones.

Most people could kill more people with a shotgun than with a fully-automatic AK-47. 

And even if all semi-automatic handguns were banned (which would include Olympic .22 target pistols) a killer could be nearly as effective with a revolver and a speed-loader, as police used to use until recent years. Dirty Harry was pretty effective with his, as I recall. 

The guy was on mind-altering drugs for his depression. We have to quit putting kids on Ritalin and other drugs just to get them to act the way we want. Parents need to know their kids and talk to them, not park them in front of a TV or video game box an dlet them figure out life based on that.

We would be better served outlawing violent video games than firearms. If someone with a concealed carry permit had been in the mall, lives would have been saved. Look at the church in Colorado. A woman with a permit shot the culprit before he killed anyone there. She is a hero, and gun-control advocated would make her a criminal for doing what she did.