FBI Reports Huge Decrease In Murders as Firearm & Ammunition Sales Soar [Archive]

IntheNet

Dec 31, 2009, 01:32 PM

Not what the Brady Campaign wanted us to hear! Good news from the FBI and for Second Amendment advocates and citizen safety...

FBI Reports Huge Decrease In Murders As Firearm, Ammunition And “Large” Magazine Sales Soar
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5268
Last week, the FBI issued its preliminary 2009 crime report, showing that the number of murders in the first half of 2009 decreased 10 percent compared to the first half of 2008. If the trend holds for the remainder of 2009, it will be the single greatest one-year decrease in the number of murders since at least 1960, the earliest year for which national data are available through the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Also, the per capita murder rate for 2009 will be 51 percent lower than the all-time high recorded in 1991, and it will be the lowest rate since 1963—a 46-year low. Final figures for 2009 will be released by the FBI next year. According to gun control supporter dogma—“more guns means more crime”—the number of privately owned firearms must have decreased 10 percent in 2009. To the contrary, however, the number rose between 1.5 and 2 percent, to an all-time high. For the better part of the last 15 months, firearms, ammunition, and “large” ammunition magazines have been sold in what appear to be record quantities. And, the firearms that were most commonly purchased in 2009 are those that gun control supporters most want to be banned—AR-15s, similar semi-automatic rifles, and handguns designed for defense. The National Shooting Sports Foundation already estimates record ammunition sales in 2009, dominated by .223 Remington, 7.62x39mm, 9mm and other calibers widely favored for defensive purposes.

bobber205

Dec 31, 2009, 01:34 PM

xUKHCx

Dec 31, 2009, 01:35 PM

If the trend holds for the remainder of 2009, it will be the single greatest one-year decrease in the number of murders since at least 1960

Well done Obama.

Dont Hurt Me

Dec 31, 2009, 01:39 PM

Could be attributed to the economy and less disposable income therefor less $$$ for drinking and or drugs so people arent doing so many foolish thing while under the influence. Logical or not?
Also people are less likely to do some of this stuff knowing a law abiding citizen can protect themself against a non law abiding citizen. Constitution baby!

IntheNet

Dec 31, 2009, 01:44 PM

Correlation is not the same as causality but I suppose this possible. Do you have a source for this that's not from a extremely biased source like the NRA?

PR Newswire =>

Murder Down, Gun Sales Up; Proof That Guns Don't Cause Crime
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/murder-down-gun-sales-up-proof-that-guns-dont-cause-crime-saf-79852892.html
BELLEVUE, Wash., Dec. 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A ten percent drop in murders during the first six months of this year at a time when gun sales were up dramatically is more proof that there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime...

Christian Science Monitor =>

More guns equal more crime? Not in 2009, FBI crime report shows.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2009/1223/More-guns-equal-more-crime-Not-in-2009-FBI-crime-report-shows.
Patrik Jonsson Staff writer / December 23, 2009
Atlanta FBI's latest crime report, for the first half of 2009, shows America is a less violent place even though ownership of guns has surged. Deterrent effect may have a role, but others see no correlation. The oft-cited credo that more guns equal more crime is being tested by facts on the ground this year: Even as gun ownership has surged in the US in the past year, violent crime, including murder and robbery, has dropped steeply.

KingYaba

Dec 31, 2009, 01:48 PM

Well done Obama.

Oh I see what you did there.

bobber205

Dec 31, 2009, 01:53 PM

I assume any rise in murders or violent crimes involving guns will never be tied to increased gun sales or gun sales at all? There's no way the NRA would do that.

synth3tik

Dec 31, 2009, 01:59 PM

I think if anything it's the price of ammo. I mean if it's going to cost you $2 per round you'll think twice about whether you hate someone enough to end them.

A 10% decrease in homicide and a 1.5-2% increase in firearm sales does not seem to really match up for me. The correlation is weak.

After all statistics are just an interesting manipulation of mathematics.

Peace

Dec 31, 2009, 02:01 PM

The decrease is due to the fact that police shoot to kill now. No matter the crime they tend to just kill them.

synth3tik

Dec 31, 2009, 02:05 PM

The decrease is due to the fact that police shoot to kill now. No matter the crime they tend to just kill them.

If that isn't the truth. So far it looks like where I live police shootings make up about 30% of the homicides for the year.

djellison

Dec 31, 2009, 02:13 PM

Correlation is not the same as causality

Do not expect the OP to concede, understand, comprehend, process or in anyway acknowledge or appropriately address this key issue.

flopticalcube

Dec 31, 2009, 02:17 PM

Its most likely a demographic effect. As the average age increases, expect such crimes to decrease. Maybe old people own more guns?

bobber205

Dec 31, 2009, 02:19 PM

Its most likely a demographic effect. As the average age increases, expect such crimes to decrease. Maybe old people own more guns?

The people I know that own alot of guns are 40+.

Of course my previous statement as the first reply to this does apply to what I just said. :)

Iscariot

Dec 31, 2009, 02:20 PM

A 10% decrease in homicide and a 1.5-2% increase in firearm sales does not seem to really match up for me. The correlation is weak.

A 100% reduction in homicide is only a 15% increase in gun sales away!

bobber205

Dec 31, 2009, 02:25 PM

A 100% reduction in homicide is only a 15% increase in gun sales away!

I think this is a good way to illustrate the problem around these numbers.

Peace

Dec 31, 2009, 02:40 PM

Any way you look at it it's still a fact that people with guns (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34640375/ns/world_news-europe/) kill people.

fivepoint

Dec 31, 2009, 02:57 PM

Any way you look at it it's still a fact that people with guns (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34640375/ns/world_news-europe/) kill people.

True. But also:

People with cars kill people.
People with tire irons kill people.
People with elephants kill people.
People with dogs kill people.
People with roman shades kill people.

The list could go on forever, what's your point?

Peace

Dec 31, 2009, 03:02 PM

True. But also:

People with cars kill people.
People with tire irons kill people.
People with elephants kill people.
People with dogs kill people.
People with roman shades kill people.

The list could go on forever, what's your point?

If you don't see the common sense of my statement you will never understand my point.

You are implying people with roman shades kill as many people as people with guns do. That's just plain silly.

fivepoint

Dec 31, 2009, 03:04 PM

If you don't see the common sense of my statement you will never understand my point.

You are implying people with roman shades kill as many people as people with guns do. That's just plain silly.

Roman shades also save far fewer lives than guns do.

Cars kill many more people than guns do.
Alcohol kills many more people than guns do.

Ownership of guns is protected by the constitution.

Again... your point?

Peace

Dec 31, 2009, 03:08 PM

Roman shades also save far fewer lives than guns do.

Cars kill many more people than guns do.
Alcohol kills many more people than guns do.

Ownership of guns is protected by the constitution.

Again... your point?

My point ?

Ban the bullet.

IntheNet

Dec 31, 2009, 03:28 PM

My point ?

Ban the bullet.

So, based on the good news from these FBI reports, you are in favor of more crime and more murders?

Peace

Dec 31, 2009, 03:29 PM

So, based on the good news from these FBI reports, you are in favor of more crime and more murders?

Sure.Why not!!
:rolleyes:

Cave Man

Dec 31, 2009, 03:38 PM

Not what the Brady Campaign wanted us to hear! Good news from the FBI and for Second Amendment advocates and citizen safety...

The US debt has continued to increase since the early 1990s. So has the incidence of autism. Clearly, austim is responsible for the debt. Or maybe it's the other way around.

Thomas Veil

Dec 31, 2009, 03:41 PM

IntheNet

Dec 31, 2009, 03:49 PM

Does anyone seriously think that robbers, gang members and people violently unhappy with their spouses, friends or co-workers are really sitting in their homes going, "Golly gee whiz, they're sellin' ammunition like there's no tomorrow! I'd better put my murder plans on hold"??

If you'd bother to do some research - and I suggest that the aforementioned FBI report is a good place to start - you'll discover the absurdity of your statement. As a matter of fact yes; as more firearms are held by citizens (huge increases in last few years of women gun owners and concealed handgun applications) then there is drastic reduction in violent crimes against citizens (muggings, rapes, personal assaults, etc.). The NRA website lists these statistics (http://www.nra.org/home.aspx) should you be interested. Conversely, a citizenry denied firearms becomes a target rich opportinity for criminals and crime.

Peterkro

Dec 31, 2009, 03:59 PM

Of course this makes sense,look at Pakistan one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world and it's crime rate ..... ? ooh maybe we haven't thought this through.

fivepoint

Dec 31, 2009, 04:03 PM

"Golly gee whiz, they're sellin' ammunition like there's no tomorrow! I'd better put my murder plans on hold"??

I don't know about all that, but put it this way... would you rather rob a house in Texas or in Connecticut?

Just ask any well-regulated militia.

How cute. Unfortunately for you, a few people... significantly brighter than yourself... had a distinctly different viewpoint.

"...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them." -Thomas Paine.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson Papers (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8.

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Thomas Jefferson.

"They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania..

"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defense..." -John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).

"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them..." -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.

Badandy

Dec 31, 2009, 04:06 PM

My point ?

Ban the bullet.

Do you honestly think "banning the bullet" is going to keep guns and bullets out of the hands of criminals? That's ridiculous.

Counterfit

Dec 31, 2009, 05:07 PM

I don't know about all that, but put it this way... would you rather rob a house in Texas or in Connecticut?

Connecticut, but only because Texas is so damned far away. If I were to rob a house in Texas, I'd probably shoot on sight anyway.

hulugu

Dec 31, 2009, 05:31 PM

...people with roman shades kill people....

Yes, we've all heard of the roman shade samurai.

Correlation is not the same as causality but I suppose this possible. Do you have a source for this that's not from a extremely biased source like the NRA?

Anyone who deals with statistics knows that correlation does not imply causation. There's dozens of other factors that could be at work, including a drop in crime that's been happening over the last decade. If anyone's curious reviewing the FBI's crime stats (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_01.html) indicates a drop in the murder rate from 8.7 to 5.4 from 1989 to 2008. The change has remained relatively consistent except for a slight uptick in 2006.

Well done Obama.

Yep, using the same logic—and the OP's logic in other threads—this should be a feather in Obama's cap, after all this drop in crime coincides with his inauguration.

Peace

Dec 31, 2009, 05:57 PM

Do you honestly think "banning the bullet" is going to keep guns and bullets out of the hands of criminals? That's ridiculous.

It was a joke that Ken Kesey said once. Obviously people here haven't read much of his work.

Peterkro

Dec 31, 2009, 06:10 PM

It was a joke that Ken Kesey said once. Obviously people here haven't read much of his work.

Some people have.:)

IntheNet

Dec 31, 2009, 06:11 PM

—this should be a feather in Obama's cap—

Not a chance... BHO is a crazy gun ban nut from way back! He's opposed to the spirit of the Second Amendment and supports handgun bans (February 11, 2008 interview (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/obamas_sights_on_second_amendm.html)) and no credit for this crime control is due to anything BHO did or planned.

xUKHCx

Dec 31, 2009, 06:21 PM

and no credit for this crime control is due to anything BHO did or planned.

I'm sorry but that is utter tripe, there is no way you can honestly make such a claim.

IntheNet

Dec 31, 2009, 06:25 PM

I'm sorry but that is utter tripe, there is no way you can honestly make such a claim.

The only direct law enforcement action at the state level I am aware of Obama doing in his first year is his comment regarding Cambridge police acting "stupidly" and I think we know how that turned out... You have other evidence? I'm open to hearing what you have...

xUKHCx

Dec 31, 2009, 06:36 PM

The only direct law enforcement action at the state level I am aware of Obama doing in his first year is his comment regarding Cambridge police acting "stupidly" and I think we know how that turned out... You have other evidence? I'm open to hearing what you have...

I'm sure you have done an indepth study in the whole socio-econmic effects of baracks presidency and his policies before making a claim so I'd like to see any evidence that you have collected in this vast study of yours. The only fact presented here murders down over the last year directly contradicts your statement, any cause and effect statments otherwise are merely interpetations of the base figures, some interpetations are way over the top and far reaching and simplistic for the figures.

bobber205

Dec 31, 2009, 06:50 PM

Not a chance... BHO is a crazy gun ban nut from way back! He's opposed to the spirit of the Second Amendment and supports handgun bans (February 11, 2008 interview (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/obamas_sights_on_second_amendm.html)) and no credit for this crime control is due to anything BHO did or planned.

If it had went up, you know damn well you would have blamed this on Obama.

Eraserhead

Dec 31, 2009, 07:17 PM

If that isn't the truth. So far it looks like where I live police shootings make up about 30% of the homicides for the year.

That's outrageously high. In the UK the police kill around 1 person a year. Between 1995 and 2005 they only killed 14 people in the whole country (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article557419.ece).

Of course this makes sense,look at Pakistan one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world and it's crime rate ..... ? ooh maybe we haven't thought this through.

Switzerland also has very high gun ownership, but it has a very low crime rate. I don't think there is much correlation between guns and crime to be honest.

Peace

Dec 31, 2009, 07:37 PM

That's outrageously high. In the UK the police kill around 1 person a year. Between 1995 and 2005 they only killed 14 people in the whole country (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article557419.ece).

Switzerland also has very high gun ownership, but it has a very low crime rate. I don't think there is much correlation between guns and crime to be honest.

Got a link to a mass murder done with a comb ?

63dot

Dec 31, 2009, 07:46 PM

It's really hard to say why this is.

All I know is that Oakland, California near me has one of its least violent years in terms of homicide. That town is famous for its guns and gun violence, so who knows if its the bad guys being more heavily armed that they won't fight it out anymore among each other, or good guys buying guns to deter the bad guys.

Anyway, I am for gun ownership within reason but not letting people show up with machine guns when our politicians speak. Sure, I know those ex-Delta Force types who are probably the Secret Service agents can take out any would be assassins but areas of the country that allow for this type of gun ownership have better get a reality check.

I think weapons like the Sherman tank that DuPont personally owned is going a bit far in terms of personal protection. :rolleyes:

Peace

Dec 31, 2009, 07:57 PM

I'm all for the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It's the idiots that often use them that I'm against.

Eraserhead

Dec 31, 2009, 07:58 PM

Got a link to a mass murder done with a comb ?

:confused:

skunk

Dec 31, 2009, 08:00 PM

I'm all for the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It's the idiots that often use them that I'm against.So keep the guns and ban the idiots people who use them. Sorted.

Peace

Dec 31, 2009, 08:08 PM

Ok. I'll use lower english to explain.

One poster said he couldn't see a correlation between guns and crime.

I sarcastically asked if he had a link to a mass murder done with a comb. A comb is not a gun. We don't hear much about murders done with combs.

When I said I had nothing against the right to bear arms but I had a problem with SOME of those people being idiots meant some people that bear arms KILL people.

In other words guns don't kill people. STUPID people with guns kill people.

Shall I make myself clearer ? :)

skunk

Dec 31, 2009, 08:20 PM

Shall I make myself clearer ? :)Opaque is sometimes better.

Peace

Dec 31, 2009, 08:21 PM

Happy New Year skunk!! May you have many more.:)

skunk

Dec 31, 2009, 08:23 PM

Happy New Year skunk!! May you have many more.:)And to you. But we must ask ourselves, is there any correlation between this message and the topic of the thread?

Peace

Dec 31, 2009, 08:24 PM

And to you. But we must ask ourselves, is there any correlation between this message and the topic of the thread?

Absolutely none. Report me. I don't care.
:p

Thomas Veil

Dec 31, 2009, 08:33 PM

...Unfortunately for you, a few people... significantly brighter than yourself... had a distinctly different viewpoint.

"...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them." -Thomas Paine.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson Papers (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8.

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Thomas Jefferson.

"They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania..

"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defense..." -John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).

"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them..." -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.Fortunately, somebody brighter than you showed that at least one of those quotes is bogus (http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Strongest_reason_for_the_people_to...keep_and_bear_arms), and even a pro-gun site recognizes that another is selectively edited (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html).

But even if I grant the rest, where in any of those quotes do they negate the notion of a militia?

If you'd bother to do some research - and I suggest that the aforementioned FBI report is a good place to start - you'll discover the absurdity of your statement. As a matter of fact yes; as more firearms are held by citizens (huge increases in last few years of women gun owners and concealed handgun applications) then there is drastic reduction in violent crimes against citizens (muggings, rapes, personal assaults, etc.).The FBI report linked to does not draw that cause-and-effect conclusion.

But if you do want to draw that conclusion, then you also have to explain away how we arrived at the same kind of results when tougher gun laws were enacted during the Clinton administration.

freeny

Dec 31, 2009, 08:46 PM

If guns lower murder rates then wouldnt it be cheaper and safer to just hand out a gun to every citizen?...

CaptMurdock

Jan 1, 2010, 09:56 AM

djellison

Jan 1, 2010, 10:42 AM

Those so sure there is causation here - please present data that demonstrates states and indeed whole countries with higher gun ownership have lower crime rates.

IntheNet

Jan 1, 2010, 10:43 AM

Once again, the OP is showing his ignorance of the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

To answer fivepoint's question a robber worrying about breaking into a house that probably has guns in it: Frankly, I doubt any juicehead is going to have qualms about more people having guns in their homes. Hell, he's probably excited that he can break in, just shoot more people without warning, steal their stockpile of guns and sell them for more money to buy whatever feeds his need.

There is tremendous irony here; the poster tries to first invoke mistaken logic, then goes on to believe a crook is going to target a well-armed home over another, presumably, that is not well armed! Crooks are not stupid! A well-armed populace forces crooks to look elsewhere; as the FBI reports show!

It is quite amazing to me that even when shown proof - though government stats no less - that crime goes down when firearms ownership goes up, that liberals will still question it! Exercising your First Amendment rights is the most effective way to reduce crime!

Those so sure there is causation here - please present data that demonstrates states and indeed whole countries with higher gun ownership have lower crime rates.

Try posts #1 and #5 for starters; with the FBI Stats as background. The NRA website (link provided previously) is also a good reference...

rdowns

Jan 1, 2010, 11:20 AM

Got a link to a mass murder done with a comb ?

Will this do?

http://blog1.ebates.com/ebates/donald-trump-bad-hair-day.jpg

CaptMurdock

Jan 1, 2010, 11:21 AM

rdowns

Jan 1, 2010, 11:27 AM

All those links show is somebody, just like you, assuming correlation = causation. Nothing says that the FBI believes this to be true.

THAT!

IntheNet, how do you know Tiger Woods screwing so many women in 2009 wasn't the reason behind a lower murder rate or hell, even the increase in gun sales? :rolleyes:

Peace

Jan 1, 2010, 11:49 AM

THAT!

IntheNet, how do you know Tiger Woods screwing so many women in 2009 wasn't the reason behind a lower murder rate or hell, even the increase in gun sales? :rolleyes:

Probably increased the sales of 7 irons!

IntheNet

Jan 1, 2010, 11:50 AM

IntheNet, how do you know Tiger Woods screwing so many women in 2009 wasn't the reason behind a lower murder rate or hell, even the increase in gun sales? :rolleyes:

You may be right; Wood's active putter was likely a contributory reason of gun sales; however, I doubt seriously, whether Wood's club proliferation had anything whatsoever to do with crime.

bobber205

Jan 1, 2010, 12:23 PM

There is tremendous irony here; the poster tries to first invoke mistaken logic, then goes on to believe a crook is going to target a well-armed home over another, presumably, that is not well armed! Crooks are not stupid! A well-armed populace forces crooks to look elsewhere; as the FBI reports show!

It is quite amazing to me that even when shown proof - though government stats no less - that crime goes down when firearms ownership goes up, that liberals will still question it! Exercising your First Amendment rights is the most effective way to reduce crime!

Try posts #1 and #5 for starters; with the FBI Stats as background. The NRA website (link provided previously) is also a good reference...

How does a robber know if a house is well armed? I don't think a robber goes to the amount of effort and profiling it would require to get a good estimate. I would imagine violent robberies are because of a drug addiction and I doubt that those under that influence are scared of a house full of guns anyway. When you get robbed your asleep. You're not safer with alot of guns unless there's one at any step and you can practically form one in the palm of your hand like you're Neo or something.

And lol. Since when is the first amendment about gun rights? xD

IntheNet

Jan 1, 2010, 12:36 PM

How does a robber know if a house is well armed?

:rolleyes:

That would be the home that isn't a crime statistic based on Second Amendment rights...

Peace

Jan 1, 2010, 12:40 PM

:rolleyes:

That would be the home that isn't a crime statistic based on Second Amendment rights...

Are you saying the every day robber checks up on crime stats and reads the daily crime briefing ?

That was a silly answer. A robber has no way of knowing whether or not a house has guns in it. This is why some find out the hard way.

rdowns

Jan 1, 2010, 12:43 PM

Are you saying the every day robber checks up on crime stats and reads the daily crime briefing ?

That was a silly answer. A robber has no way of knowing whether or not a house has guns in it. This is why some find out the hard way.

I thought all the gun nuts had one of these in their front window.

jonbravo77

Jan 1, 2010, 12:43 PM

Well, have fun blasting the robber away. hope you have good aim and a good lawyer.

freeny

Jan 1, 2010, 12:44 PM

The only thing that increases with gun sales is the chance someone will be killed by a gun, period.

IntheNet

Jan 1, 2010, 12:45 PM

I thought all the gun nuts had one of these in their front window.

This one too:

http://i48.tinypic.com/aysyn6.gif

63dot

Jan 1, 2010, 12:51 PM

The people I know that own alot of guns are 40+.

Of course my previous statement as the first reply to this does apply to what I just said. :)

I guess I better come out as you all know I am a liberal. I used to be a guns salesman, and my long time employee is a gun salesman and gun instructor.

Politics aside, there are fallacies both sides put to the extreme. I have never, in the thousands of people I sold guns or ammo to, ever met a buyer over 50. Not once. But I worked at the biggest firearms dealer in the United States, a Fortune 500, who is also big in other sports too which among them are extreme sports and we were one of the only billion dollar players in the game, so it brought in a "young" crowd. So from my perspective, how do you explain the virtually all young crowd? It can't be because we sold more running shoes, gangsta shoes, boxing gear, and basketballs than virtually anyone. I really think the multiple gun crowd is younger despite what sales this company had in other areas of sports. And some of those customers scared me, mostly due to lack of experience or maturity. If they were legal I sold to them but I felt reservations. I worked in a smaller store of this huge chain and on bad days we would pull in three grand (when other stores in the mall would pull zero) and the ammo and gun business kept us afloat being the #2 department of the dozens of categories of "sports" we sold to the public.

I don't know what 40+ people you are talking about and they must not be anywhere near California. In rural or urban California, whether you're a young gangster or a young hunter, you will likely have 2 or 3 guns, or more, fairly easy to buy in sketchy condition and on the street or for a cheap price at a national outlet. The stuff I sold was cheap and among real gun fans, was junk, really. The rare older person past age 30, who usually had a good trade or a profession, would get and keep one good gun. BTW, I don't have any guns and have no desire to but still support the right to own them.

I don't like dangerous sports... wait...I love skateboarding! That's a different thread though.

KingYaba

Jan 1, 2010, 01:10 PM

lol

63dot

Jan 1, 2010, 01:17 PM

lol

LMAO.

Personally I would not visit either house. It looks like a trap from the comic strip "Life in Hell", "The Far Side", or "Spy vs. Spy". The house supposedly without the guns is probably some person wearing a thong holding a bazooka. :)

bobber205

Jan 1, 2010, 01:30 PM

lol

Obviously the other house is protected by martial arts. Duh. :D

Macky-Mac

Jan 1, 2010, 01:36 PM

the government statistics linked to by inthenet clearly show that violent crime drastically drops in the year after Sarah Palin looses an election for vice president.....again, this is proven by government statistics so there is no possible doubt about it.

why have arms sales gone up so much? Well, again statistics show that gun sales go up in the year of the departure from office of any vice-president who shot somebody during his tenure.....it's proven by the statistics inthenet links to, so if you don't believe it, check out the statistics he provided.

why would people buy more guns because Dick Cheney is on the loose? Inthenet's statistics don't prove why, just that they do! Maybe people are afraid he's going to come to their town and they're buying guns to protect themselves? :eek: :D

63dot

Jan 1, 2010, 02:29 PM

Obviously the other house is protected by martial arts. Duh. :D

yes

Zombie Acorn

Jan 1, 2010, 02:37 PM

Murder is a cultural issue, it has nothing to do with who has access to firearms. A knife works just as well.

freeny

Jan 1, 2010, 03:10 PM

Murder is a cultural issue, it has nothing to do with who has access to firearms. A knife works just as well.

Knives have no where near the range of a gun.

Zombie Acorn

Jan 1, 2010, 03:16 PM

Knives have no where near the range of a gun.

Range isn't an issue most of the time in murders.

freeny

Jan 1, 2010, 03:36 PM

Range isn't an issue most of the time in murders.

I doubt there is a statistic to back that up but if you could find one...

Surprisingly, most murders via gun use is self inflicted. 55% according to this link- http://iphone.cbsnews.com/site?sid=cbsnews_ip&pid=sections.detail&storyId=4223476&index=1

Desertrat

Jan 1, 2010, 06:27 PM

"The only thing that increases with gun sales is the chance someone will be killed by a gun, period."

freeny, the rate of gun sales in the US since 1993 has been roughly five million per year, per BATFE records available on their website. This increased to around eight million in 2008, and has run about ten million in 2009. That's a helluva large increase in the number of firearms. 88 million, if my fingers and toes are adding up correctly. :)

Now, this may not have any correlation with the decline in homicides, but it certainly shows the fallacy of the idea that large numbers of firearms are related to the amount of crime of whatever sort.

Since the buyers are all vetted by the FBI via the NICS, it seems to me as though those most at risk would be the Bad Guys. Why should there be any real concern about the fate of a burglar or rapist?

63dot

Jan 1, 2010, 06:30 PM

Knives have no where near the range of a gun.

Darn, I had the deficit reducing plan of taking away all guns from the army and replacing them with knives from now on. ;)

Zombie Acorn

Jan 1, 2010, 06:31 PM

I doubt there is a statistic to back that up but if you could find one...

Surprisingly, most murders via gun use is self inflicted. 55% according to this link- http://iphone.cbsnews.com/site?sid=cbsnews_ip&pid=sections.detail&storyId=4223476&index=1

I don't have to, murders happen regardless of weapon availability.

Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human.

63dot

Jan 1, 2010, 06:37 PM

I don't have to, murders happen regardless of weapon availability.

Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human.

(with intent of serious bodily harm).

You are defining homicide.

If I was mad at someone and I was on the 30th story of a building and I threw a PC laptop at them, and they ducked and I missed them, yet it went out the window and stuck somebody on the ground outside and killed them, then that's homicide.

Homicide can be murder 1, murder 2, manslaughter (voluntary or involuntary). But that's technical legal jargon with fine print. ;)

freeny

Jan 1, 2010, 06:42 PM

I don't have to, murders happen regardless of weapon availability.

Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human.

Ok, how about this, of the roughly 31,000 firearm deaths that happen each year, do you believe all 31,000 would have happened if there were no guns on the street? A rough estimate is fine...

IntheNet

Jan 1, 2010, 06:42 PM

"The only thing that increases with gun sales is the chance someone will be killed by a gun, period."

Actually; you're correct with this point; important thing is, with more firearms in the hands of citizens it is crooks doing the dying...

Peace

Jan 1, 2010, 06:46 PM

Actually; you're correct with this point; important thing is, with more firearms in the hands of citizens it is crooks doing the dying...

And the occasional innocent bystander. But hey! That's just collateral damage right?

Zombie Acorn

Jan 1, 2010, 06:47 PM

63dot

Jan 1, 2010, 06:50 PM

Ok, how about this, of the roughly 31,000 firearm deaths that happen each year, do you believe all 31,000 would have happened if there were no guns on the street? A rough estimate is fine...

We all know the answer to this. Too many people end up dying instead of being injured because there was a gun around. And there are unfortunate gun accidents, too, which would likely not have happened had there been a knife or mace around. My brother's friend killed himself by accident fooling around with a pistol. It was very tragic, yet it ended up the kid's fault because he was drunk and stole the gun.

However, while somewhat related but not directly correlated with, it doesn't change the right to bear arms and how important that is.

A good middle ground is gun control, stricter sentencing to the people who commit crimes with guns, but not some all across the board banning of guns. Sometimes when I sold guns (I worked at a sports chain), the guns were for a purpose, like hunting or target practice. I do admit some of the very short looking shotguns we sold (barely, barely legal) almost looked short enough to be concealable. IF I were a bad guy, and wanted to rob a bank in 20 minutes and didn't have a real plan and no weapon, this short shot gun could be an option. A tall enough person could hide one in their coat.

Desertrat

Jan 1, 2010, 07:07 PM

Just for clarification: A lawful killing in self defense is a homicide. "Homicide" is not limited to unlawful killings.

Peace, the few available statistics indicate that for any given year, about three people are wongfully killed in a self defense situation, your "innocent bystander". The police, however, do in around thirty, give or take a few. FWIW, Texas law is very specific: You shoot in self defense and hit an univolved person, you're in deep trouble. No excuse.

freeny, CDC records show that about half of all firearms homicides are suicides. The psychologists have for decades held that the vast majority of suicidal people will choose an alternate means if the original preferred means is not available.

As a generality, criminal misuse of firearms in killings has run roughly 13,000 per year with handguns, 3,000 per year with shotguns or rifles. The total varies by year, of course. Roughly, 80%/20%.

Peace

Jan 1, 2010, 07:09 PM

Your guns (http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/34651682/ns/sports-nba/) at work.

Desertrat

Jan 1, 2010, 07:22 PM

What idiots do has nothing to do with this thread or the points I've raised. Mostly, MY guns deal with Bambi, quail and doves.

freeny

Jan 1, 2010, 07:25 PM

more guns at work (http://www.google.com/search?q=innocent+bystander+shot&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

A good middle ground is gun control, stricter sentencing to the people who commit crimes with guns, but not some all across the board banning of guns. Sometimes when I sold guns (I worked at a sports chain), the guns were for a purpose, like hunting or target practice. I do admit some of the very short looking shotguns we sold (barely, barely legal) almost looked short enough to be concealable. IF I were a bad guy, and wanted to rob a bank in 20 minutes and didn't have a real plan and no weapon, this short shot gun could be an option. A tall enough person could hide one in their coat.
100% agree
Im not anti gun, i believe the right to bear firearms is there for a very important reason, but to argue that more guns=less murders is ludicrous.

eawmp1

Jan 1, 2010, 07:31 PM

Democrats control White House and congress - decrease in murders and increase in firearm sales
More people out of work - decrease in murders and increase in firearm sales
Record number of deaths in Afghanistan - decrease in murders and increase in firearm sales
Increasing number of Apps downloaded from App Store - decrease in murders and increase in firearm sales

Numbers of idiots who draw causality out of correlation rising - decrease in murders and increase in firearm sales

Eraserhead

Jan 2, 2010, 04:21 AM

clancemasterj

Jan 2, 2010, 04:34 AM

The real reason for increased sale of firearms is the threat of a zombie apocalypse.

freeny

Jan 2, 2010, 08:10 AM

Are there 31000 gun deaths a year in the US or worldwide?

The US
link in post 75

skunk

Jan 2, 2010, 08:18 AM

Are there 31000 gun deaths a year in the US or worldwide?How are things on Planet Optimistic? :)

Peterkro

Jan 2, 2010, 08:35 AM

The psychologists have for decades held that the vast majority of suicidal people will choose an alternate means if the original preferred means is not available.

I don't know who "the psychologists" are that you are referring to but there is a considerable amount of evidence they are wrong:

Results support the hypothesis that state restrictions on firearms have the potential to reduce the suicide rate. Findings do not support a hypothesis that greater firearm restrictions are associated with the substitution of alternative methods of suicide

http://www.ajpm-online.net/article/S0749-3797(03)00212-5/abstract

This paper has analyzed a number of gun control laws in different states and found that as a group the laws were significantly correlated with the suicide rates in those states. In other words, strict gun control may have a preventive effect on suicidal behavior, a conclusion supportive of Boyd's view.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w58181164l7412lt/

ASSOC. PROFESSOR PHILIP ALPERS, SYDNEY UNIVERSITY: After the new gun laws were introduced the rate of gun suicide dropped twice as fast. If you reduce the availability of firearms, especially to, say, impulsive young men, then the number of people dying by gunshot reduces.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/business/items/200906/s2592589.htm

Now I realise there is some controversy over this but to say "the vast majority of suicidal people will choose an alternate means" as if it was accepted fact is at best misleading.

Eraserhead

Jan 2, 2010, 10:32 AM

How are things on Planet Optimistic? :)

Given people can be murdered in other ways than guns I thought it was a little high for just the US ;).

Though I suppose murder is something that is generally honestly reported so it was a little low for a worldwide figure :o.

Thomas Veil

Jan 2, 2010, 03:06 PM

A good middle ground is gun control, stricter sentencing to the people who commit crimes with guns, but not some all across the board banning of guns.Well, now you're just being sensible. ;)

OutThere

Jan 2, 2010, 03:26 PM

Where do the guns used in crime come from? Someone, somewhere legally produced them, sold them or purchased them.

The fact that I should even have to think that criminals who would try to mug me or rob my house would be carrying guns indicates we have a problem.

I'm an Eagle Scout, a good marksman and a Swiss citizen...I've enjoyed guns and used them extensively, I just feel that the American gun culture is unacceptable. Our solution to criminals with guns should not be to encourage gun ownership, it should be to take the guns away from the criminals, even if it inconveniences responsible gun owners. Clearly Americans can't play with their guns responsibly, perhaps it's time to take the toys away.

A first step: illegal/unregistered gun turn-in with no questions asked. If you find it, turn it in. Train church and community center staff and advertise the program at places other than the police station. Make it easy to get rid of guns that might otherwise end up in the wrong hands.

A second step: ammunition accountability. Put serial numbers on bullets and associate every bullet sold with a driver's license number. Perhaps a method of having new guns stamp their own serial number on each casing could be rather simple to set up as well.

It also needs to be way more difficult to buy guns. It's not that big a deal if it's hard to obtain a device that is designed to kill things. It should be hard to get them.

bobber205

Jan 2, 2010, 04:11 PM

Counterfit

Jan 2, 2010, 05:43 PM

http://blogue.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/1_the_right_to_bear_arms.thumbnail.jpg

skunk

Jan 2, 2010, 05:46 PM

Sure enough... :rolleyes:
:)

IntheNet

Jan 2, 2010, 06:58 PM

A first step: illegal/unregistered gun turn-in with no questions asked. If you find it, turn it in. Train church and community center staff and advertise the program at places other than the police station. Make it easy to get rid of guns that might otherwise end up in the wrong hands.

Problem: Used gun stores and pawn stores offer top dollar for used guns; why would someone "turn in" a firearm to police for free when someone could get lots of spending money from used gun stores/pawn stores?

A second step: ammunition accountability. Put serial numbers on bullets and associate every bullet sold with a driver's license number. Perhaps a method of having new guns stamp their own serial number on each casing could be rather simple to set up as well.

Problem: While serial numbers could be added to bullet case; it is problematic to add the number to the bullet itself (either lead or full metal jacket) due to rifling grooves on bullet immediately after it is fired would render serial number illegible. Cost of adding serial numbers to bullets in any event would be prohibitive.

It also needs to be way more difficult to buy guns. It's not that big a deal if it's hard to obtain a device that is designed to kill things. It should be hard to get them.

Problem:I take it you're not familiar with both current ATF forms that need completion for new firearm purchases and waiting periods applied to gun purchases in FFL-approved dealers in 50 states; it is already "difficult" in most states to purchase firearms specifically to prevent firearms being sold to felons. Increasing this difficulty is not going to prevent murders but rather deny a firearm to someone that has a genuine need for one.

bobber205

Jan 2, 2010, 07:20 PM

Problem: Used gun stores and pawn stores offer top dollar for used guns; why would someone "turn in" a firearm to police for free when someone could get lots of spending money from used gun stores/pawn stores?

Problem: While serial numbers could be added to bullet case; it is problematic to add the number to the bullet itself (either lead or full metal jacket) due to rifling grooves on bullet immediately after it is fired would render serial number illegible. Cost of adding serial numbers to bullets in any event would be prohibitive.

Problem:I take it you're not familiar with both current ATF forms that need completion for new firearm purchases and waiting periods applied to gun purchases in FFL-approved dealers in 50 states; it is already "difficult" in most states to purchase firearms specifically to prevent firearms being sold to felons. Increasing this difficulty is not going to prevent murders but rather deny a firearm to someone that has a genuine need for one.

Some valid points made.

For the first I would say either

1) Offer money or something in return. Or just say "too damn bad" and make used gun take ins and the like illegal.

2) I'm not sure this is accurate but it's very possible. If the law required a serial number on each bullet, I'm sure the industry would adapt.

3) It needs to be "difficulty" in all states and all cases to buy a firearm. No exceptions. And none of this gun show stuff either.

IntheNet

Jan 2, 2010, 07:41 PM

Actions you present need to be in accord with the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

1) Offer money or something in return. Or just say "too damn bad" and make used gun take ins and the like illegal.

Wait... you are saying you want gov't to illegalize used gun sales? Based on what? And based on what law?

2) I'm not sure this is accurate but it's very possible. If the law required a serial number on each bullet, I'm sure the industry would adapt.

It is "accurate" - rifling marks bullet on its way out the barrel; therefore I see no way to implement a serial number on bullet surface, either solid lead tips or metal jacket. Even if you could, and it makes bullets more expensive to purchase, most gun owners would then cast their own and reload.

3) It needs to be "difficulty" in all states and all cases to buy a firearm. No exceptions. And none of this gun show stuff either.

Why? Because you say so? Note specific language of Second Amendment: "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That conflicts directly with "It needs to be "difficulty" in all states and all cases to buy a firearm." Gun shows, like boat shows, dog shows, and car shows, illustrate objects of affection that citizens like to own. Again, you want gov't to illegalize gun shows? You do realize the very first effort of the Third Reich was to prevent private gun sales?

Peterkro

Jan 2, 2010, 07:54 PM

You do realize the very first effort of the Third Reich was to prevent private gun sales?

Would you like to provide a source for that assertion? Gun control laws were already in place when Hitler came to power, he used them of course, but as far as I'm aware the only law the nazis passed regarding gun control was in 1938 primarily to prevent Jews from owning guns.

NT1440

Jan 2, 2010, 07:58 PM

Why? Because you say so? Note specific language of Second Amendment: "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That conflicts directly with "It needs to be "difficulty" in all states and all cases to buy a firearm."

There is no reason it should be EASY to get your hands on a gun. I have absolutely no problem with there being tough background checks and mandatory classes, things of that nature. Just because you have the right to bear arms doesn't mean we should make it easy for any moron to go buy one.

IntheNet

Jan 2, 2010, 08:00 PM

Would you like to provide a source for that assertion?

1938 German Weapons Act, a provision of which restricted private gun sales; the other provision of the Act was, as you mention, that Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition.

There is no reason it should be EASY to get your hands on a gun...

Nobody is suggesting such; i.e., east acquisition, however to make it difficult/time consuming to obtain a gun may, and likely will, jeopardize those that might require a firearm due to a justifiable need (thread from ex-husband, threat from criminal, etc.) and go through the legal paperwork to obtain one. Moreover, the Second Amendment is quite clear in the requirement that citizens have toward firearms and that requirement that those rights not be infringed.

bobber205

Jan 2, 2010, 08:24 PM

1938 German Weapons Act, a provision of which restricted private gun sales; the other provision of the Act was, as you mention, that Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition.

Nobody is suggesting such; i.e., east acquisition, however to make it difficult/time consuming to obtain a gun may, and likely will, jeopardize those that might require a firearm due to a justifiable need (thread from ex-husband, threat from criminal, etc.) and go through the legal paperwork to obtain one. Moreover, the Second Amendment is quite clear in the requirement that citizens have toward firearms and that requirement that those rights not be infringed.

So no one is suggesting easy acquisition but you don't want it to be difficult or time consuming? These two things don't mesh very well.

Macky-Mac

Jan 2, 2010, 08:49 PM

..... You do realize the very first effort of the Third Reich was to prevent private gun sales?

Would you like to provide a source for that assertion? Gun control laws were already in place when Hitler came to power, he used them of course, but as far as I'm aware the only law the nazis passed regarding gun control was in 1938 primarily to prevent Jews from owning guns.

1938 German Weapons Act, a provision of which restricted private gun sales; the other provision of the Act was, as you mention, that Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition.....

Inthenet's claim isn't true on many points;

To start with, the nazis came to power in 1933 so "the very first effort of the third reich" happened years before the 1938 weapons act which actually didn't ban or prevent private gun sales (except to jews that is)

German gun control laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany), as Peterkro said, were much harsher before the nazis came to power, indeed, private gun ownership wasn't even allowed for a while after WW1;

In 1919, the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which declared that "all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately." Under the regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks.

This law was replaced with what was still a fairly strict gun control law in 1928;

In 1928, the German government enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition. This law explicitly revoked the 1919 Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which had banned all firearms possession

the 1938 law that the nazis enacted, while making it illegal for jews to have guns, also removed controls on ownership and sales of rifles, shotguns and ammunition, increased the number of people exempt from permit requirements, lowered the age at which guns could be owned and lengthened the carry permit from 1 to 3 years. It's simply false to say that this act prevented private gun sales

IntheNet

Jan 2, 2010, 09:19 PM

So no one is suggesting easy acquisition but you don't want it to be difficult or time consuming?

I can think of several reasons for a prompt but legal acquisition of a firearm that citizens may require along the self defense reasoning and restricting that would jeopardize citizens safety.

"In 1928, the German government enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms.."

From what you quoted, I have highlighted above (in bold) the relevant detail I referenced (that seems to validation tough restrictions on private sales). Secondly, not sure where you cited this from but second sentence is contradictory (see underlined part)...

Desertrat

Jan 2, 2010, 09:21 PM

Some real-world numbers: An estimated 40% of all U.S. households have one or more firearms. Right there are roughly 60 million households. The estimated number of firearms in private ownership given in 1968 by the Feds was around 150 to 200 million. As noted above, just from 1993 until now, an additional 88 million have been added to whatever number were purchased between 1967 and 1993. I think it would be reasonable to suggest that there are some 300 million or more firearms in private ownership in the U.S.

Based on several decades of gun-trading and observing, my guesstimate for the average value of the firearms in the U.S. is at least $500 and likely more.

There cannot be a legislated turn-in or buy-back without the government having to follow the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment. That means paying fair market value. It's further mandated that any objection to an offered price must be adjudicated in court, with the jury deciding on the value. From what I saw when I was on a federal jury, I'd guess that the minimum cost to the taxpayer for a lawsuit is at least $5,000 per case.

A bankrupt government doesn't have the money.

Regardless, there is yet to be an objective statistical analysis of gun control laws which shows any effectiveness for those laws to affect the rate of violent crimes involving firearms. The initial seminal work, "Under The Gun" by Wright, Rossi and Daly, was done by three statisticians who admittedly were neutral to mildly anti-gun when they began their study. It was not an "NRA thing".

The last forty-two years, I've heard about every gun-control notion there is. None of them are worth listening to...

'Rat

Macky-Mac

Jan 2, 2010, 11:10 PM

From what you quoted, I have highlighted above (in bold) the relevant detail I referenced (that seems to validation tough restrictions on private sales). Secondly, not sure where you cited this from but second sentence is contradictory (see underlined part)...

You've confused 3 different laws.

The first in 1919 completely banned private gun ownership.

The 1928 law removed that complete ban on private gun ownership, but imposed a bunch of conditions, permits, etc.........so no, what you underlined isn't contradictory.

The part you bolded, that's about the 1928 law from before the nazis....it's not about the 1938 nazi law you referenced, so no, it doesn't validate your claim. This was the law before the nazis took over.

The 3rd law, made by the nazis in 1938, the one you referenced, made private gun ownership easier than the under 1928 law by removing and relaxing various restrictions that existed under the 1928 law. For example, the 1938 law made it possible to own rifles and shotguns without the permits required by the 1928 law

a summary;
1919 (pre-nazi); a complete ban on all private gun ownership
1928 (pre-nazi); private owners can now have guns but with lots and lots of restrictions
1938 (nazis); even easier to get guns and fewer restrictions....unless you're a jew

read the link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany) for a more in depth history of german gun control laws

OutThere

Jan 2, 2010, 11:34 PM

Problem: Used gun stores and pawn stores offer top dollar for used guns; why would someone "turn in" a firearm to police for free when someone could get lots of spending money from used gun stores/pawn stores?

Trying to sell an illegal gun would be kind of a risk...pawn shops are generally required to run serial numbers. Either way this program already exists, internationally as well as in the US. http://www.schenectadypd.com/about/gun_amnesty.php

I just think it should be expanded. It's not expensive or difficult to run, and provides one way to get illegal weapons off the street. Even if you personally feel that people wouldn't use it it's pretty easy to set up and specifically targeted at illegal guns, which you should want off the street as much as anyone else.

Problem: While serial numbers could be added to bullet case; it is problematic to add the number to the bullet itself (either lead or full metal jacket) due to rifling grooves on bullet immediately after it is fired would render serial number illegible. Cost of adding serial numbers to bullets in any event would be prohibitive.

This already exists and works. Sorry. http://www.ammunitionaccountability.com/

It's very new. A National Research Council/DoJ report on ballistic imaging databases ". . .also recommends further research on "microstamping," a technique that imprints unique marks on guns or ammunition. This promising method could be an alternate way to attain the same basic goal as the proposed database. " http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12162

Problem:I take it you're not familiar with both current ATF forms that need completion for new firearm purchases and waiting periods applied to gun purchases in FFL-approved dealers in 50 states; it is already "difficult" in most states to purchase firearms specifically to prevent firearms being sold to felons. Increasing this difficulty is not going to prevent murders but rather deny a firearm to someone that has a genuine need for one.

Clearly these laws aren't enough, as Seung-Hui Cho was allowed to buy guns legally after being determined by a judge "an imminent danger to self or others as a result of mental illness", which he then used to shoot 57 people, 32 of whom died.

Waiting periods prevent crimes committed in anger or the emotion of the moment. They stop people who slam the door and peel out down the driveway after a fight from coming back with a gun.

We have police for a reason, if someone feels they are in danger and have time to go buy a gun they could well have gone to the police instead.

The fact that guns are so available causes so many of the problems we have with guns. Buying more shouldn't be the answer...that will only ever result in more people getting shot. Guns aren't just like any other possession, their designed purpose is to maim and kill.

Peterkro

Jan 3, 2010, 04:40 AM

You do realize the very first effort of the Third Reich was to prevent private gun sales?

In the face of the evidence presented by Macky-Mac are you going to admit you are wrong or do you stand by it?

It's my view it is absolute and utter bollocks as are much of your posts.

CaptMurdock

Jan 3, 2010, 06:29 AM

It really is too bad that the German Jews didn't have guns in 1938: it might have prevented the Third Reich from invading Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, North Africa... all countries that had no standing armies with, I don't know, guns...

Eraserhead

Jan 3, 2010, 06:32 AM

The German Jews having guns might have made the holocaust less effective ;).

BoyBach

Jan 3, 2010, 06:58 AM

German Jews having arms would have slowed the Wehrmacht for an hour, two at the most.

freeny

Jan 3, 2010, 08:59 AM

Not sure what its like elsewhere but here in NY, you can turn in used guns anonymously and get $200 per gun. Some guy turned in 58 alone last week.

OriginalFormula

Jan 3, 2010, 11:34 AM

1938 German Weapons Act, a provision of which restricted private gun sales; the other provision of the Act was, as you mention, that Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition.

Do you read what you post at all? The law specifically made it so,

Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."

The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.
The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.

The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.

The law made it much, much, easier to have guns. Thus by your logic, the conservatives must be nazis.

Peace

Jan 3, 2010, 11:45 AM

rdowns

Jan 3, 2010, 11:57 AM

Zombie Acorn

Jan 3, 2010, 12:27 PM

More colateral (http://www.cbsatlanta.com/news/22106539/detail.html) damage (http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/02/florida.shooting.arrest/index.html) by guns.

Folks do realize I can do this every day right ? Americans are killing more Americans in this country than terrorist are. DO SOMETHING.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=558_1259868561

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/04/23/jilted-father-killed-kids-then-set-house-on-fire-115875-21299894/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221734/Help--Im-burning-Relatives-girl-13-weep-hear-harrowing-999-fatal-set-father.html?ITO=1490

http://www.northjersey.com/bergen/Police_Father_set_house_on_fire_with_kids_inside.html

Ban accelerants!

Peace

Jan 3, 2010, 12:40 PM

2006
Murders in the UK-3500

Murders in the US-17,030

Are you implying citizens of the UK are dumber than americans ?

UK Stats (http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/uk-united-kingdom/cri-crime&b_define=1)

US Stats (http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/us-united-states/cri-crime&b_define=1)

Zombie Acorn

Jan 3, 2010, 01:06 PM

2006
Murders in the UK-3500

Murders in the US-17,030

Are you implying citizens of the UK are dumber than americans ?

Cultural differences account for some.

20.5% difference in murder

20.2% difference in population

Eraserhead

Jan 3, 2010, 01:07 PM

2006
Murders in the UK-3500

Murders in the US-17,030

For clarity the UK figures look like they're the "rate" so that you can directly compare them with the US figures (while ignoring population size) as the number of actual murders in 2006/7 was only 757 in England and Wales with a further 114 in Scotland(source - E & W (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/01/uk.ukcrime), source - S (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/12/15155727/2)).

Desertrat

Jan 3, 2010, 02:30 PM

Peace sez, "Do something!"

Well, restricting law-abiding people has done absolutely zilch, zero, nada. So why bother? We have all manner of laws about firearms, and yet the murder rate rises and falls as though it has a will all its own.

If the goal is to reduce crime with firearms, remove the perceived need to misuse firearms. The majority of all firearms crime in the U.S. involves some effort related to either the direct drug trade, or to get money to buy drugs. It's not just killing qua killing; it's the threat of killing involved in robberies which is a large part of the problem--so remove the incentive.

Buybacks, amnesties and all that silliness does nothing except promote some feel-good among the proponents. It's fairly well established that buy-back guns are mostly old, inherited guns for which some widow has no use. Or, old junky stuff of little use to anybody. Crooks aren't dumb enough to turn in a $600 Glock for $50 or even $200.

Bad guys merely go out and steal more guns--as is the case for somewhere around 85% of all guns used in crime (per the Feds). The majority of the remainder, if misused by the original buyer, come from sales to originally-law-abiding people who later went bad.

Peace

Jan 4, 2010, 11:21 AM

Your daily dose (http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/22119310/detail.html) of guns killing people.

I'm curious as to how this person would have done this with a pillow or a can of gas.

Desertrat

Jan 5, 2010, 09:21 AM

"Your daily dose of guns killing people."

Ah, yes, the magical power of the gun. That shotgun jumped off the table and told the man, "Take me to the federal building! Now! I'm gonna kill somebody!"

"I'm curious as to how this person would have done this with a pillow or a can of gas."

Some years back, a five-gallon can of gasoline poured itself into a New York City night club and set itself on fire. 83 people died, with many more injured.

Many a pillow has smothered an aging person, with, of course, no involvement on the part of an inheritor...

There are no deadly weapons. There are only deadly people--and the human brain is the deadliest weapon ever known.

Government brains are the deadliest, of course. During the 20th century, government killings accounted for some 120 million people. The Socialists and Communists compiled the highest percentage of the total.

obeygiant

Jan 5, 2010, 11:07 AM

^^^
Gee, I was wondering how those guns grew legs and ran around shooting people. Gosh Dang! :cool:

TuffLuffJimmy

Jan 5, 2010, 11:11 AM

It's interesting to see that some would rather us all live in fear of each other instead of just get rid of guns. When we all fear each other there will be no crime. It's kind of dystopian.

Zombie Acorn

Jan 5, 2010, 11:23 AM

It's interesting to see that some would rather us all live in fear of each other instead of just get rid of guns. When we all fear each other there will be no crime. It's kind of dystopian.

I don't fear people with guns, everyone in this town has one, I fear people with intent to kill someone unlawfully. I don't fear people with cans of gasoline, i fear people who would use it to kill someone, I don't fear people with knives, I fear people that will stab someone with it.

This goes on for just about any item you can find, so unless you are going to round all of the edges in the world and put padding on every item we buy you are living in a fantasy world.

TuffLuffJimmy

Jan 5, 2010, 11:28 AM

I don't fear people with guns, everyone in this town has one, I fear people with intent to kill someone unlawfully. I don't fear people with cans of gasoline, i fear people who would use it to kill someone, I don't fear people with knives, I fear people that will stab someone with it.
This whole thread is about how more people with guns somehow lowers crime rate. If that's not based on fear of guns, then what is it?

Zombie Acorn

Jan 5, 2010, 11:34 AM

This whole thread is about how more people with guns somehow lowers crime rate. If that's not based on fear of guns, then what is it?

Its not a general fear of guns, its the fact that criminals are cowards who will be less likely to enter a situation in which they do not have the upper hand. This is why smaller men/women are more vulnerable to crime.

I don't fear my neighbor, but I don't plan to steal my neighbors stuff so there is no reason to.

TuffLuffJimmy

Jan 5, 2010, 11:36 AM

Its not a general fear of guns, its the fact that criminals are cowards who will be less likely to enter a situation in which they do not have the upper hand. This is why smaller men/women are more vulnerable to crime.
If only we were all giants, then there would be no crime. Perhaps instead of legal guns we should just get rid of all small people.

you should know I'm just making fun of your logic. As if criminals are any more afraid of guns than anyone else.

ucfgrad93

Jan 5, 2010, 11:38 AM

Perhaps instead of legal guns we should just get rid of all small people.

I like the way that you think!;)

Zombie Acorn

Jan 5, 2010, 11:39 AM

If only we were all giants, then there would be no crime. Perhaps instead of legal guns we should just get rid of all small people.

you should know I'm just making fun of your logic. As if criminals are any more afraid of guns than anyone else.

They are more afraid of guns and confrontation then the normal person because they are acting unlawfully, why do you think they wait untill you leave to break into your house most of the time? They are cowards.

Also my logic is sound, criminals attack the most vulnerable people and those who they think won't fight back. Its basic psychology, why would you choose to mug a 6'5" 330lb guy when you could mug a 4'10" small woman?

TuffLuffJimmy

Jan 5, 2010, 11:41 AM

Zombie Acorn

Jan 5, 2010, 11:44 AM

My logic is just as sound. We should just get rid of all smaller people. There, problem solved.

Or we could just give the small people a means to level the playing field. :) a .45 would probably do.

obeygiant

Jan 5, 2010, 11:45 AM

It's interesting to see that some would rather us all live in fear of each other instead of just get rid of guns.

Who's to say we won't live in fear when the guns are gone? We'd have to get rid of knives then baseball bats maybe.

Zombie Acorn

Jan 5, 2010, 11:46 AM

Who's to say we won't live in fear when the guns are gone? We'd have to get rid of knives then baseball bats maybe.

Rocks would definitely be next, can't have any of those pesky things being thrown at people's heads.

Peace

Jan 5, 2010, 11:53 AM

Its not a general fear of guns, its the fact that criminals are cowards who will be less likely to enter a situation in which they do not have the upper hand. This is why smaller men/women are more vulnerable to crime.

I don't fear my neighbor, but I don't plan to steal my neighbors stuff so there is no reason to.

Did you not read the link I posted?

It was in a federal building with federal officers with guns.

HELLO ?

Zombie Acorn

Jan 5, 2010, 11:58 AM

Did you not read the link I posted?

It was in a federal building with federal officers with guns.

HELLO ?

Some people are crazy and willing to die, you can't account for them as they are rare.

The reason crime has decreased while ammo sales have went up is because there is no correlation between law abiding citizens buying ammo and murders.

Peace

Jan 5, 2010, 12:00 PM

Some people are crazy and willing to die, you can't account for them as they are rare.

The reason crime has decreased while ammo sales have went up is because there is no correlation between law abiding citizens buying ammo and murders.

Could also be because cops seem to be outright killing people nowadays.

And as far as "being rare" I'd say any person that murders another person with a gun is crazy and not very "rare".

Peterkro

Jan 5, 2010, 12:06 PM

Also my logic is sound, criminals attack the most vulnerable people and those who they think won't fight back. Its basic psychology, why would you choose to mug a 6'5" 330lb guy when you could mug a 4'10" small woman?

Why if that's the case are males(especially young males) more often the victims of robbery than females(in the U.S.).

(as providing sources seems to have gone out of fashion around here I'll provide them as soon as people like ZA start using them).

Zombie Acorn

Jan 5, 2010, 12:08 PM

Could also be because cops seem to be outright killing people nowadays.

And as far as "being rare" I'd say any person that murders another person with a gun is crazy and not very "rare".

We don't execute most of our murderers so theres no reason that they should fear death when attacking unarmed people. If the punishment fit the crime we would have less killings. We have gangs/drugs in prisons and all kinds of other ****, it can't be that bad.

Zombie Acorn

Jan 5, 2010, 12:08 PM

Why if that's the case are males(especially young males) more often the victims of robbery than females(in the U.S.).

(as providing sources seems to have gone out of fashion around here I'll provide them as soon as people like ZA start using them).

Might want to read up further I said smaller men/women. You would not choose a huge guy over a small woman given two targets.

Peterkro

Jan 5, 2010, 12:14 PM

Might want to read up further I said smaller men/women. You would not choose a huge guy over a small woman given two targets.

Are you suggesting that women are not overall of smaller physical stature than men (in the U.S.)? If not and these "cowards" are looking for the weakest victim surely women would be robbed at least as often as men.(or maybe you think there are many more men than women in the U.S. or perhaps more women are gun nuts and therefore a less easy target).

Zombie Acorn

Jan 5, 2010, 12:27 PM

Are you suggesting that women are not overall of smaller physical stature than men (in the U.S.)? If not and these "cowards" are looking for the weakest victim surely women would be robbed at least as often as men.(or maybe you think there are many more men than women in the U.S. or perhaps more women are gun nuts and therefore a less easy target).

I haven't seen many warnings for men jogging out late at night, have you? Women are aware of the risks these days and avoid them.

Peterkro

Jan 5, 2010, 12:37 PM

I haven't seen many warnings for men jogging out late at night, have you? Women are aware of the risks these days and avoid them.

Women of course in a society such as the U.S. where sexual violence is so prevalent do need to be careful when alone at night however we're talking of robbery and while many generations of women in the U.S. didn't feel safe enough to venture out after dark I don't think the major differences in women/men being robbed could be accounted for by saying women don't venture out at night is applicable now. Your original assertion also doesn't explain why young males are more often victims of robbery than older males or are they to frightened to venture out after dark as well?

Peace

Jan 5, 2010, 12:39 PM

I haven't seen many warnings for men jogging out late at night, have you? Women are aware of the risks these days and avoid them.

That's just plain silly. Normally men tend to stalk and/or rape more women then men.

Zombie Acorn

Jan 5, 2010, 12:40 PM

That's just plain silly. Normally men tend to stalk and/or rape more women then men.

So they wouldn't be out walking around as easy targets at night you say?

Zombie Acorn

Jan 5, 2010, 12:42 PM

Women of course in a society such as the U.S. where sexual violence is so prevalent do need to be careful when alone at night however we're talking of robbery and while many generations of women in the U.S. didn't feel safe enough to venture out after dark I don't think the major differences in women/men being robbed could be accounted for by saying women don't venture out at night is applicable now. Your original assertion also doesn't explain why young males are more often victims of robbery than older males or are they to frightened to venture out after dark as well?

There could be many reasons why younger males are more often victims of robbery then older males. I would have to see the study first to see what demographics they used/etc.

Peterkro

Jan 5, 2010, 12:56 PM

There could be many reasons why younger males are more often victims of robbery then older males. I would have to see the study first to see what demographics they used/etc.

That sounds like a good idea,you'll find there is no shortage of studies which pretty much are in agreement about age/sex of robbery victims.(You presumably realise why I challenged your assertion that robbers will always pick on the physically weaker victim).

skunk

Jan 5, 2010, 12:57 PM

There could be many reasons why younger males are more often victims of robbery then older males. Whatever the reasons may be, your assertion that weaker, smaller people are attacked because robbers are cowards is clearly not supported by the evidence.

Sdashiki

Jan 5, 2010, 01:02 PM

Despite Peter's insistence that he is fit to be a leader, the townspeople run him out of New Quahog, and his family follows him. The citizens proceed to burn the guns Peter made when Stewie's spawn hatch and destroy the city; ironically, the citizens could have saved themselves with the guns. As the family walks away, oblivious to the town's destruction, they decide where they should go next: a Carvel factory in Framingham, Massachusetts.

Family Guy did it.

Zombie Acorn

Jan 5, 2010, 01:15 PM

Whatever the reasons may be, your assertion that weaker, smaller people are attacked because robbers are cowards is clearly not supported by the evidence.

I have not seen anything asserting that the men robbed were big. Also is this illusive study taking into account that men are considered head of household most of the time?

TuffLuffJimmy

Jan 5, 2010, 01:16 PM

I have not seen anything asserting that the men robbed were big. Also is this illusive study taking into account that men are considered head of household most of the time?
You're tiptoeing around the real issue: people shorter than 5'11". You assert that small people are victims, but if we get rid of all the victims then there will be no crime.

Thank Jesus, Mary and god that I'm 6'1'' and therefore immune to crime.

Zombie Acorn

Jan 5, 2010, 01:23 PM

You're tiptoeing around the real issue: people shorter than 5'11". You assert that small people are victims, but if we get rid of all the victims then there will be no crime.

Thank Jesus, Mary and god that I'm 6'1'' and therefore immune to crime.

You are the only one who made the assertion that getting rid of short people would get rid of all victims, I simply said that given a choice a criminal will choose the most vulnerable victim because they are cowards.

TuffLuffJimmy

Jan 5, 2010, 01:26 PM

I simply said that given a choice a criminal will choose the most vulnerable victim because they are cowards.
That's quite the generalization. I take it you have not seen Ocean's 11?

Zombie Acorn

Jan 5, 2010, 01:44 PM

That's quite the generalization. I take it you have not seen Ocean's 11?

You are totally detracting from the thread. If guns were bad in themselves why hasn't our crime gotten higher with more sales?

This whole thing started out with your spiel about everyone fearing each other because of guns, they don't, they fear criminals. I know each of my neighbors has a gun inside, its not for me, its for a criminal. In fact, my neighbor right across the street has about 30 weapons in his garage yet I have no reason to fear him unless I plan on stealing something of his.

TuffLuffJimmy

Jan 5, 2010, 01:44 PM

You are totally detracting from the thread. If guns were bad in themselves why hasn't our crime gotten higher with more sales?
The criminal gun market is saturated?

Duh.

Guns have always been freely available in the US. If I want to commit a violent crime I will buy a gun. I won't commit a violent crime because I bought a gun.

This whole thing started out with your spiel about everyone fearing each other because of guns, they don't, they fear criminals. I know each of my neighbors has a gun inside, its not for me, its for a criminal. In fact, my neighbor right across the street has about 30 weapons in his garage yet I have no reason to fear him unless I plan on stealing something of his.
Your neighbor certainly sounds like he strikes criminals fearful. Of course anyone who doesn't know him might be afraid of "the guy with 30 guns in his garage". In the words of Jay-Z "I gotta murder them, before they murder me"

Zombie Acorn

Jan 5, 2010, 01:48 PM

The criminal gun market is saturated?

Duh.

Guns have always been freely available in the US. If I want to commit a violent crime I will buy a gun. I won't commit a violent crime because I bought a gun.

You gun fanatics have the worst logic. ;)

Oh of course, the gun market is saturated. :rolleyes:

You anti-gun fanatics seem to propose that the presence of guns creates violence and crime because of the virtues of the item itself, back it up. More of the deadly suckers are out there and yet they aren't being used to murder for some odd reason.

TuffLuffJimmy

Jan 5, 2010, 01:52 PM

Oh of course, the gun market is saturated. :rolleyes:

You anti-gun fanatics seem to propose that the presence of guns creates violence and crime because of the virtues of the item itself

Never once did I say or imply that.
back it up.Back up something I don't believe to be true? That's not fair!
More of the deadly suckers are out there and yet they aren't being used to murder for some odd reason.
Thank god for the little gun control liberals have been able to get into law!

skunk

Jan 5, 2010, 01:58 PM

This whole thing started out with your spiel about everyone fearing each other because of guns, they don't, they fear criminals.Apparently the criminals are the fearful ones because they are all cowards.

TuffLuffJimmy

Jan 5, 2010, 02:02 PM

Apparently the criminals are the fearful ones because they are all cowards.
Are you suggesting that Zombie's entire campaign is based on fear? Fear is what keeps guns in American hands? That CAN'T be it!

Zombie Acorn

Jan 5, 2010, 02:03 PM

Thank god for the little gun control liberals have been able to get into law!

The funny thing about laws... criminals don't follow them.

Zombie Acorn

Jan 5, 2010, 02:03 PM

Apparently the criminals are the fearful ones because they are all cowards.

If every law abiding citizen was armed you would see the result.

Are you suggesting that Zombie's entire campaign is based on fear? Fear is what keeps guns in American hands? That CAN'T be it!

Fear that government will impede on our constitutional rights perhaps. I am not afraid of an intruder coming in my house if I have a pistol, I know my house better than he does.

TuffLuffJimmy

Jan 5, 2010, 02:04 PM

The funny thing about laws... criminals don't follow them.
But in this old west scenario you seem to live in guns are law. Quite the conundrum you've cooked up.
If every law abiding citizen was armed you would see the result.
The problem is there's no way to get a gun in every law abiding citizen's hand. Nor is there a way to keep guns out of law breaking hands.

I'm a law abiding citizen (for the most part, I might run one or two red lights) but you sure as hell can't get a gun in my hands.

Then again --I'd venture to bet no adult American has never broken a law(perhaps they weren't caught...). So I agree. We should put a gun in every law abiding citizen's hands and take guns away from anyone who has so much as a parking ticket.

skunk

Jan 5, 2010, 02:05 PM

If every law abiding citizen was armed you would see the result.Utter carnage. A law abiding citizen is simply someone who hasn't been caught yet.

Zombie Acorn

Jan 5, 2010, 02:07 PM

But in this old west scenario you seem to live in guns are law. Quite the conundrum you've cooked up.

The problem is there's no way to get a gun in every law abiding citizen's hand. Nor is there a way to keep guns out of law breaking hands.

I'm a law abiding citizen (for the most part, I might run one or two red lights) but you sure as hell can't get a gun in my hands.

Old west conundrum? Don't go to any rural cities, almost everyone has a gun or two in their house and yet there is very little crime.

Utter carnage. A law abiding citizen is simply someone who hasn't been caught yet.

Yes, I have been hearing the utter carnage every day outside my windows since everyone owns a weapon around here.

TuffLuffJimmy

Jan 5, 2010, 02:09 PM

Old west conundrum? Don't go to any rural cities, almost everyone has a gun or two in their house and yet there is very little crime.There are very few people in those places. And those sorts of places often "don't take kindly to strangers"

leekohler

Jan 5, 2010, 02:11 PM

Old west conundrum? Don't go to any rural cities, almost everyone has a gun or two in their house and yet there is very little crime.

Yes, I have been hearing the utter carnage every day outside my windows since everyone owns a weapon around here.

I must agree with you here. I am 100% for gun ownership rights. However, I also see the need for regulation and education. There is nothing wrong with that. Because with guns, along with anything else (drugs, alcohol, etc), education is key.

Zombie Acorn

Jan 5, 2010, 02:11 PM

There are very few people in those places. And those sorts of places often "don't take kindly to strangers"

I don't know what rural cities you have visited lately, you seem to have a weird concept of what guns are used for/how rural life is. May I chance to guess you have been living in a large city most of your life?

We don't sit on our porches with shotguns out here, we shop at walmart and go to work everyday just like everyone else. We just do it without much thought given to crime. When I watch the news here they talk about high school basketball games, when I watch it in large cities its about people getting killed near a convenient store.

leekohler

Jan 5, 2010, 02:13 PM

I don't know what rural cities you have visited lately, you seem to have a weird concept of what guns are used for/how rural life is. May I chance to guess you have been living in a large city most of your life?

We don't sit on our porches with shotguns out here, we shop at walmart and go to work everyday just like everyone else. We just do it without much thought given to crime.

When I was growing up, everyone I knew had guns as well. It's not as if it's total anarchy, for God's sake. That's just silly. People are afraid of the unfamiliar, as usual.

Peace

Jan 5, 2010, 02:19 PM

I don't know what rural cities you have visited lately, you seem to have a weird concept of what guns are used for/how rural life is. May I chance to guess you have been living in a large city most of your life?

We don't sit on our porches with shotguns out here, we shop at walmart and go to work everyday just like everyone else. We just do it without much thought given to crime. When I watch the news here they talk about high school basketball games, when I watch it in large cities its about people getting killed near a convenient store.

Might want to read up on rural crime (http://deltafarmpress.com/mag/farming_crime_rural_areas/).

Zombie Acorn

Jan 5, 2010, 02:25 PM

Might want to read up on rural crime (http://deltafarmpress.com/mag/farming_crime_rural_areas/).

This seems to pinpoint farmers, farmers live out in the middle of no where, I am talking about rural city settings of 700-5000 or so people.

Also it seems the article is talking about people going in and stealing when the farmer is gone, I am talking about gun crimes and the pure anarchy that supposedly happens when everyone owns a gun.

TuffLuffJimmy

Jan 5, 2010, 02:28 PM

Also it seems the article is talking about people going in and stealing when the farmer is gone, I am talking about gun crimes and the pure anarchy that supposedly happens when everyone owns a gun.
You're right. Let's extrapolate this a little: why won't the US allow all other countries to have nuclear weapons? If everyone has them we're even safer, right?

Zombie Acorn

Jan 5, 2010, 02:32 PM

You're right. Let's extrapolate this a little: why won't the US allow all other countries to have nuclear weapons? If everyone has them we're even safer, right?

Some countries have proven themselves too unstable to hold such power (aka criminals in our scaled version). All major countries holding nukes have somehow managed to not kill themselves off.

TuffLuffJimmy

Jan 5, 2010, 02:33 PM

Some countries have proven themselves too unstable to hold such power (aka criminals in our scaled version).
And the other world powers? The noncriminals.

Zombie Acorn

Jan 5, 2010, 02:33 PM

And the other world powers? The noncriminals.

Examples?

TuffLuffJimmy

Jan 5, 2010, 02:36 PM

Examples?
Canada?

Zombie Acorn

Jan 5, 2010, 02:43 PM

Canada?

They contributed to build the first nuke, they have a nuclear program, and are directly tied with the US in nuclear operations. If they wanted their own nukes I don't think anyone would tell them no. Some people simply do not want the weapons.

TuffLuffJimmy

Jan 5, 2010, 02:45 PM

So... you're saying you have no good answer?

Zombie Acorn

Jan 5, 2010, 02:47 PM

So... you're saying you have no good answer?

No, I gave you an answer, they work with the US and we maintain the nukes. If we didn't trust them to have nukes we wouldn't land our planes with nuclear pay loads in their bases. In fact I think they operated one of the nuke bases for a while.

TuffLuffJimmy

Jan 5, 2010, 02:52 PM

Eraserhead

Jan 5, 2010, 03:08 PM

All major countries holding nukes have somehow managed to not kill themselves off.

So you trust Pakistan and North Korea?

obeygiant

Jan 5, 2010, 03:28 PM

No, I gave you an answer, they work with the US and we maintain the nukes. If we didn't trust them to have nukes we wouldn't land our planes with nuclear pay loads in their bases. In fact I think they operated one of the nuke bases for a while.

Zombie, I don't know why you're playing along with this. The equivalency here is outlandish. Guns and Nuclear Weapons? Criminals and petty theft with State Terror Sponsors and weapons that can kill millions?

mcrain

Jan 5, 2010, 03:44 PM

Zombie, I don't know why you're playing along with this. The equivalency here is outlandish. Guns and Nuclear Weapons? Criminals and petty theft with State Terror Sponsors and weapons that can kill millions?

This thread has jumped the shark.

I'm no expert, but Windsor, Canada has a far lower crime rate than Detroit, just across the river in the US. Big difference is guns.

Mexico has a huge problem with gangs and drug cartels, but guess where they are getting their guns? There are tons of guns from here being smuggled across the border heading south.

Hunting requires me to have one or two guns and some ammunition for hunting, and some for practice. I don't need a machine gun, four pistols and a sawed off shotgun. Granted some people hunt with pistols (generally long barrelled, large caliber weapons), but in general, handguns and military style weapons have only one purpose, and that is to kill people.

Self defense? If the criminal doesn't have a gun, why do I need one? It seems like the big argument for having guns is that people have guns. If that is the case, then the people arguing to keep guns are admitting that guns are a big problem.

abijnk

Jan 5, 2010, 03:50 PM

So, based on the good news from these FBI reports, you are in favor of more crime and more murders?

I was going to read this thread, but I think I have a migraine now...

Zombie Acorn

Jan 5, 2010, 04:20 PM

This thread has jumped the shark.

I'm no expert, but Windsor, Canada has a far lower crime rate than Detroit, just across the river in the US. Big difference is guns.

Im no expert on Canada but they have quite a few guns up there too, you draw the line on guns, I draw the line on cultural/poverty/education issues.

Mexico has a huge problem with gangs and drug cartels, but guess where they are getting their guns? There are tons of guns from here being smuggled across the border heading south.

I wonder if those smugglers are here illegally. Either way maybe if we controlled our borders a bit more tightly this wouldn't be an issue.

Hunting requires me to have one or two guns and some ammunition for hunting, and some for practice. I don't need a machine gun, four pistols and a sawed off shotgun. Granted some people hunt with pistols (generally long barrelled, large caliber weapons), but in general, handguns and military style weapons have only one purpose, and that is to kill people.

People shoot for competitions all of the time with military type rifles. There is very little difference between an AR-15 and any other semi auto hunting rifle with a banana clip. No one can get machine guns to my knowledge unless they are modified illegally.

Self defense? If the criminal doesn't have a gun, why do I need one? It seems like the big argument for having guns is that people have guns. If that is the case, then the people arguing to keep guns are admitting that guns are a big problem.

So that you can get the criminal out of your property without committing a crime/hurting anyone?

I always love how a lot of liberals act as if we are inconveniencing the criminal by trying to protect our family/property.

Macky-Mac

Jan 5, 2010, 04:46 PM

.....I always love how a lot of liberals act as if we are inconveniencing the criminal by trying to protect our family/property.

and how many times have you had to use your gun to protect your family/property?

I've lived in los angeles for 25 years and have never had occasion to use my gun to do so....but if you've had to out there in rural kansas, then i would suggest you consider moving to an area with a lower crime rate :D

mcrain

Jan 5, 2010, 04:50 PM

So that you can get the criminal out of your property without committing a crime/hurting anyone?

I always love how a lot of liberals act as if we are inconveniencing the criminal by trying to protect our family/property.

My point is that hunting, self defense, and even competitive shooting are all legitimate purposes, and wouldn't be stopped or hampered in the least bit if guns and/or ammunition were regulated, controlled and had more restrictions on who could purchase them.

Why do conservatives act like they are sooooo inconvenienced by any gun regulation? Regulating guns would protect your family and property too.

NT1440

Jan 5, 2010, 04:55 PM

Why do conservatives act like they are sooooo inconvenienced by any gun regulation?

Thats what happens when you buy them in 10 packs :p

And yes, I'm just kidding. I am pro gun regulation based upon a background check, and a MANDATORY rigorous gun safety course.

hulugu

Jan 5, 2010, 04:58 PM

...I wonder if those smugglers are here illegally. Either way maybe if we controlled our borders a bit more tightly this wouldn't be an issue....

It's hard to answer this. The major problem appears to be, at least according to this GAO report (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-709), the movement of weapons through gun shows:

A 1993 amendment to the Gun Control Act (the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) required background checks be completed for all nonlicensed persons seeking to obtain firearms from FFLs, subject to certain exceptions. These background checks provide an automated search of criminal and noncriminal records to determine a person’s eligibility to purchase a firearm. However, private sales of firearms from one individual to another, including private sales at gun shows, are not subject to the background checks requirement and, therefore, do not require the seller to determine whether the purchaser is a felon or other prohibited person, such as an illegal or unlawful alien. DOJ documents and ATF officials stated that, as a result, many firearms trafficked to Mexico may be purchased through these types of transactions by individuals who may want to avoid background checks and records of their firearms purchases.

Additionally, a LA Times story (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arms-smuggling18-2009jun18,0,4097841.story) covers this issue. Although continued enforcement along the border states would might be helpful, the border is far too porous for any single strategy to remain effective.

Zombie Acorn

Jan 5, 2010, 05:04 PM

Thats what happens when you buy them in 10 packs :p

And yes, I'm just kidding. I am pro gun regulation based upon a background check, and a MANDATORY rigorous gun safety course.

Everyone around here has gun safety around 10-12 years old, all of my guns have been handed down so I am not sure about background check procedures, I have nothing to hide though so it wouldn't mind me a bit.

Zombie Acorn

Jan 5, 2010, 05:05 PM

My point is that hunting, self defense, and even competitive shooting are all legitimate purposes, and wouldn't be stopped or hampered in the least bit if guns and/or ammunition were regulated, controlled and had more restrictions on who could purchase them.

Why do conservatives act like they are sooooo inconvenienced by any gun regulation? Regulating guns would protect your family and property too.

I don't have any problems with gun regulations. I just don't believe that more guns = more violence. I am perfectly fine with requiring a gun safety course/background checks, in fact I would promote people to become educated on how to use a weapon properly.

TuffLuffJimmy

Jan 5, 2010, 05:11 PM

I don't have any problems with gun regulations. I just don't believe that more guns = more violence. I am perfectly fine with requiring a gun safety course/background checks, in fact I would promote people to become educated on how to use a weapon properly.
Of course not. It's a proven fact that less beer equates to more violence.

StruckANerve

Jan 5, 2010, 05:17 PM

Regulating guns would protect your family and property too.

How so? Criminals don't care about regulations and laws. They're criminals.

TuffLuffJimmy

Jan 5, 2010, 05:18 PM

How so? Criminals don't care about regulations and laws. They're criminals.
regulations aren't voluntary. :rolleyes:

NT1440

Jan 5, 2010, 05:19 PM

Everyone around here has gun safety around 10-12 years old, all of my guns have been handed down so I am not sure about background check procedures, I have nothing to hide though so it wouldn't mind me a bit.

No offense, but I don't care about "around here", I want it to be a mandate nation wide in order to obtain a gun. I'd also like a requirement to report private gun sales (just the serial number), see as they contribute greatly to crime.

StruckANerve

Jan 5, 2010, 05:21 PM

regulations aren't voluntary. :rolleyes:

So a criminal can't get a gun in a state with heavy gun regulations?

TuffLuffJimmy

Jan 5, 2010, 05:24 PM

So a criminal can't get a gun in a state with heavy gun regulations?
It would be significantly harder, and likely more expensive for the criminal. This would make it a lot harder for a poor drug dealer to get his/her mitts on a gun.

IntheNet

Jan 5, 2010, 05:29 PM

Why do conservatives act like they are sooooo inconvenienced by any gun regulation?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Regulating guns would protect your family and property too.

Evidence? You think criminals are going to hesitate to steal firearms if they are or are not regulated? All regulating guns does is violate the Second Amendment and prevent law abiding citizens to exercise their rights. Regulating guns does not prevent crime.

NT1440

Jan 5, 2010, 05:30 PM

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

.

Its fun to see which rights you pick and choose to support unquestioned.

TuffLuffJimmy

Jan 5, 2010, 05:32 PM

Evidence? You think criminals are going to hesitate to steal firearms if they are or are not regulated? All regulating guns does is violate the Second Amendment and prevent law abiding citizens to exercise their rights. Regulating guns does not prevent crime.
I'd rather they have to steal firearms instead of walk into a store and buy weapons. As much inconvenience as possible for wrongdoers.

NT1440

Jan 5, 2010, 05:35 PM

. As much inconvenience as possible for wrongdoers.

Doesn't that tagline lead to things like rampant DRM?

Different situations yes, but becoming general with your stances allows for holes to be poked right through them.

TuffLuffJimmy

Jan 5, 2010, 05:37 PM

Thats what happens when you buy them in 10 packs :p

And yes, I'm just kidding. I am pro gun regulation based upon a background check, and a MANDATORY rigorous gun safety course.

Doesn't that tagline lead to things like rampant DRM?

Different situations yes, but becoming general with your stances allows for holes to be poked right through them.
WTF?

NT1440

Jan 5, 2010, 06:10 PM

WTF?

Be careful how you word your ideas, relying on such general terms like I pointed out will just allow for others to take your same generalization and use its logic to support other things.

TuffLuffJimmy

Jan 5, 2010, 06:12 PM

Be careful how you word your ideas, relying on such general terms like I pointed out will just allow for others to take your same generalization and use its logic to support other things.
Then what, pray tell, is the point of regulating guns, if not to inconvenience criminals?

Macky-Mac

Jan 5, 2010, 06:17 PM

Then what, pray tell, is the point of regulating guns, if not to inconvenience criminals?

so liberals can tell themselves that something is being done about the gun problem?

NT1440

Jan 5, 2010, 06:23 PM

Then what, pray tell, is the point of regulating guns, if not to inconvenience criminals?

That is part of the point. Just don't be caught having that as your ONLY defense for your position, thats all I'm saying. Better to have a well thought out long post than one that gets to the point but allows for posters such as InTheNet to poke holes in with twisted logic and half truths.

All I'm trying to get across is don't rely on little snippets or phrases ("drill baby drill") to BE the policy, only use them to support it.

KingYaba

Jan 5, 2010, 06:26 PM

Mexico has a huge problem with gangs and drug cartels, but guess where they are getting their guns? There are tons of guns from here being smuggled across the border heading south.
No kidding. I'm not about to trash my 2nd amendment for Mexico, though. Stop drug wars? I say legalize marijuana to start. Stop the money flow. Read more on that theory here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=7175241&postcount=163).

Hunting requires me to have one or two guns and some ammunition for hunting, and some for practice. I don't need a machine gun, four pistols and a sawed off shotgun. Granted some people hunt with pistols (generally long barrelled, large caliber weapons), but in general, handguns and military style weapons have only one purpose, and that is to kill people.
You don't need it. But are you really going to start dictating what people need and don't need? I will not. And those military-style weapons have a collecting and sporting purpose. Some 'round here spend $1000s to enter them in competitions. Their only purpose is to kill? Please. :rolleyes: I guess my CZ 75 should be killing people. Or maybe I should ask for a refund. Clearly it's defective.

Self defense? If the criminal doesn't have a gun, why do I need one? It seems like the big argument for having guns is that people have guns. If that is the case, then the people arguing to keep guns are admitting that guns are a big problem.

Have your guns illegally shot anyone? Mine sure haven't. Guns aren't the problem.

My point is that hunting, self defense, and even competitive shooting are all legitimate purposes, and wouldn't be stopped or hampered in the least bit if guns and/or ammunition were regulated, controlled and had more restrictions on who could purchase them.

Already have restrictions on who can purchase. And more laws like California's does indeed hamper competitive shooting. lol @ California-approved firearms list. And no "shoulder things that go up."

LethalWolfe

Jan 5, 2010, 06:34 PM

I'd rather they have to steal firearms instead of walk into a store and buy weapons. As much inconvenience as possible for wrongdoers.
Wrongdoers already buy their guns on the street. Something like 90% of guns used in crimes in the US are obtained illegally and even in England, which basically banned handguns in '97, gun crime is higher now than it was then. If you want to make it harder for people in the US to obtain guns illegally you have to enforce and enact regulations higher up the food chain than the end user standing in line at the gun store.

But overall gun crime is a symptom of a greater problem. If you don't address the underlying socio-economic problems that tend to cause violence and crime in general you aren't going to change anything. If guns were the source of the problem gun crime in the US should be higher now than it was thirty years ago, because there are more guns in the US now than thirty years ago, but that's not the case.

Lethal

Macaddicttt

Jan 5, 2010, 06:50 PM

If guns were the source of the problem gun crime in the US should be higher now than it was thirty years ago, because there are more guns in the US now than thirty years ago, but that's not the case.

I don't think anyone is arguing this. If I have two guns or twenty guns, the chance that I shoot anyone with them doesn't go up.

If you want to make it harder for people in the US to obtain guns illegally you have to enforce and enact regulations higher up the food chain than the end user standing in line at the gun store.

I believe this is what people want to do. Although some loopholes need to be closed at the consumer side, such as the ridiculous gun show loophole.

TuffLuffJimmy

Jan 5, 2010, 07:11 PM

That is part of the point. Just don't be caught having that as your ONLY defense for your position, thats all I'm saying. Better to have a well thought out long post than one that gets to the point but allows for posters such as InTheNet to poke holes in with twisted logic and half truths.

All I'm trying to get across is don't rely on little snippets or phrases ("drill baby drill") to BE the policy, only use them to support it.
Your point and ONLY defense for your position was to regulate guns. Regulation is meant to...?

Let InTheNet poke holes, that's what makes this a discussion.

LethalWolfe

Jan 5, 2010, 07:43 PM

I don't think anyone is arguing this. If I have two guns or twenty guns, the chance that I shoot anyone with them doesn't go up.
I think it's pretty much what people are saying, and I didn't mean a single person has more guns I meant there are more people in the US w/more guns than there was 30 years ago. The raw number of individuals owning firearms now is greater than it was then but gun crime is less.

I believe this is what people want to do. Although some loopholes need to be closed at the consumer side, such as the ridiculous gun show loophole.
If that's what people want to do no one has come out an said it (or if they did I missed it 'cause I haven't read the whole thread). Almost everything I read from gun control advocates centers around a ban or greater restrictions on the selling of firearms to endusers but neither of those things really address the weak links in the chain that allow firearms to get out onto the street nor do they address the root causes of much of the gun violence.

Lethal

hulugu

Jan 5, 2010, 11:54 PM

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

And yet, you were perfectly content with the search and seizure of cellphones. It seems that the Constitution is far more flexible than you give it credit.

You don't need it. But are you really going to start dictating what people need and don't need? I will not. And those military-style weapons have a collecting and sporting purpose. Some 'round here spend $1000s to enter them in competitions. Their only purpose is to kill? Please. :rolleyes: I guess my CZ 75 should be killing people. Or maybe I should ask for a refund. Clearly it's defective.

The design of military hardware is to engage, surpress and kill human beings. Of course, there's Gibson's line, " the street finds its own uses for things" so of course, military hardware can also be used in a peaceful and fun way, but let's not forget that a CZ 75 was designed to arm Warsaw Pact officers.

Have your guns illegally shot anyone? Mine sure haven't. Guns aren't the problem.

I agree.

Wrongdoers already buy their guns on the street. Something like 90% of guns used in crimes in the US are obtained illegally and even in England, which basically banned handguns in '97, gun crime is higher now than it was then. If you want to make it harder for people in the US to obtain guns illegally you have to enforce and enact regulations higher up the food chain than the end user standing in line at the gun store.

I agree, enforcement of current laws is one of the greatest lapses in current US policy. You'll notice the GAO report includes the problems between DEA, ICE, and BAFTE in enforcing current law.

But overall gun crime is a symptom of a greater problem. If you don't address the underlying socio-economic problems that tend to cause violence and crime in general you aren't going to change anything. If guns were the source of the problem gun crime in the US should be higher now than it was thirty years ago, because there are more guns in the US now than thirty years ago, but that's not the case.

I agree there's no connection between the number of guns and crime rates, but there's still a significant amount of endemic violence, especially among young black men in the United States. And a majority of them are killed by guns. This has to be addressed, but not by more gun laws.

Iscariot

Jan 6, 2010, 12:23 AM

Have your guns illegally shot anyone? Mine sure haven't. Guns aren't the problem.

Yours might not have, but the hundreds of thousands of legally owned guns that are stolen every year might have.

Desertrat

Jan 6, 2010, 12:40 AM

"...the hundreds of thousands of legally owned guns that are stolen every year..."

Iscariot, do you have ANY sort of of factual info for that statement?

It was commented earlier about US guns going south into Mexico. I don't doubt that there is some such flow. But the widespread usage of full-auto weapons means that the source is somewhere besides gunshops and gunshows in the US.

And given the ties between the narcotrafficantes and such groups as FARC and other such South American business associates, I really doubt that the US as a source is of much importance. When a narcotrafficante is officially listed as the seventh richest man in the world, I imagine his minions can have any sort of full-auto they want.

Given the incursions into the US from Mexico by military-clad people in Humvees with M2 .50 BMGs, I'd say the US government is a more likely source of such than Joe's Gunshop in downtown Bisbee.

Eraserhead

Jan 6, 2010, 05:05 AM

When a narcotrafficante is officially listed as the seventh richest man in the world,

Source?

Wrongdoers already buy their guns on the street. Something like 90% of guns used in crimes in the US are obtained illegally and even in England, which basically banned handguns in '97, gun crime is higher now than it was then.

True. Still there are only 9500 crimes a year involving guns here (source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6960431.stm)).

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44075000/gif/_44075309_f_arms_recorded_gra203.gif

"...the hundreds of thousands of legally owned guns that are stolen every year..."

Iscariot, do you have ANY sort of of factual info for that statement?

As there are 100 million+ guns in the US, saying that 0.1% of them are stolen each year isn't that controversial.

mcrain

Jan 6, 2010, 08:56 AM

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I was really hoping someone would cite the constitution.

A well REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free State...

As far as I know, I'm not a part of any militia, and I'm certain I'm not very well regulated. I could go out and buy weapons for competitive use, hunting and self protection, but how am I well regulated? How am I part of a Militia? How is any Militia not controlled by the State necessary to the security fo a free state? I mean, really, most militias I have heard of are very anti-state. Very anti-USA. Most don't support our president, or am I wrong?

I have no problem with buying and using weapons. I do have a problem with people saying reasonable restrictions are somehow horrible. What's wrong with reasonable restrictions? Are you really afraid that you will not be able to get a gun? If so, doesn't that mean you shouldn't get one?

Rhetorical questions. I am no expert, just have my opinions.

Iscariot

Jan 6, 2010, 10:39 AM

"...the hundreds of thousands of legally owned guns that are stolen every year..."

Iscariot, do you have ANY sort of of factual info for that statement?

Of course I do.

LethalWolfe

Jan 6, 2010, 11:07 AM

True. Still there are only 9500 crimes a year involving guns here (source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6960431.stm)).

Of course England has a lower number of gun crimes compared to the US (I didn't mean to imply otherwise). My point was that gun crime there is higher now than it was in the past even though a handgun ban was passed in '97. From what I've read much of the gun crime is attributed to an increase in drug related gang activity which sounds similar to what happened in the US.

Lethal

mcrain

Jan 6, 2010, 11:07 AM

As there are 100 million+ guns in the US, saying that 0.1% of them are stolen each year isn't that controversial.

It is controversial if that 0.1% of stolen guns results in a disproportionate amount of violent crime. I have no statistics, but other than military people or their families, I probably know more people who have shot other people than any of you, and have a lot of info on where they get their guns.

flopticalcube

Jan 6, 2010, 11:17 AM

Of course England has a lower number of gun crimes compared to the US (I didn't mean to imply otherwise). My point was that gun crime there is higher now than it was in the past even though a handgun ban was passed in '97. From what I've read much of the gun crime is attributed to an increase in drug related gang activity which sounds similar to what happened in the US.

Lethal

Same thing in Vancouver. Even with strict gun control and low weapon ownership, gun crime has gone up massively (albeit from very low levels) due to gang related violence. I would speculate that most of the guns are smuggled over the US border (purchased by selling BC bud) so although loads of unregistered/stolen weapons don't help, the underlying problems are probably more to blame. In this case, its drug/crime related. Gun control certainly helps stop guns getting into the hands of children but it doesn't seem to deter criminals who simply find other routes for their weapons.

Eraserhead

Jan 6, 2010, 11:49 AM

It is controversial if that 0.1% of stolen guns results in a disproportionate amount of violent crime.

Given that unlike drugs guns can't easily be made in a shack in the jungle it seems fairly likely that the handguns that are used by criminals are either acquired legally or they are stolen from legal owners (like what happens to cars used for crime).

mcrain

Jan 6, 2010, 01:11 PM

Given that unlike drugs guns can't easily be made in a shack in the jungle it seems fairly likely that the handguns that are used by criminals are either acquired legally or they are stolen from legal owners (like what happens to cars used for crime).

And the ownership and use of cars is regulated! We have to have licenses, and training, and insurance, and each car is identified to its owner by plates and vin numbers... wow, what a great idea, maybe we should do the same thing with guns.

LethalWolfe

Jan 6, 2010, 01:34 PM

Given that unlike drugs guns can't easily be made in a shack in the jungle it seems fairly likely that the handguns that are used by criminals are either acquired legally or they are stolen from legal owners (like what happens to cars used for crime).
Around 90% of guns used in crimes in the US are obtained illegally and, IIRC, the largest single source are from corrupt or fraudulent FFLs. Basically, if you get, or forge, an FFL you are golden in the US to buy as much as you want from gun makers no questions asked. The legal requirements for tracking inventory is spotty at best which means corrupt FFLs can sell out the back door w/little fear of an incriminating paper trail and the BATFE's is underfunded and undermanned when it comes to enforcing the laws on the books. For example, FFLs are supposed to be inspected annually but there are too few agents so sometimes years go by between inspections. And even when the inspection happens the BATFE has to give notice a week or two before hand which obviously gives a corrupt FFL time to 'clean up' after himself. Like I've been saying, the hole in the dike is higher up the food chain than the customer at the local gun shop.

99% of the FFLs out there are legit, but it only takes a handful to be able to traffic a large number of firearms because of how the system is currently setup and maintained.

Lethal

Macky-Mac

Jan 6, 2010, 02:04 PM

....As there are 100 million+ guns in the US, saying that 0.1% of them are stolen each year isn't that controversial.

250 to 300 million guns would be more like it

Eraserhead

Jan 6, 2010, 06:09 PM

250 to 300 million guns would be more like it

So its a hell of a lot of guns.

Peace

Jan 7, 2010, 10:48 AM

Queso

Jan 7, 2010, 11:21 AM

Your daily dose (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34746925/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/) of guns killing people.

Noted here is the victims are not short women and an ammo belt was used ( higher ammo sales ? ).
Yeah, but those are liberal guns. Conservative guns would never do a thing like that.

Zombie Acorn

Jan 7, 2010, 11:44 AM

Your daily dose (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34746925/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/) of guns killing people.

Noted here is the victims are not short women and an ammo belt was used ( higher ammo sales ? ).

how many times have I been heckled for using specific events to try to prove trends? Hmm.. perhaps we should go back to page 1.

Also I never said short women, you guys made that up.

leekohler

Jan 7, 2010, 11:51 AM

how many times have I been heckled for using specific events to try to prove trends? Hmm.. perhaps we should go back to page 1.

This is what drives me nuts about this subject. Posters with more liberal views get completely out of control ridiculous when it comes to guns. They end up sounding like conservatives protesting the legalization of drugs. Prohibition doesn't work with regards to drugs. It doesn't work with regards to guns either.

TuffLuffJimmy

Jan 7, 2010, 12:01 PM

This is what drives me nuts about this subject. Posters with more liberal views get completely out of control ridiculous when it comes to guns. They end up sounding like conservatives protesting the legalization of drugs. Prohibition doesn't work with regards to drugs. It doesn't work with regards to guns either.

You're suggesting that gun owners are unruly and unlikely to follow the law? That's fairly telling...

Lee, care to check out any country where firearms are illegal?

yellow

Jan 7, 2010, 12:17 PM

I've read the term "gun nut" thrown around pretty casually here.. how exactly is that term defined? What makes someone a "gun nut"? :confused:

As for using the UK as the measuring stick for banning handguns, don't forget that some want to ban kitchen knives over there to reduce stabbing and stabbing related deaths. Really?

Queso

Jan 7, 2010, 12:19 PM

You're suggesting that gun owners are unruly and unlikely to follow the law? That's fairly telling...
You're not suggesting that all drug users are criminals, surely?

Peace

Jan 7, 2010, 12:21 PM

This is what drives me nuts about this subject. Posters with more liberal views get completely out of control ridiculous when it comes to guns. They end up sounding like conservatives protesting the legalization of drugs. Prohibition doesn't work with regards to drugs. It doesn't work with regards to guns either.

My only point is. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. They just happen to prefer guns.;)

Zombie Acorn

Jan 7, 2010, 12:21 PM

You're suggesting that gun owners are unruly and unlikely to follow the law? That's fairly telling...

Lee, care to check out any country where firearms are illegal?

Criminals don't follow the law.

I've read the term "gun nut" thrown around pretty casually here.. how exactly is that term defined? What makes someone a "gun nut"? :confused:

As for using the UK as the measuring stick for banning handguns, don't forget that some want to ban kitchen knives over there to reduce stabbing and stabbing related deaths. Really?

Its a slippery slope. If criminals followed the law we would have no reason to use guns except entertainment. I would probably still keep one just because I like them and they are fun to shoot.

Also a gun nut is anyone who owns a gun and doesn't want to see it taken away apparently.

Peace

Jan 7, 2010, 12:24 PM

Criminals don't follow the law.

Are you saying ALL criminals run red lights? ALL criminals steal food?

ALL criminals rape people ?

That's a broad statement.

Most "criminals" follow the law. They don't want to get caught.

Zombie Acorn

Jan 7, 2010, 12:27 PM

Are you saying ALL criminals run red lights? ALL criminals steal food?

ALL criminals rape people ?

That's a broad statement.

Most "criminals" follow the law. They don't want to get caught.

Point being, if a criminal wants to do something, a law isn't going to stop them.

It reminds me of being little kids and yelling "I got you" while playing games and one kids an ******* who doesn't follow the rules. If a criminal draws down on you, you can't say "hey thats illegal!"

Peace

Jan 7, 2010, 12:30 PM

Point being, if a criminal wants to do something, a law isn't going to stop them.

It reminds me of being little kids and yelling "I got you" while playing games and one kids an ******* who doesn't follow the rules. If a criminal draws down on you, you can't say "hey thats illegal!"

I'll agree with that.

My point is if an enraged person decides to go to a plant and kill a few people and he doesn't have a gun at that moment the odds of him doing that killing go down.

TuffLuffJimmy

Jan 7, 2010, 12:34 PM

You're not suggesting that all drug users are criminals, surely?
I am not, but they are criminals by definition. And don't call le Sherly.
Criminals don't follow the law.

So they go out of their way to break the law? Please, point me to the country that has banned guns and has a gun issue as big as America's.

leekohler

Jan 7, 2010, 12:44 PM

You're suggesting that gun owners are unruly and unlikely to follow the law? That's fairly telling...

Where the hell did you get that? What I'm saying is that if people want to get guns, they will- even if they are legally prohibited from doing so. Same with drugs. All all making guns illegal would do is create a huge black market. Education and regulation are the keys, as with anything else.

Lee, care to check out any country where firearms are illegal?

Those are not countries I care in which I care to live.

Zombie Acorn

Jan 7, 2010, 12:44 PM

So they go out of their way to break the law? Please, point me to the country that has banned guns and has a gun issue as big as America's.

You can't cross compare two countries like that, we have different societal issues, and a much larger/diverse population then most countries that are normally pointed to as being "anti-gun" awesome.

first thing that happens if you ban guns in America: they buy shovels. I know a crazy guy who has 5 rifles buried in his yard just in case. Hes never hurt anyone, but he doesn't want his guns taken away. Some people grew up with them, have never used them on a person, and believe its their right to keep them (given to them by the constitution).

Macky-Mac

Jan 7, 2010, 12:56 PM

first thing that happens if you ban guns in America: they buy shovels. I know a crazy guy who has 5 rifles buried in his yard just in case. Hes never hurt anyone, but he doesn't want his guns taken away. Some people grew up with them, have never used them on a person, and believe its their right to keep them (given to them by the constitution).

so every time a criminal comes to his house. this guy has to run out to the backyard and dig up a gun in order to protect his home and family? :p

Zombie Acorn

Jan 7, 2010, 12:58 PM

so every time a criminal comes to his house. this guy has to run out to the backyard and dig up a gun in order to protect his home and family? :p

Those ones are for if the government comes to get his weapons. Its not the criminals hes afraid of, hes got more weapons inside. :p

Peace

Jan 7, 2010, 01:03 PM

Those ones are for if the government comes to get his weapons. Its not the criminals hes afraid of, hes got more weapons inside. :p

Well I certainly hope he's part of a well regulated militia.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Nothing wrong with gun regulations. It's constitutional.;)

TuffLuffJimmy

Jan 7, 2010, 01:20 PM

Those ones are for if the government comes to get his weapons. Its not the criminals hes afraid of, hes got more weapons inside. :p
If the government were to come take his guns and he go out and retrieve his buried treasure he would be a criminal. Obviously criminals don't care to follow the law, by your own statements that would make him a very dangerous person.

Zombie Acorn

Jan 7, 2010, 01:23 PM

Well I certainly hope he's part of a well regulated militia.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Nothing wrong with gun regulations. It's constitutional.;)

You are reading it backwards, or rather paying more attention to the first clause then the second, a militia would not be possible if people didn't have weapons.

Its saying that we can't infringe on people's rights to bare arms due to the possibility of the state security need for a militia to protect the people.

militia = ordinary citizens with weapons. Thats what we are. If the brits ever come back we need to be prepared to fight. ;)

I am all for regulations though, too many dumb folks. I wouldn't even mind a small gun education course in school (not taking up too much time though, its not rocket science).

If the government were to come take his guns and he go out and retrieve his buried treasure he would be a criminal. Obviously criminals don't care to follow the law, by your own statements that would make him a very dangerous person.

I could also make it against the law to eat peanut butter and someone could stash some in their hidden cabinet.

Peace

Jan 7, 2010, 01:37 PM

You are reading it backwards, or rather paying more attention to the first clause then the second, a militia would not be possible if people didn't have weapons.

Its saying that we can't infringe on people's rights to bare arms due to the possibility of the state security need for a militia to protect the people.

militia = ordinary citizens with weapons. Thats what we are. If the brits ever come back we need to be prepared to fight. ;)

I am all for regulations though, too many dumb folks. I wouldn't even mind a small gun education course in school (not taking up too much time though, its not rocket science).

I'm just reading it as the forefathers wrote it.

As far as teaching kids about guns. That's something a responsible parent should do. It does NOT belong in schools.

re : Columbine.