Democrat gun-control sit in, and why it's bullshit.

So for the past day or so, a cabal of Democrats have been sitting in on the House floor demanding that the Republicans go along with their gun-control proposal. Most controversial being using the terrorist watch list to ban those persons from purchasing firearms.

This is purely an election year publicity stunt, that uses the rights of American citizens and legal residents here as a board game piece. Here is why what they are doing is pure bullshit.

First point.
Semi-automatic firearms (only one shot per trigger pull), the technology that Democrats refer to as "assault weapons" have been in existence since the 1890s. One of the earliest being the Remington Model 8, which debuted in 1906 as the Remington Automatic Rifle. The AR-15 was a spin-off of the AR-10 which was designed in 1955, with the AR-15 being available to civilians in 1963. While the mechanism is different, the AR-15 and the Model 8 share the same function, one pull of the trigger gets you one shot. In fact, even the internal working mechanism, the gas-system used by the AR-15 is decades old. The operating principal being that some of the gas used to propel the bullet is siphoned off to "automatically" eject the spent cartridge and load the next fresh one. The first firearm to use such a system was invented in 1884, with the first rifle (Mondragon) going into service in 1908. Despite the 79 year gap, the AR-15 mechanics is nothing more than a refinement of the same operating principals.

If we look at this list from CNN we see a gradual uptick of shootings starting in the '80s. Admittedly it is only the top deadliest and not a comprehensive list, it still proves the point I will be making. Prior to the '80s we only see two incidents, one in 1949 and another in 1966. None in the '50s, and none in the '70s. There were 4 incidents in the '80s (I omitted the 5th one as the killings were done as part of an armed robbery and not standalone actions). Then 6 in the '90s with the first major school shooting happening at Columbine in '99. The '00s saw 5 shootings, and the '10s saw 10 incidents. Yet since 1963 the mechanical workings of the AR-15 did not change.

The first incident that happened in the '80s when we start to see this increase was in 1982, 19 years since the commercial debut of the AR-15, and 76 years after the introduction of the Model 8. In short the gun didn't change, people and society did. So the question that needs to be asked, that no one, not Democrats not Republicans, is asking, is what changed in society?

Second point.
Most shootings that happen aren't the rampage mass shootings and acts of terrorism that get media attention, but rather gang and other crime related, not these highly publicized rampage shootings.

Gun-related homicide is most prevalent among gangs and during the commission of felony crimes. - National Institute of Justice

Looking at the data here if we take the total number of deaths and subtract police related incidents, accidents and defensive use to narrow down the number to murders, we get 3993 deaths. Of those deaths 150, or .037 percent are mass shootings. That leaves 99.963 percent of these deaths being some form of murder, be it premeditated 1st degree, 2nd degree, or felony murder committed during the commission of another felony.

Though things aren't entirely doom and gloom, the rate of violent crime is actually on a downward trend. 

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. - Pew Research Center

If we look at the graph here, we'll see that gun related homicides peaked in 1993, and have been on the decrease other than a slight increase in 2005, that has since continued to decrease. Some might point to the '94 Clinton "assault weapon" ban, but that expired in 2004, and all we saw was a slight increase, that may or may not be related, and by 2010 rates were at an all time low.

So the other question that needs to be asked, of equal importance, is what can be done about this crime problem? Why do we see the downward trend in crime and what can be done to continue the trend.

Yet hardly anyone is asking these questions. The Democrats sitting in aren't asking them, all they're capable of saying is repeating the chant "gun-control, gun-control, gun-control..." as if it was some voodoo incantation that would cast a spell and prevent these incidents. The only reasonable conclusion one can draw from this is that the Democrats are not serious about addressing the issue of guns and acts of murder.

Do questions need to be asked? Yes. Does something need to be done? Yes. But it's not the same tried and failed emotionally driven gun-control that does not address the root issues. Places like Oakland, East LA, Chicago and Washington DC all have Democrat crafted gun-control and those cities are notorious for their murder rates. California has some of the strictest gun-control in the country and it did nothing to stop a sexually frustrated looser from shooting up a college town because no one would have sex with him, nor did they do anything to stop two jihadists from shooting part of a city up. Let alone doing anything to stop the gang related violence.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein

Perhaps what the Democrats want isn't bullshit, but rather insanity.

Though one more point needs to be made.

No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law... - 5th Amendment

...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law... - 14th Amendment

Due Process is NOT a suggestion. It is not an option that can simply be turned off to make a certain segment of the population feel safer. Using an arbitrary terror watchlist to deprive an individual of personal liberties without letting have their day in court deprive them of due process. The burden of proof is on the state to prove that a person is a threat, the burden of proof is NOT on the individual to prove that they are not a threat.

By demanding arbitrary power to deny civil liberties the Democrats want nothing less than bringing back the reviled Star Chamber, known for it's abuses of judicial power and use as a tool of oppression.