JohnMitchell 16 #26 July 17, 2008 Quote They said Lacy was shot point-blank in the back of his head with a single bullet fired from his own gun after arresting Barnett during a traffic stop. Are you saying we should disarm cops? 25% of all police officers shot are shot with their own firearm, just like this one. As far as being shot while cleaning a firearm? Many of those are suicides, IMHO, covered up, or just someone screwing around with the firearm in an unsafe mannner. You don't need ammo in the room at all to clean a firearm. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #27 July 17, 2008 Quotecountries that don't allow hand guns in public and always havn't have less gun crimes due to less availability. But in the big picture: There is no correlation between more restrictive gun laws and any reduction in homicides, suicides, or crime. (I am talking about homicides and suicides as a WHOLE [not just those with a gun involved], which is what we should be concerned with) Here's the thing: I agree with laws requiring background checks, because in that case, you are at least trying to focus the law on the people who are the problem: criminals & crazies. If however, you pass a law that overthrows the average citizen's right to bear arms, then the brunt of the law comes down on the people who weren't the problem in the first place (ie, regular law-abiding citizens). You are hoping that such a law will create some slight ripple which will affect the non-law-abiders' ability to get a gun (non-law abiders, ie criminals & loonies, do not care about the law). But in the real world, it does not seem to be the case. There was a Harvard study that confirmed this. More restrictive gun laws do not lessen crime because they mostly come down on ordinary people. And although there are many ordinary, law-abiding Americans who do own guns, they do not seem to be the ones doing the killing. Ordinary people do not as a rule, commit murder, no matter how many guns they own. And even in America, deaths due to accidents with guns are minor compared to deaths due to accidents with other objects, such as automobiles, private swimming pools, etc. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #28 July 17, 2008 Quotehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkS8mdbml0A Or is it better that she die to have your insecurities about yourself or others exercising their second amendment rights protected? I have a coworker who is alive today because she shot her stalker ex-boyfirend in an almost identical situation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #29 July 17, 2008 QuoteBut in the big picture: There is no correlation between more restrictive gun laws and any reduction in homicides, suicides, or crime. are you talking about in america or the whole world? I'd like to see these statistics. QuoteThere was a Harvard study that confirmed this. More restrictive gun laws do not lessen crime because they mostly come down on ordinary people. And although there are many ordinary, law-abiding Americans who do own guns, they do not seem to be the ones doing the killing. The ones that are doing the killings are using illegal guns that were bought or stolen of legal gun owners! no? all illegal guns were legal at some stage, cut the supply of legal guns and you cut the supply of illegal ones. It is much harder to import illegal guns that it is to steal one or buy one off an owner that has a good background check."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #30 July 17, 2008 Quotecut the supply of legal guns and you cut the supply of illegal ones. Yup, just like cocaine. Since that has been made illegal to import, have or sale you just don't see it at all anywhere among criminals. Oh, wait...--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #31 July 17, 2008 QuoteQuoteBut in the big picture: There is no correlation between more restrictive gun laws and any reduction in homicides, suicides, or crime. are you talking about in america or the whole world? I'd like to see these statistics. QuoteThere was a Harvard study that confirmed this. More restrictive gun laws do not lessen crime because they mostly come down on ordinary people. And although there are many ordinary, law-abiding Americans who do own guns, they do not seem to be the ones doing the killing. The ones that are doing the killings are using illegal guns that were bought or stolen of legal gun owners! no? . I perfectly understand why someone might come up with the hypothesis that removing citizen gun rights will make us safer. The fact is, that that hypothesis has been tested in the real world, and it has been proven false. Here is a link to the Harvard study: Quotehttp://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf The fact is that there are many countries that have always had strict laws against citizens owning guns, and yet they still have per capita murder rates higher than the USA (Russia, and many Latin American countries, for example) Similarly, there are countries that DO allow citizens to own guns, and they have low rates of crime/homicide (Finland, Sweden). Pissing on the rights of people who were not the problem in the first place, simply does not work. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
millertime24 8 #32 July 17, 2008 My point exactly.Muff #5048 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #33 July 17, 2008 QuoteYou don't need ammo in the room at all to clean a firearm. No, but you do have to unload it to clean it, and that is where people get into trouble. You have to be very careful with some gun designs. For a 1911-model .45 pistol, for example, you have to take the safety off in order to pull the slide back to empty the live round from the chamber. At that point, you are just a trigger pull away from an accidental discharge. It would be nice if the chamber could be emptied while the safety was still "on". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
millertime24 8 #34 July 17, 2008 Or you could just buy a Glock and take the whole safety catch out of the equasion. Muff #5048 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #35 July 17, 2008 countries that don't allow hand guns in public and always havn't have less gun crimes due to less availability. I don't know whether that's true or not, but to say any difference is "due to less availability" is stretching it. There are those pesky extraneous variables.... linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #36 July 17, 2008 QuoteI think time will tell what happens when we disarm law-abiding citizens and leave guns only in the hands of thugs. We already HAVE seen it - in it's worst case it's called Washington, DC and it has the highest violent crime and murder rates in the country. Edit to add: It's not a GUN problem - it's a CRIMINAL problem.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #37 July 17, 2008 QuoteI don't see the recent SC decision as making that scenario very likely. The issue is finding a better way of keeping guns out of the hands of felons and nutcases, and current gun laws and background checks are easily circumvented and aren't doing a very good job of that. I thought that was what all the Brady laws were going to fix - sadly, I can't seem to find any hard figures on the number of arrests on Brady violations.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #38 July 17, 2008 QuoteWELL, that's the PROBLEM right there. A patchwork quilt of thousands of incompatible local laws is clearly doomed to failure. And adding even MORE laws that won't be followed is going to somehow cure that? How's that working for drugs? QuoteDo YOU approve of felons and nutcases having easy access to guns? Of course not - but you present anyone that won't willingly disarm himself (by having the gun locked up/unusable for defense) as equivelent to some guy on the corner selling stolen guns out of the trunk of his car, in order to negate any counter-argument.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #39 July 17, 2008 If all guns were illegal, then they would be just as difficult to get as say... drugs. Yep, that's working. Possession of guns by felons is illegal already. They get them anyway, so apparently criminals are disobeying an additional law. It is interesting that anyone assumes that a new law banning gun possession by anyone would be more effective. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #40 July 17, 2008 QuoteIf all guns were illegal, then they would be just as difficult to get as say... drugs. Yep, that's working. Possession of guns by felons is illegal already. They get them anyway, so apparently criminals are disobeying an additional law. It is interesting that anyone assumes that a new law banning gun possession by anyone would be more effective. Or somehow thinks that the criminals will obey THIS law that they are proposing. These people don't seem to realize that the same restrictions that they are calling for on the 2nd could just as easily be transferred to any of the rest of the BOR...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #41 July 17, 2008 QuoteQuoteI don't see the recent SC decision as making that scenario very likely. The issue is finding a better way of keeping guns out of the hands of felons and nutcases, and current gun laws and background checks are easily circumvented and aren't doing a very good job of that. I thought that was what all the Brady laws were going to fix - sadly, I can't seem to find any hard figures on the number of arrests on Brady violations. IIRC, a couple hundred by the Clinton Adminstration. I have little reason to think it changed with the Bush Administration. So for all those hundreds of thousands claimed to have been stopped, only a few suffered any consequences. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #42 July 17, 2008 Quote Quote cut the supply of legal guns and you cut the supply of illegal ones. Yup, just like cocaine. Careful! You're dangerously close to equating "gun enthusiast" with "crack whore". Debate is not a skill; it's a divine calling. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #43 July 17, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteI don't see the recent SC decision as making that scenario very likely. The issue is finding a better way of keeping guns out of the hands of felons and nutcases, and current gun laws and background checks are easily circumvented and aren't doing a very good job of that. I thought that was what all the Brady laws were going to fix - sadly, I can't seem to find any hard figures on the number of arrests on Brady violations. IIRC, a couple hundred by the Clinton Adminstration. I have little reason to think it changed with the Bush Administration. So for all those hundreds of thousands claimed to have been stopped, only a few suffered any consequences. Sounds like THOSE folks are the ones the BAT-boys need to be going after.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #44 July 17, 2008 Quote Careful! You're dangerously close to equating "gun enthusiast" with "crack post whore". Fixed.Oh wait. They ARE the same thing in Speakers Corner! (ducks behind bullet-proof barrier) Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #45 July 17, 2008 Quote Quote Careful! You're dangerously close to equating "gun enthusiast" with "crack post whore". Fixed.Oh wait. They ARE the same thing in Speakers Corner! (ducks behind bullet-proof barrier) I do about 1450 posts per year. You do about 1550. People in glass houses... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #46 July 17, 2008 Quote Americans, from the start, have had a tradition of being suspicious of an all-powerful government trying to run our lives. That's why we crossed the Atlantic: to get away from that. Funny thing is, you have an all-powerful government that runs your lives.....I envision many americans rocking back and forth with a gun in their arms chanting: I'll be okay, I have a gun; I'll be okay, I have a gun.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #47 July 17, 2008 QuoteQuoteBut in the big picture: There is no correlation between more restrictive gun laws and any reduction in homicides, suicides, or crime. are you talking about in america or the whole world? I'd like to see these statistics. QuoteThere was a Harvard study that confirmed this. More restrictive gun laws do not lessen crime because they mostly come down on ordinary people. And although there are many ordinary, law-abiding Americans who do own guns, they do not seem to be the ones doing the killing. The ones that are doing the killings are using illegal guns that were bought or stolen of legal gun owners! no? all illegal guns were legal at some stage, cut the supply of legal guns and you cut the supply of illegal ones. It is much harder to import illegal guns that it is to steal one or buy one off an owner that has a good background check. The guns that were purchased by a legal owner became illegal the minute that the intention to transfer said firearm to another person, unless that was indicated on the form 4473. Straw purchases are crimes, therefore if the purchase was intended to transfer a firearm to someone that could not posess it, there was already a crime committed that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #48 July 17, 2008 Quote If all guns were illegal, then they would be just as difficult to get as say... drugs. Yep, that's working. Possession of guns by felons is illegal already. They get them anyway, so apparently criminals are disobeying an additional law. It is interesting that anyone assumes that a new law banning gun possession by anyone would be more effective. I hope you realize that I agree.Other seem to be living in fairyland where criminals obey laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FreeflyChile 0 #49 July 17, 2008 QuoteIf all guns were illegal, then they would be just as difficult to get as say... drugs. Yep, that's working. Aren't guns a bit harder to make than drugs? Like, hypothetically, if you prohibited guns and thereby the manufacture of guns and ammunition (except for the military), wouldn't supply dry up? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
millertime24 8 #50 July 17, 2008 Not as hard as you think. Technically the BATF considers the "reciever" to be the firearm and only it is traced. I mean you can go out and buy any assortment of gun parts without having to register anything, but the reciever is the controlled item. That being said; I could show you multiple websites where you can purchase what are called AK-47 spare parts kits that include every piece of an AK-47 except the reciever. On that same exact webite you can also purchase a 20% complete reciever for the same gun which is enirely legal because at 20% completion the BATF still doesnt consider it to exist as a reciever yet. Now on that same website are instructions on how to finish building this reciever and parts kit into a working firearm and all you need are a few metal working tools and a little metal working know how. In doing this you havent technically broken the law yet as you can legally (in some states) make you OWN firearm as long as you dont sell it. Now let me ask you are these traceable? Do you think that getting rid of the manufactuor would elliminate all af these millions (yes millions) of parts kits and raw metal that exist already? I think not if anything a home made AK is cheaper than a store bought one. My point is getting rid of the manufactuor at this point is as useless as tits on a bull.Muff #5048 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)