The Facts About Assault Weapons and Crime

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by JohninAB

Huh????? Societal woes is what plagues the US, not high capacity magazines. Social decay is the problem, nothing else.

If you can fix societies problems before fixing the easy access prime mass shooting weapons of choice...go for it. I am 100% on your side as indeed I agree...you fix poverty and you have fixed 90% of the problem. What do you think is going to take longer and result in more deaths that can be prevented.

[JohninAB]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

I don't know about Chicago and DC but NYC seems to be doing okay with it.

Were the doing okays a true function of the gun laws or were there other factors involved? That is one of the arguments against Lott's work. US went thru a decrease in crime not attributal to concealed carry laws.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by silver

It occured to me, and the laws didn't work.

Did the gun crime go up, down or remain the same in those cities?

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by JohninAB

Were the doing okays a true function of the gun laws or were there other factors involved? That is one of the arguments against Lott's work. US went thru a decrease in crime not attributal to concealed carry laws.

Yeah, coincidence.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by silver

Are you on GLUE?

Read the Samurai, the Mountie, the Cowboy by Kopel I believe.

He started out in favour of gun control, did research around the world, and found out it didn't work.

The United States is made up of 3000 different jurisdictions, each with control of liquor, guns etc. To label the U.S. as one group is foolish.

The state of Vermont has almost no gun laws and a murder rate of about 4/100,000. The cities of Chicago, New York, and Washington DC have such strict gun laws to the point that it is almost impossible for a person to own a firearm and there murder rate is in the 100 to 150/100,000

Some of the posts you have put are illogical and irrational to be almost nonsensical. Maybe you should reconsider your recreational intake.

Maybe you are just not opening your mind up to other opinions. You don't get it. If you can't control the gun flow your comparison of segregated jurisdictions and statistical analysis fails.

For instance if you have 52 lakes...each connected to one another with a short deep and wide river and you only stock snakeheads in 15...do you not see that predicting the number of snakeheads in any given state and their impacts, cause and effects is impossible. By construct they have an open gun system in the US. Guns flow so freely they ooze into Mexico by the millions and into Canada by the tens of thousands.

[JohninAB]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

If you can fix societies problems before fixing the easy access prime mass shooting weapons of choice...go for it. I am 100% on your side as indeed I agree...you fix poverty and you have fixed 90% of the problem. What do you think is going to take longer and result in more deaths that can be prevented.

True but I am saying no matter what we legislate or take away, those who want to rain down destruction on the masses will find a way no matter what we have outlawed or taken away.

To think outlawing a 30 round clip is the end all be all is very very dangerous.

[hockey1099]

Originally Posted by BlackHeart

Well that settles it!!!

If hockey1099 felt safe, we're all safe. If HE seen no bad guys with gun, then they must have left because of the change in laws, and if he said he felt safe at night, we all should trust his judgement and stroll the alleys and central park at night, safely displaying wealth. Should I buy that place in the projects or in Harlem?

Who would have known, just make more laws and restriction and the criminals just evaporate or leave, ......cause they wouldn't want to break the gun laws.

I say give your head a shake, but that was done to you a longtime ago.

You live in fear hey? Maybe lesser men need a gun to feel adequate.

[silver]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Maybe you are just not opening your mind up to other opinions. You don't get it. If you can't control the gun flow your comparison of segregated jurisdictions and statistical analysis fails.

For instance if you have 52 lakes...each connected to one another with a short deep and wide river and you only stock snakeheads in 15...do you not see that predicting the number of snakeheads in any given state and their impacts, cause and effects is impossible. By construct they have an open gun system in the US. Guns flow so freely they ooze into Mexico by the millions and into Canada by the tens of thousands.

Let's take your lake/ fish analogy a little further, stock the fish in all the lakes and see where they prosper. Why do they do well in some lakes and not in others?

If guns are equally available to all, why do some groups abuse this. And again, why do others not?

If the mere availability of large cap magazines incites murderous impulses, why are some able to resist?

Why is it the murderous mini 14 that I own is defective, I have no urges to go shoot up a school.

[silver]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Did the gun crime go up, down or remain the same in those cities?

New York City enacted the Sullivan law in 1913, I don't think it did any good.

[silver]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

If you can fix societies problems before fixing the easy access prime mass shooting weapons of choice...go for it. I am 100% on your side as indeed I agree...you fix poverty and you have fixed 90% of the problem. What do you think is going to take longer and result in more deaths that can be prevented.

This is probably your best post yet.

To fix this problem would be the most sensible idea yet.

Too many take the easy road, pick the low hanging fruit, go for a gun/equipment ban and not go for the heart of the matter which is social/economic differences.

What is needed is politicos that will do the hard work, make the hard decisions and I am afraid they are in short supply.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by JohninAB

True but I am saying no matter what we legislate or take away, those who want to rain down destruction on the masses will find a way no matter what we have outlawed or taken away.

I think he was saying that if poverty was fixed and there was true justice in the world there would be less of those who want to rain down destruction on the masses. I actually think that if there was true justice and poverty was eliminated there would be little need to legislate or take away anything.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by silver

This is probably your best post yet.

To fix this problem would be the most sensible idea yet.

Too many take the easy road, pick the low hanging fruit, go for a gun/equipment ban and not go for the heart of the matter which is social/economic differences.

What is needed is politicos that will do the hard work, make the hard decisions and I am afraid they are in short supply.

A smart person would look at a two prong approach.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

I think he was saying that if poverty was fixed and there was true justice in the world there would be less of those who want to rain down destruction on the masses. I actually think that if there was true justice and poverty was eliminated there would be little need to legislate or take away anything.

If everyone was good then there would be no laws needed. If only that we're true. Mind you this thread would be boring.

1st post...whatcha think of gun laws.
Next 100 posts ...there are no laws...no crime...and ammo is cheap. Life is great.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by silver

Let's take your lake/ fish analogy a little further, stock the fish in all the lakes and see where they prosper. Why do they do well in some lakes and not in others?

If guns are equally available to all, why do some groups abuse this. And again, why do others not?

If the mere availability of large cap magazines incites murderous impulses, why are some able to resist?

Why is it the murderous mini 14 that I own is defective, I have no urges to go shoot up a school.

If you want re discuss economics of crime and how the higher average income areas have lower crime than the lower income areas...that just shows gun laws again in the US don't factor down to state specific stats. The states gun crime is a factor of the lowest denominator problem. Easily accessed guns by criminals.

[Unregistered user]

For a change, let's focus on Canada. We have tons of guns yet little gun crime. It seems some here are chasing a solution to a non existent problem. But do take note those who call for bans on anything beware. The gun control twerps' long term goal is an absolute end to private firearms ownership. They know they cannot do it overnight but they will try to eat this elephant one bite at a time. After guns are gone, bow hunting will be outlawed- why does modern man need to hunt when "Big Brother" can provide? Fishing will be targetted next, don't laugh, fish rights is a big issue in some European countries in fact Germany and Switzerland believe catch and release fishing is cruel and banned it. As a community we should should resist those who try to take away our recreation and our property or they'll surely hang us one by one. Those indignant ones who feel they have a right to dictate how other law-abiding and peaceful people live should stop to consider that if every person was allowed to ban just one thing that they disagree with, there would be nothing left.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by JohninAB

True but I am saying no matter what we legislate or take away, those who want to rain down destruction on the masses will find a way no matter what we have outlawed or taken away.

To think outlawing a 30 round clip is the end all be all is very very dangerous.

I don't think it is a fix all but it will help keep the tool of choice out of the hands of criminals. Let them be used at the gun ranges so any sport value is maintained.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

A smart person would look at a two prong approach.

A smart person would learn from past mistakes. The "assault weapon" ban and magazine limit has not worked in Canada for the 20 years those laws have existed. The "assault weapon" ban and magazine limit did not work in the U.S. over the 10 years those laws were in place in the U.S.

A person who keeps trying the same things over and over expecting different results is insane.

The problem with the debate has been that one side (mine) argues from facts and philosophy but the other side argues from emotion, deception, wild hypotheticals, apple pie and - mostly - fear.

It is frustrating but it is not a waste of time. I notice more and more people seeing through the labels and personal attacks and recognizing that our "accepted facts about guns" are just totems.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

A smart person would learn from past mistakes. The "assault weapon" ban and magazine limit has not worked in Canada for the 20 years those laws have existed. The "assault weapon" ban and magazine limit did not work in the U.S. over the 10 years those laws were in place in the U.S.

A person who keeps trying the same things over and over expecting different results is insane.

The problem with the debate has been that one side (mine) argues from facts and philosophy but the other side argues from emotion, deception, wild hypotheticals, apple pie and - mostly - fear.

It is frustrating but it is not a waste of time. I notice more and more people seeing through the labels and personal attacks and recognizing that our "accepted facts about guns" are just totems.

I wish CNN would pay us to debate this. Then afterwards we could head out to gun range to blast stuff...then go for pizza and beer.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

For a change, let's focus on Canada. We have tons of guns yet little gun crime. It seems some here are chasing a solution to a non existent problem. But do take note those who call for bans on anything beware. The gun control twerps' long term goal is an absolute end to private firearms ownership. They know they cannot do it overnight but they will try to eat this elephant one bite at a time. After guns are gone, bow hunting will be outlawed- why does modern man need to hunt when "Big Brother" can provide? Fishing will be targetted next, don't laugh, fish rights is a big issue in some European countries in fact Germany and Switzerland believe catch and release fishing is cruel and banned it. As a community we should should resist those who try to take away our recreation and our property or they'll surely hang us one by one. Those indignant ones who feel they have a right to dictate how other law-abiding and peaceful people live should stop to consider that if every person was allowed to ban just one thing that they disagree with, there would be nothing left.

We have different restrictions than in the US. Which ones do you think work in Canada differently than regs in the US?

[CNP]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

The US with their lax gun laws has the highest murder rate in the western world. The proof is irrefutable.

The anti's feel the best way to deal with it is to just keep doing the same old behaviors. The antis at least now see and agree that better background checks are required.

Now they just need to agree that restricting large capacity mags and drums won't make it work and will help save lives. Make it harder to commit mass shooting. The nuts use them because they make killing efficient and fast. If there were no large capacity drums and mags then people would still be alive today. Let's let law abiding citizens have them but restrict them to shooting ranges. You don't need one in your home.

I'm getting confused on your use of the term "anti". Who are the anti's in your mind? There are all kinds of anti's and it's usually has a pejorative ring to it......anti-hunting, anti-fishing, anti-trapping, anti-firearms. But it appears that the real anti's are trying to turn the table on pro-hunting, pro-firearms, pro-fishing, pro-trapping.

If there were no large capacity drums and mags then people would still be alive today.

Not an accurate statement at all and of course their is no data to support that. What could be the unintended consequences of prohibiting large scale magazines? And allowing large scale magazines on the range but not at home? You're saying that ranges could loan them or rent them? That doesn't make any sense. Sounds like the liberal initiative of having Canadian store their firearms at a range. We don't need them at home.........

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

For a change, let's focus on Canada. We have tons of guns yet little gun crime. It seems some here are chasing a solution to a non existent problem. But do take note those who call for bans on anything beware. The gun control twerps' long term goal is an absolute end to private firearms ownership. They know they cannot do it overnight but they will try to eat this elephant one bite at a time. After guns are gone, bow hunting will be outlawed- why does modern man need to hunt when "Big Brother" can provide? Fishing will be targetted next, don't laugh, fish rights is a big issue in some European countries in fact Germany and Switzerland believe catch and release fishing is cruel and banned it. As a community we should should resist those who try to take away our recreation and our property or they'll surely hang us one by one. Those indignant ones who feel they have a right to dictate how other law-abiding and peaceful people live should stop to consider that if every person was allowed to ban just one thing that they disagree with, there would be nothing left.

If you wish to focus on Canada, you may want to start another thread. The original post seems to be in relation to what is happening in the USA not here.

No one here or in the good ole US of A is chasing a solution to a non existent problem. We may differ on how that problem will be solved or if it can be solved, but there is a very real problem. There is far to many innocent people being killed. That does exist.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I don't think it is a fix all but it will help keep the tool of choice out of the hands of criminals. Let them be used at the gun ranges so any sport value is maintained.

There are probably in the vicinity of 10 million rifles (2.75 million AR-15's, .8 million Ruger Mini 14's) in the US that can be fitted with large scale magazines. The owners of these firearms probably have an average of 5 magazines for each firearm........speaking from experience.........and if anything I am swagging on the low side. 50,000,000 large scale magazines and none will get into the hands of criminals after a ban

[silver]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

A smart person would look at a two prong approach.

A smart person would look at the most effective way.

A useless and ineffective person would go after the low hanging fruit, the easy way. The way most gun banners go because if it looks like they are doing something, is the way to look effective. Passing a law to ban a gun or a magazine seems to feed a phobia that quite afew people have. Doesn't really help but it looks good.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by White Wolf

Can I just suggest that rather than picking apart each other's beliefs regarding certain classes of firearms that we stand together in support of firearms ownership regardless of class of firearms. If we do not present an united front against gun bans, our hunting rifles may be on the chopping block after the anti's succeed in their push for an "assault" style rifle ban.

The problem with that line of thinking is that it in fact errodes the credability of our arguments with the majority who are somewhere in between us and the antis.
Reasonable limits and reasonable controls are what owners need to pursue if they want to take the initiative away from the antis and make them look like a bunch of extremists.

Articles like the OP posted only fuel their fire and help them to gather momentum.

The middle ground folks start thinking... these so called gun nuts...really are nuts and at least the anti gun guys aren't armed even if they do appear to be a bit emotional from time to time.

So... while a ban won't help/work neither will the other argument.

If guys really want to protect their arms... they need to quit saying nay and attacking the left.
Its a waste of time.
What owners need to do is to come together and offer solutions rather than problems.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

How about using your noggin. Having to reload slows down murderers ability to target victims. When the jam they can be stopped as has happened before. Giving a bad guy unlimited round to fire in seconds is stupid.

You explain why you feel it is smarter to not restrict high capacity mags. When has it saved lives versus killed kids outside of military operations?

Common sense is all you needamd if need be go back through your 1000 threads on the same topic to find the reference to mass shooters have gun jams.

I am very pleased that you agree with background checks. That is a huge loophole the NRA was fighting against. No checks at gun shows private sales etc.

Didn't the Dawson College murderer reload 17 times? How many times did the scum in Norway reload, when he killed 76? Oh yeah! Works all the time! Why don't you come up with a percentage that an unarmed citizen disarms a mass murderer in between mag changes or gun jams.

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

If you best argument is to compare a third world country with questionable law enforcement with a major first world super power. You lost your own argument. How about comparing all first world countries with the US and then comparing all of them to the third world countries.

It is very telling.

Jamaica is not a 3rd world country. 20% unemployment, or whatever it is, does not mean the whole country lives in squalor and starves. And if they were, does that justify killing each other?

How about comparing gun liberal countries with gun unfriendly countries? That makes a little more sense. Singling out the worst (if it is) out of a better group, is a little backwards. Somewhat like looking at Cindy Crawford and saying: "Look at that thing! If you put that mole under a 1000x microscope, I bet it would be totally gross!"

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

The US with their lax gun laws has the highest murder rate in the western world. The proof is irrefutable.

The anti's feel the best way to deal with it is to just keep doing the same old behaviors. The antis at least now see and agree that better background checks are required.

Now they just need to agree that restricting large capacity mags and drums won't make it work and will help save lives. Make it harder to commit mass shooting. The nuts use them because they make killing efficient and fast. [COLOR="rgb(255, 0, 255)"]If there were no large capacity drums and mags then people would still be alive today. Let's let law abiding citizens have them but restrict them to shooting ranges. You don't need one in your home[/COLOR].

If there were none, people would make them. That would be silly to keep it at a range. That would pretty much guarantee... oh never mind. Pretty much defeats the purpose. And why so worried about the law abiding person?

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Did it ever occur to you that the reason that such strict gun control laws were legislated for Chicago, New York and DC was because of an extremely high level of gun violence/gun murders. If you can't figure out that simple situation then of course you'll find just about anything else illogical, irrational and almost nonsensical.

So, how much did it help? I'd like to see an across the board multi-year comparison, to eliminate anomalies in the data.

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Maybe you are just not opening your mind up to other opinions. You don't get it. If you can't control the gun flow your comparison of segregated jurisdictions and statistical analysis fails.

For instance if you have 52 lakes...each connected to one another with a short deep and wide river and you only stock snakeheads in 15...do you not see that predicting the number of snakeheads in any given state and their impacts, cause and effects is impossible. By construct they have an open gun system in the US. [COLOR="rgb(255, 0, 255)"]Guns flow so freely they ooze into Mexico by the millions and into Canada by the tens of thousands.[/COLOR]

People are making guns using files, in the hills of Khyber Pass. No amount of outlawing will make them go away.

Even if we could, then it would revert back to "might is right". No guns, no problems. Then it would be 5 "bros" that would kick down the door and do as they will. The weaker, or less numerous group would be totally powerless.

Why is there a gun called the "peacemaker"?

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by ehntr

Well, I had to look that up...............hoplophobe, wonder what the origins of that word are?

Firearms authority and writer Jeff Cooper claims to have coined the word in 1962 to describe what he called a "mental aberration consisting of an unreasoning terror of gadgetry, specifically, weapons."[7] The term was constructed from the Greek ὅπλον - hoplon, meaning amongst others "arms,"
Not sure but I heard that Cooper also claimed to have invented Wednesday

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Why don't you come up with a percentage that an unarmed citizen disarms a mass murderer in between mag changes or gun jams.

Ummmm........Right off the top of my head the shooter that killed those people in the mall and wounded that Giffords gal was tackled when he ran out of ammo and had to reload AND, six kids at Sandy Nook escaped when the shooter either had to reload or the rifle jammed (Didn't disarm him but they were only 6 and 7 years old after all). HA!

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by pesky672

The problem with that line of thinking is that it in fact errodes the credability of our arguments with the majority who are somewhere in between us and the antis.
Reasonable limits and reasonable controls are what owners need to pursue if they want to take the initiative away from the antis and make them look like a bunch of extremists.

Ah, yes. The old appeasement argument. The hope that if you give them "what they want" then they will leave us alone. Be "reasonable" you say and then we won't be labelled as "extremists".

You really have no idea who our opponent is or what they want, do you? You still think gun control is essentially about guns.

Google is your friend. Even more so, books are your friend.

Read. It'll be good for you. Locke and Montesquieu are said to be good for the heart. If you're lazy, you can buy a couple of Mark Levin's latest books but you'll get a dollop of U.S. politics with it. Then you can think about why England's violent crime and gun crime rates rose after they banned almost everything.

If you stop trying to be "reasonable" and seek the truth without compromise, your blood pressure will go down.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I wish CNN would pay us to debate this. Then afterwards we could head out to gun range to blast stuff...then go for pizza and beer.

I was out today...with my magazines. It was fun but the gun still isn't shooting the way I want it.

As for the debate, I do believe it would be better if you'd take some time and sift facts. What is in your head has probably been planted or directed there by well-meaning people with closed minds and an agenda. It sounds good but then so does any call that works.

A juggernaut is facing us, make no mistake. It means business. It won't be upon us tomorrow but it is coming.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Ummmm........Right off the top of my head the shooter that killed those people in the mall and wounded that Giffords gal was tackled when he ran out of ammo and had to reload AND, six kids at Sandy Nook escaped when the shooter either had to reload or the rifle jammed (Didn't disarm him but they were only 6 and 7 years old after all). HA!

Points for trying! But not a percentage.

And the above was only one example. One would think that it's a little more common, but when someone starts shooting, not very many people are counting the rounds to get close and time an attack. At least not the dis-armed ones!

Somethings may be challenging to manufacture, or get, but magazines are not one of those things. At least not if you took grade 8 shop.

The only thing that it accomplishes, is a temporary "feel good", for having done "something". That and leaving the law abiding owners disadvantaged. We could dumb down the laws every day for a thousand years, and people would still find a way to be criminally retarded.

That's a new phrase I invented!

Just look at the plethora of law books that are printed. I doubt there is very many people that could even learn all the laws.