Getting guns off the street

[daveman]

So he stole some.


if the guns available to the citizenry were lever / bolt action, 6 round capacity, chamber fed -

there would have been fewer casualties - a greater chance and time to apprehend the shooter - others with the same allowed weapons if present could have responded just the same as at present.

oh Gawd please shut the fuck up!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you don't have any knowledge of firearm shut the fuck up.
Do you know a revolver has the same function as a semi automatic weapon?
Did you know a revolver can be reloaded was a speed loader?
Did you know a revolve will not malfunctions as a semiautomatic firearm will?
So shut the fuck up.

I have a bolt action 5 round chamber fed 8 mm Mouser and feel quite comfortable with its protection.


the above referred to pistols as well - lever action, 6 round, chamber fed - no speed loaders, is the point.

So, YOUR guns are safe. Everyone else's guns are dangerous, and should be outlawed.

Right?

 

[daveman]

Hey asshole, two guns in your avatar, ain't you just such a tough peice of shit!!!

No, I'm a fan of a series of novels.

Retard.

More and more guns, that is the answer. And that is what we have seen for a decade. And now we reap what has been sown. Or rather, our beautiful innocent children do.

While you pretend to hold the moral high ground, remember two things:

1. You have no plan to get criminals to obey the law.

2. You oppose people defending themselves against those criminals.

People always hear about those who are killed by crazed/criminal gunmen, but for some strange reason they never hear about the mass killings that were prevented by lawfully armed citizens, Here is a link which gives examples of how guns SAVE innocent people.

Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters

One of the articles describes how a gunman killed 15 woman and 8 men and wounded 19. These 23 people were murdered because they lived in a state which did not allow arms outside the home. The killing spree lasted 10 minutes because the shooter had problems with his weapon. These murders, or at least most of them, would have been easily prevented if any one of the victims had been armed. The same article describes a case where a mass murder of twenty customers and staff at a Shoney's restaurant was prevented by an armed customer in a state which had concealed carry permits. The only ones who got killed were two of the armed robbers. In these cases, there is no doubt that gun restrictions CAUSED substantial loss of life, while gun ownership SAVED many lives.

There are more examples at the following link:

GUN WATCH: Mass Killings Stopped by Armed Citizens

The problem with most crusaders, including those who want to do away with gun ownership, is that they never consider the consequences of their acts. These people don't understand that those areas which have the most rigid gun control laws also have the highest gun-related crime rates. That thing about "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" is not just a cliche. It's a simple statement of facts.

The irrational gun-haters don't give a damn about the victims, or how many have been or could be saved by responsible gun owners.

They just want guns confiscated, so people will be easier to control.

 

[FA_Q2]

20 dead kids. 6 adults that tried to protect them also dead.

Fuck every one of you gun nuts that put the possession of a weopon of war above the lives of our children. You are what is wrong with this nation.

Fucking liar. Once again you spew this nonsense. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic version of the M-16, a weopon designed only for killing large numbers of people very rapidly. And what is the differance between a fully automatic weopon, or a semi-automatic weopon that can empty a 30 shot clip in under ten seconds? What is the differance in a classroom or crowded mall? None to those dead and dying.

The hell with you worshipers of death. Yes, for sick fucks like you, we intend to take your guns away. And if it is from your cold dead hand, que sera.

So, here we go again. Thread 3 where I need to post this and I believe that you are in at least one of the others. Those threads are not getting much action anymore though since your entire side of the argument here seems to be completely devoid of any factual data what so ever.

Clearly I am going to have to remake this argument in a few places so I am going to rework another post I did in one of these other threads.

All over the place on this board I am seeing people demanding gun control and making a wide veriety of claims about what we need or do not need but one thing is utterly lacking IN EVERY FUCKING THREAD: facts. I can count the number of facts used in the 10+ threads calling for gun reforms on one hand. Get educated, we have passed laws already and we have metrics to gauge their effectiveness.

First, common misinformation techniques must be addressed because you still find all kinds of false claims about higher 'death' rates with lax gin laws that are outright false. The metric we need to be looking at is homicides. Lots of people like to use 'gun' deaths but that is a rather useless term because you are not really measuring anything. That term is not fully defined and it is not as easily tracked and compared with different years as a solid statistic. I also hope that we can agree that what instrument kills the victim is irrelevant. If gun deaths are cut by 25% but knife deaths increase the same number by 50% we have not made progress. Rather, we regressed and are worse off. The real relevant information here is how many people are killed overall and whether or not stricter gun laws results in fewer deaths or crimes. That is what the gun control advocates are claiming.


Another common misinformation tactic is to compare US deaths to those on other countries. comparing international numbers is also utterly meaningless. Why, you ask. Well, that's simple. Scientific data requires that we control for other variables. Comparing US to Brittan is meaningless because there are thousands of variables that make a huge difference. Not only the proliferation of guns that already exists and the current gun laws but also things as basic as culture, diversity, population density, police forces and a host of other things would need to be accounted for. That is utterly impossible. Mexico and Switzerland can be used on the other side of the argument of Brittan and in the end we have learned nothing by doing this. How do we overcome this? Also, simple. You compare the crime rates before and after gun legislation has passed. We can do that here and in Brittan.
Gun Control - Just Facts

Here we see a rather large spike directly after gun laws are strengthened and no real increase after they are removed. Washington apparently did not get the memo that homicides were supposed to decrease after they passed their law.

Here we have Chicago where there is no discernable difference before and after the ban. Again, we are not seeing any real positive effects here. As a matter of fact, the rate has worsened as compared to the overall rate in the country even though it has slightly decreased. Form the caption:

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.

Then we can use this same tactic in measuring the effectiveness in Britton. Lets actually look at the real numbers over there as well:

Oops, even in Brittan, when we account for other factors by using their OWN crime rates, we find that gun laws have NOT reduced the homicides they have suffered. Seems we are developing a pattern here. At least Chicago seen some reduction though it was far less than the national average decrease.


Then, you could always argue, what happens when we relax gun laws. If the gun 'grabbers' were correct, crimes rate would skyrocket (or at least go up). Does that happen:

Guess not. The homicide rate in Florida fell rather rapidly and faster than the national average. In Texas we get a similar result:

Then there are other statistics that do matter very much like the following:

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

Clearly, claiming that gun control leads to better outcomes is blatantly false. Look at the data, it is conclusive that gun laws most certainly do not have any positive impact on homicides or any other meaningful metric. If you have information that states otherwise then please post it. I have yet to see some solid statistical evidence that points to gun control as being a competent way of reducing deaths. I hope I have not wasted my time getting this information. Try reading it, it will enlighten you.

 

[ba1614]

20 dead kids. 6 adults that tried to protect them also dead.

Fuck every one of you gun nuts that put the possession of a weopon of war above the lives of our children. You are what is wrong with this nation.

Isn't that special, I would say fuck you to you nuts who blame an inanimate object for anything.

 

[midcan5]

And what others do:

"Other countries offer a road map. In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the nation’s conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns. The “national firearms agreement,” as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe storage of those remaining in public hands.

The law did not end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private hands by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass shootings.

In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings — but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent, according to data compiled by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and the suicide rate with firearms has dropped by more than half.

Or we can look north to Canada. It now requires a 28-day waiting period to buy a handgun, and it imposes a clever safeguard: gun buyers should have the support of two people vouching for them."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/opinion/sunday/kristof-do-we-have-the-courage-to-stop-this.html

 

[daveman]

And what others do:

"Other countries offer a road map. In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the nation’s conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns. The “national firearms agreement,” as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe storage of those remaining in public hands.

The law did not end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private hands by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass shootings.

In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings — but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent, according to data compiled by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and the suicide rate with firearms has dropped by more than half.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

Myth: Gun control in Australia is curbing crime
Fact: Crime has been rising since enacting a sweeping ban on private gun ownership. In the first two years after Australian gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms, government statistics showed a dramatic increase in criminal activity.31 In 2001-2002, homicides were up another 20%.32

From the inception of firearm confiscation to March 27, 2000, the numbers are:
• Firearm-related murders were up 19%
• Armed robberies were up 69%
• Home invasions were up 21%

The sad part is that in the 15 years before the national gun confiscation:
• Firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66%
• Firearm-related deaths fell 50%

Fact: Gun crimes have been rising throughout Australia since guns were banned. In Sydney alone, robbery rates with guns rose 160% in 2001, more in the previous year.33

Fact: A ten year Australian study has concluded that firearm confiscation had no effect on crime rates.34 A separate report also concluded that Australia’s 1996 gun control laws “found [no] evidence for an impact of the laws on the pre-existing decline in firearm homicides”35 and yet another report from Australia for a similar time period indicates the same lack of decline in firearm homicides 36

Fact: Despite having much stricter gun control than New Zealand (including a near ban on handguns) firearm homicides in both countries track one another over 25 years, indicating that gun control is not a control variable.37​

Or we can look north to Canada. It now requires a 28-day waiting period to buy a handgun, and it imposes a clever safeguard: gun buyers should have the support of two people vouching for them."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/opinion/sunday/kristof-do-we-have-the-courage-to-stop-this.html

Fact: In Canada around 1920, before there was any form of gun control, their homicide rate was 7% of the U.S rate. By 1986, and after significant gun control legislation, Canada’s homicide rate was 35% of the U.S. rate – a significant increase. 9 In 2003, Canada had a violent crime rate more than double that of the U.S. (963 vs. 475 per 100,000).10

--

Myth: Gun registration works

Fact: Not in Canada. More than 20,000 Canadian gun-owners have publicly refused to register their firearms. Many others (as many as 300,00097) are silently ignoring the law.
• The provincial governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have dumped both the administration and the enforcement of all federal gun-control laws right back into Ottawa's lap, throwing the Canadian government into a paper civil war.
• And all at a cost more than 1,646% the original projected cost98 (the original cost was estimated at 5% of all police expenditures in Canada99). "The gun registry as it sits right now is causing law abiding citizens to register their guns but it does nothing to take one illegal gun off the street or to increase any type of penalty for anybody that violates any part of the legislation," according to Al Koenig, President, Calgary Police Association.100 "We have an ongoing gun crisis, including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them," according to Toronto police Chief Julian Fantino .101
• The system is so bad that six Canadian provinces (British Columbia joins Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Nova Scotia, and Ontario) are refusing to prosecute firearm owners who fail to register.102
• A bill to abolish the registry has been tabled (introduced) in the Canadian Parliament, which if passed, would eliminate the registry completely.103
• A Saskatchewan MP who endorsed the long gun registry when first proposed has introduced legislation to abolish it stating that, “[the registry] has not saved one life in Canada, and it has been a financial sinkhole … absolutely useless in helping locate the 255,000 people who have been prohibited from owning firearms by the courts.”104

--

Myth: Registration does not lead to confiscation
Fact: It did in Canada. The handgun registration law of 1934 was the source used to identify and confiscate (without compensation) over half of the registered handguns in 2001.108

--

Myth: Licensing will keep bad people from obtaining or using guns
Fact: Not in Canada. Canadian homicide rates were virtually unchanged before and after gun registration requirements were implemented (151/100,000 people in 1998 and 149/100,000 in 2002).109

Myth: Private ownership of guns is not effective in preventing crime

Fact: After the implementation of Canada's 1977 gun controls prohibiting handgun possession for protection, the “breaking and entering” crime rate rose 25%, surpassing the American rate.251​

 

[nitroz]

If you take guns away, that will backfire.

Regulate them.
Make each one required to IMMEDIATELY and ALWAYS be registered and have require the registration always be up to date. (You have up to 72 hours to update if you move.)
Have laws that require you to report the weapon as stolen/missing when you can't find it or if it's missing.
Take away anonymity when buying ammo or accessories/attachments. Document all purchases, but registration not required.

Have drives that gives people $50 gift cards for each firearm they turn in. No questions asked, no infractions issued, no charges pressed, etc. (Includes illegally made guns, or illegal guns in general). Those always turn out with very great success.

Make gun violence a very serious crime, but also make room for self defense laws. Clearly define all laws regarding weapons so there is no vague rulings.


Also, have have classes that shows people how to respond to gun violence and take the proper precautions when there is a gun around/someone has a concealed weapon. This might be handy in schools.


Impose very heavy penalties on people who break these laws or fine the pants off of them.

 

[blastoff]

How are those strict gun laws working out in Chicago?

Ten folks shot last Friday afternoon/night.

 

[martybegan]

If you take guns away, that will backfire.

Regulate them.
Make each one required to IMMEDIATELY and ALWAYS be registered and have require the registration always be up to date. (You have up to 72 hours to update if you move.)
Have laws that require you to report the weapon as stolen/missing when you can't find it or if it's missing.
Take away anonymity when buying ammo or accessories/attachments. Document all purchases, but registration not required.

Have drives that gives people $50 gift cards for each firearm they turn in. No questions asked, no infractions issued, no charges pressed, etc. (Includes illegally made guns, or illegal guns in general). Those always turn out with very great success.

Make gun violence a very serious crime, but also make room for self defense laws. Clearly define all laws regarding weapons so there is no vague rulings.


Also, have have classes that shows people how to respond to gun violence and take the proper precautions when there is a gun around/someone has a concealed weapon. This might be handy in schools.


Impose very heavy penalties on people who break these laws or fine the pants off of them.

And how would your registration scheme have stopped the recent school shooting?

 

[uscitizen]

I fully support the arming of bears.

 

[boedicca]

If you take guns away, that will backfire.

Regulate them.
Make each one required to IMMEDIATELY and ALWAYS be registered and have require the registration always be up to date. (You have up to 72 hours to update if you move.)
Have laws that require you to report the weapon as stolen/missing when you can't find it or if it's missing.
Take away anonymity when buying ammo or accessories/attachments. Document all purchases, but registration not required.

Have drives that gives people $50 gift cards for each firearm they turn in. No questions asked, no infractions issued, no charges pressed, etc. (Includes illegally made guns, or illegal guns in general). Those always turn out with very great success.

Make gun violence a very serious crime, but also make room for self defense laws. Clearly define all laws regarding weapons so there is no vague rulings.


Also, have have classes that shows people how to respond to gun violence and take the proper precautions when there is a gun around/someone has a concealed weapon. This might be handy in schools.


Impose very heavy penalties on people who break these laws or fine the pants off of them.

The Very Worst Gun Violence is that committed by Governments against their own citizens.

DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER


We have a choice. We take the risk of random insane people committing relatively small acts of violence while retaining our ability to Defend Ourselves. Or, we give up our guns and let the Government and Criminals continue to be armed while we remain defenseless against both.

IMO, the risks associated with voiding the 2nd Amendment are far worse than the random acts of lunatics.

 

[daveman]

If you take guns away, that will backfire.

Regulate them.
Make each one required to IMMEDIATELY and ALWAYS be registered and have require the registration always be up to date. (You have up to 72 hours to update if you move.)
Have laws that require you to report the weapon as stolen/missing when you can't find it or if it's missing.
Take away anonymity when buying ammo or accessories/attachments. Document all purchases, but registration not required.

Have drives that gives people $50 gift cards for each firearm they turn in. No questions asked, no infractions issued, no charges pressed, etc. (Includes illegally made guns, or illegal guns in general). Those always turn out with very great success.

Make gun violence a very serious crime, but also make room for self defense laws. Clearly define all laws regarding weapons so there is no vague rulings.


Also, have have classes that shows people how to respond to gun violence and take the proper precautions when there is a gun around/someone has a concealed weapon. This might be handy in schools.


Impose very heavy penalties on people who break these laws or fine the pants off of them.

Regulation doesn't work. Buybacks don't work.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

Myth: Gun registration works
Fact: Not in California. California has had handgun registration since 190992 and it has not any impact of violent crime rate.93
Fact: Not in New Zealand. They repealed their gun registration law in the 1980s after police acknowledged its worthlessness.94
Fact: Not in Australia. One report states, “It seems just to be an elaborate system of arithmetic with no tangible aim. Probably, and with the best of intentions, it may have been thought, that if it were known what firearms each individual in Victoria owned, some form of control may be exercised, and those who were guilty of criminal misuse could be readily identified. This is a fallacy, and has been proven not to be the case.”95 In addition, cost to Australian taxpayers exceeded $200 million annually.96
Fact: Not in Canada. More than 20,000 Canadian gun-owners have publicly refused to register their firearms. Many others (as many as 300,00097) are silently ignoring the law.
• The provincial governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have dumped both the administration and the enforcement of all federal gun-control laws right back into Ottawa's lap, throwing the Canadian government into a paper civil war.
• And all at a cost more than 1,646% the original projected cost98 (the original cost was estimated at 5% of all police expenditures in Canada99). "The gun registry as it sits right now is causing law abiding citizens to register their guns but it does nothing to take one illegal gun off the street or to increase any type of penalty for anybody that violates any part of the legislation," according to Al Koenig, President, Calgary Police Association.100 "We have an ongoing gun crisis, including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them," according to Toronto police Chief Julian Fantino .101
• The system is so bad that six Canadian provinces (British Columbia joins Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Nova Scotia, and Ontario) are refusing to prosecute firearm owners who fail to register.102
• A bill to abolish the registry has been tabled (introduced) in the Canadian Parliament, which if passed, would eliminate the registry completely.103
• A Saskatchewan MP who endorsed the long gun registry when first proposed has introduced legislation to abolish it stating that, “[the registry] has not saved one life in Canada, and it has been a financial sinkhole … absolutely useless in helping locate the 255,000 people who have been prohibited from owning firearms by the courts.”104
Fact: Not in Germany. The Federal Republic of Germany began comprehensive gun registration in 1972. The government estimated that between 17,000,000 and 20,000,000 guns were to be registered, but only 3,200,000 surfaced, leaving 80% unaccounted for.105
Fact: Not in Boston, Cleveland, or California. These cities and state require registration of “assault weapons.” The compliance rate in Boston and Cleveland is about 1%.106
Fact: Criminals don’t register their guns.
Myth: Gun registration will help police find suspects
Fact: Registration is required in Hawaii, Chicago, and Washington D.C. Yet there has not been a single case where registration was instrumental in identifying someone who committed a crime.107 Criminals very rarely leave their guns at the scene of the crime. Would-be criminals also virtually never get licenses or register their weapons.​

Myth: Gun “buy back” programs get guns off the streets
Fact: According to the federal government, gun ‘buybacks’ have “no effect”.303
Fact: “Buy backs” remove no more than 2% of the firearms within a community. And the firearms that are removed do not resemble guns used in crimes. “There has never been any effect on crime results seen”.304
Fact: Up to 62% of people trading in a firearm still have another at home, and 27% said they would or might buy another within a year.305
Fact: More than 50% of the weapons bought via a gun buy-back program were over 15 years old, whereas almost half of firearms seized from juveniles are less than three years old.306
Fact: According to a variety of sources, the actual effect is that gun buy-back programs:
• Disarm future crime victims, creating new social costs
• Give criminals an easy way to dispose of evidence
• Are turned in by those least likely to commit crimes (the elderly, women, etc.)
• Cheap guns are bought and sold back to the government for a profit
• Cause guns to be stolen and sold to the police, creating more crime
• Seldom return stolen guns to their rightful owners
Fact: "They do very little good. Guns arriving at buy backs are simply not the same guns that would otherwise have been used in crime. If you look at the people who are turning in firearms, they are consistently the least crime-prone [ed: least likely to commit crimes]: older people and women."307​

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The problem is two fold.

No matter how serious the symptoms, they only do something about the mentally ill after they have harmed someone. The very thought of something like socialistic free psychological help for those when the first symptoms show up, rather than waiting until the are multiple dead someones.

The nation is awash in guns meant only for the killing of other people. The assault rifles are not meant for anything other than killing people rapidly in large numbers. And this last week has demonstrated their ability to do this very well. And the NRA and fruitloops answer is more guns. We have been doing that for the last decade, and this is the inevitable result.

Those owning a gun of any type. You store it irresponsibly, someone takes it and uses it in a crime, you own that crime.

Completely false. I use them to shoot varmints in montana and wyoming.

Like Dick Cheney does in texas?

He was using a shotgun. You know the difference.