Obama: salesman of the year

[Wotan31]

I nominate Obama for Firearms salesman of the year!

If you peruse any of the internet gun forums, you'll find people are stockpiling guns that they think Obama may ban. They're driving prices through the roof with the demand. Through the roof I tell you!! I can no longer afford the one or two guns I was planning to buy because their price has tripled over the past few months. All because Obama has hinted at reinstating the assault weapons ban.

Do they honestly think that banning certain types of weapons will prevent people from committing crimes with them?? DC and Chicago implemented gun bans a few decades ago and their crime rates skyrocketed! Isn't that reason enough to avoid this nonsense? A criminal in DC can break into any law abiding citizens home and rob them at gunpoint - because he knows for a fact that the people inside are unarmed! How stupid is that??

Thanks a lot Obama, for causing this hysteria. :mad:

[NT1440]

Yea, its got nothing to do with right wing wackos spreading their FUD right? :rolleyes:

[firstapple]

Banning firearms has been in the back of Democrats minds for years and years now... It will only hurt our country in the long run, which is why it hasn't happened yet.

I do feel like there are definitely people out there in the world (just look in the news) that don't deserve to own a gun. However, to take the rights away from everyone is crazy, unconstitutional... Will never happen.

[Wotan31]

Yea, its got nothing to do with right wing wackos spreading their FUD right? :rolleyes:
"President Obama and Vice-President Biden, “support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent,” the White House website declares." Source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30389664/).

Where's the FUD? It's got nothing to do with left wing wackos who ignore the facts right? :rolleyes:

Banning firearms has been in the back of Democrats minds for years and years now... It will only hurt our country in the long run, which is why it hasn't happened yet.

I do feel like there are definitely people out there in the world (just look in the news) that don't deserve to own a gun. However, to take the rights away from everyone is crazy, unconstitutional... Will never happen.
There are definitely people who don't deserve to own a gun. Convicted felons, for example. The current laws already support this. But banning guns in the name of reducing crime is preposterous. Criminals don't buy their guns at the gun store, going through the background checks and doing the paperwork. They buy them on the black market, with the serial numbers filed off. Gun laws are meaningless to criminals and only serve to hurt law-abiding citizens.

[leekohler]

I do not support gun bans. On this we can agree.

[hulugu]

I nominate Obama for Firearms salesman of the year!

If you peruse any of the internet gun forums, you'll find people are stockpiling guns that they think Obama may ban. They're driving prices through the roof with the demand. Through the roof I tell you!! I can no longer afford the one or two guns I was planning to buy because their price has tripled over the past few months. All because Obama has hinted at reinstating the assault weapons ban....

It would seem to me that while Obama might enjoy an ironic "Firearms salesman" award, the real "heroes" of this story are those who rushed out to buy as many guns as they could and actually affected the market.

Firearms blogs and various newsletters should get Miss Congeniality awards as well for spreading the fear, uncertainty, and doubt around.

[Wotan31]

I do not support gun bans. On this we can agree.
Amen!

[leekohler]

Amen!

And yet, you think I'm some crazy liberal. :rolleyes:

[NT1440]

"President Obama and Vice-President Biden, “support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent,” the White House website declares." Source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30389664/).

Where's the FUD? It's got nothing to do with left wing wackos who ignore the facts right? :rolleyes:



Watch any FOX news show when this topic is brought up. Theres your FUD.

What facts am I ignoring? I'm simply saying that the talking head right wingers with massive followings are a big reason why so many people are running scared to their gun stores.


Criminals don't buy their guns at the gun store, going through the background checks and doing the paperwork. They buy them on the black market, with the serial numbers filed off. Gun laws are meaningless to criminals and only serve to hurt law-abiding citizens.

I'm sorry, who was it that shot up Virginia Tech?

[leekohler]

Might I also remind the OP of James Brady, Reagan's pal who supported gun control? Yes, he was a...CONSERVATIVE. Remember the Brady bill?

[Macky-Mac]

I nominate Obama for Firearms salesman of the year!

If you peruse any of the internet gun forums, you'll find people are stockpiling guns that they think Obama may ban. They're driving prices through the roof with the demand. Through the roof I tell you!! ....

well no doubt that'll give the economy a boost.....and hey, more demand for guns will lead to more jobs in gun factories...ya just gotta love that guy :p

[yg17]

I do not support gun bans. On this we can agree.

I'm fine with people owning pistols, rifles and shotguns, but who the hell needs an assault weapon? There is no legitimate reason for owning one.

[hulugu]

....There are definitely people who don't deserve to own a gun. Convicted felons, for example. The current laws already support this. But banning guns in the name of reducing crime is preposterous. Criminals don't buy their guns at the gun store, going through the background checks and doing the paperwork. They buy them on the black market, with the serial numbers filed off. Gun laws are meaningless to criminals and only serve to hurt law-abiding citizens.

Well, all gun laws are inconvenient, but I'd argue that reasonable identity checks—such as ascertaining that someone was recently incarcerated or in a mental health facility—are useful. I'd also argue that some weapons classes should be limited to only a few, for instance RPGs, MANPADS, or Squad Automatic Weapons (or derivations thereof).

In other words, I'm for enacting and maintaining many of the current laws and I'd argue against the "Assault Weapons Ban" because such the classification is amorphous at best.

[Wotan31]

Watch any FOX news show when this topic is brought up. Theres your FUD.

What facts am I ignoring? I'm simply saying that the talking head right wingers with massive followings are a big reason why so many people are running scared to their gun stores.
You're ignoring the fact that Obama himself indicated his intention to review the assault weapons ban. That's the source of the buying frenzy. Not "Fox news" as your straw-man argument conveniently suggests.

Please provide statistics and sources for your correlation between Fox News viewers and gun owners / enthusiasts. If you don't, your entire argument is invalid. ;) See, it works both ways! :p

[NT1440]

You're ignoring the fact that Obama himself indicated his intention to review the assault weapons ban. That's the source of the buying frenzy. Not "Fox news" as your straw-man argument conveniently suggests.

Please provide statistics and sources for your correlation between Fox News viewers and gun owners / enthusiasts. If you don't, your entire argument is invalid. ;) See, it works both ways! :p

Do the same for your argument that people are running to the stores because there have been murmors of an assault weapons ban then.

Like it or not, the talking heads are the ones pushing it, as Obama has barely mentioned it given the magnitude of the other things he has on his plate. Its those shows that get the people riled up.

[Wotan31]

I'm fine with people owning pistols, rifles and shotguns, but who the hell needs an assault weapon? There is no legitimate reason for owning one.
Sure, they do. Ever heard of a gun enthusiast? I've shot literally thousands of rounds of ammo at the range, using many different guns, because I enjoy target shooting. This includes assault weapons like AR-15's, MP5's, AK-47's, etc. I have never in my life shot a human, or even an animal, and have no plans to. It's purely an enthusiast hobby kind of a thing. Having the government dictate what I can and can't own is frustrating and pointless.

Using your logic, who the hell needs an eight-core i7 Mac Pro? Or a 65" plasma TV? Or a 450 hp sports car? There is no legitimate reason for owning one. 2 cpu cores are perfectly fine for everyone. And 36" is plenty of TV for anyone. And 170 horsepower is plenty for any driver on public roads. Anything larger should be banned.

[leekohler]

I'm fine with people owning pistols, rifles and shotguns, but who the hell needs an assault weapon? There is no legitimate reason for owning one.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against regulation. I'm against gun bans. I've known many people who've owned them, and I see no problem with responsible, trained gun ownership.

[NT1440]

Using your logic, who the hell needs an eight-core i7 Mac Pro? Or a 65" plasma TV? Or a 450 hp sports car? There is no legitimate reason for owning one. 2 cpu cores are perfectly fine for everyone. And 40" is plenty of TV for anyone. And 150 horsepower is plenty for any driver on public roads. Anything larger should be banned.

Are any of those things designed with one thing in mind? To kill?

The situation changes when lethality comes into play.

[yg17]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against regulation. I'm against gun bans. I've known many people who've owned them, and I see no problem with responsible, trained gun ownership.

I don't have a problem with responsible gun ownership either, I still don't see why one would need an assault weapon. Maybe it's because I don't like guns, have never shot one and don't ever want to shoot one, but I just don't understand the need for an assault weapon.

[leekohler]

I don't have a problem with responsible gun ownership either, I still don't see why one would need an assault weapon. Maybe it's because I don't like guns, have never shot one and don't ever want to shoot one, but I just don't understand the need for an assault weapon.

Is there a "need" for anything anyone simply enjoys doing? No. As long as people are responsible and do no harm, I don't see a problem.

[Macky-Mac]

.......Using your logic, who the hell needs an eight-core i7 Mac Pro?......

so drug dealers have given up assault weapons for Mac Pros??? Who would have thought!!! :rolleyes:

Still, one would think you'd be thrilled at the increased level of gun acquisition, given that you're a gun enthusiast.....or are you really just upset you might have to pay more for your favorite weapons?

[leekohler]

so drug dealers have given up assault weapons for Mac Pros??? Who would have thought!!! :rolleyes:


I missed the part where drug dealers buy guns legally.

[Wotan31]

Like it or not, the talking heads are the ones pushing it, as Obama has barely mentioned it given the magnitude of the other things he has on his plate. Its those shows that get the people riled up.
How is that any different than the ultra-liberals like MOVEON and others who are creating hysteria about other topics? I do watch Fox News some times (are you surprised? :p ) and gun laws are very rarely the topic of discussion. I can't even remember when they were last discussed. Most of the fox news "talking heads" discussion focuses around fiscal policy and international policy. But I digress.

The talking heads don't make the laws in this country, and there are plenty of talking heads on both sides of the fence. Maybe it's just because I watch only about one or two hours of TV a week, but I don't think talking heads are relevant.

[NT1440]

I don't have a problem with responsible gun ownership either, I still don't see why one would need an assault weapon. Maybe it's because I don't like guns, have never shot one and don't ever want to shoot one, but I just don't understand the need for an assault weapon.

I'm in the same boat as you. I dont like guns at all. I do understand that with the constitution we are entitled to self defense, i just dont get why you need an assault weapon for it.

Frankly I think our founding fathers would be terrified to see the killing power we let people own. I think a handgun for protection and a rifle for hunting are ok (i still dont like them) but when you bring in guns that are designed solely for the taking of human life (you dont shoot a deer with an ak 47) is when you ruffle my feathers.

[kastenbrust]

Lets just ban guns if it means we dont have to put up with pointless threads like this anymore

[hulugu]

Sure, they do. Ever heard of a gun enthusiast? I've shot literally thousands of rounds of ammo at the range, using many different guns, because I enjoy target shooting. This includes assault weapons like AR-15's, MP5's, AK-47's, etc. I have never in my life shot a human, or even an animal, and have no plans to. It's purely an enthusiast hobby kind of a thing.

Using your logic, who the hell needs an eight-core i7 Mac Pro? Or a 65" plasma TV? Or a 450 hp sports car? There is no legitimate reason for owning one. 2 cpu cores are perfectly fine for everyone. And 40" is plenty of TV for anyone. And 150 horsepower is plenty for any driver on public roads. Anything larger should be banned.

That's fine that you target shoot and I really don't care either way, but let's be careful in this logic. A MP-5 and a plasma TV are not identical, one when used "correctly" can be used to rapidly acquire and kill a group of people in minutes, a plasma TV can only maim someone if it come unbolted from the wall.

Furthermore, there are limitations in automobiles. There's a host of safety requirements, emissions controls, lights, gauges, and other limitations and strictures that must be followed in order to sell, buy, or own a vehicle in the US. And, there are more to operate that vehicle on public roads.

So, while no one has bothered to limit passenger vehicles to 1,000hp, you don't see many people driving Indy Cars on their daily commute.

As a society, we must try to balance individual freedom with the society's need to protect itself and in this case a MP5 may not meet this.

[yg17]

Is there a "need" for anything anyone simply enjoys doing? No. As long as people are responsible and do no harm, I don't see a problem.


I would concede that if there's enough regulations and restrictions so they don't get into the hands of the wrong people that they need not be banned, but the only flaw in that is that the Virginia Tech shooter or the guy in Pittsburgh who shot 3 cops would not have been considered the "wrong people" before they did what they did

[leekohler]

I would concede that if there's enough regulations and restrictions so they don't get into the hands of the wrong people that they need not be banned, but the only flaw in that is that the Virginia Tech shooter or the guy in Pittsburgh who shot 3 cops would not have been considered the "wrong people" before they did what they did

I don't disagree. I just feel bans are the wrong answer. Bans don't prevent those who would do harm with weapons from doing it. Just look at the drug war. Good lord, just look at my city.

[Thomas Veil]

This gun-buying frenzy is hilarious, even better than the hysteria over swine flu. "Obama's gonna take our guns!! Everyone in the bunker! The revenooers is comin'!!" I especially love that the gun nuts are hurting themselves by driving up the prices.

You could almost make a case for this goofy panic is Obama were trying to take away handguns, but...assault rifles?? Yeah, every home should have one. :rolleyes:

[Peace]

I'm all for the right to bear arms.

Ban the bullet.:D

[Wotan31]

Are any of those things designed with one thing in mind? To kill?

The situation changes when lethality comes into play.
How so? A hammer, a kitchen knife, a car, a baseball bat are all lethal weapons. All of these things have been used to kill people. They are all potentially lethal weapons. Does that mean we should ban them all?

Guns are used for defense of home and family. Guns are also used in the hobby of target shooting. These two things are their primary functions.

Because a criminal chooses to murder someone with a gun is no different than if that same criminal chose to murder someone with a kitchen knife or a baseball bat. The only variable here is the tool used for carrying out the murder. The problem is the murderer, not the tool.

[yg17]

I don't disagree. I just feel bans are the wrong answer. Bans don't prevent those who would do harm with weapons from doing it. Just look at the drug war. Good lord, just look at my city.

Bans aren't going to stop gangs and drug lords or any other form or organized crime. Unfortunately, that's a fact I'm willing to admit. Bans will stop the single loon (who likely legally buys their guns as they don't have connections) who snaps and goes on a rampage.

[NT1440]

How so? A hammer, a kitchen knife, a car, a baseball bat are all lethal weapons. All of these things have been used to kill people. They are all potentially lethal weapons. Does that mean we should ban them all?

Guns are used for defense of home and family. Guns are also used in the hobby of target shooting. These two things are their primary functions.

Because a criminal chooses to murder someone with a gun is no different than if that same criminal chose to murder someone with a kitchen knife or a baseball bat. The only variable here is the tool used for carrying out the murder. The problem is the murderer, not the tool.
Are any of those designed for the sole purpose of killing humans? Assault weapons are.

[Peace]

How so? A hammer, a kitchen knife, a car, a baseball bat are all lethal weapons. All of these things have been used to kill people. They are all potentially lethal weapons. Does that mean we should ban them all?

Guns are used for defense of home and family. Guns are also used in the hobby of target shooting. These two things are their primary functions.

Because a criminal chooses to murder someone with a gun is no different than if that same criminal chose to murder someone with a kitchen knife or a baseball bat. The only variable here is the tool used for carrying out the murder. The problem is the murderer, not the tool.

How does banning the sale of assault weapons keep a person from defending his home with a gun ?

[leekohler]

Bans aren't going to stop gangs and drug lords or any other form or organized crime. Unfortunately, that's a fact I'm willing to admit. Bans will stop the single loon (who likely legally buys their guns as they don't have connections) who snaps and goes on a rampage.

See- that's where I think we disagree. If the loon wants to go on a mad rampage, he or she will figure out a way to do it. I also don't see that as a reason to deny others who are responsible the privilege of owning certain guns if they so choose. Because some people are idiots, we just ban things? I can't agree with that.

[Wotan31]

You could almost make a case for this goofy panic is Obama were trying to take away handguns, but...assault rifles?? Yeah, every home should have one. :rolleyes:
You say that sarcastically, but in some countries it is the literal truth. Switzerland for example. And they also have an extremely low crime rate there.

If you're planning to break into someone's home and steal their jewelry and TV, or rape the lady of the house, it's a no-brainer in cities like Chicago and DC where guns are banned altogether. You know the owner can't do a damn thing but dial 911 and pray. You would definitely think twice about making this same robbery if every homeowner had an assault rifle in the house. :cool:

[NT1440]

You say that sarcastically, but in some countries it is the literal truth. Switzerland for example. And they also have an extremely low crime rate there.
.

This is America. Other countries gun situations arent applicable, because our gun crimes are disgustingly high compared to most others.

[leekohler]

This is America. Other countries gun situations arent applicable, because our gun crimes are disgustingly high compared to most others.

Then the source of that problem needs to be addressed and discussed. Bans will have little effect until it is.

[Wotan31]

Furthermore, there are limitations in automobiles. There's a host of safety requirements, emissions controls, lights, gauges, and other limitations and strictures that must be followed in order to sell, buy, or own a vehicle in the US. And, there are more to operate that vehicle on public roads.
Tell that to the six people brutally killed by getting run over by a car (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30495873/) in the Netherlands this past week, as part of the Queen's parade. FYI guns have safety measures as required be law as well. Safeties, trigger locks, ammo restrictions, etc.

If some wacko wants to kill people, he's going to do it. A gun is but one of many tools he has at his disposal.

[hulugu]

I would concede that if there's enough regulations and restrictions so they don't get into the hands of the wrong people that they need not be banned, but the only flaw in that is that the Virginia Tech shooter or the guy in Pittsburgh who shot 3 cops would not have been considered the "wrong people" before they did what they did

Well, interestingly enough Richard Poplawski (the Pittsburg shooter) was a Stormfront fan who believed that Federal agents were coming to take away his stockpile of weapons, including an AK-47 and the .22 rifle he used to shoot two of the officers. He was apparently buying and selling weapons online.

The Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-Hui Cho had been declared mentally unsound, but unfortunately the NCIS database was not informed of this and Cho was allowed to buy handguns. He carried pistols, a Walther P22 and a Glock 19.

The Alabama shooter, Michael McLendon, did not have a criminal background or a noted history of mental illness and owned a Chinese SKS, an AR-15, and a .38 pistol.

[Macky-Mac]

Tell that to the six people brutally killed by getting run over by a car (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30495873/) in the Netherlands this past week, as part of the Queen's parade. FYI guns have safety measures as required be law as well. Safeties, trigger locks, ammo restrictions, etc.

If some wacko wants to kill people, he's going to do it. A gun is but one of many tools he has at his disposal.

hmmmm, so which is more dangerous? a wacko with a gun? or a wacko with a hammer?

[hulugu]

Tell that to the six people brutally killed by getting run over by a car (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30495873/) in the Netherlands this past week, as part of the Queen's parade. FYI guns have safety measures as required be law as well. Safeties, trigger locks, ammo restrictions, etc.

If some wacko wants to kill people, he's going to do it. A gun is but one of many tools he has at his disposal.

I think you misunderstood my argument. I was pointing out that as a society, we've agreed upon restrictions in all matter of conveniences including automobiles and firearms.

Obviously, we can go through the list of tools that can also be used to hurt people, but we also have to reflect on the reality that rifles and not Volvos are the primary weapon employed on a battlefield.

[leekohler]

hmmmm, so which is more dangerous? a wacko with a gun? or a wacko with a hammer?

How about a wacko with some fertilizer and bomb recipe from the internet? That guy scares me more than those two. He brings down entire buildings.

I think you misunderstood my argument. I was pointing out that as a society, we've agreed upon restrictions in all matter of conveniences including automobiles and firearms.

Obviously, we can go through the list of tools that can also be used to hurt people, but we also have to reflect on the reality that rifles and not Volvos are the primary weapon employed on a battlefield.

Restrictions, yes. Bans, no.

[Macky-Mac]

How about a wacko with some fertilizer and bomb recipe from the internet? That guy scares me more than those two. He brings down entire buildings.....

those are scary too......however, nobody in my city has been killed this week with a fertilizer bomb; but from what I read in the papers, a number of people seem to have been shot to death.......no word on whether they were killed by gun enthusiasts or drug dealers

[Thomas Veil]

Tell that to the six people brutally killed by getting run over by a car (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30495873/) in the Netherlands this past week, as part of the Queen's parade. FYI guns have safety measures as required be law as well. Safeties, trigger locks, ammo restrictions, etc.

If some wacko wants to kill people, he's going to do it. A gun is but one of many tools he has at his disposal.This just in:

With guns outlawed, police are reporting a sharp and immediate rise in people running over each other with automobiles. Pedestrians are urged to stay off the streets of Detroit and South Central L.A.

Around the country, reports are flooding in of robbers driving their cars up to gas stations and convenience stores and robbing them by threatening to hang around until closing time and run over the proprietor when he leaves.

[hulugu]

hmmmm, so which is more dangerous? a wacko with a gun? or a wacko with a hammer?

This just in:

With guns outlawed, police are reporting a sharp and immediate rise in people running over each other with automobiles. Pedestrians are urged to stay off the streets of Detroit and South Central L.A.

Around the country, reports are flooding in of robbers driving their cars up to gas stations and convenience stores and robbing them by threatening to hang around until closing time and run over the proprietor when he leaves.

So, are demolition derbies a kind of firefight?

[Thomas Veil]

So, are demolition derbies a kind of firefight?Demolition derbies are run by organized crime. Everyone knows this. ;)

[miloblithe]

DC and Chicago implemented gun bans a few decades ago and their crime rates skyrocketed! Isn't that reason enough to avoid this nonsense?

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

Actually, if you compare the five years before the gun ban to the five or ten years after the gun ban went into effect, looks like the crime rate went down.

The crime rate didn't "skyrocket" until at least the late 1980s, which would be difficult to attribute to the gun ban. And really, the overall crime rate didn't really skyrocket. Only really the murder rate skyrocketed.

The highest crime rate DC has ever seen was actually 1969-1971. Before the gun ban.

Obviously there are many more factors at play here than just the existence or non-existence of a gun ban, but the argument that crime rates skyrocketed because they implemented a gun ban is going to take some evidence if you're going to convince anyone. I challenge you to come up with that evidence. Otherwise, I'd say the link I provided refutes your claim.

[Desertrat]

Obama's voting record in the Illinois senate was anti-gun. In the US senate, my understanding is that the only times he didn't vote "present" was for votes on gun control bills. Some of his rhetoric includes what the firearms community sees as merely hassles on honest people and ineffectiveness as to crime prevention.

Ergo, the "feeding frenzy". Firearms sales doubled in 2008 to around ten million, and in the first quarter of 2009 have reached about 3.8 million. FBI stats, NICS checks. People are voting with their billfolds.

As near as I can tell from many years of reading a bunch of stuff about the statistics of violent crime, the only worthwhile correlation is the number of young males in the 16-to-25 age group. The rate rises and falls with the numbers. Changes in the economy have a rather small effect.

There was an earlier comment about "lethality". By and large, the cartridges of the so-called "assault weapons" are medium power. For just one example, many deer hunters will castigate those who hunt with the .223, our military's primary cartridge: Too much liklihood of a less than clean, ethical kill. It's a great little cartridge for prairie dogs and coyotes, however. And a great target round; I had a match target version of Bushmaster's AR15 which easily gave me five-shot groups of 1/2" at 100 yards.

In the FWIW technical department, the .223 is less powerful than the .22 Savage HiPower--which was introduced in 1899.

Still, the question remains: Since it has been established over and over by various statistical analyses by many competent people that gun control laws do nothing to prevent violent crimes with firearms, what's the point? If something doesn't work, why try more of the same? Since we--the firearms community--have yet to receive any honest answer to that decades-old question, we're naturally suspicious of the motives of those who continue to work in opposition to the evidence.

A frustration factor: So I write some congressperson in opposition to some silly gun control bill. The response is some bland Pablum, "I support the Second Amendment...blah, blah, blah." 'Scuse me. As a congressperson, the sworn oath is to defend the Constitution. The Second Amendment is part of the Constitution. Is more cluebat needed? I'm not asking for activism; I'm griping against silliness. And bland Pablum...

'Rat

[FX120]

How does banning the sale of assault weapons keep a person from defending his home with a gun ?

What is an assault weapon?

[TuffLuffJimmy]

What is an assault weapon?
It's a ridiculous and extremely dangerous gun.

I can understand owning small hand guns or even hunting guns. But assault riffles? When would you ever need that?

[themoonisdown09]

This thread looks like it's going to end up the same way this one (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=681619) did.

[Sky Blue]

I think a handgun for protection and a rifle for hunting are ok (i still dont like them) but when you bring in guns that are designed solely for the taking of human life (you dont shoot a deer with an ak 47) is when you ruffle my feathers.

b-b-but guns are fun to shoot!

[mactastic]

This gun-buying frenzy is hilarious, even better than the hysteria over swine flu. "Obama's gonna take our guns!! Everyone in the bunker! The revenooers is comin'!!" I especially love that the gun nuts are hurting themselves by driving up the prices.
Fear up baby!

If you're planning to break into someone's home and steal their jewelry and TV, or rape the lady of the house, it's a no-brainer in cities like Chicago and DC where guns are banned altogether.
Wait, how do you know that lady doesn't have a deadly killing hammer? :confused:

Also, I defy you to prove that there is any city in America where "guns are banned altogether". Please, point out that city to me, or admit that you're engaging in a rather hyperbolic argument here.

[Sky Blue]

I may be wrong, but didn't McCain also support a ban on assault weapons?

[leekohler]

Fear up baby!


Wait, how do you know that lady doesn't have a deadly killing hammer? :confused:

Also, I defy you to prove that there is any city in America where "guns are banned altogether". Please, point out that city to me, or admit that you're engaging in a rather hyperbolic argument here.

I also think the gun buying frenzy is silly, but I'm still against this ban. Bans don't work and we just create an even bigger black market.

[mactastic]

I also think the gun buying frenzy is silly, but I'm still against this ban. Bans don't work and we just create an even bigger black market.
What ban? I'm asking Wotan to put his money where his mouth is, and prove there is any city where "guns are banned altogether". That's it. I'm not advocating any ban, nor talking about any specific ban. All I want is for people to back up their rhetoric with facts.

[FX120]

It's a ridiculous and extremely dangerous gun.

I can understand owning small hand guns or even hunting guns. But assault riffles? When would you ever need that?
What makes them so dangerous?

Is it the fact that they have bayonet lugs? Or the flash hiders? Or maybe it's that evil pistol grip? Collapsing stock?

[leekohler]

What ban? I'm asking Wotan to put his money where his mouth is, and prove there is any city where "guns are banned altogether". That's it. I'm not advocating any ban, nor talking about any specific ban. All I want is for people to back up their rhetoric with facts.

Sorry, I was responding in general. I shouldn't have quoted you. Give me a kissy and it'll all be better. :)

[mactastic]

Sorry, I was responding in general. I shouldn't have quoted you. Give me a kissy and it'll all be better. :)
Well, ok... but neither of us will enjoy it. I ain't cute like you. ;)

[LethalWolfe]

I would concede that if there's enough regulations and restrictions so they don't get into the hands of the wrong people that they need not be banned, but the only flaw in that is that the Virginia Tech shooter or the guy in Pittsburgh who shot 3 cops would not have been considered the "wrong people" before they did what they did
Actually the Virginia Tech shooter should not have been able to legally buy guns because he was ruled a danger to himself and sent to the funny farm for a time in 2005, but he fell into a crack between the state of Virginia and federal agencies sharing records so no red flags went up when he went to purchase his firearms. Shortly after the shooting VA's governor issued an executive order fixing the record sharing shortcoming between VA and the feds.

For a more on topic answer, I blame paranoid, neocon nutter's fUD for the gun buying 'hysteria' not Obama and gun crime is largely a symptom of a bigger problem.


Lethal

[Desertrat]

I disrecall, 25 or 30 years ago, Morton Grove, a suburb of Chicago, passed an ordinance banning handguns. In an amused response, Kennesaw, Georgia, passed an ordinance requiring that all households be armed (I don't remember if it were any sort of arms, or handguns; no matter, since it was not intended to be enforced).

There was all manner of hullaballoo from both sides about it. About all that ever happened was that the burglary rate increased in Morton Grove, and went to near-zero in Kennesaw.

After the Heller decision, Morton Grove rescinded its ordinance.

[miloblithe]

I disrecall, 25 or 30 years ago, Morton Grove, a suburb of Chicago, passed an ordinance banning handguns. In an amused response, Kennesaw, Georgia, passed an ordinance requiring that all households be armed (I don't remember if it were any sort of arms, or handguns; no matter, since it was not intended to be enforced).

There was all manner of hullaballoo from both sides about it. About all that ever happened was that the burglary rate increased in Morton Grove, and went to near-zero in Kennesaw.

After the Heller decision, Morton Grove rescinded its ordinance.

Again, this is a common gun promoter's talking point, but it isn't born out by the actual crime statistics:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/01/kennesaw_gun_ordinance_yet_aga.php

I believe we've discussed this before 'rat.

[hulugu]

I disrecall, 25 or 30 years ago, Morton Grove, a suburb of Chicago, passed an ordinance banning handguns. In an amused response, Kennesaw, Georgia, passed an ordinance requiring that all households be armed (I don't remember if it were any sort of arms, or handguns; no matter, since it was not intended to be enforced).

There was all manner of hullaballoo from both sides about it. About all that ever happened was that the burglary rate increased in Morton Grove, and went to near-zero in Kennesaw.....

Well, according to this posting (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/01/kennesaw_gun_ordinance_yet_aga.php), the burglary rate stayed roughly the same in Kennesaw. Just after the law was passed, the rate went to 0 in 1983 however it fluctuated between 0 - 10.
It should be noted that in a community of 36,000 wherein the burglary rate is this small, the difference between 0 or 10 is almost statistically meaningless.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2007/01/kennesaw.png

[Iscariot]

What ban? I'm asking Wotan to put his money where his mouth is, and prove there is any city where "guns are banned altogether". That's it. I'm not advocating any ban, nor talking about any specific ban. All I want is for people to back up their rhetoric with facts.

Pop quiz, hotshot: If a man breaks into your house, if you don't have a gun, how are you going to shoot him?

Game, set and match: checkmate.

[beatzfreak]

Pop quiz, hotshot: If a man breaks into your house, if you don't have a gun, how are you going to shoot him?

Game, set and match: checkmate.

You don't have to. According to some gun advocates, you could kill him with a hammer, kitchen knife, baseball bat or just run him over with your car. Since these items are just as deadly as guns.:rolleyes:


To the OP: instead of jumping on the "Blame Obama" bandwagon; think about who is really benefiting from this gun buying hysteria. Certainly not Obama.

[mactastic]

Pop quiz, hotshot: If a man breaks into your house, if you don't have a gun, how are you going to shoot him?

Game, set and match: checkmate.
... and the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. :p

[remmy]

Pop quiz, hotshot: If a man breaks into your house, if you don't have a gun, how are you going to shoot him?

Game, set and match: checkmate.

Wouldn't it be better to have decent security such as locks etc. Probably not as fun though.

[Rodimus Prime]

You don't have to. According to some gun advocates, you could kill him with a hammer, kitchen knife, baseball bat or just run him over with your car. Since these items are just as deadly as guns.:rolleyes:

One problem with that agrument that I have ALWAYS had a problem with.

killing with a hammer, kitchen knife ect is a much more personal thing that killing with a gun. You have to see the persons face, you will get the blood on you, and you run a much larger risk of injury because they can defend themselves with there hands and arms.

A gun 30 ft away it is not as personal. You do not have to get inside your or there personal space (3 ft) that makes a HUGE difference to a person.

As for a car you running some one down that means you are going to do damage to your car and to a lot of people their car is there baby. Doing 100's to thousands worth of damage to ones car. That will run though their mind come to the .50 cent bullet that is lost. Plus people are damaging there baby because to most people I know their car is more than just a position it is something they take a little more pride in.

[Wotan31]

Also, I defy you to prove that there is any city in America where "guns are banned altogether". Please, point out that city to me, or admit that you're engaging in a rather hyperbolic argument here.
You "defy" me? That's some colorful prose! The washington, dc gun ban does not allow the sale of handguns or rifles in washington, dc. it does not allow anyone to carry handguns or rifles in washington, dc. it does not allow anyone to own a handgun or rifle in washington, dc (except by permit). Permits are effectively not issued to anyone except law enforcement and security personnel. it requires those that do have permits, (or were grandfathered in, having owned their firearm prior to 1977) to keep the gun stored inside their home, unloaded, AND disassembled (or locked with a trigger lock), effectively making them useless for home defense.

You can't even transport a firearm through washington, dc. Lets say you live in Virginia, and are on your way to a shooting range in Maryland, it is illegal to drive through washington, dc. Even if your firearm is unloaded, disassambled, locked, etc. in the trunk of your car. You get pulled over for that and you go to jail. Mere possession, even for a non-dc resident who is just passing though, is a jailable offense.

(And no, don't bother mentioning that the ban was overturned recently by the supreme court. it's still in effect for all intents and purposes)

As for a car you running some one down that means you are going to do damage to your car and to a lot of people their car is there baby. Doing 100's to thousands worth of damage to ones car. That will run though their mind come to the .50 cent bullet that is lost. Plus people are damaging there baby because to most people I know their car is more than just a position it is something they take a little more pride in.
Wow you sure do know how the criminal mind works. :rolleyes:

[NT1440]

Pop quiz, hotshot: If a man breaks into your house, if you don't have a gun, how are you going to shoot him?

Game, set and match: checkmate.

....With the handgun that isn't outlawed?

Sounds a bit like a Gribble.....

[leekohler]

You "defy" me? That's some colorful prose! The washington, dc gun ban does not allow the sale of handguns or rifles in washington, dc. it does not allow anyone to carry handguns or rifles in washington, dc. it does not allow anyone to own a handgun or rifle in washington, dc (except by permit). Permits are effectively not issued to anyone except law enforcement and security personnel. it requires those that do have permits, (or were grandfathered in, having owned their firearm prior to 1977) to keep the gun stored inside their home, unloaded, AND disassembled (or locked with a trigger lock), effectively making them useless for home defense.

You can't even transport a firearm through washington, dc. Lets say you live in Virginia, and are on your way to a shooting range in Maryland, it is illegal to drive through washington, dc. Even if your firearm is unloaded, disassambled, locked, etc. in the trunk of your car. You get pulled over for that and you go to jail. Mere possession, even for a non-dc resident who is just passing though, is a jailable offense.

(And no, don't bother mentioning that the ban was overturned recently by the supreme court. it's still in effect for all intents and purposes)



How are they able to lawfully enforce this if the Court overturned it? That is scary.

[Wotan31]

How are they able to lawfully enforce this if the Court overturned it? That is scary.
... through "red tape". Yes, because they make you jump through all kinds of legal hoops, registration processes, permit applications, etc. But they don't actually have any kind of system yet to process these registrations!! and when you go to the police station to ask for the form, they "haven't gotten them in yet".

Also, there are no gun stores yet in DC, so you can't buy them here yet, but as with other states, if you want to bring the gun in from out of state, it has to be done through the official FFL transfer procedure - only there are no gun stores in DC so there's no one to "receive" it on this end.

I have a friend who's been trying to buy a simple handgun, a Glock 17, since the day the ban was first stuck down. He's still bogged down in the legal mess of it all (and he's a government attorney!!)

The "must be kept unloaded, disassembled, locked" portion was also stuck down, so that's good for those handful of people who already own them.

[Wotan31]

those are scary too......however, nobody in my city has been killed this week with a fertilizer bomb; but from what I read in the papers, a number of people seem to have been shot to death.
And those who committed those murders had legally purchased their firearms, gone through the requisite background checks, and registered their firearm with the city/state, right? Right?

So we better make those guns illegal, that way people won't get shot to death any more.

While we're at it, let's make murder illegal too. Then people won't get murdered any more. Oh wait...

[Macky-Mac]

How are they able to lawfully enforce this if the Court overturned it? That is scary.

the thing is that DC has had a number of laws about gun ownership, sales, registration and so on....it wasn't just a single law that created the ban....the law suit that the supreme court ruled on didn't cover all of them, only specific laws, so others remain on the books

[Macky-Mac]

And those who committed those murders had legally purchased their firearms, gone through the requisite background checks, and registered their firearm with the city/state, right? Right?......

Yes, actually quite a number of them had legally bought their guns. I hope that you're not going to try to tell us that only people who get their guns illegally commit crimes.

I realize it's an undesirable reality for you, but people who have guns are much more likely to shoot people than people who don't have guns.....and it doesn't matter whether they got their guns legally or not

[mactastic]

You "defy" me? That's some colorful prose! The washington, dc gun ban does not allow the sale of handguns or rifles in washington, dc. it does not allow anyone to carry handguns or rifles in washington, dc. it does not allow anyone to own a handgun or rifle in washington, dc (except by permit). Permits are effectively not issued to anyone except law enforcement and security personnel. it requires those that do have permits, (or were grandfathered in, having owned their firearm prior to 1977) to keep the gun stored inside their home, unloaded, AND disassembled (or locked with a trigger lock), effectively making them useless for home defense.

You can't even transport a firearm through washington, dc. Lets say you live in Virginia, and are on your way to a shooting range in Maryland, it is illegal to drive through washington, dc. Even if your firearm is unloaded, disassambled, locked, etc. in the trunk of your car. You get pulled over for that and you go to jail. Mere possession, even for a non-dc resident who is just passing though, is a jailable offense.

(And no, don't bother mentioning that the ban was overturned recently by the supreme court. it's still in effect for all intents and purposes)
LOL... IOW, you can't do it. I didn't think so.

You want to engage in fact-based debate about gun regulations? Fine. But don't go around claiming there are cities where "guns are banned altogether". That's just hot-air hyperbolic rhetoric designed to derail any attempt at rational debate.

Or you simply don't know what you're talking about, and are just uncritically repeating crap you picked up off some right-wing web site like the stuff you posted yesterday. It's one or the other.

[LethalWolfe]

Yes, actually quite a number of them had legally bought their guns. I hope that you're not going to try to tell us that only people who get their guns illegally commit crimes.

I realize it's an undesirable reality for you, but people who have guns are much more likely to shoot people than people who don't have guns.....and it doesn't matter whether they got their guns legally or not
Approximately 90% of the guns used to commit crimes in the US are obtained illegally.


Lethal

[Macky-Mac]

Approximately 90% of the guns used to commit crimes in the US are obtained illegally.


Lethal

which of course means that legally bought guns are also used to commit crimes

[Peterkro]

Approximately 90% of the guns used to commit crimes in the US are obtained illegally.


Lethal

Are they manufactured and sold illegally? If not at least some of the legal gun owners are criminal or at the very least criminally negligent .

[leekohler]

Are they manufactured and sold illegally? If not at least some of the legal gun owners are criminal or at the very least criminally negligent .

10% is a pretty low number.

[LethalWolfe]

which of course means that legally bought guns are also used to commit crimes
Of course but only a small minority. Which leads back to the point of how effective would a ban, or increased purchasing restrictions, be w/the vast majority of weapons already being acquired illegally? Is it more wise to focus on 90% of the problem or 10% of the problem?

Are they manufactured and sold illegally? If not at least some of the legal gun owners are criminal or at the very least criminally negligent .
They are mostly manufactured legally in the US and typically sold illegally 'under the table' by corrupt FFLs or sold illegally by someone w/a forged FFL. Straw buyers are also a common way for gun traffickers to get firearms as is hijacking gun shipments on their way from the factory to a dealer. Guns stolen from a private residence and later used in a crime does happen but it's not nearly as common as other methods of illegally obtaining a firearm. Higher powered firearms are also smuggled in from outside the US but the number but things like assault rifles only make up a tiny amount of the gun deaths in the US (about 1-2%).

Many of the short comings in US gun control are on the supplier side not the consumer side. For example, last I read the ATF must give something like two weeks notice to FFLs before they show up to inspect the dealer and there are so few ATF agents assigned to inspect the FFLs that many times dealers go years between 'annual' inspections.


Lethal

[Peterkro]

@Lethal

There are various ways legally made guns reach the illegal market,gun wholesalers,gun fairs etc. On reading the link below I find it extraordinary something isn't being done to close these loopholes:

http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/reports/exporting-gun-violence.pdf

[Macky-Mac]

Of course but only a small minority. Which leads back to the point of how effective would a ban, or increased purchasing restrictions, be w/the vast majority of weapons already being acquired illegally? Is it more wise to focus on 90% of the problem or 10% of the problem?



I'm not so sure that the 90% statistic is all that meaningful.

What percentage of guns that are in the hands of the public are purchased in a manner that's technically illegal?

You can legally walk down the street and buy a used lawnmower from a neighbor, but many places you can't legally do the same with a used gun......but of course people do routinely buy guns that way. Many places, it's much much easier, and cheaper, to buy one of the vast number of weapons already in circulation than it is to go get a new one in a legal sale at a store.

There are used guns everywhere. They pass from owner to owner all the time, and in the process many otherwise law abiding people don't bother with the complex laws governing the sale of guns. As a result, there are "illegally acquired" guns everywhere, and not just in the hands of criminals .....so of course the percentage of "illegally acquired" guns used in crime is going to be high

[SLC Flyfishing]

I'm not so sure that the 90% statistic is all that meaningful.

What percentage of guns that are in the hands of the public are purchased in a manner that's technically illegal?

You can legally walk down the street and buy a used lawnmower from a neighbor, but many places you can't legally do the same with a used gun......but of course people do routinely buy guns that way. Many places, it's much much easier, and cheaper, to buy one of the vast number of weapons already in circulation than it is to go get a new one in a legal sale at a store.

There are used guns everywhere. They pass from owner to owner all the time, and in the process many otherwise law abiding people don't bother with the complex laws governing the sale of guns. As a result, there are "illegally acquired" guns everywhere, and not just in the hands of criminals .....so of course the percentage of "illegally acquired" guns used in crime is going to be high

You're really grasping at straws now!

SLC

[NT1440]

You're really grasping at straws now!

SLC
??

He has very valid points with how guns circulate.

[Iscariot]

I'm not so sure that the 90% statistic is all that meaningful.

What percentage of guns that are in the hands of the public are purchased in a manner that's technically illegal?

You can legally walk down the street and buy a used lawnmower from a neighbor, but many places you can't legally do the same with a used gun......but of course people do routinely buy guns that way. Many places, it's much much easier, and cheaper, to buy one of the vast number of weapons already in circulation than it is to go get a new one in a legal sale at a store.

There are used guns everywhere. They pass from owner to owner all the time, and in the process many otherwise law abiding people don't bother with the complex laws governing the sale of guns. As a result, there are "illegally acquired" guns everywhere, and not just in the hands of criminals .....so of course the percentage of "illegally acquired" guns used in crime is going to be high

Additionally, all illegal guns were once legal guns.

[LethalWolfe]

I'm not so sure that the 90% statistic is all that meaningful.

What percentage of guns that are in the hands of the public are purchased in a manner that's technically illegal?

You can legally walk down the street and buy a used lawnmower from a neighbor, but many places you can't legally do the same with a used gun......but of course people do routinely buy guns that way. Many places, it's much much easier, and cheaper, to buy one of the vast number of weapons already in circulation than it is to go get a new one in a legal sale at a store.

There are used guns everywhere. They pass from owner to owner all the time, and in the process many otherwise law abiding people don't bother with the complex laws governing the sale of guns. As a result, there are "illegally acquired" guns everywhere, and not just in the hands of criminals .....so of course the percentage of "illegally acquired" guns used in crime is going to be high
I can post more in depth when I get home, but your hypothetical situation is not very accurate. No offense intended but you might want to read up on the topic at hand so you can post more from a position of knowledge and less from a position of assumption.

Peterkro,
I only had a chance to skim the PDF but I'll read the whole thing later. From the skimming though it seems to mesh pretty well w/what I've read from the ATF itself.


Lethal

[KingYaba]

Do the same for your argument that people are running to the stores because there have been murmurs of an assault weapons ban then.

Hardly murmurs. The White House website had it listed in their urban policy. They've since taken it down. :rolleyes: See attachment.

Don't forget Attorney General Holder's comments.

Don't forget our neighbor to the South and their proposals.

Don't forget the this little treaty... http://www.cnn.com/video/?JSONLINK=/video/bestoftv/2009/05/01/ldt.tucker.gun.rights.cnn

Gun owners see these and run to the store. I'm confident they won't pass because members of both parties don't support it. It hasn't stopped the sales, though. Bolt action rifles are still reasonably priced. But finding that Bushmaster or Colt AR is damned near impossible without a huge markup.

I still don't see why one would need an assault weapon

Determining what people need. Certainly sets a dangerous precedent...

[Macky-Mac]

I can post more in depth when I get home, but your hypothetical situation is not very accurate. No offense intended but you might want to read up on the topic at hand so you can post more from a position of knowledge and less from a position of assumption.....l

no doubt you are the font of all knowledge! :p

I look forward to seeing your statistics regarding the casual unreported sales between private citizens of the more than 200 million (or is it more than 250 million?) existing guns that are in circulation

[miloblithe]

Me? I'm still waiting for the OP to admit that the crime rate didn't skyrocket in DC as a result of the gun ban. Or for him to attempt to prove that point.

But, you know, silly me, interested in a fact-based debate.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

But, you know, silly me, interested in a fact-based debate.
That's really too much to ask for on the 'net.

[Sehnsucht]

If you peruse any of the internet gun forums, you'll find people are stockpiling guns that they think Obama may ban. They're driving prices through the roof with the demand. Through the roof I tell you!! I can no longer afford the one or two guns I was planning to buy because their price has tripled over the past few months. All because Obama has hinted at reinstating the assault weapons ban.

Do they honestly think that banning certain types of weapons will prevent people from committing crimes with them?? DC and Chicago implemented gun bans a few decades ago and their crime rates skyrocketed! Isn't that reason enough to avoid this nonsense? A criminal in DC can break into any law abiding citizens home and rob them at gunpoint - because he knows for a fact that the people inside are unarmed! How stupid is that??

I just posted in a different thread a mention of my intent to purchase a handgun and obtain a concealed-carry permit next year when I turn 21. Sadly, the rednecks ruin it for "normal" or "regular" gun owners. For example, my own place of employment, Walmart, is SOLD OUT of virtually all ammunition because the rednecks have already stormed in and bought every last round! :eek:

I realize that the right-wing nutcases who like to wave guns around often spead FUD about this, but it does remain a simple fact that you can't "ruin it for everyone." I want a gun for personal protection, not "to bag me a big ole 50-point buck" or "shoot them damn wetbacks that are a-sneakin' in to our kuntry to steal ol our welfare." ;)

[Counterfit]

@Lethal

There are various ways legally made guns reach the illegal market,gun wholesalers,gun fairs etc. On reading the link below I find it extraordinary something isn't being done to close these loopholes:

http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/reports/exporting-gun-violence.pdf

Because every time someone mentions closing any loopholes, Charlton Heston climbs out of his coffin (seriously, how old is he now?) and gets everyone else riled up about it.

[Peterkro]

Because every time someone mentions closing any loopholes, Charlton Heston climbs out of his coffin (seriously, how old is he now?) and gets everyone else riled up about it.

He would have to do a JC as he died in April last year.

[LethalWolfe]

no doubt you are the font of all knowledge! :p
I'm far from the end all be all but I do like to at least have a working knowledge of the subject matter before joining in on a discussion about it.


I look forward to seeing your statistics regarding the casual unreported sales between private citizens of the more than 200 million (or is it more than 250 million?) existing guns that are in circulation
Actually that's your theory so I look forward to seeing your stats.;)


Peterkro,
The reason the more obvious loop holes don't close, IMO, is little more than basic politics mixed w/a bit of ignorance. Lobbyists spend money so lobbyists get what they want. There are also common misperceptions about where the weak links in gun control are so pressure is applied in the wrong areas. For example, politicians keep fighting over a new AWB (Assault Weapons Ban) even though the first AWB was never shown to have any impact and firearms classified as "assault weapons" only make up about 1-2% of the guns used in crimes. But politicians aren't fighting over ways to give the ATF enough money and man power to properly investigate and oversee FFLs even though combating corrupt/illegitimate FFLs would combat head on the biggest single source of firearms used to commit crimes in the US (over 60% IIRC).

Some people have hang-ups about firearms just like some people have hang-ups about drugs or about sexuality and it's the people that can't get over their hang-ups that are sand in the gears for the people trying to come up w/pragmatic solutions.

Gun crime in the US is largely a symptom of some bigger problems that can't be solved overnight and that can't be solved w/restrictions or bans. If you take a look at where most of the violence is happening and why most of the violence is happening as well as where violence isn't happening you'll see how it largely plays out along socio-economic lines. As I was going thru the PDF you linked to one thing that kept going thru my mind was, "How many people are killed each because of America's hardline stance against drug legalization?" Would so many people be willing to kill over illegal drugs if it didn't generate 10's of billions of dollars a year?


Lethal

[iPhoneNYC]

A ban on guns is good for this country.

[Rt&Dzine]

Thanks a lot Obama, for causing this hysteria. :mad:

Thanks a lot Obama, for stimulating the economy. ;)

This is a different slant on Obama and the gun buying frenzy:
One expert sees a darker motive driving some post-election gun purchasers.

"Why are white people buying assault weapons?" said Ben Agger, a sociology professor at the University of Texas at Arlington who wrote a book about the Virginia Tech slayings. "I almost hate to say it, but there is a deep-seated fear of the armed black man, because Obama now commands the military and other instruments of the justice system. They are afraid Obama will exact retribution for the very deep-seated legacy of slavery."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-guns_wednov12,0,4425738.story

[SLC Flyfishing]

This is a different slant on Obama and the gun buying frenzy:


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-guns_wednov12,0,4425738.story

That's got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, on here or anywhere else. Does anyone even give that assessment the smallest amount of credence?

SLC

[Rt&Dzine]

That's got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, on here or anywhere else. Does anyone even give that assessment the smallest amount of credence?

SLC

I don't think it's that ridiculous. I've seen far more ridiculous ideas in PRSI—including some current threads. The slavery part is far-fetched, but racism is evident in the anti-Obama blogs and forums that mention stockpiling guns and the like. And I believe a lot of the racism is based on fear.

[skunk]

And I believe a lot of the racism is based on fear.Absolutely it is.

[mactastic]

That's got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, on here or anywhere else. Does anyone even give that assessment the smallest amount of credence?

SLC
It deserves the same amount of credence as the theory that we have so much gun crime in this country because of our racial minorities.

[SLC Flyfishing]

I don't think it's that ridiculous. I've seen far more ridiculous ideas in PRSI—including some current threads. The slavery part is far-fetched, but racism is evident in the anti-Obama blogs and forums that mention stockpiling guns and the like. And I believe a lot of the racism is based on fear.

I will agree that racism is based upon fear. But to imply that people may be buying assault weapons out of fear of an Obama sanctioned retribution for slavery is completely assenine.

And @ mactastic, I also agree that racial minorities alone aren't the reason for our gun crimes. It's a socioeconomic issue. I can't say anything for sure, but I'd be willing to wager that gun violence among different ethnicities/races of the same socioeconomic status is very very similar.

SLC

[Rt&Dzine]

I will agree that racism is based upon fear. But to imply that people may be buying assault weapons out of fear of an Obama sanctioned retribution for slavery is completely assenine.


Some people were buying guns out of fear of a black man as president. But I'll agree that the fear being of retribution for slavery is asinine.

[mactastic]

And @ mactastic, I also agree that racial minorities alone aren't the reason for our gun crimes. It's a socioeconomic issue. I can't say anything for sure, but I'd be willing to wager that gun violence among different ethnicities/races of the same socioeconomic status is very very similar.

SLC
That is the position of most sane people. But the proposition has been put forth by many on the right that high levels of minorities breed high rates of gun crime.

[SLC Flyfishing]

That is the position of most sane people. But the proposition has been put forth by many on the right that high levels of minorities breed high rates of gun crime.

Yes but it only seems that way because ethnic/racial minorities have much larger portions of their populations living in extreme poverty.

When people are desperate enough, they'll often use just about any means necessary to protect them and theirs. This isn't always the case, there are plenty of extremy poor folks who would never dream of robbing someone or selling drugs etc, but I don't think any of us here can know just what some of these people have to do to survive.

Working with the homeless population has opened my eyes quite a bit, but I would never tell any of them that I know what they are going through. Especially not while I have a safe, comfortable home to return to in the evenings.

SLC

[SLC Flyfishing]

Some people were buying guns out of fear of a black man as president. But I'll agree that the fear being of retribution for slavery is asinine.

I'm obviously not going to say that is entirely untrue since I haven't spoken to every single gun purchaser since the election. But just know that I live in an extremely gun friendly state and I never once heard anyone mention the need for a gun because Obama was president. I did however hear many folks saying that they were going to hurry and purchase some certain models they'd wanted because they were concerned that Obama would work to enact a ban on them. You know; a get it while you still can type of mentality! That has nothing to do with our presidents race, it has everything to do with his self stated stance on gun control.

SLC

[iJohnHenry]

That is the position of most sane people. But the proposition has been put forth by many on the right that high levels of have-nots breed high rates of gun crime.

Touched that up a bit. :)

[Macky-Mac]

I'm far from the end all be all but I do like to at least have a working knowledge of the subject matter before joining in on a discussion about it.


Actually that's your theory so I look forward to seeing your stats.;)



m'kay

Back in 2000 in an ATF report (http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps4006/020400report.pdf) entitled "Commerce in Firearms in the United States", the ATF says "A recent survey suggests that trade in secondhand firearms runs at about two million per year." This compares with approximately 4.5 million new weapons that the ATF says were sold in the last year covered in the report (1998). That would work out to secondhand weapons accounting for just over 30% of gun sales at the time.......certainly a significant part of the market.

Where do criminals get their weapons? In 2001 The Department Of Justice published a report (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf) that includes the results of surveys asking inmates in various jails where they got their weapons. 39.6% said from "friends or family" just beating out weapons bought from "street/illegal source" for the category with the most responses

And a common sense observation, at least I think it's common sense :p ...Americans buy and sell used cars, used computers, used furniture, used lamps, used toys, used....just about anything! So why would anybody find it difficult to believe that they would also regularly buy and sell some of the more than 200 million guns already in circulation?

[mactastic]

Yes but it only seems that way because ethnic/racial minorities have much larger portions of their populations living in extreme poverty.
I don't disagree with you. As I said, it is usually a pro-gun conservative that puts forth such an argument.

Touched that up a bit. :)
But that's not an accurate reflection of the position espoused by the conservatives I'm talking about.

[iJohnHenry]

But that's not an accurate reflection of the position espoused by the conservatives I'm talking about.

Conservatives = The Haves. Not prone to change. Truculent. ;)

[Desertrat]

"But the proposition has been put forth by many on the right that high levels of minorities breed high rates of gun crime."

That's a terrible phrasing, mac. My objection is to the causality of "breed". No, what is fact is that violent crimes involving guns occurs most often among minorities. That's not a conservative view. It comes from data at the Center For Disease Control, available at their website. I don't have that URL at the moment; I'll search for it. But I have read such at the site in the past.

They show homicides by age group, race, and other types of data. Gender, IIRC. I don't recall if they show any race-on-race data. There is some of that sort in the Department of Justice info at their website.

I recently ran across a discussion talking about people and racism. It was stated that there is little or no natural racism among children, but it begins to kick in at puberty with the sense of "otherness". There are cultural aspects as well, exemplified by the claim that an Anglo, orphaned and raised by Chinese, will be far more comfortable around Chinese than around other Anglos. Sounds reasonable, but I dunno.

As far as any fear factor, we're a TV society--like it or not. Before the Internet, I was pretty much a TV news junkie for evening and nightly sourcing. Face it, most violent crimes reported on TV involve blacks or Latins and some aspect of drugs. I'm in no way saying they're the only ones, but they're more often reported. Sure, there are many more white-guy criminals, but there seems to be less invovement with crimes involving firearms. Seems. For comparing perception vs. fact, the DOJ data should provide info.

'Rat

[mactastic]

"But the proposition has been put forth by many on the right that high levels of minorities breed high rates of gun crime."

That's a terrible phrasing, mac. My objection is to the causality of "breed". No, what is fact is that violent crimes involving guns occurs most often among minorities. That's not a conservative view. It comes from data at the Center For Disease Control, available at their website. I don't have that URL at the moment; I'll search for it. But I have read such at the site in the past.
But does the high level of gun crime occur *because* they are minorities?

[SLC Flyfishing]

Tell that to the six people brutally killed by getting run over by a car (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30495873/) in the Netherlands this past week, as part of the Queen's parade.

If some wacko wants to kill people, he's going to do it. A gun is but one of many tools he has at his disposal.

Apparently this happened in my town yesterday, how ironic. Luckily there were no deaths!

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_12315851?source=rv

SLC

[Desertrat]

"But does the high level of gun crime occur *because* they are minorities?"

Of course not. I've said before in other threads here on this same general subject that I see it as a sub-cultures within ethnic groups. These sub-cultures are fairly small as a percentage of any minority group, and statistically insignificant within the white group. The conclusion of innumerable studies is that most of the violence is within drug communities, mostly involving the fights over turf and the various muggings/robberies to get money to buy drugs.

Which gets us back to another consensus: If we took the profit motive out of drugs, violent crime would decline toward Very Small.

I had no luck with the CDC site. Everything is now PDF and this old computer just couldn't handle their setup. Google for Center for Disease Control; enter "homicides" in the search deal. After that, the data is PDF.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Tell that to the six people brutally killed by getting run over by a car (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30495873/) in the Netherlands this past week, as part of the Queen's parade. FYI guns have safety measures as required be law as well. Safeties, trigger locks, ammo restrictions, etc.

If some wacko wants to kill people, he's going to do it. A gun is but one of many tools he has at his disposal.
I completely agree. For the very same reason I think heroin should be legal. Heroin is fun (in moderation) and there are a lot of legal things at your disposal you can use if you want to screw up your life.

[designgeek]

I completely agree. For the very same reason I think heroin should be legal. Heroin is fun (in moderation) and there are a lot of legal things at your disposal you can use if you want to screw up your life.

Totally. There are good drugs and bad drugs. Weed and Mushrooms are "good drugs" in that you're less likely to either harm other people or regret your decisions later where as alcohol is a bad drug because of all the crap it causes. We only do alcohol because it's legal and accessible. So sayeth Doug Stanhope.

[Sehnsucht]

which of course means that legally bought guns are also used to commit crimes

If you're going to kill someone.......you're going to kill someone. Any and all legal constraints be damned.

You can make all guns illegal, but so what. Say I'm going to off a guy. Guns are illegal. I can use:

1.) A gun obtained illegally (I'm a criminal, what the hell do I care about gun control laws?)
2.) An axe.
3.) A butcher knife.
4.) A rope
5.) A vehicle
6.) Gasoline and matches
7.) A car battery and jumper cables
8.) Antifreeze
9.) Drugs
10.) Piano wire
11.) Cement shoes
12.) A pipe bomb
13.) Anthrax powder
14.) A machete

etc., etc., etc....do I need to go on?

If you're going to kill someone.....you're going to kill someone.

[hulugu]

If you're going to kill someone.......you're going to kill someone. Any and all legal constraints be damned.....

<snip> list of implements (you're a little scary) <snip>

If you're going to kill someone.....you're going to kill someone.

Yes, but as was pointed out earlier, a gun is an effective and immediate weapon that can kill at a distance. Unlike a knife, hammer, garrotte a gun doesn't require strength or speed, further unlike several other of your other scenarios, your subject doesn't need to either stand still or be knocked unconscious. Obviously, given the right motive and circumstances something an innocuous as a pillow could be used to kill someone, but I'll repeat my earlier point: there's a reason that rifles and not garrotes are used on the battlefield.

[Counterfit]

He would have to do a JC as he died in April last year.
Wow, how the **** did I forget about that.
But I'll agree that the fear being of retribution for slavery is asinine.

Especially considering his father didn't enter the US until 1959.

[mactastic]

"But does the high level of gun crime occur *because* they are minorities?"

Of course not.
Fine. But others *have* suggested such a thing, which was my point.

[Wotan31]

"But does the high level of gun crime occur *because* they are minorities?"

Of course not.
Fine. But others *have* suggested such a thing, which was my point.
Who are these "others"? And how are they relevant? Reading through this thread, YOU are the only one suggesting this. Seriously.

[mactastic]

Who are these "others"? And how are they relevant? Reading through this thread, YOU are the only one suggesting this. Seriously.
Well, the most famous would be Charlton Heston's quote that Michael Moore caught on tape; however a quick perusal of the pro-gun community will also get you there.

[Desertrat]

mac, in ten years of moderating on two gun websites, and in over twenty years of doing gunshows, I've very rarely run into folks who seem to think in terms of racial causation. Most speak of cultural aspects and the ethnic-minority gangbanger behavior.

Do a few fit your model? Sure, I have no doubt. But they're a minority.

'Rat

[zap2]

If you're going to kill someone.......you're going to kill someone. Any and all legal constraints be damned.

You can make all guns illegal, but so what. Say I'm going to off a guy. Guns are illegal. I can use:

1.) A gun obtained illegally (I'm a criminal, what the hell do I care about gun control laws?)
2.) An axe.
3.) A butcher knife.
4.) A rope
5.) A vehicle
6.) Gasoline and matches
7.) A car battery and jumper cables
8.) Antifreeze
9.) Drugs
10.) Piano wire
11.) Cement shoes
12.) A pipe bomb
13.) Anthrax powder
14.) A machete

etc., etc., etc....do I need to go on?

If you're going to kill someone.....you're going to kill someone.

Yes, there are many ways to kill a person, and if you're planning it out in advance, its likely you'll be able to get some firepower if guns were outlawed(although not nearly as easily as now) , but those crimes on the street that are a "heat of the moment" crime, won't happen. And would-be-murders with a gun can be held, helped by our prison system(admittedly we'd need to rework our prison system), then released.

[skunk]

I've very rarely run into folks who seem to think in terms of racial causation. Most speak of cultural aspects and the ethnic-minority gangbanger behavior.Please explain for an ignorant furriner the distinction between "racial" and "cultural"/"ethnic minority" aspects.

[mactastic]

mac, in ten years of moderating on two gun websites, and in over twenty years of doing gunshows, I've very rarely run into folks who seem to think in terms of racial causation. Most speak of cultural aspects and the ethnic-minority gangbanger behavior.

Do a few fit your model? Sure, I have no doubt. But they're a minority.

'Rat
Probably about as many as fit the model of liberals who fear that this gun-buying frenzy is based on conservatives with a race-based fear of Obama. Which, after all, was my point in mentioning it; to suggest that the numbers of people on each side who think this way are probably pretty low.

Of course, some folks can't seem to grasp that distinction, and come barging in with "but how is that relevant? Seriously". RTFT.

[Harmush]

They should definitely be banned.

[iJohnHenry]

They should definitely be banned.

I wanna gun. Why should the bad guys have all the fun??? http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/Guninhand.jpg