Shortly after the Constitution was sent to the people for ratification, anti-federalists warned that the Constitution would make the federal government too strong in relation to the people. Not so, replied the Federalists. Tench Coxe — an ally of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton who would later serve in the Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison administrations — explained:

"The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people."

The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

It was suggested that more gun handling education is needed... I think the individuals knew EXACTLY how to use their weapons... So yea, let's keep talking and trying to figure out what was going on in the killers head at the time... case by case, we should have it figured out in... ummm ermmm NEVER!

Ok so... Registered, legal, responsible gun owner don't want to hand in their weapons? I see No prob if the weapon is handled right and out of reach of anyone else. So why are these responsible gun owners not taking a solid stand against illegal acquisition of firearms? "They" above everyone else should be fighting hard to keep em out of the wrong hands.

Your weapons are falling into the wrong hands, what you gonna do about it Bushido?

OVERVIEW
Title XI of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (the Crime Control Act) took effect on September 13, 1994. Subtitle A banned the manufacture, transfer, and possession of designated semiautomatic assault weapons. It also banned “large-capacity” magazines, which were defined as ammunition feeding devices designed to hold more than 10 rounds. Finally, it required a study of the effects of these bans, with particular emphasis on violent and drug trafficking crime, to be conducted within 30 months following the effective date of the bans. To satisfy the study requirement, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) awarded a grant to The Urban Institute for an impact evaluation of Subtitle A. This report contains the study findings. In defining assault weapons, Subtitle A banned 8 named categories of rifles and handguns. It also banned exact copies of the named guns, revolving cylinder shotguns, and guns with detachable magazines that were manufactured with certain features such as flash suppressors and folding rifle stocks. The ban specifically exempted grandfathered assault weapons and magazines that had been manufactured before the ban took effect. Implicitly, the ban exempts all other guns; several of these, which we treated as legal substitutes, closely resemble the banned guns but are not classified as exact copies. Among other characteristics, ban proponents cited the capacity of these weapons, most of which had been originally designed for military use, to fire many bullets rapidly. While this capacity had been demonstrated in several highly publicized mass murders in the decade before 1994, ban supporters argued that it was largely irrelevant for hunting, competitive shooting, and self-defense. Therefore, it was argued, the ban could prevent violent crimes with only a small burden on law-abiding gun owners. Some of our own analyses added evidence that assault weapons are disproportionately involved in murders with multiple victims, multiple wounds per victim, and police officers as victims. To reduce levels of these crimes, the law must increase the scarcity of the banned weapons. Scarcity would be reflected in higher prices not only in the primary markets where licensed dealers create records of sales to legally eligible purchasers, but also in secondary markets that lack such records. Although most secondarymarket transfers are legal, minors, convicted felons, and other ineligible purchasers may purchase guns in them (usually at highly inflated prices) without creating records. In theory, higher prices in secondary markets would discourage criminal use of assault weapons, thereby reducing levels of the violent crimes in which assault weapons are disproportionately used. For these reasons, our analysis considered potential ban effects on gun markets, on assault weapon use in crime, and on lethal consequences of assault weapon use. However, the statutory schedule for this study constrained our findings to short-run effects, which are not necessarily a reliable guide to long-term effects. The timing also limited the power of our statistical analyses to detect worthwhile ban effects that may have occurred. Most fundamentally, because the banned guns and magazines were never used in more than a fraction of all gun murders, even the maximum theoretically achievable preventive effect of the ban on gun murders is almost certainly too small to detect statistically with only one year of post-ban crime data. With these cautions in mind, our analysis suggests that the primary-market prices of the banned guns and magazines rose by upwards of 50 percent during 1993 and 1994, while the ban was being debated, as gun distributors, dealers, and collectors speculated that the banned weapons would become expensive collectors’ items. However, production of the banned guns also surged, so that more than an extra year’s normal supply of assault weapons and legal substitutes was manufactured during 1994. After the ban took effect, primary-market prices of the banned guns and most large-capacity magazines fell to nearly pre-ban levels and remained there at 2 least through mid-1996, reflecting both the oversupply of grandfathered guns and the variety of legal substitutes that emerged around the time of the ban. Even though the expected quick profits failed to materialize, we found no strong evidence to date that licensed dealers have increased “off the books” sales of assault weapons in secondary markets and concealed them with false stolen gun reports. Stolen gun reports for assault weapons did increase slightly after the ban took effect, but by less than reported thefts of unbanned large-capacity semiautomatic handguns, which began rising well before the ban. The lack of an increase in stolen gun reports suggests that so far, the large stock of grandfathered assault weapons has remained largely in dealers’ and collectors’ inventories instead of leaking into the secondary markets through which criminals tend to obtain guns. In turn, this speculative stockpiling of assault weapons by lawabiding dealers and owners apparently reduced the flow of assault weapons to criminals, at least temporarily. Between 1994 and 1995, the criminal use of assault weapons, as measured by law enforcement agency requests for BATF traces of guns associated with crimes, fell by 20 percent, compared to an 11 percent decrease for all guns. BATF trace requests are an imperfect measure because they reflect only a small percentage of guns used in crime. However, we found similar trends in data on all guns recovered in crime in two cities. We also found similar decreases in trace requests concerning guns associated with violent and drug crimes. 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. Further, any short-run preventive effect observable at this time may ebb in the near future as the stock of grandfathered assault weapons and legal substitute guns leaks to secondary markets, then increase as the stock of large-capacity magazines gradually dwindles. We were unable to detect any reduction to date in two types of gun murders that are thought to be closely associated with assault weapons, those with multiple victims in a single incident and those producing multiple bullet wounds per victim. We did find a reduction in killings of police officers since mid-1995. However, the available data are partial and preliminary, and the trends may have been influenced by law enforcement agency policies regarding bullet-proof vests. The following pages explain these findings in more detail, and recommend future research to update and
refine our results at this early post-ban stage.

Mark Allen Wilson
An American Hero
1953 – 2005

Texas House Resolution No. 740

R E S O L U T I O N

WHEREAS, The tragic death of Mark Alan Wilson of Tyler on
February 24, 2005, at the age of 52, has brought a profound loss to
his many friends and loved ones; and
WHEREAS, With instinctive courage and selfless resolve, this
valorous Texan confronted a gunman on the steps of the Smith County
Courthouse; reacting to the kind of inhuman crisis that compels
ordinary men to seek cover or flee, Mark Wilson proved to be an
extraordinary man; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Wilson confronted a lethal threat in order to
protect the people of his community, and in his valiant attempt to
save the lives of others, he risked his own safety; and
WHEREAS, The magnitude of the sacrifice that ended his life
all too prematurely is in keeping with the character that was
evident to all who knew him; an active member of the Tyler
community, he used his time on earth to the fullest; and
WHEREAS, Born on January 20, 1953, in Dallas, Mr. Wilson
graduated from MacArthur High School in 1971 and went on to serve
his country with distinction in the U.S. Navy; after his discharge
from the military, this avid sportsman worked as a racquetball
instructor and embraced his entrepreneurial spirit, opening
Tyler’s On Target Shooting Range in 1997; and
WHEREAS, A dedicated volunteer, he committed his talents to
help raise money for nonprofit organizations and lent his time to
Heart of Tyler/Main Street projects, including the Texas Blues
Festival and Festival on the Square; and
WHEREAS, Mark Wilson was a true hero, and his example reminds
us that the very best elements of human nature can emerge in the
midst of the chaos and violence that threaten our society; though
this brave man will be missed, his legacy will continue to inspire
all who are privileged to know of him; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 79th Texas
Legislature hereby pay special tribute to the life of Mark Alan
Wilson of Tyler and extend deepest sympathy to the members of his
family: to his parents, Alex and Lynn Stewart; to his sisters,
Melody and Holly Wilson; to his nieces, Katie and Kristen DeFazio;
and to his other relatives and many friends; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be
prepared for his family and that when the Texas House of
Representatives adjourns this day, it do so in memory of Mark Alan
Wilson.

Berman

______________________________
Speaker of the House

I certify that H.R. No. 740 was unanimously adopted
by arising vote of the House on March 31, 2005.

______________________________
Chief Clerk of the House
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/79R/billtext/HR00740F.HTM

Almost unintelligible and you did nothing to address what I said.

BTW, none of my guns have been stolen, none of them has ever been used to murder anyone. So my track record is perfect, so speak for yourself, or point to specific incidents if you want out whatever you want to, but don't make **** up.

I will AGAIN ask you a question! Would a gun trigger lock have prevented YOU from doing this if you had your mind set? Place yourself in the shooters position and ask if the law in question would stop you . . .

If yes, then your an not as devious as the people who plan these shooting out, if no then why would we consider this simplistic solution to be an effective strategy to stop this complex problem?

I will AGAIN ask you a question! Would a gun trigger lock have prevented YOU from doing this if you had your mind set? Place yourself in the shooters position and ask if the law in question would stop you . . .

Let me put your worries to rest, let's assume they are completely tamper proof maybe?

Why would we assume that when it has not been true of any other technology?

I am not against such tech, mandating it is a mistake.

Mandating new weapon safeguards IS NOT a mistake

I'm still waiting on YOUR suggestions!

Horsechit!... You know exactly what I'm talking about, in reference to "your guns", I didn't mean yours in particular, I meant gun owners weapons are ending up in the wrong hands... plz don't act like an idiot, you're clearly not. Murking up the waters in serious discussions is beneath you Sir.

So back to the topic, you claim it's not feasible because of tampering & hacking? Let me put your worries to rest, let's assume they are completely tamper proof maybe?


here's one such type:
TriggerSmart
The Irish company TriggerSmart claims to have achieved a working prototype of a personalized gun in the summer of 2012 that works using radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology.[9] TriggerSmart co-owner Robert McNamara said in December 2012 that he has spoken with "household name" American gun makers about licensing his product, but that none wanted to be first to employ the technology. "They're concerned about the liability aspect. When you put it in one gun you'll have to put it in every gun," he said.[10]
The smart gun is supposed to:
Reduce the likelihood of unintentional injuries to children
Preventing teenage suicides and homicides.
Limit the violent acts committed by criminals using stolen guns.
Protect law enforcement officers from criminals grabbing their firearms during a struggle.


Here are some fun world facts:

Firearms Death Rate (per 100,000, age adjusted) for Selected Countries in one year between 1990 and 1995 (Krug, Powell and Dahlberg, 1998)



Firearms Deaths by Mode of Death for Children <15 Years of Age

Top 10 Countries - Rate per 100,000





I'm sure you'll agree... Much room for improvement... But again, you're completely without suggestions... Murk it up buddy!


EDIT*



Since Most of your senseless murders are by lowlife thugs... It's probably easier for them to get some other unlocked weapon instead of trying to jimmyrig the "chip" trigger lock. Thinking like a thug, I'd find another gun if I chose this kind of life.

Increasing the price of new weapons, automatically increases the cost of a stolen or used weapon, Which makes it much harder for the dumbazzez to afford... Organized criminal elements have the resources to afford them but are much less likely to commit home invasions or random muggings. Yes/ No?

It seems that in Britain, now that the citizens' guns are gone, it's time to look at banning other implements of death:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

I quess in the near future, if a Brit wants to carve the Christmas bird, he's gonna have to use a butter-knife...assuming those aren't banned too.

It'll be interesting to see what they'll ban once they've confiscated all the cutlery....Cricket bats maybe?...scratch awls?...screwdrivers?...The possibilities are endless.

thats assuming alot

alcohol has a use that is potentially harmful, not to just its drinker but to bystanders if the drinker decides to partake in certan behaviors

so, there are law against selling alcohol to minors and laws against OVERSELLING in a bar to a patron that has become debillitated in their reaoning

similarly, a gun has a use that is EXCLSIVELY Harmful(with the exception of 'target' practice) especially if the owner ever decides to use it around others

indeed, ones rights ends where another begins,,,

and one 'inalienable' right is the right to life

if someones 'unreasonable' action imposes upon that, its a problem

I would believe a weapon designed to be able to take out a militia should be used amongst TRAINED militia men and women, not paranoid, unreasonable, impulsive, or unstable citizens,,,

items have uses, and 'reasonable' is whats at issue

I dont know what 'reasonable' man would not be grossly negligent in the use of certain MASSLY destructive wwapons,,,

i was thinking that all gun stores sell trigger locks...
why not make it manditory to have a trigger lock on all firearms not in use by the owner at the moment...
maybe punishment if your weapon was left unlocked and was used in the commision of a crime could be something like a 10 year revokation of the right to bare arms and a huge fine?

its just a thought

The goal of gun control should be to keep the control of guns away from people who should not have it.

As one who advocates Peace on Earth, I believe the entire world should be a "gun free zone." While the goal may not seem all that realistic to some, There are nevertheless efforts under way already.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, so…

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/eliminate-armed-guards-president-vice-president-and-their-families-and-establish-gun-free-zones/6RDGkxLK

Maybe we should all join the effort to keep guns away from the people who have demonstrated by incompetence, immaturity and/or malevolence that they should not even have access to them under any circumstances.

I once wrote a post somewhere about a coming global revolution where everyone around the world would scream as in a single thunderous voice, "ENOUGH!!"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IJhWVf4e4-s

…and the world would suddenly stop, and be still and quiet such that a dropping pin could be heard for miles, as all the Earth awaited our next order. That order would never be forthcoming, as the Peace on Earth we now enjoyed was all we ever wanted, and the order was already being obeyed without ever having been uttered.

The Peace Revolution starts here and now. Which side are you on?