The Facts About Assault Weapons and Crime

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I can't believe you guys are drinking the koolaid and failing to see how better background checks and restrictions on higher capacity mags and drums is a good thing.

OK, let's find out who's drinking koolaid and who isn't.

Post some proof that restrictions on higher capacity mags reduce homicide. Take your time. I'll check back.

ps: You can't claim the high ground for "better background checks". The NRA beat you to that idea by a country mile. So did pretty well all of us. So, stop twisting and let's get down to brass tacks.

Begin with the high capacity magazines, if you can.

[Tactical Lever]

Over a soldier's career he also spends scattered days on mandatory equipment inspections and required target practice. Thus, in a 30-year mandatory military career, a Swiss man only spends about one year in direct military service. Following discharge from the regular army, men serve on reserve status until age 50 (55 for officers).

By the Federal Constitution of 1874, military servicemen are given their first equipment, clothing and arms. After the first training period, conscripts must keep gun, ammunition and equipment an ihrem Wohnort ("in their homes") until the end of their term of service.

Today, enlisted men are issued M57 automatic assault rifles and officers are given pistol, Each reservist is issued 24 rounds of ammunition in sealed packs for emergency use. (Contrary to Handgun Control's claim that "all ammunition must be accounted for," the emergency ammunition is the only ammo that requires accounting.)

After discharge from service, the man is given a bolt rifle free from registration or obligation. Starting in the 1994, the government will give ex-reservists assault rifles. Officers carry pistols rather than rifles and are given their pistols the end of their service.

Hope that clears things up a little.

No babies were harmed in the research of this article.

[GeoTrekr]

Rocky7, your patience and persistance is to be admired, and I know I have much less of both.

In this day and age, after having SEEN the elected leader of the government in power at the time, declare a ban on handguns as an election promise, and after having witnessed the continuous erosion of our freedom with no perceivable effect, I am amazed, astounded, speechless, among many more things, that anyone remotely linked to the Canadian firearms community would be in favour of yet MORE restrictions. Where exactly has compromising gotten us so far? Where will we stop? When a 5 or 10 round limit isn't good enough, do we try 4/9, then 3/8, 2/7, 1/6? As long as there are guns in civilian hands, and as long as there are shootings (thus graves to dance on), the antis will not be happy until each and every single last firearm is gone.

Some of us are onlookers, disgusted at the man turning up the heat. Some of us are the frogs, contently frolicking in the seemingly ever-so-slightly warmer water...

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Hope that clears things up a little.

American Rifleman 1990? You might want to chose a more recent reference source because a lot has changed in 23 years. From a 2007 article:

"With the exception of a few thousand of the 120,000 soldiers in Switzerland's militia army who keep their cartridges at home, all army ammunition will have to be stored in central arsenals. Army guns can still be kept at home."

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Specials...tml?cid=970614

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

American Rifleman 1990? You might want to chose a more recent reference source because a lot has changed in 23 years. From a 2007 article:

"With the exception of a few thousand of the 120,000 soldiers in Switzerland's militia army who keep their cartridges at home, all army ammunition will have to be stored in central arsenals. Army guns can still be kept at home."

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Specials...tml?cid=970614

Does that invalidate the results for 1990?

Your quote mentions army ammunition. It does not say anything about non-army ammunition?

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Does that invalidate the results for 1990?

Indeed it does.

[hockey1099]

I love that the anti-gun control side keeps pointing to the swiss model as some sort of proof that more guns = less crime. Does the anti gun control side fail to see that the Americans have more guns and more crime than swiss? How can that be if more guns = less crime. Americans have more guns than the swiss and the highest gun ownership rates in the world; as such they should have the lowest crime rates in the world. But thats not the case whats going on here are the ANTI's lying to us.

And ya im now calling those in favour of less gun control anti's

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by hockey1099

I love that the anti-gun control side keeps pointing to the swiss model as some sort of proof that more guns = less crime. Does the anti gun control side fail to see that the Americans have more guns and more crime than swiss? How can that be if more guns = less crime. Americans have more guns than the swiss and the highest gun ownership rates in the world; as such they should have the lowest crime rates in the world. But thats not the case whats going on here are the ANTI's lying to us.

And ya im now calling those in favour of less gun control anti's

Jamaica has very low private gun ownership, and murder rate was 580 per 100 000, or thereabouts.

Care to modify your statement?

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Indeed it does.

That does not make any sense.

Oh well, at least we still have our dancing!

[hockey1099]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Jamaica has very low private gun ownership, and murder rate was 580 per 100 000, or thereabouts.

Care to modify your statement?

Nope. The Anti gun control side tells me that more guns = less crime. As such the country with the most guns per capita should have the lowest crime rates.

Am i wrong thats the theory right?

[BeeGuy]

How as the influx of guns to Mexico impacted its law abiding citizens?

Must be safer now?

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

How as the influx of guns to Mexico impacted its law abiding citizens?

Must be safer now?

Tsk, tsk. You should know full well how many guns are owned by private, law abiding citizens.

When only one side has them, it tends to skew the results (for good or bad). Don't you agree?

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

ps: You can't claim the high ground for "better background checks". The NRA beat you to that idea by a country mile. So did pretty well all of us. So, stop twisting and let's get down to brass tacks.

How many times are you going to shoot yourself in the foot with this? The NRA does not support "better background checks" despite roughly 9 in 10 Americans wanting them.

"Not only did LaPierre push back on restrictions to high-capacity magazines and assault rifles, but he forcibly rejected universal background checks. For the record, polls find roughly 9 in 10 Americans support universal background checks to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill."

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/23/nra-b...ground-checks/

If you don't like the facts of the story because it's from MSN just go to the NRA website and check their position on this!

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

When only one side has them, it tends to skew the results (for good or bad). Don't you agree?

Then that would also apply to Jamaica then wouldn't it?

[coolpete1]

if ever i go insane i'm going to carry out my assault with a big stick or a rubber chicken just to save everyone else the headache.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by hockey1099

Nope. The Anti gun control side tells me that more guns = less crime. As such the country with the most guns per capita should have the lowest crime rates.

Am i wrong thats the theory right?

There is more to crime than guns. There are precious few countries with low rates of private ownership, that also rate high on personal freedoms and relative safety, however.

What part about my statement about Jamaica are you disagreeing with? Or are you?

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Then that would also apply to Jamaica then wouldn't it?

Sure does! Very few private citizens have guns, and the laws are pretty restrictive. Part of what makes it interesting, besides the astronomical murder rate, is that an inordinate number of these murders happen with guns.

Kind of weird (or not) that the supposed relative scarcity, seems to have an inverse effect of what I suppose was intended.

[hockey1099]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

How many times are you going to shoot yourself in the foot with this? The NRA does not support "better background checks" despite roughly 9 in 10 Americans wanting them.

"Not only did LaPierre push back on restrictions to high-capacity magazines and assault rifles, but he forcibly rejected universal background checks. For the record, polls find roughly 9 in 10 Americans support universal background checks to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill."

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/23/nra-b...ground-checks/

If you don't like the facts of the story because it's from MSN just go to the NRA website and check their position on this!

You mean the NRA which is largely funded by gun manufactures does not want background checks that could limit potential customers?

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by hockey1099

You mean the NRA which is largely funded by gun manufactures does not want background checks that could limit potential customers?

That's a fact Jack! What a surprise eh?

[hockey1099]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

There is more to crime than guns. There are precious few countries with low rates of private ownership, that also rate high on personal freedoms and relative safety, however.

What part about my statement about Jamaica are you disagreeing with? Or are you?

You dont say? Like maybe poverty rates? Swiss 7% united states 15%, and Jamica 20%.

Im really confused becuase the Anti- gun control side keeps saying with more guns we have less murders, rapes, assaults and robberies. It seem's the Antis think more guns = less overall crime.

[hockey1099]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

That's a fact Jack! What a surprise eh?

Im gonna be crushed if you tell me that the NRA is more concerned with protecting big business than it is with protecting the second amendment.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by hockey1099

You dont say? Like maybe poverty rates? Swiss 7% united states 15%, and Jamica 20%.

Im really confused becuase the Anti- gun control side keeps saying with more guns we have less murders, rapes, assaults and robberies. It seem's the Antis think more guns = less overall crime.

Lots of places have high poverty. So a couple years ago in Edmonton, the murder count was what? 42? All time high. In a city of 1 million? Unemployment in Edmonton was about 5.2%.

Let's review 5.2% UI = 4.2 murders/100 000. And Jamaica on the flip: 20% = 58 murders/100 000. Numbers sound accurate?

So by this, are you telling me that if Edmonton's UI rate jumped by 15% we should expect to see nearly 600 people murdered in one year. Or the murder rate go up by 12 times. Hmm. Increase by 90% for every percent over 5 unemployed....

Not to mention, Edmonton has a fair number of guns....

[hockey1099]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Lots of places have high poverty. So a couple years ago in Edmonton, the murder count was what? 42? All time high. In a city of 1 million? Unemployment in Edmonton was about 5.2%.

Let's review 5.2% UI = 4.2 murders/100 000. And Jamaica on the flip: 20% = 58 murders/100 000. Numbers sound accurate?

So by this, are you telling me that if Edmonton's UI rate jumped by 15% we should expect to see nearly 600 people murdered in one year. Or the murder rate go up by 12 times. Hmm. Increase by 90% for every percent over 5 unemployed....

Not to mention, Edmonton has a fair number of guns....

Im not telling you anything of the sort. I was basically agreeing with you that factors other than guns play a role in crime. I dont believe elliminating crime is as simple as more guns or less. The approach to crime reduction must be multifactoral. Elimination of poverty, treatment of mental health and certain amounts of gun control in my opinion will help amungst many other policies. No i dont want to take your AR-15 but i do want to force you to keep it locked in a gun safe when its not at a range or at a gun compition. I also want background checks to help weed out nut jobs from owning guns. Basically im pretty happy with the status quo in Canada.

[Tony_S]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I can't believe you guys are drinking the koolaid and failing to see how better background checks and restrictions on higher capacity mags and drums is a good thing. I marvel at how you can't grasp that it would help show a willingness by the industry to curb deaths

No Koolaid here...I consider myself a pretty rational, intelligent person. I'm not a gun freak. I own 3 rifles, two bolt actions, one semi auto (.22) and two shotguns, one semi auto, one pump action(none are that scary black color). I think I could be considered an 'average' type gun owner in Canada. Not a gun nut, but not a tight azz either. I sit back and listen to both sides and form an opinion based on both sides argument.

My opinion...Most of the crap spewed by the Anti's' the msm and politicians, is just that, crap. The good majority of it is based on emotion, ignorance of firearms themselves, personal agenda and on the politicians behalf, a desire to 'quell' the masses(shut them up).
Better, more in depth background checks? I would be in favor of that. I don't think it would really help in most cases, but in some it could.

Banning 'high capacity' magazines? Complete horse **** that would achieve absolutely nothing.
How many people could this guy kill in a crowded theater with a legal 'low capacity' magazine?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GsmUzSBaUQ
18 rounds in six seconds. Granted, not many people can shoot like this, but half that speed wouldn't be an issue for a **** load of people. If Joe Blow can pop off 9 rounds in six seconds, how many people could he kill in the 2 to 5 minutes it would take for the police to respond?
OK then, lets ban ALL semi auto's! It'll never happen, but lets pretend.
I'll kick in my neighbors door while he's out grocery shopping and steal his pump action .12 gauge along with a couple of boxes of 00 buckshot. Next stop...a crowded movie theater.
Do you have any type of understanding of the slaughter and mayhem a person could unleash in that simple scenario? In close quarters(a dark movie theater)you'd kill as many, or MORE people with that simple shotgun than you could with that scarey black bushmaster even with a high capacity mag.
OK, another fantasy...there are no more guns! All gone!
Get on Google and tell me how long it takes to figure out how to make a simple...pipe bomb for example? 6 or 8 of those with short fuses...crowded theater...you get the picture.
You CAN'T control the weapon....only the crazy bastard behind it, and even that would be a failure in most cases.
Humans kill each other...all over the world, for thousands of years. The atrocities never change, only the weapons we use to commit them.
Off my soapbox.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

The person responsible for the Sandy Hook massacre would not have been issued a permit due to mental illness. He had to improvise, so he killed his mother and took her lawfully obtained guns, ammo and car. Nothing short of destroying all the guns in the world will ever stop them from being misused. Obama's proposals would have had no affect on that shooting.

How about a safe storage law? How about if he did not have high capacity ammo mags?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

OK, let's find out who's drinking koolaid and who isn't.

Post some proof that restrictions on higher capacity mags reduce homicide. Take your time. I'll check back.

ps: You can't claim the high ground for "better background checks". The NRA beat you to that idea by a country mile. So did pretty well all of us. So, stop twisting and let's get down to brass tacks.

Begin with the high capacity magazines, if you can.

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.

[doetracks]

Originally Posted by hockey1099

You dont say? Like maybe poverty rates? Swiss 7% united states 15%, and Jamica 20%.

Im really confused becuase the Anti- gun control side keeps saying with more guns we have less murders, rapes, assaults and robberies. It seem's the Antis think more guns = less overall crime.

IMO it's unfair to compare Switzerland to the United States "as a country".

I am unfamiliar with Switzerland, but I am a bit MORE familiar with the US. It's been established that firearms laws vary from locale to locale within the United States. It's been established that areas with strict gun control show larger percentages of firearm related violence, and those with less control (perhaps no bans on ownership or CCW), smaller percentages.

It's like someone from somewhere else asking "so, how's the weather in Canada, today?".

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

How about using your noggin.

No. I require facts.

If we start passing laws because we're each "using our noggin" we'll end up twisted beyond all recognition.

You explain why you feel it is smarter to not restrict high capacity mags.

I'm glad you said that. It gets at the essential difference between you and me. I will try and summarize:

1. You answer questions with questions. That is immature. It's something kids do when they realize they've said something ridiculous.

2. Your comments lead me to believe that your mind is closed. You never show any attempt to understand your opponent's argument. Rather, you look for facile "victory" based on grammar wherever you can scratch it up. If so, reason will not work with you. It's like me trying to teach a hog to speak German. It wastes my time and annoys the hog.

3. This one is really, really important:

I have the freedom to whatever I want, as often as I want, wherever I want and with whomever I want as long as I'm paying for it and it's not harming anyone else or restricting their similar freedoms. I do not have to justify that to you or to anyone else. Those God-given freedoms come with being a human person.

I also have certain intrinsic human rights. These don't come from government or you, either. They are mine and I am beholden to no man for them. Two of the most fundamental are my right to defend my life and my family - and have the means to do so - and my right to speak. None of that can be taken away and those would do so are my enemy. It does not matter to me one iota whether you try to take those away in one gulp or if you attempt to nibble them away, thinking I won't notice or that I won't put up a fuss if you only bite off a little. That would be a mistake.

You have those same rights but if you won't exercise them, that's your business. Don't make the same assumption about me.

Those who believe I need to justify to them any of my freedom or basic rights are, IMO, trying to play the role of my God. The position is filled. Even if it weren't, I will not take that bit. Period.

That's a bit rough because it's a summary. But I think you get the drift?

Now.......where's your facts?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Jamaica has very low private gun ownership, and murder rate was 580 per 100 000, or thereabouts.

Care to modify your statement?

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.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by doetracks

IMO it's unfair to compare Switzerland to the United States "as a country".

I am unfamiliar with Switzerland, but I am a bit MORE familiar with the US. It's been established that firearms laws vary from locale to locale within the United States. It's been established that areas with strict gun control show larger percentages of firearm related violence, and those with less control (perhaps no bans on ownership or CCW), smaller percentages.

It's like someone from somewhere else asking "so, how's the weather in Canada, today?".

You can't not compare between gun law US jurisdictions because their are no border checks. It was already proven most guns used in Chicago crime originate in states with lax gun control. Therefore statistically you can only compare country to country. If you anti's no longer wish to rave about the Swiss that is your problem. If your argument can't stand comparisons to other countries then you lose the argument.