Grab the guns while we still can

[xcellerate]

actually i never talked about armor piercing rounds.

When you said kevlar you were implying some type of armor piercing round.

the issue is that for hunting one shoot should be enough, having semi auto guns to do repeated shots if the animal is running away is just inhumane. a repeated shot is considered when the animal is not scared away and you have another chance to hit the vital area.

Well you've never been hunting before, so I think it's weird you're telling people about how they should hunt. And killing an animal faster isn't inhumane, it's like if you hit an animal with your car and smoosh it, but it's still alive. The humane thing would be to run it over again so it doesn't suffer any longer.

a standard scoped rifle is the best choice here...don't see where the advantages of a assault rifle come in?

Why does a rifle have an advantage over an ar15? There are none that I can see...all a15's aren't like you see in Schwarzenegger films, they do make very accurate versions of them.
http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/les_super_varmint.jpg

My god, Remington even makes them in camo! wonder what that implies....
http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/rem/rem_r15_22.jpg

Generally if a person chooses a bolt-action rifle over a semi-auto one it's for 2 reasons, simplicity (less moving parts, easier to clean), and if you shoot a semi-auto your casings kinda go everywhere. It's a lot easier to collect your case with a bolt-action rifle, but not everybody cares about reloading or keeping a forest clean.

 

[justin.walters01]

lol the main source of guns in canada and mexico is the US ..if you were to cut off the sale of guns in the US our crime rate would drop dramatically

Where is your research supporting this conclusion?

Some of your other research is legit. I do agree that guns contribute to crime, but they also prevent it. Cops arrive in time to draw chalk outlines, it's up to you to make sure they aren't yours.


I did some research and was surprised to find that a large part of criminal's firearms do come from legal owners, but not through theft. Many illegal firearms are purchased legally then sold illegally to others. It seems to be that around 45-50% of illegal firearms originate as legally purchased or illegally stolen weapons. The other half seem to be smuggled in form other countries. I came to this conclusion after looking at several different reports from the justice department and news stories. So, yes, banning the sale of Firearms in the US would lower violent gun crime in the US for a short period of time. But, it seems like the demand for illegal firearms would only increase soon after the ban was enforced. This would cause growth in the gun smuggling infrastructure. We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. I'd rather have a murder be committed with a registered firearm than a non-registered one because it would make it much easier to catch said murderer. Therefore, I still think it is better that guns are sold legally to people who may commit crimes than illegally to those same people because it would make them easier to catch. Also, I really don't feel like giving up my only real defense against my government if something were to happen, not that it will. I would rather have a gun to defend myself than a knife. So, in conclusion, I agree partially with you, cpt Stern, that stolen firearms contribute to illegal gun sales and such, but I do not think banning legal gun sales would have the desired effect on violent crime. At least not in the US.

 

[CptStern]

Where is your research supporting this conclusion?

are you really that dense? one of the main sources of guns in canada is through the US, if there's no gun flow there's a decrease in the available guns on the black market and since the majority of gun crime is commited in canada with an illegal firearm logic dictates that stemming the flow will reduce the number of gun related incidents; a decrease in gun related crime = a drop in our crime rate. 50% of all gun related crime inolves a gun that originated in the US

http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Works/illegalguntraderev107.pdf


Even if you were to cut off legal gun ownership there would be a drop in gun related crime

http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Facts/Facts.diversion.aug08rev.pdf

Some of your other research is legit. I do agree that guns contribute to crime, but they also prevent it.

how many? 1 incident? 2? 30? 3000? there's on average 12-15k people murdered every year in the US with firearms ..you'd have to prove more than 12-15,000 people saved outright because they had a gun in order for that reasoning to the least bit relevant ..good luck finding 12-15,000 incidents were peoples lives were saved ..not that they prevented their sneakers from being stolen or their car from being jacked ..saved; without it they would be now dead. You cant just throw in "facts" without backing yourself up

Cops arrive in time to draw chalk outlines, it's up to you to make sure they aren't yours.

yes cops are completely ineffectual, we should leave it up to the individuals discretion:

An ex-convict who thought he was being robbed gunned down a 12-year-old trick-or-treater, spraying nearly 30 rounds with an assault rifle from inside his home after hearing a knock on the door, police said today.

Quentin Patrick, 22, is accused of killing 12-year-old T.J. Darrisaw on Friday night. T.J.'s 9-year-old brother, Ahmadre Darrisaw, and their father, Freddie Grinnell, were injured but were released after being treated at a hospital.

The family attended a Halloween celebration in downtown Sumter, 45 miles east of Columbia, then stopped at Patrick's house because the porch light was on, police said. Another sibling was with them but wasn't hurt.

Police said at least two of the boys were wearing ghoulish masks when they knocked on the door. The boys' mother and a toddler stayed in the car nearby.

Patrick emptied his AK-47, shooting at least 29 times through his front door, walls and windows after hearing the knock, Police Chief Patty Patterson said.

He told police he had been robbed and shot in the past year.

"He wasn't going to be robbed again, and he wasn't going to be shot again," Patterson said today at a news conference.

woohoo the right to bear arms and protect yourself claims another victem, GJ gun nuts

I did some research and was surprised to find that a large part of criminal's firearms do come from legal owners, but not through theft. Many illegal firearms are purchased legally then sold illegally to others. It seems to be that around 45-50% of illegal firearms originate as legally purchased or illegally stolen weapons.

but .....that's much much worse isnt it?

not only gun owners facilitate vcrime by getting their guns stolen, they're also the ones intentionally selling them to the criminals themselves

The other half seem to be smuggled in form other countries. I came to this conclusion after looking at several different reports from the justice department and news stories. So, yes, banning the sale of Firearms in the US would lower violent gun crime in the US for a short period of time.

short period? there would be a gradual but steady decrease ..probably in a few decades back to normal levels that every other industrialised nation in the world ..really your gun crime rate is up their with some of the shittiest hellholes in the world and easily 3-5 times higher than any other first world country in the world

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_fir_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop

But, it seems like the demand for illegal firearms would only increase soon after the ban was enforced.

relative to the decrease in the legal market? I doubt it. Legal guns are still used in crimes, suicides etc

This would cause growth in the gun smuggling infrastructure.

relative to what?

We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

fatalistic approach gained through nothing more than baseless speculation

I'd rather have a murder be committed with a registered firearm than a non-registered one because it would make it much easier to catch said murderer.

I'm sure that distinction is lost to the victem

Therefore, I still think it is better that guns are sold legally to people who may commit crimes than illegally to those same people because it would make them easier to catch.

if access is more difficult, the number of incidents decrese, you're purposefully avoiding this fact when you came to that inaccurate conclusion

Also, I really don't feel like giving up my only real defense against my government if something were to happen, not that it will.

unrealistic response to an unwinnable situation

I would rather have a gun to defend myself than a knife.

so your right to defend yourself supercedes everybody elese right to life ..right that makes sense

So, in conclusion, I agree partially with you, cpt Stern, that stolen firearms contribute to illegal gun sales and such, but I do not think banning legal gun sales would have the desired effect on violent crime. At least not in the US.

yes it would the facts support this ..banning guns WILL decrease gun related crime it's the only logical conclusion

 

[Ridge]

ahaha...ahahah.....ahahahahahah...ahah

you're a real comedian you know that?
ever heard of the term hunting rifle? i sure didn't hear hunting assault rifle.




edit: unless of course the deer is wearing Kevlar armor

Would you say this qualifies as a hunting rifle?
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9418/69201jy1.jpg

That is a Weatherby Mk V bolt action rifle. It fires the same bullet as an AR-15.

Is it less of an assault rifle because its not black?

 

[Pesmerga]

guncontrol.com

unbiased.

yes it would the facts support this ..banning guns WILL decrease gun related crime it's the only logical conclusion

Unscientific conclusion based on fallacious logic. Banning weapons could have adverse consequences beyond what's visible on the surface. Why you fail to even consider tough small arms licenses makes me unwilling to listen further to you.

 

[Asknoone]

Some of you need to find brains.

 

[CptStern]

Some of you morans need to find brains.

fixed

 

[Gray Fox]

Some of you need to find brains.

I found mine, but Pi ate it

 

[G(ordon)-man]

Where's mine? Gimme back!

 

[CptStern]

guncontrol.com

unbiased.

except I was using it as a source for facts ..are you saying the facts are biased? they come from the Canadian government directly from law enforcement ..why would they be biased?

source:

Statistics Canada. Juristat, vol. 28, no. 7, July 2008. Geoffrey Li. ?Homicide in Canada 2007,?

http://www.statcan.ca/bsolc/english/bsolc?catno=85-002-X200800910671

Unscientific conclusion based on fallacious logic.

how so?

Approximately 37,500 gun sales, including 17,800 handgun sales, are completed every day in the United States.

are you saying that if the legal market disappeared over night there wouldnt be a decrease in the amount of gun related crime? simple logic tells us that there must be some effect ..at the very least suicides would decrease

oh and had guns disappeared over night 33 odd people would still be attending Virginia tech instead of pushing up daiseys at the local cemetary

Banning weapons could have adverse consequences beyond what's visible on the surface.

Unscientific conclusion based on fallacious logic

Why you fail to even consider tough small arms licenses makes me unwilling to listen further to you.

not that I care for even a second wether you listen to me or not but it's not my responsibility to police people with guns ..it's just that much easier to take them away entirely, at least in a logical sense ..I never said it was a realistic approach to the problem. Anyways, you want to be all uppity with me because we disagree on an uissue, fine, your loss

 

[justin.walters01]

are you really that dense? one of the main sources of guns in canada is through the US, if there's no gun flow there's a decrease in the available guns on the black market and since the majority of gun crime is commited in canada with an illegal firearm logic dictates that stemming the flow will reduce the number of gun related incidents; a decrease in gun related crime = a drop in our crime rate. 50% of all gun related crime inolves a gun that originated in the US

http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Works/illegalguntraderev107.pdf


Even if you were to cut off legal gun ownership there would be a drop in gun related crime

http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Facts/Facts.diversion.aug08rev.pdf





how many? 1 incident? 2? 30? 3000? there's on average 12-15k people murdered every year in the US with firearms ..you'd have to prove more than 12-15,000 people saved outright because they had a gun in order for that reasoning to the least bit relevant ..good luck finding 12-15,000 incidents were peoples lives were saved ..not that they prevented their sneakers from being stolen or their car from being jacked ..saved; without it they would be now dead. You cant just throw in "facts" without backing yourself up




yes cops are completely ineffectual, we should leave it up to the individuals discretion:



woohoo the right to bear arms and protect yourself claims another victem, GJ gun nuts




but .....that's much much worse isnt it?

not only gun owners facilitate vcrime by getting their guns stolen, they're also the ones intentionally selling them to the criminals themselves






short period? there would be a gradual but steady decrease ..probably in a few decades back to normal levels that every other industrialised nation in the world ..really your gun crime rate is up their with some of the shittiest hellholes in the world and easily 3-5 times higher than any other first world country in the world

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_fir_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop




relative to the decrease in the legal market? I doubt it. Legal guns are still used in crimes, suicides etc



relative to what?




fatalistic approach gained through nothing more than baseless speculation



I'm sure that distinction is lost to the victem



if access is more difficult, the number of incidents decrese, you're purposefully avoiding this fact when you came to that inaccurate conclusion



unrealistic response to an unwinnable situation



so your right to defend yourself supercedes everybody elese right to life ..right that makes sense



yes it would the facts support this ..banning guns WILL decrease gun related crime it's the only logical conclusion

Why do you find the need to insult me? Just because I believe something different then you does not make me any less intelligent. If anything, you are the one with a closed mind. You say that without as much gunflow, there would be less weapons circulating. This I agree with, but there are many more guns manufactured outside of the us than inside of it. Like I stated previously, a lack of American made weapons available to criminals would mean a higher demand of smuggled weapons. That is not fallacious logic. Gun smuggling is a business and it works on supply and demand just like any other business.

You also state that a drop in gun related crime would equal a 50% drop in overall crime rate. I have trouble believing this. Regardless, the minute guns are banned, you have an increase in stabbings and beatings. Crime does not hinge solely on weather or not guns are available to criminals. If anyone in any country wants a gun, they can get it very easily, legally or not.

I didn't say guns were solely for saving lives, I said that they are to prevent CRIME. There are many other crimes besides murder. I don't like the prospect of having to wait 5 minutes for the cops to get to my house after someone breaks in, I'd rather just take care of it immediately.

Stop turning everything I say into unreasonable absolutes. I did not say cops are completely ineffectual. All I said was that they take time that sometimes you may not have. Cops do their jobs very well and I respect them for it, I would just rather have an extra layer of security.

Nice story about the twelve year old being killed by some nutcase. If you're trying to get sympathy points, you fail. That is one incident out of 12-15 thousand murders. Honestly, 12-15 thousand murders is not than many considering that there are over 350 million people in the US, and that isn't counting illegal immigrants either. People fight, people die. That's the way it is. It was an accident. I'm going to find the statistics on minor deaths from getting hit by a car.

LAROSE -- A 33-year-old woman from Cut Off and two of her children died Saturday night when the driver of a mini-van fell asleep and struck their car head-on on La. 308 near the T-Bois Bridge, police said.

http://www.wwltv.com/topstories/stories/wwl051108mlcaraccident.ee4d8e6f.html

Motor vehicle crashes remain the leading cause of unintentional injury-related death among children ages 14 and under.

In 2001, 1,579 child occupants ages 14 and under died in motor vehicle crashes.

http://www.usa.safekids.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=1133&folder_id=540

So, by your logic, we should ban cars because they kill children? I know what you are going to say. Cars are a necessity right? Well, in my point of view guns are a necessity and they kill far less people a year than cars in the US.

You don't seem to understand that the US operates much differently than every other country in the world. We are very different. banning firearms would not work in this country mainly because of people like me. So our gun crime rate is high. I would still rather live in the US than anywhere else in the world.

Also, you claim much of my logic is based on "baseless speculation?" I would not speculate if I did not believe it was not possible. Consider them educated guesses, not speculation.

 

[Pesmerga]

how so?

Really? Like... really?

are you saying that if the legal market disappeared over night there wouldnt be a decrease in the amount of gun related crime? simple logic tells us that there must be some effect ..at the very least suicides would decrease

oh and had guns disappeared over night 33 odd people would still be attending Virginia tech instead of pushing up daiseys at the local cemetary

Unscientific conclusion based on fallacious logic

A hypothesis based on historic data and logic is not a conclusion. I have not made any conclusions because I'm not willing to tie one cause to a thousand effects with zero consequences. Like you are.

not that I care for even a second wether you listen to me or not

kay.

but it's not my responsibility to police people with guns

Crash

..it's just that much easier to take them away entirely

and

I never said it was a realistic approach to the problem.

Burn

Anyways, you want to be all uppity with me because we disagree on an uissue, fine, your loss

Dunno what made you think I was being uppity. I guess because I'm 19 that I must have temper tantrums and run on old people's lawns when someone disagrees with me.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

Why do you find the need to insult me? Just because I believe something different then you does not make me any less intelligent.

But it will decrease the number of illegal guns, as it will decrease the number of guns in circulation.

Stop talking. You're retarded.

This is the very first thing you said in this thread.

 

[jverne]

There aren't any advantages of an assault rifle, it's just a personal choice. And you did talk a bout armor piercing rounds because you said "Unless that deer is wearing kevlar". Only armor piercing rounds can pierce body armor. Also, what if you shoot an animal but it doesn't die? Let's say it runs away and bleeds to death. I'd rather have another shot to end it's life without as much suffering, and a bolt action rifle is simply just not fast enough to do that accurately. Also, you can put a scope on any rifle. I suggest that you do some research before you come into this thread talking about something you obviously know nothing about. I do not mean that as insulting in any way.

in the kevlar part i was referring that you need a AR to fill the dear full of lead (in the armor weak spots). that's what i was referring to, but i realize it's not the best way to put it.
armor piercing rounds have a copper jacket that carry a penetrator...why would i say AP ammo works only in an AR. and why the hell would anyone even hunt with an AP. hollow point is the only reasonable ammo, that bursts on impact and causes massive internal injuries.
so no i was not talking about AP ammo.

actually some shoots require you to trace the shoot animal by blood marks.

you shouldn't shoot if you don't have a clean opening. if you miss you shouldn't empty your magazine on the running animal.
if you just wound and the animal runs away (whitetail,...), i'd like to see you pulling a clean shoot again. unless you mow down the poor bastard rambo M60 style. but i agree this argument is hanging on a thin rope.

oh and i never said mounting a scope is not possible on an AR.

now tell me what should i research in?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeQEaqj6YaQ&feature=related
good luck

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

So, by your logic, we should ban cars because they kill children? I know what you are going to say. Cars are a necessity right? Well, in my point of view guns are a necessity and they kill far less people a year than cars in the US.

The difference is, is that cars were not designed to kill people. Guns are. Cover it up as a hobby or defense all you want, when it boils down to it guns are designed to kill, while cars are not. Plus, cars improve and "upgrade" with new technology, becoming safer. When gun technology improves, that just means a new way to kill someone.

 

[Ridge]

The difference is, is that cars were not designed to kill people. Guns are. Cover it up as a hobby or defense all you want, when it boils down to it guns are designed to kill, while cars are not. Plus, cars improve and "upgrade" with new technology, becoming safer. When gun technology improves, that just means a new way to kill someone.

Knives were invented to kill. Would you not say that is true? How many assault knives are in your home right now?

Im all for having RFID to active a firearm or a fingerprint lock, but until that can be implemented without adding thousands of dollars to the shelf price of said weapon, its just not going to happen...

Honestly, in a country where the homeowner can be found of committing a crime by defending themselves from a burglar, I cannot fully accept what the people of said country feels is right and wrong...

 

[xcellerate]

Jverne you shouldn't hunt with hollow points because then you get a deer filled with lead...mmmm now that's good meat! You hunt win spitzer/round nose ammunition.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Knives were invented to kill. Would you not say that is true? How many assault knives are in your home right now?

Yes, but knives are also used for other purposes - food, cooking, etc. Guns serve one purpose: Kill. Target practice is simply practice in case you ever need to kill. Hunting is killing.

 

[jverne]

Jverne please stop talking about hunting. You don't hunt with hollow points because then you get a deer filled with lead...mmmm now that's good meat! You hunt win spitzer/round nose ammunition.

yes, yes...i know. but AP is definitely not one of them. although every bullet has the possibility to bring an animal down. round nose bullets are used because of the good balistic coefficient and overall accuracy.
hollow points don't just disintegrate upon hitting a soft target...but they do transfer the energy of the bullet to the animal better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTHo0K2Sc0g&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaXcXVvRuJ8&feature=related

 

[justin.walters01]

This is the very first thing you said in this thread.

I know, but that was funny.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

I know, but that was funny.

So was Stern calling you dense.

 

[justin.walters01]

The difference is, is that cars were not designed to kill people. Guns are. Cover it up as a hobby or defense all you want, when it boils down to it guns are designed to kill, while cars are not. Plus, cars improve and "upgrade" with new technology, becoming safer. When gun technology improves, that just means a new way to kill someone.

That doesn't change the fact that they are a necessity in my opinion. Guns are designed to kill AND PROTECT. Regardless of the difference in purpose, cars still kill many more people than guns do. On that line, so does alcohol.

 

[justin.walters01]

yes, yes...i know. but AP is definitely not one of them. although every bullet has the possibility to bring an animal down. round nose bullets are used because of the good balistic coefficient and overall accuracy.
hollow points don't just disintegrate upon hitting a soft target...but they do transfer the energy of the bullet to the animal better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTHo0K2Sc0g&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaXcXVvRuJ8&feature=related

You are correct here, but ball rounds are still the better choice in my opinion. All I'm trying to say is that a semi-automatic assault rifle is no more dangerous than any semi-automatic hunting rifle.

 

[CptStern]

Why do you find the need to insult me? Just because I believe something different then you does not make me any less intelligent.

I made that remark after you asked a question that really didnt need explanation because I had already explained it ..and I asked you if you were dense, I didnt say you were

If anything, you are the one with a closed mind.

how so? at least I look at the bigger picture, you only see as far as your own nose ..really if you saw beyond it you'd realise that your rights takes away the right to life of tens of thousands of people a year

You say that without as much gunflow, there would be less weapons circulating. This I agree with, but there are many more guns manufactured outside of the us than inside of it.

well that's not really a fair comparison is it? I mean you're comparing the output of one country against all other countries in the world. Americans are the most armed in the world with 90 out of 100 people owning firearms ..surely the world's largest consumer, so naturally all other countries would want to sell to the largest market

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

Like I stated previously, a lack of American made weapons available to criminals would mean a higher demand of smuggled weapons.

which would be limited by quantity ..over 37,500 are sold every day, that's 37,500 less entering the market on a daily basis ..are you saying an equal amount enters through illegal channels? ...source please

That is not fallacious logic. Gun smuggling is a business and it works on supply and demand just like any other business.

but unlike other businesses there are no distribution infrastructure in place, unlike othe rbusinesses they are forced to use illgal and secretive means to smuggle in their weapons ..37,500 per day would get noticed sooner or later

You also state that a drop in gun related crime would equal a 50% drop in overall crime rate.

point out where I said this

I have trouble believing this. Regardless, the minute guns are banned, you have an increase in stabbings and beatings.

it's up to you to prove this, otherwise it's speculation

Crime does not hinge solely on weather or not guns are available to criminals. If anyone in any country wants a gun, they can get it very easily, legally or not.

yes, however taking out the legal means leaves you with illegal means ..meaning people who have no in roads into the black market have less of a chance of getting ahold of a gun. For instance Seung-Hui Cho may have been delayed or forced to use a knife ..either way changing the outcome of that fateful day

I didn't say guns were solely for saving lives, I said that they are to prevent CRIME. There are many other crimes besides murder

yes and 500,000 + crimes a year are committed with handguns ..you'd have to prove that more than 500,000 crimes are prevented each and every year for it to be worthwhile

yes and . I don't like the prospect of having to wait 5 minutes for the cops to get to my house after someone breaks in, I'd rather just take care of it immediately.

this happens on a regular basis? it must be so because you already know that in that given situation the cops NEVER respond in time ..funny how guns stats show that you're much more likely to be shot by someone you know rather than a complete stranger (only 14%) ..so obviously it's not strangers breaking into your house you need to worry but rather people like you; gun owners

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/relationship.htm

Stop turning everything I say into unreasonable absolutes. I did not say cops are completely ineffectual. All I said was that they take time that sometimes you may not have. Cops do their jobs very well and I respect them for it, I would just rather have an extra layer of security.

so again your "right" to an "extra layer of security" leads to the deaths of 10's of thousands of people a year ..how is this not selfish? ...funny how the cops work just fine in every other country ..you should probably post victemization rates between gun owners and non gun owners to solidify your stance

Nice story about the twelve year old being killed by some nutcase. If you're trying to get sympathy points, you fail. That is one incident out of 12-15 thousand murders. Honestly, 12-15 thousand murders is not than many considering that there are over 350 million people in the US, and that isn't counting illegal immigrants either.

a nutcase who thought he had a right to defend himself ..what's the difference between you and him? the fact that that sort of incident hasnt happen to you? every year men women and children are killed in firefights that they had nothing to do with ..this is what ease of gun availibility leads to. more innocents caught in the cross fire

funny how so many americans have no clue how many of you there are ..the population of the US is 301,139,947 as of July 2007

People fight, people die. That's the way it is. It was an accident. I'm going to find the statistics on minor deaths from getting hit by a car.

cars are not built specifically to kill people, your comparison is not valid. and yes it's one incident ..there's plenty of those to go around ..from children shooting each other, to shooting their parents to shooting their classmates to accidentily shooting themselves ..time and again needless deaths could be prevented if a certain segment of the american population didnt only think of themselves ..you live by the sword you die by the sword ..these incidents are manufactured bvy a culture that holds more importance in target shooting than they do in the sactity of human life

http://www.wwltv.com/topstories/stories/wwl051108mlcaraccident.ee4d8e6f.html



http://www.usa.safekids.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=1133&folder_id=540

So, by your logic, we should ban cars because they kill children? I know what you are going to say. Cars are a necessity right? Well, in my point of view guns are a necessity and they kill far less people a year than cars in the US.

funny guns are not a neccesity in every other country except the US and possibly iraq, do you really want to be compared to iraq?

You don't seem to understand that the US operates much differently than every other country in the world.

ya you keep fooling yourself that the US experience is unique ..there are far more dangerous lawless countries in the world and even they have a smaller firearm related death rate

We are very different. banning firearms would not work in this country mainly because of people like me.

yes thank you for identifying the impedence to american progress

So our gun crime rate is high. I would still rather live in the US than anywhere else in the world.

and you know this because you've lived in other parts of the world? I'd be surprised if you've ever left arizona ..wordly people usually dont think so insularily

Also, you claim much of my logic is based on "baseless speculation?" I would not speculate if I did not believe it was not possible. Consider them educated guesses, not speculation.

call it what you will it's still guesswork ..at least I bring facts

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

But it will decrease the number of illegal guns, as it will decrease the number of guns in circulation.

How many guns in circulation are 'new guns?' A very small precentage.


A repost of one of my others posts in a thread-

No, it would never balance out. The fact is any gun control now would be ineffective at stopping the spread of guns on the black market. Trust me on that. We have a lot of firearms in this nation and a ban won't do anything about what already exists.

Militias WILL revolt if this happens and there ARE A LOT MORE of them than you think there is.

http://www.arizonamilitia.com/images/Maverick_Dragon_Patrol7.jpg
http://www.arizonamilitia.com/images/Maverick_Dragon_Patrol3.jpg
http://www.arizonamilitia.com/images/Maverick_Dragon_Patrol11.jpg
http://www.arizonamilitia.com/images/Maverick_Dragon_Patrol1.jpg
http://www.arizonamilitia.com/images/Maverick_Dragon_Patrol5.jpg

 

[CptStern]

How many guns in circulation are 'new guns?' A very small precentage.

37,500 a day ..there's approx 240,000,000 in circulation since the 1800's ..yes relatively a small percentage ..but 37,500 a day are purchased ...37,500, that's a hell of a lot of guns every day

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

37,500 a day ..there's approx 240,000,000 in circulation since the 1800's ..yes relatively a small percentage ..but 37,500 a day are purchased ...37,500, that's a hell of a lot of guns every day

purchased NEW? Or purchased period. A LOT of sales are used. I can get better at a pawnshop down the street than I can right this second (unless I want to wait)

 

[justin.walters01]

So was Stern calling you dense.

Touche.

 

[Ridge]

For every new gun sold through a dealer, 2-3 more are purchased used, trade in, on consignment, etc...

And Im sure those numbers are from this month. Since Obama was elected, gun sales have jumped more than 1,000%...

 

[jverne]

You are correct here, but ball rounds are still the better choice in my opinion. All I'm trying to say is that a semi-automatic assault rifle is no more dangerous than any semi-automatic hunting rifle.

ball rounds are more accurate, especially downrange and i think that is why they are the preferred round. but hollow points are designed to drop dead the creature you're shooting at.

for the animals POV a hollow point is probably better since it means quick death. for the shooter ball round is more reliable.
i don't like to choose sides, but i'm leaning on the ball round too.

assault rifles normally have shorter barrel lengths reducing velocity and accuracy. sure a gun is a gun if you're good at it you'd take down any animal...but i think AR promote sloppiness and it just looks ridiculous having one for hunting.

 

[Ridge]

The only ammo my .22 shoots reliably is Federal 550 pack hollow points

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

The only ammo my .22 shoots reliably is Federal 550 pack hollow points

Can't go wrong with Federal. For the first time I put a couple hundred .22 rounds that were some other brand and not federal and afterwards it was filthier than I'd ever seen before.

 

[justin.walters01]

I made that remark after you asked a question that really didnt need explanation because I had already explained it ..and I asked you if you were dense, I didnt say you were

Well it seemed like it insinuated that I was dense.

how so? at least I look at the bigger picture, you only see as far as your own nose ..really if you saw beyond it you'd realise that your rights takes away the right to life of tens of thousands of people a year

But it gives back the right of people to defend themselves. You have to make sacrifices to make any sort of gain.

well that's not really a fair comparison is it? I mean you're comparing the output of one country against all other countries in the world. Americans are the most armed in the world with 90 out of 100 people owning firearms ..surely the world's largest consumer, so naturally all other countries would want to sell to the largest market

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

Yes, they would. That is my point exactly. Those weapons are still going to make it into the united states.

which would be limited by quantity ..over 37,500 are sold every day, that's 37,500 less entering the market on a daily basis ..are you saying an equal amount enters through illegal channels? ...source please

Mexico
288 Assault Rifles, .50cals, 500,000 Rounds Seized from Mexican Cartel
McAllen Monitor (Texas)
7 November 2008

REYNOSA -- Mexican authorities came under attack Friday as they arrested the purported head of Gulf Cartel operations in Reynosa and tried to fly him out of the city, U.S. law enforcement officials said. Federal police found Jaime "El Hummer" Gonz?lez Dur?n just after 1:30 p.m. during raids on three buildings in and around the city. But as they drove him to the airport outside Reynosa, their convoy encountered several... ( gunpolicy.org )

Reports that Treasury agents had arrested seven people allegedly linked to two arms companies run by the Chinese government ? for smuggling 2,000 automatic rifles into the United States(http://www.iht.com/articles/1996/05/24/arms.u_0.php)

Those are just two of the many stories I found about gun smuggling into the us. As far as illegal weapons being smuggled out of the US, it is an immense amount. The main problem in that situation seems to be porous borders.

Porous US-Mexico Border Lets Slip Guns, Gun Runners, Money Every Day
Arizona Republic
23 April 2008

GREEN VALLEY -- Thousands of border agents, dozens of checkpoints and hundreds of miles of barriers are set up to stop contraband and illegal immigrants getting into the United States. But little more than a chance roadside inspection stops smugglers going the other way. That imbalance shows no sign of changing soon, but it has given rise to a novel experiment under way in Pima County. There, the Sheriff's Department has... ( gunpolicy.org )

but unlike other businesses there are no distribution infrastructure in place, unlike othe rbusinesses they are forced to use illgal and secretive means to smuggle in their weapons ..37,500 per day would get noticed sooner or later

Second, the budget seeks funds to improve the Department?s ability to combat crime along the Southwest Border. This budget request takes into account the full range of essential resources, personnel, and infrastructure required to address illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and gun smuggling across that border.(http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=25169)

In addition to functioning as the point of entry of many illegal immigrants coming into this country, the Southwest Border is an access point for smuggling drugs into, and guns out of, the United States.(http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=25169)

The other incident occurred in Japan where the mayor of Nagasaki, Itcho Ito, was shot to death by Tetsuya Shiroo. This was not the first time an assassination was carried out by a shooting in Japan, just the latest, and yet nobody is surprised even though guns are banned in Japan.(http://www.newburyportnews.com/puopinion/local_story_331094119?keyword=secondarystory)

There is already a smuggling infrastructure on the Southwest border of the US. Most weapons move from the Us to Mexico, but this infrastructure could easily be adapted to go the othher way.

point out where I said this

In one of your earlier posts.

it's up to you to prove this, otherwise it's speculation

My last treatment of Crime in Britian has proven surprisingly popular with google. That post dealt with the consequences of banning guns.

Its not uncommon to hear the slippery slope argument against banning guns. Whats next? Banning knives?

Well, today, I ran across this recommendation to ban kitchen knives in Britian to reduce stabbings. Yikes! Where does the slippery slope lead after this?

"Stay away from my girl, or I swear I'll fetch the comfy chair!"
(http://www.livelydebate.com/archive...nives-and-guns-when-you-have-the-comfy-chair/)

A&E [accident and emergency, a.k.a. emergency room] doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.(http://nomorespin.blogspot.com/2008/05/weve-already-banned-guns-why-not.html)

http://www.stopsanfranban.com/AtStake/AdditionalReadingDetail.aspx?T=2&ID=175

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thinktanktown/2007/04/gun_control_doesnt_fit_this_cr.html

yes, however taking out the legal means leaves you with illegal means ..meaning people who have no in roads into the black market have less of a chance of getting ahold of a gun. For instance Seung-Hui Cho may have been delayed or forced to use a knife ..either way changing the outcome of that fateful day

There is some information on this in the above links. Nonetheless...

A 1995 survey, funded by the National Institute of Justice, involved interviews with more than 7000 arrestees in 11 American cities with respect to their motives and methods for acquiring illegal firearms (Decker, Pennell, and Caldwell 1997). This survey demonstrated that arrestees were more likely than the general population to own firearms. Moreover, access to illegal guns was found to be easy and minimally time consuming.(http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-9132960_ITM)

Arrestees say it is easy and takes little
time for them to obtain firearms illegally.(http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/163496.pdf)

this happens on a regular basis? it must be so because you already know that in that given situation the cops NEVER respond in time ..funny how guns stats show that you're much more likely to be shot by someone you know rather than a complete stranger (only 14%) ..so obviously it's not strangers breaking into your house you need to worry but rather people like you; gun owners

On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a
firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of
the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent
crime; a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motor
vehicle theft.(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt)

This site has a lot of stories: http://www.learnaboutguns.com/tag/home-defense/

so again your "right" to an "extra layer of security" leads to the deaths of 10's of thousands of people a year ..how is this not selfish? ...funny how the cops work just fine in every other country ..you should probably post victemization rates between gun owners and non gun owners to solidify your stance

The cops do not "work just fine in every other country".

A report on how prosecutions for rape are handled says the drop in the number of convictions in England and Wales is "shocking".

The inquiry, by the Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Inspectorate for the Crown Prosecution Service, has found that only one in 13 cases reported to the police results in a conviction. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1916153.stm)

Ontario’s justice system has been the subject of criticism for a number of years. Many critics are concerned with the perceived leniency of judges, the eroding consideration for victims of crime and the slap-on-the-wrist treatment of violent young offenders, among other problems.(http://www.financialpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=914089)

James Roszko had faced 44 criminal charges in his life. He was 46 years old. He was a known pedophile, possessed illegal weapons. Believed to have threatened witnesses, ten people committed perjury or failed to testify against him in court, resulting in acquittals on serious offenses.

He?d served just 32 months in prison in his lifetime, despite his history.(http://sandrablabber.blogspot.com/2008/02/mayerthorpe-failings-of-canadian.html)

I suggest you read that last story very carefully.

a nutcase who thought he had a right to defend himself ..what's the difference between you and him? the fact that that sort of incident hasnt happen to you? every year men women and children are killed in firefights that they had nothing to do with ..this is what ease of gun availibility leads to. more innocents caught in the cross fire

The difference is that I do not own a fully automatic firearm. Even if I did, I know enough about guns to know that spraying my front door isn't going to do anything to solve the problem.

funny how so many americans have no clue how many of you there are ..the population of the US is 301,139,947 as of July 2007

First of all, that is an official figure of all registered taxpayers. There are many American citizens who are not counted in the census. Second of all, that figure does not include the growth in population from that time. Third of all, that figure does not include undocumented immigrants, which there are quite a bit of.

cars are not built specifically to kill people, your comparison is not valid. and yes it's one incident ..there's plenty of those to go around ..from children shooting each other, to shooting their parents to shooting their classmates to accidentily shooting themselves ..time and again needless deaths could be prevented if a certain segment of the american population didnt only think of themselves ..you live by the sword you die by the sword ..these incidents are manufactured bvy a culture that holds more importance in target shooting than they do in the sactity of human life

That is why I believe in gun education classes required for a firearms license. Also, those incidents were the fault of the owners for not having locks on their guns like they are legally obligated to in most states. Maybe US culture holds on to it's principles more than other cultures do.

funny guns are not a neccesity in every other country except the US and possibly iraq, do you really want to be compared to iraq?

There are many more countries where guns are necessities. Nevertheless, I have no problem being compared to Iraq. I'll tell you right now that life is a hell of a lot better in the US than in Iraq. I don't even think that you can make that comparison. Iraq has a much different culture and government. Also, they are stuck in between us and the insurgents.

ya you keep fooling yourself that the US experience is unique ..there are far more dangerous lawless countries in the world and even they have a smaller firearm related death rate

The US is unique as a culture. And I never said that the US was a "dangerous and lawless country." By the way, I would like to know some of the nations you are talking about.

yes thank you for identifying the impedence to american progress

People with different opinions don't harm the American process, they are the base of it. People speaking up for what they believe in is the very base of democracy.

and you know this because you've lived in other parts of the world? I'd be surprised if you've ever left arizona ..wordly people usually dont think so insularily

I've been to Europe, I don't like their taxes, and their stores are closed too often. I've been to Mexico, the poverty there is ridiculous. It's everywhere. I've been to Egypt, it's hot, and there are "terrorist" threats all the time. Yes, you're right, I've never left Arizona.

call it what you will it's still guesswork ..at least I bring facts

Well, there are the facts that you wanted, read 'em.

 

[justin.walters01]

ball rounds are more accurate, especially downrange and i think that is why they are the preferred round. but hollow points are designed to drop dead the creature you're shooting at.

for the animals POV a hollow point is probably better since it means quick death. for the shooter ball round is more reliable.
i don't like to choose sides, but i'm leaning on the ball round too.

assault rifles normally have shorter barrel lengths reducing velocity and accuracy. sure a gun is a gun if you're good at it you'd take down any animal...but i think AR promote sloppiness and it just looks ridiculous having one for hunting.

To each their own.

 

[Top Secret]

If tens of thousands need to die every year for a small % of freedom, then so be it. I have never owned a firearm in my life, and I do not currently intend to. But I am not about to take someone elses right away from them. THAT is selfish. Anyone can use ANY freedom for selfish means (such as firearms to murder), but it is up to that person to be responsible with their freedoms.

Stern, the problem with your argument isn't your facts or logic, it's your reasoning. I will give you an example:

If you ask a conservative person about gays adopting, many will give the argument that it is unfair to the child, because when they go to school, for instance, the other children will make fun of them for having gay/lesbian parents and therefor, in the interests of the child, it should not be allowed. While their point probably holds true, the ACTUAL PROBLEM are the other kids making fun, NOT the practice of gays/lesbians adopting. Meaning instead of getting rid of gay/lesbian adoption, they should teach their children acceptance. The gun issue is very similar. Firearms do not need to be banned, but rather people need to become more responsible. YOU are the one treading on freedom, NOT us.

Do not get me wrong, I feel regulation is fair. Obviously convicted felons have waived their right to own a firearm. As have the mentally disturbed. And I think there needs to be harsher penalties for committing acts in violation of firearm laws. But to be honest, I feel that current firearm regulation has over-stepped the Constitution in terms of assault weapon bans.



I am willing to bet the next big thing in firearms is RFID. You will see it take over in the next 10 years.

 

[Navaha]

i am willing to bet the next big thing in firearms is rfid. You will see it take over in the next 10 years.

...RFID? What's that?

 

[Ridge]

Radio Frequency Identifaction

Microchip in your skin that activates whatever equipment is tuned into its frequency...like keys that automatically unlock the doors for you when you get near em...

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Radio Frequency Identifaction

Microchip in your skin that activates whatever equipment is tuned into its frequency...like keys that automatically unlock the doors for you when you get near em...

Sounds both cool AND threatening. The government forcing this is terrible, but if it's an option for gun owners to choose themselves it's cool. I'd use it so that if my guns were jacked I could find them. I'd even appreciate something like Lojack for firearms. If you invest a LOT of money into your weapon its worth it.

 

[xcellerate]

I am willing to bet the next big thing in firearms is RFID. You will see it take over in the next 10 years.

...and the next big thing after that is disabling RFID tags.

 

[Top Secret]

...and the next big thing after that is disabling RFID tags.

An insignificant point. A key lock can be swiftly, easily, and cheaply bypassed with a set up bump-keys. Do simple key locks prevent theft? You bet. Opportunity can make a thief out of almost anyone, hence a key lock.