Gun Control not the problem here.

[Diuretic]

I'm not referring to failed legislation. I can't help it if your legislature can't get things right.

And I'm a bloke.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No, come on, where did I say the cop are never the bad guys? I never did. I wouldn't ever make that point. Stating that only cops should have BFG (I love that acronym, all the way from Doom days) is not saying that cops are never the bad guys. I will take issue with that.

Re the mechanism. It's up to each society/community/jurisdiction to decide what it will allow private citizens (as opposed to the military and cops) to use. For mine a society is nuts if it allows fully automatic weapons to be available to other than the military and the police, but that's just my opinion and should be treated as such - an opinion.

Note again that the assault weapon ban was sold as a CRIME PREVENTION measure.

He/she (the Aussie) doesn't appear to have read that the "sell" didn't work out very well.

Why Congress Refused to Renew the Federal “Assault Weapon” Ban

A study of the ban mandated by Congress concluded, “the banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders” before the ban, and the ban’s 10-round limit on new magazines wasn’t a factor in multiple-victim or multiple-wound crimes.40 A follow-up study found “gunshot injury incidents involving pistols [many of which use magazines that hold more than 10 rounds] were less likely to produce a death than those involving revolvers [which typically hold five or six rounds]” and “the average number of wounds for pistol victims was actually lower than that for revolver victims.”41 Crime reports and felon surveys showed that “assault weapons” were used in only 1-2 percent of violent crimes before the ban; 42 crime victim surveys indicated the figure was 0.25 percent.43 In the 10 years before the ban, murders committed without guns outnumbered those with “assault weapons” by about 37-to-1.44 Also, most crimes committed with such guns could be committed with other guns, and some could be committed without guns.45

Moreover, violent crime, which began decreasing three years before the ban, continued decreasing as the number of firearms, including “assault weapons” and other semi-automatics, increased. This is true whether based upon the Violence Policy Center’s proposition that virtually every semi-automatic rifle and shotgun should be considered an “assault weapon,”46 or its fall-back position, that “assault weapon” should be redefined to include not only multiple-attachment guns banned in 1994, but one-attachment guns made to comply with the ban.47

Between 1991-2006, U.S. total violent crime and murder rates decreased 38 percent and 42 percent, respectively and preliminary reports from the FBI indicate that rates dropped further in 2007.48 Meanwhile, the number of privately-owned firearms has risen by more than 75 million, about one-third of them being semi-automatics, and about 15 percent of semi-automatics being “assault weapons.”49 The number of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds rose by 50 million during the years of the ban alone, according to the ban’s House sponsor.50

Also, the ban’s 10-round limit on new ammunition magazines infringed the right of self-defense. Police officers carry multiple standard-size magazines for good reason—their protection. Other citizens have the same right to protect themselves, and the arbitrary magazine limit potentially put them at a disadvantage against criminals. The limit had other flaws too. Criminals who fire guns fire only three shots on average,51 and those that fire a greater number could defeat a magazine limit by carrying multiple magazines or multiple guns. There was no evidence to justify a limit on magazine size, let alone the arbitrary number of 10 rounds.

One can hope that Congress also objected to the truly un-American tone of the rhetorical question that the Brady Campaign repeated ad nauseum during the ban, believing that it alone shouted down any possible opposition to gun prohibition. The question, “who needs an assault weapon,?”52 was, of course, illegitimate. In America, the burden of proof is not upon those who wish to exercise rights, it is upon those who wish to restrict rights, and there is no evidence that an “assault weapon” ban reduces crime. An irrational bias against guns, mixed with an assumed sense of intellectual, social or cultural superiority to gun owners, may seem to gun control supporters like sufficient grounds to ban firearms, but such notions are insufficient in a democracy.

NRA-ILA : Clinton Gun Ban
__________________

Separate argument, our "bloke" keeps claiming gun control is not foisted on us as Crime control.

 

[Yukon]

GaySargent,

Were you in the military before or after they decided homosexuals should stay in the "latrine" and not come out?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

GaySargent,

Were you in the military before or after they decided homosexuals should stay in the "latrine" and not come out?

Thought your ignorant ass was leaving? Guess that was a lie like all your posts, ehh?

 

[Yukon]

GayPrivate,

I was pursuaded to stya by the people. The people want me to stay. The facists and communists want me to leave. Those who would fight and die for free speech and free expression want me to stay. The cowards who avoid serving their country, who shirk at responsibility want me to leave.

 

[Old Rocks]

We have just had five really bad slaughters by gun wielding lunatics in less than a month. Two of them had body armor. At some point, the majority of the American People will find themselves fed up with gun laws that allow guns and other related war equipment to get into the hands of the lunatics. And the rest of us who are responsible about our gun ownership will see our rights infringed on. But we hear no denunciation, or even the suggestion, that there should be certain standards met by those that would own guns. Just absolute screaming idiocy the minute it is suggested that keeping guns out of lunatics hands will compromise all our rights. This set of mind does more to endanger my right to own my hunting tools than those that are against gun ownership.

 

[elvis]

Yeah, it's the people who believe in the second amendment and take it literally that should be blamed when Obama or some other socialist takes away gun rights.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yeah, it's the people who believe in the second amendment and take it literally that should be blamed when Obama or some other socialist takes away gun rights.

People like you are the very people that will have more to do with our second amendment rights taken away than President Obama.

 

[elvis]

Yeah, it's the people who believe in the second amendment and take it literally that should be blamed when Obama or some other socialist takes away gun rights.

People like you are the very people that will have more to do with our second amendment rights taken away than President Obama.

Uh huh. whatever you say.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We have just had five really bad slaughters by gun wielding lunatics in less than a month. Two of them had body armor. At some point, the majority of the American People will find themselves fed up with gun laws that allow guns and other related war equipment to get into the hands of the lunatics. And the rest of us who are responsible about our gun ownership will see our rights infringed on. But we hear no denunciation, or even the suggestion, that there should be certain standards met by those that would own guns. Just absolute screaming idiocy the minute it is suggested that keeping guns out of lunatics hands will compromise all our rights. This set of mind does more to endanger my right to own my hunting tools than those that are against gun ownership.

Want a war? Ban guns. I promise that thousands will resist. You think a couple killings is worth hundreds maybe thousands dying fighting for their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?

 

[DamnYankee]

No, come on, where did I say the cop are never the bad guys? I never did. I wouldn't ever make that point. Stating that only cops should have BFG (I love that acronym, all the way from Doom days) is not saying that cops are never the bad guys. I will take issue with that.

And I took issue with the implication -- that so long as "law enforcement" is in control of the BFG, they can be counted on to use them appropriately. The name Rodney King mean anything to you? Just imagine how he would have made out if the cops went after him with BFG....

Re the mechanism. It's up to each society/community/jurisdiction to decide what it will allow private citizens (as opposed to the military and cops) to use. For mine a society is nuts if it allows fully automatic weapons to be available to other than the military and the police, but that's just my opinion and should be treated as such - an opinion.

Opinion duly noted, as is the insistence that society has, at its disposal "fully automatic weapons".

You're bringing in King?

Totally irrelevant to the issue. You're grasping now. You're now trying to defend your other irrelevance, the false claim you made against me that somehow I was trying to portray cops as good guys all the time. Your credibiliy is now highly suspect.

Try to get back on topic.

Simply attempting to make a point, which seems to be lost on you. If the cops, and ONLY the cops, should have the BFG, that implies that THEY are the good guys and everyone else with access to a BFG are the bad guys. Now imagine (you can do that, can't you) if the cops had been armed with BFG instead of clubs....

As for getting back on topic, why don't you attempt to address your claim that society has, at its disposal, "fully automatic weapons"? Dayum.... Not even the legislative definition of "assault" weapon described them as such.

 

[DamnYankee]

Note again that the assault weapon ban was sold as a CRIME PREVENTION measure.

He/she (the Aussie) doesn't appear to have read that the "sell" didn't work out very well.

Why Congress Refused to Renew the Federal “Assault Weapon” Ban

A study of the ban mandated by Congress concluded, “the banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders” before the ban, and the ban’s 10-round limit on new magazines wasn’t a factor in multiple-victim or multiple-wound crimes.40 A follow-up study found “gunshot injury incidents involving pistols [many of which use magazines that hold more than 10 rounds] were less likely to produce a death than those involving revolvers [which typically hold five or six rounds]” and “the average number of wounds for pistol victims was actually lower than that for revolver victims.”41 Crime reports and felon surveys showed that “assault weapons” were used in only 1-2 percent of violent crimes before the ban; 42 crime victim surveys indicated the figure was 0.25 percent.43 In the 10 years before the ban, murders committed without guns outnumbered those with “assault weapons” by about 37-to-1.44 Also, most crimes committed with such guns could be committed with other guns, and some could be committed without guns.45

Moreover, violent crime, which began decreasing three years before the ban, continued decreasing as the number of firearms, including “assault weapons” and other semi-automatics, increased. This is true whether based upon the Violence Policy Center’s proposition that virtually every semi-automatic rifle and shotgun should be considered an “assault weapon,”46 or its fall-back position, that “assault weapon” should be redefined to include not only multiple-attachment guns banned in 1994, but one-attachment guns made to comply with the ban.47

Between 1991-2006, U.S. total violent crime and murder rates decreased 38 percent and 42 percent, respectively and preliminary reports from the FBI indicate that rates dropped further in 2007.48 Meanwhile, the number of privately-owned firearms has risen by more than 75 million, about one-third of them being semi-automatics, and about 15 percent of semi-automatics being “assault weapons.”49 The number of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds rose by 50 million during the years of the ban alone, according to the ban’s House sponsor.50

Also, the ban’s 10-round limit on new ammunition magazines infringed the right of self-defense. Police officers carry multiple standard-size magazines for good reason—their protection. Other citizens have the same right to protect themselves, and the arbitrary magazine limit potentially put them at a disadvantage against criminals. The limit had other flaws too. Criminals who fire guns fire only three shots on average,51 and those that fire a greater number could defeat a magazine limit by carrying multiple magazines or multiple guns. There was no evidence to justify a limit on magazine size, let alone the arbitrary number of 10 rounds.

One can hope that Congress also objected to the truly un-American tone of the rhetorical question that the Brady Campaign repeated ad nauseum during the ban, believing that it alone shouted down any possible opposition to gun prohibition. The question, “who needs an assault weapon,?”52 was, of course, illegitimate. In America, the burden of proof is not upon those who wish to exercise rights, it is upon those who wish to restrict rights, and there is no evidence that an “assault weapon” ban reduces crime. An irrational bias against guns, mixed with an assumed sense of intellectual, social or cultural superiority to gun owners, may seem to gun control supporters like sufficient grounds to ban firearms, but such notions are insufficient in a democracy.

NRA-ILA : Clinton Gun Ban
__________________

Separate argument, our "bloke" keeps claiming gun control is not foisted on us as Crime control.

Got it (the previous back and forth didn't come through as "bloke")....

The point was that, after having sold a bill of goods as a crime control measure, subsequently, it was found that it did not, in fact, control crime because said crimes (those committed with firearms) were already decreasing BEFORE the law was passed. In addition, the number of firearms in ownership increased AFTER the law was passed, and those crimes STILL decreased.

Clinton was a good seller, wasn't he?

 

[DamnYankee]

We have just had five really bad slaughters by gun wielding lunatics in less than a month. Two of them had body armor. At some point, the majority of the American People will find themselves fed up with gun laws that allow guns and other related war equipment to get into the hands of the lunatics. And the rest of us who are responsible about our gun ownership will see our rights infringed on. But we hear no denunciation, or even the suggestion, that there should be certain standards met by those that would own guns. Just absolute screaming idiocy the minute it is suggested that keeping guns out of lunatics hands will compromise all our rights. This set of mind does more to endanger my right to own my hunting tools than those that are against gun ownership.

No one I know, who is a 2nd Amendment advocate, is an advocate for allowing "lunatics" to legally purchase a firearm. Now, when you (and the ACLU and HIPAA) figure out a way to legally make a "lunatic" determination, and when you figure out a way to ensure that the "lunatic" does not obtain one through other that the legal process, you be sure and let us know.

 

[raceright]

Have a great idea make it illegal to kill someone with a gun...
That should solve the gun ownership problem right.

My wife has 5 guns and if she kills someone with one I'll call the cops ok. That should do it no more reason for added laws.

 

[Yukon]

Week ending April 5:

14 SLAUGHTERED in NEW YORK

5 SLAUGHTERED in PITTSBURG

9 SLAUGHTERED in OREGON


Repeal the 2nd Amendment before it is too late and you are the stat.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Week ending April 5:

14 SLAUGHTERED in NEW YORK

5 SLAUGHTERED in PITTSBURG

9 SLAUGHTERED in OREGON


Repeal the 2nd Amendment before it is too late and you are the stat.

over 300 million people in this country and only about 30000 a year get murdered by ALL means. Go ahead, do the math. Your chance of being murdered in the US is .001 percent. That is right 1/1000 of a percent.

More people die every year in car accidents, I say, if guns need to be banned then vehicles need to go first.

 

[Agnapostate]

It's not plausible to deny that an increase in guns is related to an increase in gun crime, as some have an inexplicable propensity to do. But gun prevalence alone is not a major crime factor, and the problem is primarily related to a secondary market in which licensing procedures are not practiced.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It's not plausible to deny that an increase in guns is related to an increase in gun crime, as some have an inexplicable propensity to do. But gun prevalence alone is not a major crime factor, and the problem is primarily related to a secondary market in which licensing procedures are not practiced.

Except the facts are that gun ownership DID go up and murders and other crimes went DOWN.

 

[Agnapostate]

Except the facts are that gun ownership DID go up and murders and other crimes went DOWN.

You'll want to try something a bit more cunning than selective incorporation of raw data. For instance, an empirical analysis that isolates the gun effect is a far preferable source. For instance, we can analyze the effects of increased gun ownership on lethality as with Duggan's More Guns, More Crime, which focuses on the homicide rate.

This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one‐third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993.

As I said, this is due to the existence of a secondary market in the U.S. which circumvents licensing procedure.

 

[Yukon]

It's not plausible to deny that an increase in guns is related to an increase in gun crime, as some have an inexplicable propensity to do. But gun prevalence alone is not a major crime factor, and the problem is primarily related to a secondary market in which licensing procedures are not practiced.

Except the facts are that gun ownership DID go up and murders and other crimes went DOWN.

...an outrageous, unsubstantiated, comment.