Skip to comments.Why donít liberals want to address the real causes of gun violence?
Posted on 01/02/2013 4:20:35 PM PST by Starman417
Liberals have an unending capacity for doing the wrong things. When the economy is hurting, they suck the life out of productive citizens rather than stimulate the economy so all can have the opportunity to do well. Following a tragic shooting, they respond with meaningless gestures. They would punish those who abide by the law. The cry has gone out for stronger gun control laws and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is the head cheerleader. For starters, her proposed bill includes:
Stops the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of more than 100 specifically-named firearms as well as certain semiautomatic rifles, handguns and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
Stops the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by: grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment; exempting more than 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting and sporting purposes; and exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
Feinstein makes claims that are abusive of the literature she cites:
A Justice Department study found the Assault Weapons Ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decline in total gun murders. However, since the 2004 expiration of the bill, assault weapons have been used in at least 459 incidents, resulting in 385 deaths and 455 injuries.
So let's have a look:
"At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995, beyond what would have been expected in view of ongoing crime, demographic, and economic trends. However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban. Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously."
Another Feinstein claim:
"A recent study by the Violence Policy Center finds that between 2005 and 2007, one in four law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon."
However that's not what the study states. The data which she is referencing studies 64 incidents that already involve "assault weapons" of which also involved law enforcement. The study actually says that out of the 64 incidents that involve assault weapons, four ended in at least one law enforcement fatality, not that one in four officers are killed by assault weapons.
What is it Feinstein really wants?
If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every gun] Mr. and Mrs. America, turn em all in.
Would banning large capacity magazines stop mass shootings? No.
Nothing new here. The criminals response? Carry more magazines, as we've seen in Virginia Tech where the shooter brought nineteen loaded magazines for his two handguns and Columbine where they brought 13 extra magazines.
And Feinstein would demand more:
-Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
-Background check of owner and any transferee;
-Type and serial number of the firearm;
-Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
-Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
-Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration
As before, the focus is on law abiding citizens. Feinstein proposes a bevy of regulations which would do absolutely nothing to prevent any of the mass shootings which have occurred in this country.
Feinstein seems ignorant of many things. One of them: Connecticut HAS an assault weapons ban now.
(excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Reason has no place in a liberalâs mind. Why ask the question?
JMO but they don’t care about gun violence or kindergartners being murdered in school by a crazy college kid. They have one goal and objective. Disarm Americans. Do whatever it takes to get firearms away from anyone who will threaten their communist regime.
Liberals seem just happy to blame instead of facing a task to resolve it?
We waste our time asking rational questions. Politicians like Feinswine want mass murder and chaos. Why are only law abiding citizens effected? Because that is the whole idea.
Guess who cares about keeping their guns? Conservatives. Who does the left/liberals hate? Conservatives. Who are they actually afraid of? Conservatives. The majority of the liberals in this country don’t know squat about conservatives... they spout/spew what they hear from the media. They make rediculous statements about who we are... and none of it is true. BUT they must believe it and they are afraid of us. The amount of uneduated/ignorant people in this country, is astounding. They don’t really know how dumb they sound.
I DO know how to spell!
The “demands” you make here ARE NOT the will of the people of California OR America!
Your “demands” are a pure power grab for the CONTROL of America!
The PURPOSE of the Second Amendment is to GUARENTEE against the very TYRANNY you propose.
There’s no such thing a gun violence!
Name one incident when a gun attacked anyone.
People doing violent things sometimes use guns
As a tool to enact their violent behavior.
Because liberals are no good. It’s that simple.
Because to do so would involve personal responsibility for the perpetrators of violent crimes, and that basic concept runs contrary to everything liberalism stands for.
Because they're not the least bit interested in solving the problem of gun violence. They're focused like a laser beam on disarming the civilian American public. They don't want any messy "incidents" while achieving their Totalitarian goal.
Liberals could care less about gun violence.
Their real target is the 2nd amendment, or the right to bear arms.
The bigger target is the constitution and the bill of rights. The 2nd amendment is just a barrier to their goal of getting the constitution abolished. Once the constitution is gone, their agenda is a cinch to implement.
Because they already have control over the mentally deranged, and they use them to assert control over law abiding citizens. That didn't work at Ruby Ridge and Waco though, so they used other excuses with "trumped up" or fabricated firearms charges.
Because the same driving force is behind them - liberalism can only flourish when the liberals are the only ones that are armed.