The Political Party

[rbstern]

I'm sure this post will be dismissed by the usual suspects as the ranting of a "guntard," but I ask you to read it honestly, with an open mind to these easily verified facts.

A big problem in the gun debate is ignorance of both history and technology.  Many people who think "assault weapons" should be banned have poor awareness of technical characteristics of firearms, and their roles in U.S. history.  This contributes to misperceptions and false assumptions.  I'm not suggesting that you have to be a gunsmith or an academic historian to participate effectively in this debate.  However, some easily obtained knowledge adds perspective.

The M-16 rifle and its AR-15 semi-auto cousin were proceeded by a weapon called the M1 Carbine.  Introduced in WW2, the M1 Carbine was designed as a lightweight, high capacity weapon to bridge the gap between U.S. military sidearms (the 1911 45acp pistol) and main battle rifle (M1 Garand).  It was light weight.  It fired a .30 caliber, round nose bullet, in a small cartridge, from a high capacity magazine which could be carried in quantity and quickly swapped out.  As with the AR-15 twenty years later, the design idea was a weapon suitable to rear guard and auxillary unit service that had more firepower than a handgun, without the weight, recoil and bulk of a full sized, front line battle rifle.   Magazine capacities were 15 and 30 rounds.  Later commercial magazines included 20 and 40 round capacities.

The M2 Carbine was a select fire variant, capable of full auto fire.   Other major variants included a folding stock intended for paratroopers.

Approximatey 7 million M1 and M2 Carbines were made under U.S. military contracts.  Several million more were made for foreign governments and as commercial variants.  Many of the M1 Carbines that saw service in the U.S. military were sold to foreign governments, and saw military and police service all over the world.

Now, what may come as a surprise to you is that many M1 Carbines live in the homes of U.S. civilians.  GIs brought them home after WW2 and Korea.  Others were sold to dealers and directly to the public by the U.S. government, often through the Civilian Marksmanship Program.  Fifty years ago, it would have not been unusual to see several M1 Carbines for sale in a small town hardware store, selling for $50, alongside the shotguns, squirrel and deer rifles.  Anyone could buy one without paperwork or a background check.  They were widely popular as plnking and small game rifles with the American public.  Surplus ammo was cheap and widely available.  The rifles also saw duty as patrol rifles with many law enforcement departments.

If you skipped all of the above, please read this statement:  From 1945 to 1968, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of M1 Carbines, with characteristics similar to the AR15, were sold to the American public, with zero gun control, zero registraton, zero paperwork, and zero concern for mass shootings.

The M1 Carbine was not used in crimes at any extraordinary rate, and on very rare occassion, one was used in a in mass shooting.  James Pough used one in Florida in 1990 at a GMAC office in Florida.  Charles Whitman had an M1 Carbine among the many weapons he carried the day he murdered people at the University of Texas, but as far as I know, it wasn't used.

So, I put the question to you: if these weapons were sold to and possessed by the American public in great numbers, for more than twenty years, in the absence of any form of gun control, and were rarely ever used in mass murder...what makes you think the AR-15 is somehow unique?

Practically speaking, the guns and the capacity for fast killing haven't changed.  Something else in our society changed. 

Blaming the guns won't get us far.  It will let us off the hook until the next shooting, but no more.

[BA.Barcolounger]

Times change.

Background checks are sorely needed and do not infringe on your rights.

[Invisible Hand]

People are crazier now.  Modern society is literally driving people nuts.  Did guns cause this?  No.  Would things like waiting periods and background checks reduce the number of shootings?  Probably.  

[Tom Hicks]

let's go back a little further in time, when the thompson machine gun was readily available to the public without restrictions on its purchase.

it was in common use by criminals during the prohibition era, and many innocent passersby were wounded and killed by indescriminate spraying of machine gun fire.

Then, after the purchase of machine guns was more tightly regulated, the numbers of such killings sharply tapered off. Even today, the purchase of machine guns is not illegal, just tightly regulated. and their use in mass killings has been far lower when compared to the earlier time before such regulation.

with more modern semi auto military style weapons, its the capacity of the magazine that increases the danger in mass shootings. The M1 garand had a magazine capacity of 8 rounds. After that, the shooter has to reload.

[gspointer]

I suspect that machine gun use went down more because of the deaths and or captures of the people that were using them. Of course they were not regulated much either, they just wanted to put a tax on them that would keep them out of the poor union folks hands.

[rbstern]

---

Tom Hicks wrote:

let's go back a little further in time, when the thompson machine gun was readily available to the public without restrictions on its purchase.

it was in common use by criminals during the prohibition era, and many innocent passersby were wounded and killed by indescriminate spraying of machine gun fire.

Then, after the purchase of machine guns was more tightly regulated, the numbers of such killings sharply tapered off. Even today, the purchase of machine guns is not illegal, just tightly regulated. and their use in mass killings has been far lower when compared to the earlier time before such regulation.

with more modern semi auto military style weapons, its the capacity of the magazine that increases the danger in mass shootings. The M1 garand had a magazine capacity of 8 rounds. After that, the shooter has to reload.

---

Honestly, what do you think reduced violence more:  A tax act, or the repeal of prohibition the prior year? 

Did Thompson submachine guns suddenly disappear because a $200 tax was required to own one?  How many criminals ran down to the U.S. Treasury with $200 in hand to register their Thompsons and BARs, or better yet...turned them in to avoid paying a tax?

The NFA did not make automatic weapons disappear from criminal hands.  The act was largely unknown to the general public.  It's still not well understood, nearly eighty years later.

Can you provide evidence of the many civilian casualties you are referring to?  Can you plot the data on some sort of a timeline to back up your assertion that the NFA accomplished this?  Can you correct the data for prohibition-fueled violence?

[normh]

Lets go back even further.  This weapon was available to the public, but seldom purchased by the public.  It was used indiscriminately against the civilian population of another nation; the civilian populations of the Native American Indians and by the United States government.

[Tom Hicks]

---

rbstern wrote:

---

Tom Hicks wrote:

let's go back a little further in time, when the thompson machine gun was readily available to the public without restrictions on its purchase.

it was in common use by criminals during the prohibition era, and many innocent passersby were wounded and killed by indescriminate spraying of machine gun fire.

Then, after the purchase of machine guns was more tightly regulated, the numbers of such killings sharply tapered off. Even today, the purchase of machine guns is not illegal, just tightly regulated. and their use in mass killings has been far lower when compared to the earlier time before such regulation.

with more modern semi auto military style weapons, its the capacity of the magazine that increases the danger in mass shootings. The M1 garand had a magazine capacity of 8 rounds. After that, the shooter has to reload.

---

Honestly, what do you think reduced violence more:  A tax act, or the repeal of prohibition the prior year? 

Did Thompson submachine guns suddenly disappear because a $200 tax was required to own one?  How many criminals ran down to the U.S. Treasury with $200 in hand to register their Thompsons and BARs, or better yet...turned them in to avoid paying a tax?

The NFA did not make automatic weapons disappear from criminal hands.  The act was largely unknown to the general public.  It's still not well understood, nearly eighty years later.

Can you provide evidence of the many civilian casualties you are referring to?  Can you plot the data on some sort of a timeline to back up your assertion that the NFA accomplished this?  Can you correct the data for prohibion-fueled violence?

---

do your own research if you like. if the data you come up with makes an impressive case against the regulation of modern military style weapons that use large capacity mazaines, post it.

in the meantime, i am satisfied that there is sufficient public opinion on this issue to put pressure on politicians to cause the regulation, should a vote in congress happen.

right now, it looks like the regulation opponents best strategy is to not permit such a vote from occuring.

[Telecruiser]

Once again rbstern hits another chip shot over the anti gunners heads.

[rbstern]

---

normh wrote:

Lets go back even further.  This weapon was available to the public, but seldom purchased by the public.  It was used indiscriminately against the civilian population of another nation; the civilian populations of the Native American Indians and by the United States government.

---

How about when the Europeans brought their Gatlings and Maxims to Africa in the late 19th and early 20th century...no native American massacres even come close to the body counts of those bloody affairs.

[normh]

---

rbstern wrote:

How about when the Europeans brought their Gatlings and Maxims to Africa in the late 19th and early 20th century...no native American massacres even come close to the body counts of those bloody affairs.

---

I deliberately kept the argument within the US because we are speaking of a United States issue.  I could have easily expanded to the Mexican-American war and others.  I chose not to.

The point was that the American government will use weapons, including rapid fire weapons, against their own populations and against civilians.

The Native Indian tribes that the Gatling was used against were mostly previously disarmed treaty nations in which one, or a few members of the tribe rebelled.  The rebellion of few members resulted in the mass killing of substantial portions of the tribe that the rebellers came from.

This is turn argues a historical perspective for disallowing the regulation of any firearm and is a response to Tom Hicks argument for regulation.

[rbstern]

---

normh wrote:

---

rbstern wrote:

How about when the Europeans brought their Gatlings and Maxims to Africa in the late 19th and early 20th century...no native American massacres even come close to the body counts of those bloody affairs.

---

I deliberately kept the argument within the US because we are speaking of a United States issue. 

Fair enough and good points made.

[Rudolf von Hag…]

it is always somewhat funny when American look for examples which are supposedly even worse then the homicides committet in the USA, and the murder, genocide committet outside the USA by American.

The University of Hawai has good estimates who kill how much, and the USA is within the top four, and today very likely leading the chart as #1

[normh]

---

Rudolf von Hagenwil wrote:

it is always somewhat funny when American look for examples which are supposedly even worse then the homicides committet in the USA, and the murder, genocide committet outside the USA by American.

The University of Hawai has good estimates who kill how much, and the USA is within the top four, and today very likely leading the chart as #1

---

Such as:

Some what reminiscent of Auschwitz, isn't it.

[prolurkerguy]

---

Tom Hicks wrote:

---

rbstern wrote:

Can you provide evidence of the many civilian casualties you are referring to?  Can you plot the data on some sort of a timeline to back up your assertion that the NFA accomplished this?  Can you correct the data for prohibion-fueled violence?

---

do your own research if you like.

---

In other words, no.

[Disemboweler]

---

BA.Barcolounger wrote:

Times change.

Background checks are sorely needed and do not infringe on your rights.

---

Background checks are already in force. NICS is hilariously under-funded, many states do not fully report mantal disability to NICS, but despite this, the Newtown shooter was denied a firearms purchase becuse NICS worked. 

Background checks also do not address the problem of gun trafficking by organized crime, both on the high level cartels and the low level street gangs. 

What we need is better, more effective enforcement of laws already on the books.

[Graeca]

---

Telecruiser wrote:

Once again rbstern hits another chip shot over the anti gunners heads.

---

Actually, no, he didn't and had you better reading comprehension, you'd understand that.

[Graeca]

---

prolurkerguy wrote:

---

Tom Hicks wrote:

---

rbstern wrote:

Can you provide evidence of the many civilian casualties you are referring to?  Can you plot the data on some sort of a timeline to back up your assertion that the NFA accomplished this?  Can you correct the data for prohibion-fueled violence?

---

do your own research if you like.

---

In other words, no.

---

No, work on your reading comprehension...Tom suggested that you educate yourself by researching the matter personally.

It's not his job to personally spoonfeed the truth to H-Cs neocon/Defectives.

[prolurkerguy]

---

Graeca wrote:

---

prolurkerguy wrote:

---

Tom Hicks wrote:

---

rbstern wrote:

Can you provide evidence of the many civilian casualties you are referring to?  Can you plot the data on some sort of a timeline to back up your assertion that the NFA accomplished this?  Can you correct the data for prohibion-fueled violence?

---

do your own research if you like.

---

In other words, no.

---

No, work on your reading comprehension...Tom suggested that you educate yourself by researching the matter personally.

It's not his job to personally spoonfeed the truth to H-Cs neocon/Defectives.

---

He made claims that he didn't back up with data, a poor debating strategy.

I'm not a neocon, so I'm not sure why you used that term in your response.

[prolurkerguy]

---

Graeca wrote:

---

Telecruiser wrote:

Once again rbstern hits another chip shot over the anti gunners heads.

---

Actually, no, he didn't and had you better reading comprehension, you'd understand that.

---

Tell us more about people who have "IQs larger than their wastelines", dipshit.