The Big Gun Control Thread

Paleocon wrote:

Sigh.

I have been parsing through a lot of the polling folks are bandying about regarding public opinions on gun control and am just dismayed at the inadvertent or deliberate misinformation out there.

The latest is the leading question of "armor piercing bullets". Incidentally, 56% of Americans favor a ban.

The reason I state that it is misleading is because any and all bullets have the potential to be classified as "armor piercing". Class 2a body armor (the most common worn by law enforcement) is rated up to about a .357 magnum round. This basically means that just about any rifle round would technically be an "armor piercing bullet". This includes your grandpa's deer rifle, your uncle's varmint gun, and your great great grandpa's .30-40 Krag that he and Teddy Roosevelt used to storm San Juan Hill. And the only way around the whole "armor piercing" issue is to reduce muzzle velocities and total kinetic energy to the point that they would be worthless as hunting rifles.

As for the whole "teflon coated" bullets, sales of those constitute such an extreme minority that they are really in the statistical noise. Moreover, the purpose behind their creation (allowing folks who venture into Alaskan wilderness to defend themselves against grizzlies and kodiak bear with a handgun) still remains an acute and pressing need for the extreme minority who require it.

It would be like instituting a ban on surgeon's scalpels because a tiny minority of crimes committed involved their improper usage.

If you are trying to make a case to keep a certain kind of bullet that is at risk of being banned, just make a case for it. Trying to call all bullets armor piercing just feels disingenuous when you know that there is no attempt to ban all bullets.

So what bullets are you wanting to keep?

Jayhawker wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Sigh.

I have been parsing through a lot of the polling folks are bandying about regarding public opinions on gun control and am just dismayed at the inadvertent or deliberate misinformation out there.

The latest is the leading question of "armor piercing bullets". Incidentally, 56% of Americans favor a ban.

The reason I state that it is misleading is because any and all bullets have the potential to be classified as "armor piercing". Class 2a body armor (the most common worn by law enforcement) is rated up to about a .357 magnum round. This basically means that just about any rifle round would technically be an "armor piercing bullet". This includes your grandpa's deer rifle, your uncle's varmint gun, and your great great grandpa's .30-40 Krag that he and Teddy Roosevelt used to storm San Juan Hill. And the only way around the whole "armor piercing" issue is to reduce muzzle velocities and total kinetic energy to the point that they would be worthless as hunting rifles.

As for the whole "teflon coated" bullets, sales of those constitute such an extreme minority that they are really in the statistical noise. Moreover, the purpose behind their creation (allowing folks who venture into Alaskan wilderness to defend themselves against grizzlies and kodiak bear with a handgun) still remains an acute and pressing need for the extreme minority who require it.

It would be like instituting a ban on surgeon's scalpels because a tiny minority of crimes committed involved their improper usage.

If you are trying to make a case to keep a certain kind of bullet that is at risk of being banned, just make a case for it. Trying to call all bullets armor piercing just feels disingenuous when you know that there is no attempt to ban all bullets.

So what bullets are you wanting to keep?

I read his post as pointing out the misinformation and fear-mongering used to try and make things sound scary. Like when people call FPS games 'violent mass-murder simulators.'

Edit: Slate put up an article yesterday recommending we focus on the people, not the guns.

Kraint wrote:

I read his post as pointing out the misinformation and fear-mongering used to try and make things sound scary. Like when people call FPS games 'violent mass-murder simulators.'

Edit: Slate put up an article yesterday recommending we focus on the people, not the guns.

That's how it was meant to be interpreted, but that is purposely misrepresenting the issue. Armor-piercing bullets have been banned for handguns. So of course gun manufacturers just created handguns that take bullets menat for rifles.

Feds mull looser regs on armor-piercing bullets as Obama calls for end to gun violence

At issue: ammunition that is banned for handguns under a 1986 law because it can pierce body armor. The purpose of the law, says the ATF, was "to protect law enforcement officers by regulating the ammunition that could be loaded into a handgun and would penetrate an officer's bullet resistant vest."

However, law provides for an exemption from the definition for any projectile "which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes."

With large caliber handguns now being manfactured that take rifle-caliber bullets, there are requests for an exemption so that certain ammunition that can be used in both rifles and handguns remain legal.

The ATF says it is caught between two problems--protecting police officers versus the rights of hunters. "In developing ATF's criteria, we recognize that a broad exemption will necessarily encompass many projectiles that may pose a danger to law enforcement officers," says the agency. "However, in developing a narrow sporting purposes test, ammunition in traditional hunting calibers will become regulated."

So once again, the gun industry abused loopholes in the law and created this problem. I don't notice anyone saying we should ban guns that take rifle ammo, which would be a good compromise.

Edwin wrote:

Since open carry was talked about earlier, here is how it works in California.

Open carry has to be one of the dumbest things you can ever do in an urban area.

It's convenient that he completely ignores the first half the the 2nd amendment because it doesn't fit his argument. I'm curious, which militia he's a member of?

I think the key to this whole gun control debate is going to be the phrase "well regulated". If the NRA wants to dig it's heels in then well regulate the f*ck out of them.

As to the armor piercing discussion, there's a lot of mud in the water on both sides. I don't think most rationale people think of "armor piercing" as it relates to caliber of ammunition. If you're wearing body armor and I shoot you in the chest with a 12g at 20 yards it may not go through the armor but it'll knock you on your ass. I think of armor piercing as bullets that are specifically designed to not fragment or coated so the won't fragment so they can pass through the various types of body armor.

On another note, anyone else find it ironic that guns and ammo are much more strictly regulated in the active military than they are in regular society?

Jayhawker wrote:
Kraint wrote:

I read his post as pointing out the misinformation and fear-mongering used to try and make things sound scary. Like when people call FPS games 'violent mass-murder simulators.'

Edit: Slate put up an article yesterday recommending we focus on the people, not the guns.

That's how it was meant to be interpreted, but that is purposely misrepresenting the issue. Armor-piercing bullets have been banned for handguns. So of course gun manufacturers just created handguns that take bullets menat for rifles.

Feds mull looser regs on armor-piercing bullets as Obama calls for end to gun violence

At issue: ammunition that is banned for handguns under a 1986 law because it can pierce body armor. The purpose of the law, says the ATF, was "to protect law enforcement officers by regulating the ammunition that could be loaded into a handgun and would penetrate an officer's bullet resistant vest."

However, law provides for an exemption from the definition for any projectile "which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes."

With large caliber handguns now being manfactured that take rifle-caliber bullets, there are requests for an exemption so that certain ammunition that can be used in both rifles and handguns remain legal.

The ATF says it is caught between two problems--protecting police officers versus the rights of hunters. "In developing ATF's criteria, we recognize that a broad exemption will necessarily encompass many projectiles that may pose a danger to law enforcement officers," says the agency. "However, in developing a narrow sporting purposes test, ammunition in traditional hunting calibers will become regulated."

So once again, the gun industry abused loopholes in the law and created this problem. I don't notice anyone saying we should ban guns that take rifle ammo, which would be a good compromise.

Or add handguns that take that kind of ammo to the list of weapons that fall under the NFA. They remain legal to own, but you have to jump through far more hoops to get them.

Stengah wrote:

Or add handguns that take that kind of ammo to the list of weapons that fall under the NFA. They remain legal to own, but you have to jump through far more hoops to get them.

That's fair. I'll admit a predisposition to use "ban" for the same things that most people would use, "regulate heavily."

Jayhawker wrote:
Stengah wrote:

Or add handguns that take that kind of ammo to the list of weapons that fall under the NFA. They remain legal to own, but you have to jump through far more hoops to get them.

That's fair. I'll admit a predisposition to use "ban" for the same things that most people would use, "regulate heavily."

Really? I hadn't noticed

Jayhawker wrote:

That's how it was meant to be interpreted, but that is purposely misrepresenting the issue. Armor-piercing bullets have been banned for handguns. So of course gun manufacturers just created handguns that take bullets menat for rifles.

Uh, "rifle caliber" pistols were being made well before 1986.

Jayhawker wrote:

I don't notice anyone saying we should ban guns that take rifle ammo, which would be a good compromise.

Banning rifles would be a good compromise? I'm not sure you know what the word compromise means. And who would decide what a rifle round is?

Bear wrote:

On another note, anyone else find it ironic that guns and ammo are much more
strictly regulated in the active military than
they are in regular society?

No they aren't. Where in civilian life can a 17 year be allowed to carry and use full auto weapons, grenade launchers, pistols, rockets, and demolitions?

Stengah wrote:

Or add handguns that take that kind of ammo to the list of weapons that fall under the NFA. They remain legal to own, but you have to jump through far more hoops to get them.

Define "that kind of ammo". Then we'll move on to the issues like multi-caliber handguns, existing stock, the elimination of hunting with handguns, and so on.

Question:

Would pistol caliber carbines fall under the definition of rifle caliber ammo restrictions? It's a rifle that happens to shoot pistol ammo, so I would think it would. Would there be an exemption for pistol calibers?

For reference, when I say pistol calibers, I am referring to those on this list.

On another note, anyone else find it ironic that guns and ammo are much more strictly regulated in the active military than they are in regular society?

Well, that comes from the fact that the military has tons of it lying around, available "for free" to soldiers. In the past, that was an invitation to pilferage and resale, so it's safe to say that's the primary reason for the tight control. (Then of course you have the morale problems from VietNam through the 80's, where there was a legitimate fear of fragging.)

Jayhawker wrote:

Gun-rights groups: Our 'backs are against the wall'

Saying that the National Rifle Association is too willing to compromise with gun-control advocates, 22 state and 5 national pro-gun groups have coalesced in recent weeks to form the National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban. Among the national groups involved is Gun Owners of America, which claims a membership of 300,000.

So when the NRA is to liberal, I think you have a problem.

GOA was formed by ex-NRA guys who thought the NRA were being wishy washy, do nothing pussies when it came to the 2nd Amendment. They also follow the wonderful principle of "no compromise" when it comes to firearms.

So everything is being driven by two radical gun groups. One who blends crazy with tens of millions of dollars from gun manufacturers and the other who is the firearm version of the Tea Party: 100% pure crazy.

Bear wrote:

Apparently threatening to "start shooting people" is a bad idea even in Tennessee

IMAGE(http://wtvf.images.worldnow.com/images/20566009_BG1.jpg)

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/20566009/dept-of-safety-suspends-handgun-permit-of-local-man-after-gun-control-rage-video

As hysterical as this is, it's probably not going to help reinforce his already tenuous grasp on reality.

I think he just had a bad day.

CannibalCrowley wrote:

No they aren't. Where in civilian life can a 17 year be allowed to carry and use full auto weapons, grenade launchers, pistols, rockets, and demolitions?

Yeah, during training under fanatically close supervision or in a combat zone after being heavily trained for months.

There isn't a US Military base in this country where 17 year old is driving around in hummer with an M4, an M16 and a shotgun and as much ammo as he can carry. You, in our bizzaro world, you can go to a Wal-mart parking lot in a number of states and find a truck with their "civilian" counterparts hanging from a rack in the back of their truck.

Bear wrote:
CannibalCrowley wrote:

No they aren't. Where in civilian life can a 17 year be allowed to carry and use full auto weapons, grenade launchers, pistols, rockets, and demolitions?

Yeah, during training under fanatically close supervision or in a combat zone after being heavily trained for months.

There isn't a US Military base in this country where 17 year old is driving around in hummer with an M4, an M16 and a shotgun and as much ammo as he can carry. You, in our bizzaro world, you can go to a Wal-mart parking lot in a number of states and find a truck with their "civilian" counterparts hanging from a rack in the back of their truck.

I don't recall ever being under " fanatically close supervision" except during boot camp. There was really nothing stopping us from stashing away a full mag, a grenade, or a satchel; especially once one hits the NCO level. Heck, there are amnesty bins around because it happens on accident more than you'd think.

BTW I've yet to see a semi-auto M4 in a truck gun rack, SBRs usually don't fit and they're a pain to replace due to all the paperwork.

CannibalCrowley wrote:
Stengah wrote:

Or add handguns that take that kind of ammo to the list of weapons that fall under the NFA. They remain legal to own, but you have to jump through far more hoops to get them.

Define "that kind of ammo". Then we'll move on to the issues like multi-caliber handguns, existing stock, the elimination of hunting with handguns, and so on.

Edwin wrote:

Question:

Would pistol caliber carbines fall under the definition of rifle caliber ammo restrictions? It's a rifle that happens to shoot pistol ammo, so I would think it would. Would there be an exemption for pistol calibers?

For reference, when I say pistol calibers, I am referring to those on this list.

I would assume that since the concern was pistols using ammo of a caliber traditionally used by rifles that can punch through bulletproof vests, that that would be "that kind of ammo."

Take the following with a grain of salt, because most of my knowledge of guns & ammo comes from video games and movies (which is why people who do know them are crucial to the process, to make sure things aren't overbroad or unrealistic): Pistol caliber rifles wouldn't cause that pistol caliber to be reclassified as rifle ammo, we'd be going by what the caliber is traditionally used for.
Multi-caliber handguns that can use what is traditionally rifle ammo would be added to the NRA list.
People who owned them prior to the rule change would be exempt from all the NFA restrictions except the requirements to register the firearm and receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines (which would exempt them from the tax, or having to have the background check. I'd kind of like to have the background check still apply, but probably not one as extensive as the NFA normally calls for). There'd be a grace period after the weapons were added to the NFA list for existing owners to register the firearm. After that, it'd be treated as a violation of the NFA even if they can prove they legally obtained it prior to it being added. I don't know how long it'd take to fully register it, so povided they can prove they've started the process, they'd grace period would be extended for them. Any transfer in ownership (including those during the grace period) would be subject to all the standard NFA requirements.
When hunting with a handgun that was added to the NFA list, the NFA requirements would apply (have to have written ATF permission to cross state lines with it). I don't see how this requirement would eliminate hunting with handguns.

Again, I'm not a gun person, so feel free to pick it apart and tell me which parts won't work or don't make sense (honest, no snark intended).

I defer to those who know more about the NFA, but that sounds fine to me.

What should be the threshold for defining armor piercing? Type IV is the only one that mentions armor piercing specifically. So if we were to go by that chart, would then anything below .30-06 Springfield M2 AP be kosher? Maybe I am misunderstanding what we are proposing.

Out of curiosity, what is the type most commonly used by police departments? I would guess Type IIA going by that chart.

Paleocon said earlier that "Class 2a body armor (the most common worn by law enforcement) is rated up to about a .357 magnum round," but according to your link, .357 is listed for TypeII. I agree that whichever is the most common should be where the line is drawn.

CannibalCrowley wrote:

I don't recall ever being under " fanatically close supervision" except during boot camp. There was really nothing stopping us from stashing away a full mag, a grenade, or a satchel; especially once one hits the NCO level. Heck, there are amnesty bins around because it happens on accident more than you'd think.

BTW I've yet to see a semi-auto M4 in a truck gun rack, SBRs usually don't fit and they're a pain to replace due to all the paperwork.

Difference being, you actually had to be going through boot camp before you were given a weapon. You just didn't get to walk onto base, fill out a form and wait a few weeks for your DI to hand you an M16A2.

Perhaps we need a new provision based on the "well regulated" language of the 2nd amendment that requires a mandatory eight weeks of training and psychological screening before you're allowed to purchase a gun. That way everyone wins, you get your 2nd amendment rights upheld and the rest of society gets some meaningful control.

In the full spirit of the 2nd amendment, I'd be willing to make muzzle loaders exempt from this provision.

My point is that the whole "armor piercing bullet" debate is just an exercise in scaremongering. It is the demand for a solution of a problem not in existence. Moreover, it is characteristic of a lot of the argument framing from the gun control side. Break down the number of folks killed with "armor piercing bullets" and you'll see precisely what I mean. More people in this country are beaten to death with hammers and baseball bats than are killed by rifle rounds of all calibers (irrespective of whether they come from a long gun or pistol). Fewer still are killed using rounds any reasonable person would classify as "deliberately designed to defeat body armor".

I think we can all agree that keeping violent people from committing acts of violence is in all of our interests. And, despite all the media hype, our society has made remarkable progress reducing those acts over the last two decades. It would be nice to continue making that progress and any incident involving casualties and the unnecessary loss of life is a tragedy. That said, I hardly think the kind of inadvertent or deliberate mischaracterization of the issues is helpful.

As unpopular as the saying goes, it is still true that people kill people. Moreover, statistically, they do so EXTREMELY rarely with long arms of any type and with evil, black assault guns so rarely that governing them out of existence seems a rather odd use of legislator's priorities.

As I said before, this would all be more persuasive if you could list the ammo that is or could be banned, and why it's a mistake. All you are doing is saying that the media is using scary catch phrases, while you are being just as vague.

I don't think banning the ammo that scares the crap out the police and FBI agents is lone answer to any problems. By segmenting this off as its own topic, instead of a part of comprehensive new set of laws and policies on gun ownership in America, you unintentionally make this look less important than it is.

But don't worry, the gun lobby has your back. I have no doubt that they will water down any legislation, just like the 1994 AWB, with loopholes and intentionally vague wording that will let everyone go on their merry way. This is just one example of how they do that.

Paleo's point is well taken. An article today in the WaPo discusses the apparent success of the large capacity mag ban in Virginia, and the fact that the majority of the ones used in crimes were attacked to pistols.

In Virginia, The Post found that the rate at which police recovered firearms with high-capacity magazines — mostly handguns and, to a smaller extent, rifles — began to drop around 1998, four years into the ban. It hit a low of 9 percent of the total number of guns recovered the year the ban expired, 2004.

The next year, the rate began to climb and continued to rise in subsequent years, reaching 20 percent in 2010, according to the analysis of a little-known Virginia database of guns recovered by police. In the period The Post studied, police in Virginia recovered more than 100,000 firearms, more than 14,000 of which had high-capacity magazines.

It's no wonder the NRA had gun statistics and even research declared illegal...

There's also a great history of the NRA's takeover by the "no compromise" radicals.

Paleocon wrote:

My point is that the whole "armor piercing bullet" debate is just an exercise in scaremongering. It is the demand for a solution of a problem not in existence. Moreover, it is characteristic of a lot of the argument framing from the gun control side. Break down the number of folks killed with "armor piercing bullets" and you'll see precisely what I mean. More people in this country are beaten to death with hammers and baseball bats than are killed by rifle rounds of all calibers (irrespective of whether they come from a long gun or pistol). Fewer still are killed using rounds any reasonable person would classify as "deliberately designed to defeat body armor".

True, I was operating under the assumption that it was actually a serious problem, not just scaremongering. According to the FBI, there were 50 cops killed by handguns, and 13 officers killed by rifles or shotguns (only 9 cops were killed by non-firearm methods). It doesn't break things down by caliber, but does have stats for whether they were wearing body armor or not:

46 of these officers were wearing body armor when they were killed with firearms.
12 were shot in the front upper torso/chest.
10 suffered wounds to the front of the head.
9 were wounded in the side of the head.
8 were shot in the rear of the head.
3 were shot in the rear upper torso/back.
2 were shot in the neck/throat.
1 officer was shot in the rear lower torso/back.
1 officer was shot in the front lower torso/stomach.

So 17 had their body armor penetrated, but it doesn't match those numbers up by firearm type, nor break it down by caliber. The number of officers killed by firearms in 2011 is also the highest of the years listed on the table, which goes back to 2002, so I don't think it should be brushed off as a non-issue or just scare-mongering. That said, it does look like the question of "armor piercing" isn't as relevant as it's being made out to be. 64 of the alleged offenders had prior arrests, so I imagine your previous suggestion of cracking down on straw purchases would help.

Stengah wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

My point is that the whole "armor piercing bullet" debate is just an exercise in scaremongering. It is the demand for a solution of a problem not in existence. Moreover, it is characteristic of a lot of the argument framing from the gun control side. Break down the number of folks killed with "armor piercing bullets" and you'll see precisely what I mean. More people in this country are beaten to death with hammers and baseball bats than are killed by rifle rounds of all calibers (irrespective of whether they come from a long gun or pistol). Fewer still are killed using rounds any reasonable person would classify as "deliberately designed to defeat body armor".

True, I was operating under the assumption that it was actually a serious problem, not just scaremongering. According to the FBI, there were 50 cops killed by handguns, and 13 officers killed by rifles or shotguns (only 9 cops were killed by non-firearm methods). It doesn't break things down by caliber, but does have stats for whether they were wearing body armor or not:

46 of these officers were wearing body armor when they were killed with firearms.
12 were shot in the front upper torso/chest.
10 suffered wounds to the front of the head.
9 were wounded in the side of the head.
8 were shot in the rear of the head.
3 were shot in the rear upper torso/back.
2 were shot in the neck/throat.
1 officer was shot in the rear lower torso/back.
1 officer was shot in the front lower torso/stomach.

So 17 had their body armor penetrated, but it doesn't match those numbers up by firearm type, nor break it down by caliber. The number of officers killed by firearms in 2011 is also the highest of the years listed on the table, which goes back to 2002, so I don't think it should be brushed off as a non-issue or just scare-mongering. That said, it does look like the question of "armor piercing" isn't as relevant as it's being made out to be. 64 of the alleged offenders had prior arrests, so I imagine your previous suggestion of cracking down on straw purchases would help.

I think there are a number of ways of reading those statistics that don't immediately indicate that 17 officers had their body armor penetrated. The kinetic energy imparted from a shotgun round fired in close proximity is entirely capable of resulting in enough blunt force trauma to result in death even without penetration. The whole purpose of body armor is to widen the kinetic energy over enough surface area to prevent penetration and the creation of a wound channel. That said, if the raw number on your KE score is high enough, it really doesn't matter how big a patch you spread it over. You are still going to have busted bones, ruptured organs, and internal bleeding. This happens a LOT more often than one might think.

As I mentioned before, type 2a will stop a .357 round pretty handily, but that is only imparting about 470 foot pounds at point blank range. That is certainly nothing to sneeze at and I sure as hell wouldn't want an piece of that on any day of the week, but it is nothing compared to the 2200+ foot pounds a 12g shotty is pushing out at similar distance. That is about the equivalent of being shot with 4.5 .357 mag rounds simultaneously in the same spot. That is a lot to ask of a half inch of kevlar/spectra.

And to the best of my knowledge, no one is calling for the end of shotguns.

edit: and just for reference, the KE score of a 5.56 round from an AR 15 is about half that of a 12 gauge shotty.

And, for the record, I disagree vehemently with the NRA regarding its opposition to a national firearms ownership database (at least when it comes to handguns where the real statistical problem seems to be). If you have a handgun, it should be trivially simple for law enforcement to know you have it.

How about if a 443 is approved, it's just added to the current ATF database and local law enforcement has access to it?

Funkenpants wrote:
Edwin wrote:

Now criminals know where to avoid to make their job easier. [Fox News]

What was amusing about the reaction was that initially the complaint was that it made gun owners a target for criminals. Then bloggers noted that the stock line from the NRA was that if criminals think you have one, they won't hassle you or break into your house. So the complaint morphed to this new idea.

Well, I guess we have both now.

Two burglars broke into a guy's home who was on the map and went after his gun safe. [New York Newsday] We won't know for 100%, but the gun safe is the only thing the article wrote about them touching.

That just substantiates what I was saying Edwin: guns make you a target. Apparently, that's true even when it's trivially easy to get a gun on the open market and in your cultural milieu. You can't have it both ways either. Gun ownership cannot act as a deterrent to crime if criminals don't know you have them; but when criminals know you have them, that makes you a source for armaments. In both cases, the precondition is the same.

If you think of the situation systemically, what actually happens is both understandably human and glaringly obvious. Houses with guns present a threat, kind of like high level creep in WC3, but they also offer guns as a reward, which you won't get if you burgle a house without guns. So, houses without guns are the low-lying fruit or low level creep, attracting criminals who don't want confrontation and/or are not aggressive. Houses with guns attract criminals who want guns. That speaks for itself.

And now I have people on FB who I follow who have signed a petition on whitehhouse.org requesting that all SS personnel guarding the president and vice president go gunless.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...

Gun Free Zones are supposed to protect our children, and some politicians wish to strip us of our right to keep and bear arms. Those same politicians and their families are currently under the protection of armed Secret Service agents. If Gun Free Zones are sufficient protection for our children, then Gun Free Zones should be good enough for politicians.

Of course, requests for proof that the President, VP or Congress wants to remove the right to bear arms have gone ignored.

mudbunny wrote:

Of course, requests for proof that the President, VP or Congress wants to remove the right to bear arms have gone ignored.

Not exactly President, VP or Congress, but there are other people out there asking for confiscation. In this very thread too.

Edwin wrote:

[*]Let's repeal the Second Amendment. [Vanity Fair] and [Minneapolis Post] and [Salon] and [DailyKos]
[/list]

Oh the drama! It's interesting that every single article was in favor of gun ownership. They just proposed repealing the 2nd Amendment so we could have a reasonable discussion on guns in America.

Of course, the headlines are much scarier if we don't read the words.