This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I've avoided this thread, because I figured it was a giant ####show. But I just had to come see what was going on when I noticed it exploded to 52 pages. I'm a hunter and a father of two young boys so this hits too close to home on too many fronts.I can't really go around slinging judgement because I don't have a solution to offer, but you summed up how I feel. "Just doing something" is a knee jerk reaction to a problem we don't fully understand.
Lucky for me I AM the tyrannical governmentdo you believe you'll stop a tyrannical government if it comes to that?
Your pathetic rebellion will be crushed, scum.Schlzm![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
Sorry I thought we were bringing hyperbole to the thread. Chicago has relatively tight gun restrictions compared to many other parts of the country but, no, guns are not illegal in chicago. Sorry if I threw you off there, though it is a bit disconcerting that of all that is going on in this thread THAT is what you've locked onto. 
Or the next time I'm driving in LA when the Rodney King verdict riots breakout and rioters are pulling people out of their cars and either badly beating or killing them. You know that span of 6 days where 53 people were killed and over two thousand injured?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots
There's a lot of interpretation and opinion necessarily involved in this thread. It's always nice to see something so demonstrably false.
Yeah that's pretty bad, maybe they meant to say Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country and yet has had more children shot and killed this year than any other single locale yet no one seems to care?Schlzm
actually a good idea that would seem to only get negativity from people that are using weapons for the wrong reasons.course the article has several people opposed with random BS excuses.
That is a problem, and they are probably the ones who would benefit most from a crackdown on illegal guns. Just b/c it took an incidence in the suburbs doesn't mean it wouldn't help the inner cities and that they shouldn't be for it. As far as the gun crime rate in and of itself. Correlation doesn't equal causation and other trends like poverty, socioeconomic background and education are much more indicative of gun violence. It just so happens that those trends tend to be greater in the cities so they will undoubtedly have higher gun violence.
Not even in the top ten cities for gun homicides per capita in the U.S. Check out some of the lax gun law cities. Like New Orleans.
Yeah, the 28 year long ban was overturned by the Supreme Court relatively recently. Of course, they still had the highest murder rate of any major city in the US during, well, most of it.There's a lot of interpretation and opinion necessarily involved in this thread. It's always nice to see something so demonstrably false.
Looked pretty hard but couldn't find any stats for NOLA and children being shot and killed. You have a source I can look at? mine. I would like to see the numbers, since it would only add to the fact that over a thousand children can be potentially shot and/or killed in two cities alone yet this one event is what fires people up?Schlzm
The news coverage and reaction might have something to do with the demographics of the victims, I dunno. Little places like New Orleans do win, but they're not really a major US city. Among cities that are actually represented in all of the major sports, Chicago is winning by a good bit.Looked pretty hard but couldn't find any stats for NOLA and children being shot and killed. You have a source I can look at? mine. I would like to see the numbers, since it would only add to the fact that over a thousand children can be potentially shot and/or killed in two cities alone yet this one event is what fires people up?Schlzm
So you acknowledge that gun violence is a problem? Why does it matter what sets people off? For one, if there were 20 kids gunned down in an inner city, it would have made the news as well. When people die 1 at a time, people don't seem to care much. Such is the nature of the beast. But people always rally around one incident but that doesn't negate the fact that it is still a problem.And as many have said, many policies suggested in this thread would be relatively useless in these mass shootings. But what many haven't said is that cutting down on straw purchases and illegal guns, would cut down on the inner city shootings. So we may not be able to address the exact problem but we'd still be addressing a problem.Looked pretty hard but couldn't find any stats for NOLA and children being shot and killed. You have a source I can look at? mine. I would like to see the numbers, since it would only add to the fact that over a thousand children can be potentially shot and/or killed in two cities alone yet this one event is what fires people up?Schlzm
Oh, and here's the 2010 crime rate by city. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rateThere are cities higher, but they're really not in the same league in terms of size. The city of brotherly love is about the only major city that's in the same area as Chicago in murder rate. Even LA's sporting half the murders that Chicago is. The 28 year old gun ban was actually in effect for about half of this year. But other years don't look any better for Chicago.Looked pretty hard but couldn't find any stats for NOLA and children being shot and killed. You have a source I can look at? mine. I would like to see the numbers, since it would only add to the fact that over a thousand children can be potentially shot and/or killed in two cities alone yet this one event is what fires people up?Schlzm
Sorry, you're now claiming that gun ownership was banned in Chicago for 28 years? Because I'm pretty sure there was only one type of gun banned in Chicago that was overturned. In fact, wasn't even a ban, just didn't issue any new handgun permits in the city.Also, once again, the high murder rate for much of the last two decades has been... drum roll... New Orleans. Or Detroit.Yeah, the 28 year long ban was overturned by the Supreme Court relatively recently. Of course, they still had the highest murder rate of any major city in the US during, well, most of it.There's a lot of interpretation and opinion necessarily involved in this thread. It's always nice to see something so demonstrably false.
But isn't the effect negated when one can drive 20 minutes outside the city and get a gun. Listen, I don't think everything should be banned but there should be stricter limits across the board which have to be federal minimums.Oh, and here's the 2010 crime rate by city. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rateThere are cities higher, but they're really not in the same league in terms of size. The city of brotherly love is about the only major city that's in the same area as Chicago in murder rate. Even LA's sporting half the murders that Chicago is. The 28 year old gun ban was actually in effect for about half of this year. But other years don't look any better for Chicago. It actually seems like 1992 was the peak murder rate with 34 in 1000, almost double what it is today. And that was during the ban of course.Looked pretty hard but couldn't find any stats for NOLA and children being shot and killed. You have a source I can look at? mine. I would like to see the numbers, since it would only add to the fact that over a thousand children can be potentially shot and/or killed in two cities alone yet this one event is what fires people up?Schlzm
Sorry, you're now claiming that gun ownership was banned in Chicago for 28 years? Because I'm pretty sure there was only one type of gun banned in Chicago that was overturned. In fact, wasn't even a ban, just didn't issue any new handgun permits in the city.Also, once again, the high murder rate for much of the last two decades has been... drum roll... New Orleans. Or Detroit.Yeah, the 28 year long ban was overturned by the Supreme Court relatively recently. Of course, they still had the highest murder rate of any major city in the US during, well, most of it.There's a lot of interpretation and opinion necessarily involved in this thread. It's always nice to see something so demonstrably false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Illinois
I openly acknowledge that violence is a problem and that guns are the most efficient tool in accomplishing that in terms of availability, ease of use, and practical application. I am also fully against emotion based kneejerk reactionary policies that will do nothing other than make some people feel as though they accomplished something when overall little change will be seen. You state that straw purchases are a problem and I agree, however I cannot support limiting legal owners rights when the biggest straw purchasing operation in recent history has yet to accomplish a single prosecution or even open admittance of it.. Additionally, creating a sudden ban on certain types of weapons or associated accessories will only add to the existing black market and create more overhead in LE activities attempting to enforce the new legislation. It doesn't help that certain vocal individuals, even beyond this forum, are making requests based on either misinformation or an outright lack of meaningful information. SchlzmSo you acknowledge that gun violence is a problem? Why does it matter what sets people off? For one, if there were 20 kids gunned down in an inner city, it would have made the news as well. When people die 1 at a time, people don't seem to care much. Such is the nature of the beast. But people always rally around one incident but that doesn't negate the fact that it is still a problem.And as many have said, many policies suggested in this thread would be relatively useless in these mass shootings. But what many haven't said is that cutting down on straw purchases and illegal guns, would cut down on the inner city shootings. So we may not be able to address the exact problem but we'd still be addressing a problem.Looked pretty hard but couldn't find any stats for NOLA and children being shot and killed. You have a source I can look at? mine. I would like to see the numbers, since it would only add to the fact that over a thousand children can be potentially shot and/or killed in two cities alone yet this one event is what fires people up?Schlzm
Also - we already know that poverty and violence have a high correlation. But Chicago sure seems to defy the idea that gun bans and violence are correlated.Sorry, you're now claiming that gun ownership was banned in Chicago for 28 years? Because I'm pretty sure there was only one type of gun banned in Chicago that was overturned. In fact, wasn't even a ban, just didn't issue any new handgun permits in the city.Also, once again, the high murder rate for much of the last two decades has been... drum roll... New Orleans. Or Detroit.Yeah, the 28 year long ban was overturned by the Supreme Court relatively recently. Of course, they still had the highest murder rate of any major city in the US during, well, most of it.There's a lot of interpretation and opinion necessarily involved in this thread. It's always nice to see something so demonstrably false.
Of all the major urban centers I think Detroit is probably one where most everyone would want to be carrying at almost all times. http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/city-of-strays-detroits-epidemic-of-50-000-wild-dogs-20120320Also - we already know that poverty and violence have a high correlation. But Chicago sure seems to defy the idea that gun bans and violence are correlated.Sorry, you're now claiming that gun ownership was banned in Chicago for 28 years? Because I'm pretty sure there was only one type of gun banned in Chicago that was overturned. In fact, wasn't even a ban, just didn't issue any new handgun permits in the city.Also, once again, the high murder rate for much of the last two decades has been... drum roll... New Orleans. Or Detroit.Yeah, the 28 year long ban was overturned by the Supreme Court relatively recently. Of course, they still had the highest murder rate of any major city in the US during, well, most of it.There's a lot of interpretation and opinion necessarily involved in this thread. It's always nice to see something so demonstrably false.
Not really. As I said, when the gun ban is undermined by guns being available in outlying places, than it truly does no good. And I don't think many people are going to actually argue that somehow more guns means less crime. So at worst, it is a crime neutral policy. As someone mentioned, the effectiveness of police departments has certainly seemed to increase but I'm not sure we can truly draw what a gun ban actually does.Also - we already know that poverty and violence have a high correlation. But Chicago sure seems to defy the idea that gun bans and violence are correlated.Sorry, you're now claiming that gun ownership was banned in Chicago for 28 years? Because I'm pretty sure there was only one type of gun banned in Chicago that was overturned. In fact, wasn't even a ban, just didn't issue any new handgun permits in the city.Also, once again, the high murder rate for much of the last two decades has been... drum roll... New Orleans. Or Detroit.Yeah, the 28 year long ban was overturned by the Supreme Court relatively recently. Of course, they still had the highest murder rate of any major city in the US during, well, most of it.There's a lot of interpretation and opinion necessarily involved in this thread. It's always nice to see something so demonstrably false.
The people of Kennesaw, GA sure seem like they would argue this. 30,000 people and not a murder in the 25 years since they made it mandatory to own a firearm.Not really. As I said, when the gun ban is undermined by guns being available in outlying places, than it truly does no good. And I don't think many people are going to actually argue that somehow more guns means less crime. So at worst, it is a crime neutral policy. As someone mentioned, the effectiveness of police departments has certainly seemed to increase but I'm not sure we can truly draw what a gun ban actually does.Also - we already know that poverty and violence have a high correlation. But Chicago sure seems to defy the idea that gun bans and violence are correlated.Sorry, you're now claiming that gun ownership was banned in Chicago for 28 years? Because I'm pretty sure there was only one type of gun banned in Chicago that was overturned. In fact, wasn't even a ban, just didn't issue any new handgun permits in the city.Also, once again, the high murder rate for much of the last two decades has been... drum roll... New Orleans. Or Detroit.Yeah, the 28 year long ban was overturned by the Supreme Court relatively recently. Of course, they still had the highest murder rate of any major city in the US during, well, most of it.There's a lot of interpretation and opinion necessarily involved in this thread. It's always nice to see something so demonstrably false.
Not sure what Fast and Furious has to do with this. I assume that is what you mean with the straw purchases not resulting in a conviction. I am trying to stop straw purchases from happening, not allowing them to go through. By limiting the amount of guns one can buy in a year, that would seemingly cut down on some straw purchases. Additionally, having better tracking of these gun purchases would also do the trick and holding straw purchases liable for crimes committed or at least prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law would be a good start. Getting rid of the gun show loophole or whatever you want to call it would also seem to be positive.As far as the assault weapons ban, I think the reasoning behind it are twofold. One, for the mental health of the public. The general public feels better about knowing AR-15's aren't just hanging out there. Additionally, nobody really does have a use for an AR-15. It doesn't really fall under recreational or personal safety.I openly acknowledge that violence is a problem and that guns are the most efficient tool in accomplishing that in terms of availability, ease of use, and practical application. I am also fully against emotion based kneejerk reactionary policies that will do nothing other than make some people feel as though they accomplished something when overall little change will be seen. You state that straw purchases are a problem and I agree, however I cannot support limiting legal owners rights when the biggest straw purchasing operation in recent history has yet to accomplish a single prosecution or even open admittance of it.. Additionally, creating a sudden ban on certain types of weapons or associated accessories will only add to the existing black market and create more overhead in LE activities attempting to enforce the new legislation. It doesn't help that certain vocal individuals, even beyond this forum, are making requests based on either misinformation or an outright lack of meaningful information. SchlzmSo you acknowledge that gun violence is a problem? Why does it matter what sets people off? For one, if there were 20 kids gunned down in an inner city, it would have made the news as well. When people die 1 at a time, people don't seem to care much. Such is the nature of the beast. But people always rally around one incident but that doesn't negate the fact that it is still a problem.And as many have said, many policies suggested in this thread would be relatively useless in these mass shootings. But what many haven't said is that cutting down on straw purchases and illegal guns, would cut down on the inner city shootings. So we may not be able to address the exact problem but we'd still be addressing a problem.Looked pretty hard but couldn't find any stats for NOLA and children being shot and killed. You have a source I can look at? mine. I would like to see the numbers, since it would only add to the fact that over a thousand children can be potentially shot and/or killed in two cities alone yet this one event is what fires people up?Schlzm
So why not revoke their federal license?
No good seems a little overboard as well. We can't require people to get ID to vote because it would be too difficult for them to come up with an ID from someplace local to them. Surely this would be a significant deterrent to those same people getting weapons.Not really. As I said, when the gun ban is undermined by guns being available in outlying places, than it truly does no good. And I don't think many people are going to actually argue that somehow more guns means less crime. So at worst, it is a crime neutral policy. As someone mentioned, the effectiveness of police departments has certainly seemed to increase but I'm not sure we can truly draw what a gun ban actually does.Also - we already know that poverty and violence have a high correlation. But Chicago sure seems to defy the idea that gun bans and violence are correlated.Sorry, you're now claiming that gun ownership was banned in Chicago for 28 years? Because I'm pretty sure there was only one type of gun banned in Chicago that was overturned. In fact, wasn't even a ban, just didn't issue any new handgun permits in the city.Also, once again, the high murder rate for much of the last two decades has been... drum roll... New Orleans. Or Detroit.Yeah, the 28 year long ban was overturned by the Supreme Court relatively recently. Of course, they still had the highest murder rate of any major city in the US during, well, most of it.There's a lot of interpretation and opinion necessarily involved in this thread. It's always nice to see something so demonstrably false.
And really, you're now talking about the people that are going to own weapons regardless of what the law tells them. Who aren't necessarily going to be deterred by some other law telling them not to either. Wouldn't you suspect that this law had an impact on gun ownership amount people that actually obey gun laws and as a result had some impact on gun ownership?
this is actually an interesting question. 50% of America owns guns and there an estimated 220-300 Million guns in America. Assuming only 50% want to arm up and fight in a rebellion against tyranny that would mean roughly 160Million Americans would be armed to some degree and willing to fight. I believe there are around 2.5 Million total military in the US either reserves or active duty including the coast guard and other smaller public and private military contractors. Lets assume that every single military veteran took up arms on the pro-tyranny side, that would give you another 22.5 Million veterans for a total of around 25Million "govt tyranny" forces vs 160Million pissed off citizens. Yeah i think the 160Million number is pretty deterrent unless our govt wants to start nuking entire cities.
I figured this was some bogus internet story, but that is actually true and kind of a fascinating read. The population wasn't always 28k it was about 5k when the law started. I actually think that change and growth though without a single murder is pretty impressive.The people of Kennesaw, GA sure seem like they would argue this. 30,000 people and not a murder in the 25 years since they made it mandatory to own a firearm.Not really. As I said, when the gun ban is undermined by guns being available in outlying places, than it truly does no good. And I don't think many people are going to actually argue that somehow more guns means less crime. So at worst, it is a crime neutral policy. As someone mentioned, the effectiveness of police departments has certainly seemed to increase but I'm not sure we can truly draw what a gun ban actually does.Also - we already know that poverty and violence have a high correlation. But Chicago sure seems to defy the idea that gun bans and violence are correlated.Sorry, you're now claiming that gun ownership was banned in Chicago for 28 years? Because I'm pretty sure there was only one type of gun banned in Chicago that was overturned. In fact, wasn't even a ban, just didn't issue any new handgun permits in the city.Also, once again, the high murder rate for much of the last two decades has been... drum roll... New Orleans. Or Detroit.Yeah, the 28 year long ban was overturned by the Supreme Court relatively recently. Of course, they still had the highest murder rate of any major city in the US during, well, most of it.There's a lot of interpretation and opinion necessarily involved in this thread. It's always nice to see something so demonstrably false.
Well I'm not really arguing for a complete ban, but the studies on complete bans, or citing DC and Chicago as evidence a complete ban won't work is misguided b/c of other variables. As far as who we want to own weapons. Of course, we want to get them out of the hands of the criminals. But while these guns are illegal, where do you think they come from? At some point, they were legal guns. So by limiting/restricting the amount of guns on the market, wouldn't that eventually hit the secondary/illegal market?No good seems a little overboard as well. We can't require people to get ID to vote because it would be too difficult for them to come up with an ID from someplace local to them. Surely this would be a significant deterrent to those same people getting weapons.Not really. As I said, when the gun ban is undermined by guns being available in outlying places, than it truly does no good. And I don't think many people are going to actually argue that somehow more guns means less crime. So at worst, it is a crime neutral policy. As someone mentioned, the effectiveness of police departments has certainly seemed to increase but I'm not sure we can truly draw what a gun ban actually does.Also - we already know that poverty and violence have a high correlation. But Chicago sure seems to defy the idea that gun bans and violence are correlated.Sorry, you're now claiming that gun ownership was banned in Chicago for 28 years? Because I'm pretty sure there was only one type of gun banned in Chicago that was overturned. In fact, wasn't even a ban, just didn't issue any new handgun permits in the city.Also, once again, the high murder rate for much of the last two decades has been... drum roll... New Orleans. Or Detroit.Yeah, the 28 year long ban was overturned by the Supreme Court relatively recently. Of course, they still had the highest murder rate of any major city in the US during, well, most of it.There's a lot of interpretation and opinion necessarily involved in this thread. It's always nice to see something so demonstrably false.
I believe that the level of violence in any given city or region has much more to do with homogeneity of the population than it has to do with gun control laws. I want to state emphatically that, unlike many gun control advocates, I do not claim that stricter gun control will reduce crime. I think the evidence which we have suggests that there is no correlation. Outside of the inner city, the level of violence is similar to the numbers in western Europe- relatively low. This is especially true in rural areas where gun ownership for pleasure and protection is very popular. These truths, which cannot IMO be denied, are the main reason I am opposed to any kind of ban on weaponry, despite my rhetoric earlier this evening, when I admit I got a little irritated with a few posters. The two gun control measures which I favor are designed to deal with SPECIFIC problems: limiting the capacity of magazines may limit the amount of damage from these horrible mass shooting. Ending the private sales loophole will help law enforcement keep guns out of the inner city and also help law enforcement catch the bad guys who commit these crimes. Neither solution is going to solve anything, but both will help. (I hope.) And despite Slingblade's complaint that he enjoys owning 30 round magazines, neither of these measures will have a serious effect on the rights and privileges of most responsible gun owners.
Thing is, it seems that the statistical evidence is lacking in favor of those bans. The murder rate is actually lower today than when the 2004 ban expired. I'm not an expert on the topic, and Wiki isn't the best source on everything, but here's what we've got there.Assault weapons only made up like 5% of overall gun crime. There isn't much effect to be had, and so all of the studies on whether it actually did anything have been entirely inconclusive. If we're going to spend money regulating something and limit freedom, there should be demonstrable results IMO.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
I cited F&F because I have a serious problem with everything involving it and then the secondary demands that private citizens and shop owners perform better due diligence in preventing their weapons from being stolen or ending up in the wrong hands. Next you bring up the mental health of the public and AR-15's. Which is an excellent point in that attempting to make scary looking weapons illegal is horribly misguided and idiotic. An AR-15 can be used in hunting small to light game and can provide an excellent platform in doing so. If you want to address the the fact that it comes with a standard 30 round mag then that is something else to talk about. Also just because a certain platform looks intimidating doesn't mean it is any more efficient at taking a life than something goofy like this. I am sure thislooks like something you would expect to see in the hills of Afghanistan, but it isn't. Better education is a good step. Couple that with increased responsibility by media outlets and also continuing to prevent black market sales alongside preventing weapons from accidentally being provided to persons ineligible to possess them and we can really make some solid strides in reducing gun related violence without negatively affecting our existing rights.Not sure what Fast and Furious has to do with this. I assume that is what you mean with the straw purchases not resulting in a conviction. I am trying to stop straw purchases from happening, not allowing them to go through. By limiting the amount of guns one can buy in a year, that would seemingly cut down on some straw purchases. Additionally, having better tracking of these gun purchases would also do the trick and holding straw purchases liable for crimes committed or at least prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law would be a good start. Getting rid of the gun show loophole or whatever you want to call it would also seem to be positive.As far as the assault weapons ban, I think the reasoning behind it are twofold. One, for the mental health of the public. The general public feels better about knowing AR-15's aren't just hanging out there. Additionally, nobody really does have a use for an AR-15. It doesn't really fall under recreational or personal safety.I openly acknowledge that violence is a problem and that guns are the most efficient tool in accomplishing that in terms of availability, ease of use, and practical application. I am also fully against emotion based kneejerk reactionary policies that will do nothing other than make some people feel as though they accomplished something when overall little change will be seen. You state that straw purchases are a problem and I agree, however I cannot support limiting legal owners rights when the biggest straw purchasing operation in recent history has yet to accomplish a single prosecution or even open admittance of it.. Additionally, creating a sudden ban on certain types of weapons or associated accessories will only add to the existing black market and create more overhead in LE activities attempting to enforce the new legislation. It doesn't help that certain vocal individuals, even beyond this forum, are making requests based on either misinformation or an outright lack of meaningful information. SchlzmSo you acknowledge that gun violence is a problem? Why does it matter what sets people off? For one, if there were 20 kids gunned down in an inner city, it would have made the news as well. When people die 1 at a time, people don't seem to care much. Such is the nature of the beast. But people always rally around one incident but that doesn't negate the fact that it is still a problem.And as many have said, many policies suggested in this thread would be relatively useless in these mass shootings. But what many haven't said is that cutting down on straw purchases and illegal guns, would cut down on the inner city shootings. So we may not be able to address the exact problem but we'd still be addressing a problem.Looked pretty hard but couldn't find any stats for NOLA and children being shot and killed. You have a source I can look at? mine. I would like to see the numbers, since it would only add to the fact that over a thousand children can be potentially shot and/or killed in two cities alone yet this one event is what fires people up?Schlzm
But even then, I'm willing to forgo the AWB in favor of bigger restrictions to getting guns. Why not track guns and revoke dealer's licenses if enough of his guns end up in criminal activities? I found this
So why not revoke their federal license?
Tell that to business owners who needed to defend their businesses from the riots in L.A.Not sure what Fast and Furious has to do with this. I assume that is what you mean with the straw purchases not resulting in a conviction. I am trying to stop straw purchases from happening, not allowing them to go through. By limiting the amount of guns one can buy in a year, that would seemingly cut down on some straw purchases. Additionally, having better tracking of these gun purchases would also do the trick and holding straw purchases liable for crimes committed or at least prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law would be a good start. Getting rid of the gun show loophole or whatever you want to call it would also seem to be positive.As far as the assault weapons ban, I think the reasoning behind it are twofold. One, for the mental health of the public. The general public feels better about knowing AR-15's aren't just hanging out there. Additionally, nobody really does have a use for an AR-15. It doesn't really fall under recreational or personal safety.I openly acknowledge that violence is a problem and that guns are the most efficient tool in accomplishing that in terms of availability, ease of use, and practical application. I am also fully against emotion based kneejerk reactionary policies that will do nothing other than make some people feel as though they accomplished something when overall little change will be seen. You state that straw purchases are a problem and I agree, however I cannot support limiting legal owners rights when the biggest straw purchasing operation in recent history has yet to accomplish a single prosecution or even open admittance of it.. Additionally, creating a sudden ban on certain types of weapons or associated accessories will only add to the existing black market and create more overhead in LE activities attempting to enforce the new legislation. It doesn't help that certain vocal individuals, even beyond this forum, are making requests based on either misinformation or an outright lack of meaningful information. SchlzmSo you acknowledge that gun violence is a problem? Why does it matter what sets people off? For one, if there were 20 kids gunned down in an inner city, it would have made the news as well. When people die 1 at a time, people don't seem to care much. Such is the nature of the beast. But people always rally around one incident but that doesn't negate the fact that it is still a problem.And as many have said, many policies suggested in this thread would be relatively useless in these mass shootings. But what many haven't said is that cutting down on straw purchases and illegal guns, would cut down on the inner city shootings. So we may not be able to address the exact problem but we'd still be addressing a problem.Looked pretty hard but couldn't find any stats for NOLA and children being shot and killed. You have a source I can look at? mine. I would like to see the numbers, since it would only add to the fact that over a thousand children can be potentially shot and/or killed in two cities alone yet this one event is what fires people up?Schlzm
But even then, I'm willing to forgo the AWB in favor of bigger restrictions to getting guns. Why not track guns and revoke dealer's licenses if enough of his guns end up in criminal activities? I found this
So why not revoke their federal license?
Yes. That's what I just said.Sorry, you're now claiming that gun ownership was banned in Chicago for 28 years? Because I'm pretty sure there was only one type of gun banned in Chicago that was overturned. In fact, wasn't even a ban, just didn't issue any new handgun permits in the city.Also, once again, the high murder rate for much of the last two decades has been... drum roll... New Orleans. Or Detroit.Yeah, the 28 year long ban was overturned by the Supreme Court relatively recently. Of course, they still had the highest murder rate of any major city in the US during, well, most of it.There's a lot of interpretation and opinion necessarily involved in this thread. It's always nice to see something so demonstrably false.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Illinois
Well like I said, I'm not necessarily for the AWB. But perhaps if the NRA and such didn't just oppose this but said, hey, you know what, assault weapons aren't a huge issue in society(cite their statistics) but private sellers and straw purchases are and here are ways to solve those problems, then I'd think we are getting somewhere. I am not the most educated person on guns. I will openly admit that. I have probably sounded stupid regarding guns multiple times but most of the time in this thread, it is just met with resistance and mocking my lack of gun knowledge as opposed to trying to actually trying to find a solution. Gun owners are facing an uncertain future and instead of trying to come to the table and get meaningful reform that minimizes its effect on legal gun owners, they are just going to fight everything which will result in more assault weapon bans and other legislation that they might see as useless. As far as F&F, I'd rather not get into it all. Of course things failed but some of the reason behind F&F was b/c of the lack of necessary straw purchase laws and convictions. By actually cracking down on straw purchases and convicting them to the fullest extent of the law, we could actually see some progress. Some of the reason for F&F was b/c straw purchases would do little to no time and be back at it. So instead of arresting them again and seeing them in a month, they tried to go for the head. Fair or not, but I would think a stronger straw purchase law would deter people or at least incarcerate them long enough.I cited F&F because I have a serious problem with everything involving it and then the secondary demands that private citizens and shop owners perform better due diligence in preventing their weapons from being stolen or ending up in the wrong hands. Next you bring up the mental health of the public and AR-15's. Which is an excellent point in that attempting to make scary looking weapons illegal is horribly misguided and idiotic. An AR-15 can be used in hunting small to light game and can provide an excellent platform in doing so. If you want to address the the fact that it comes with a standard 30 round mag then that is something else to talk about. Also just because a certain platform looks intimidating doesn't mean it is any more efficient at taking a life than something goofy like this. I am sure thislooks like something you would expect to see in the hills of Afghanistan, but it isn't. Better education is a good step. Couple that with increased responsibility by media outlets and also continuing to prevent black market sales alongside preventing weapons from accidentally being provided to persons ineligible to possess them and we can really make some solid strides in reducing gun related violence without negatively affecting our existing rights.Not sure what Fast and Furious has to do with this. I assume that is what you mean with the straw purchases not resulting in a conviction. I am trying to stop straw purchases from happening, not allowing them to go through. By limiting the amount of guns one can buy in a year, that would seemingly cut down on some straw purchases. Additionally, having better tracking of these gun purchases would also do the trick and holding straw purchases liable for crimes committed or at least prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law would be a good start. Getting rid of the gun show loophole or whatever you want to call it would also seem to be positive.As far as the assault weapons ban, I think the reasoning behind it are twofold. One, for the mental health of the public. The general public feels better about knowing AR-15's aren't just hanging out there. Additionally, nobody really does have a use for an AR-15. It doesn't really fall under recreational or personal safety.I openly acknowledge that violence is a problem and that guns are the most efficient tool in accomplishing that in terms of availability, ease of use, and practical application. I am also fully against emotion based kneejerk reactionary policies that will do nothing other than make some people feel as though they accomplished something when overall little change will be seen. You state that straw purchases are a problem and I agree, however I cannot support limiting legal owners rights when the biggest straw purchasing operation in recent history has yet to accomplish a single prosecution or even open admittance of it.. Additionally, creating a sudden ban on certain types of weapons or associated accessories will only add to the existing black market and create more overhead in LE activities attempting to enforce the new legislation. It doesn't help that certain vocal individuals, even beyond this forum, are making requests based on either misinformation or an outright lack of meaningful information. SchlzmSo you acknowledge that gun violence is a problem? Why does it matter what sets people off? For one, if there were 20 kids gunned down in an inner city, it would have made the news as well. When people die 1 at a time, people don't seem to care much. Such is the nature of the beast. But people always rally around one incident but that doesn't negate the fact that it is still a problem.And as many have said, many policies suggested in this thread would be relatively useless in these mass shootings. But what many haven't said is that cutting down on straw purchases and illegal guns, would cut down on the inner city shootings. So we may not be able to address the exact problem but we'd still be addressing a problem.Looked pretty hard but couldn't find any stats for NOLA and children being shot and killed. You have a source I can look at? mine. I would like to see the numbers, since it would only add to the fact that over a thousand children can be potentially shot and/or killed in two cities alone yet this one event is what fires people up?Schlzm
But even then, I'm willing to forgo the AWB in favor of bigger restrictions to getting guns. Why not track guns and revoke dealer's licenses if enough of his guns end up in criminal activities? I found this
So why not revoke their federal license?
Schlzm
This is why I like you Tim. Even though you are prone to emotional override at times you seem to be capable of taking a step back, cooling off, and re-entering the discussion with a critical eye. I am open to adjusting what is considered a standard capacity magazine, but only if what is to become disallowed is approached with a reasonable attempt to remove the newly objectionable items from the playing field as opposed to instant illegality.Schlzm
LE needs to combat the black and grey markets as best they can. I think everyone here who isn't involved directly in those arenas can agree. I also feel that F&F was nothing close to trying to catch straw buyers/sellers since there are known instances of shop owners being practically forced to perform sales they didn't feel comfortable with and would have otherwise not followed through on.SchlzmAs far as F&F, I'd rather not get into it all. Of course things failed but some of the reason behind F&F was b/c of the lack of necessary straw purchase laws and convictions. By actually cracking down on straw purchases and convicting them to the fullest extent of the law, we could actually see some progress. Some of the reason for F&F was b/c straw purchases would do little to no time and be back at it. So instead of arresting them again and seeing them in a month, they tried to go for the head. Fair or not, but I would think a stronger straw purchase law would deter people or at least incarcerate them long enough. And just b/c the government screwed up doesn't mean that we should all of a sudden lower our standards.I cited F&F because I have a serious problem with everything involving it and then the secondary demands that private citizens and shop owners perform better due diligence in preventing their weapons from being stolen or ending up in the wrong hands. Next you bring up the mental health of the public and AR-15's. Which is an excellent point in that attempting to make scary looking weapons illegal is horribly misguided and idiotic. An AR-15 can be used in hunting small to light game and can provide an excellent platform in doing so. If you want to address the the fact that it comes with a standard 30 round mag then that is something else to talk about. Also just because a certain platform looks intimidating doesn't mean it is any more efficient at taking a life than something goofy like this. I am sure thislooks like something you would expect to see in the hills of Afghanistan, but it isn't. Better education is a good step. Couple that with increased responsibility by media outlets and also continuing to prevent black market sales alongside preventing weapons from accidentally being provided to persons ineligible to possess them and we can really make some solid strides in reducing gun related violence without negatively affecting our existing rights.Not sure what Fast and Furious has to do with this. I assume that is what you mean with the straw purchases not resulting in a conviction. I am trying to stop straw purchases from happening, not allowing them to go through. By limiting the amount of guns one can buy in a year, that would seemingly cut down on some straw purchases. Additionally, having better tracking of these gun purchases would also do the trick and holding straw purchases liable for crimes committed or at least prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law would be a good start. Getting rid of the gun show loophole or whatever you want to call it would also seem to be positive.As far as the assault weapons ban, I think the reasoning behind it are twofold. One, for the mental health of the public. The general public feels better about knowing AR-15's aren't just hanging out there. Additionally, nobody really does have a use for an AR-15. It doesn't really fall under recreational or personal safety.I openly acknowledge that violence is a problem and that guns are the most efficient tool in accomplishing that in terms of availability, ease of use, and practical application. I am also fully against emotion based kneejerk reactionary policies that will do nothing other than make some people feel as though they accomplished something when overall little change will be seen. You state that straw purchases are a problem and I agree, however I cannot support limiting legal owners rights when the biggest straw purchasing operation in recent history has yet to accomplish a single prosecution or even open admittance of it.. Additionally, creating a sudden ban on certain types of weapons or associated accessories will only add to the existing black market and create more overhead in LE activities attempting to enforce the new legislation. It doesn't help that certain vocal individuals, even beyond this forum, are making requests based on either misinformation or an outright lack of meaningful information. SchlzmSo you acknowledge that gun violence is a problem? Why does it matter what sets people off? For one, if there were 20 kids gunned down in an inner city, it would have made the news as well. When people die 1 at a time, people don't seem to care much. Such is the nature of the beast. But people always rally around one incident but that doesn't negate the fact that it is still a problem.And as many have said, many policies suggested in this thread would be relatively useless in these mass shootings. But what many haven't said is that cutting down on straw purchases and illegal guns, would cut down on the inner city shootings. So we may not be able to address the exact problem but we'd still be addressing a problem.Looked pretty hard but couldn't find any stats for NOLA and children being shot and killed. You have a source I can look at? mine. I would like to see the numbers, since it would only add to the fact that over a thousand children can be potentially shot and/or killed in two cities alone yet this one event is what fires people up?Schlzm
But even then, I'm willing to forgo the AWB in favor of bigger restrictions to getting guns. Why not track guns and revoke dealer's licenses if enough of his guns end up in criminal activities? I found this
So why not revoke their federal license?
Schlzm
Maybe I'm not understanding what you're proposing. A restriction on magazine size seems pretty similar to an assault weapons ban. How is a restriction on magazine size inherently different? What percentage of crime do you think occurs as a result of this magazine size, and how much money do you think it would cost to enforce this restriction? How much would you suspect the gun crime would come down as a result of this? Would it have done anything to prevent this crime? I'm guessing you don't have the answers based on the "(I hope)" part of what you said.Let's say for the sake of argument we went with those restrictions and they didn't produce the results you desire. Should we get rid of them at that point? Or maybe we just didn't reach quite far enough and there's one or two more slight restrictions that would limit the damage sufficiently?Did you read my post? I am not proposing any bans.
Yes, they forced store owners to sell to known straw purchasers b/c they were trying to eventually tie the leaders of the cartel to the guns. F&F wasn't about catching the straw purchasers b/c they already knew who they were. That is why F&F is criticized b/c not only did we allow straw purchasers to buy guns but we told the store owners to sell it to them. But the reason behind this was b/c the current straw purchase laws lack bite. So arresting a straw purchaser did nothing. Either they weren't prosecuted or they were out in little time so it became the definition of insanity. Keep arresting the straw purchasers and continue the vicious cycle or try to follow the guns. Now it seems like a bad idea b/c the guns got through but it is similar to keeping drugs on the street to find the head of the snake. Of course this is a different beast when guns are involved but some of the problem lied in the difficult in getting a conviction for a straw purchaser especially when the purchaser actually had to transfer the guns in order for it to occur.
I see, so you're going with the "technically they didn't actually ban the weapons, they just wouldn't let you legally get one" angle.Yes. That's what I just said.Sorry, you're now claiming that gun ownership was banned in Chicago for 28 years? Because I'm pretty sure there was only one type of gun banned in Chicago that was overturned. In fact, wasn't even a ban, just didn't issue any new handgun permits in the city.Also, once again, the high murder rate for much of the last two decades has been... drum roll... New Orleans. Or Detroit.Yeah, the 28 year long ban was overturned by the Supreme Court relatively recently. Of course, they still had the highest murder rate of any major city in the US during, well, most of it.There's a lot of interpretation and opinion necessarily involved in this thread. It's always nice to see something so demonstrably false.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Illinois
No, I'm going with the 'you couldn't buy new handguns, but handguns aren't the only kind of guns and if you already had one you could keep it' angle.I see, so you're going with the "technically they didn't actually ban the weapons, they just wouldn't let you legally get one" angle.Yes. That's what I just said.Sorry, you're now claiming that gun ownership was banned in Chicago for 28 years? Because I'm pretty sure there was only one type of gun banned in Chicago that was overturned. In fact, wasn't even a ban, just didn't issue any new handgun permits in the city.Also, once again, the high murder rate for much of the last two decades has been... drum roll... New Orleans. Or Detroit.Yeah, the 28 year long ban was overturned by the Supreme Court relatively recently. Of course, they still had the highest murder rate of any major city in the US during, well, most of it.There's a lot of interpretation and opinion necessarily involved in this thread. It's always nice to see something so demonstrably false.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Illinois
1. A restriction on magazine size is exactly that. It is different from a ban on assault weapons, because you'll still be able to purchase and own the assault weapons. 2. A very low percentage of total violent crime is attributed to high capacity magazines. However, the vast majority of these mass shootings involve high capacity magazines, and that's what I'm focused upon. 3. I don't have any idea how much it would cost. I have always believed, however, that the vast majority of gun-owners are law-abiding citizens, and they will voluntarily obey this restriction once it's in place. But I don't know what the cost of enforcement will be. I think that whatever it is, we should be willing to pay it.4. As I wrote earlier, I don't suspect that gun crime will come down as a result of this. I am in favor of it SPECIFICALLY because I believe that, in incidents like Friday morning, the amount of casualties may be more limited. 5. While it most likely would not have done anything to prevent Sandy Hook, the number of deaths MAY have been reduced. I think that in a few other notable mass shootings it is even more clear this would have been the case. 6. If this restriction were attempted for a reasonable period of time (not being a crime statistician, I have no idea how long that would be) and it proved ineffective, I would have no problem getting rid of it. I don't generally believe in useless, restrictive laws. 7. Yes there should be demonstrable results. Sometimes though, you have to impose restrictions in order to discover whether those results are tangible. In this case, I am willing to do so because I don't consider limiting the amount of rounds a single magazine can carry to be a significant infringement on anyone's "freedom". The fact that you could even bring up the term "freedom" in this context demonstrates, IMO, the extremist position that so many gun-owners seem to have toward ANY kind of gun regulation whatsoever.
Yes. That's what I just said.No, I'm going with the 'you couldn't buy new handguns, but handguns aren't the only kind of guns and if you already had one yout could keep it' angle.I see, so you're going with the "technically they didn't actually ban the weapons, they just wouldn't let you legally get one" angle.Yes. That's what I just said.Sorry, you're now claiming that gun ownership was banned in Chicago for 28 years? Because I'm pretty sure there was only one type of gun banned in Chicago that was overturned. In fact, wasn't even a ban, just didn't issue any new handgun permits in the city.Also, once again, the high murder rate for much of the last two decades has been... drum roll... New Orleans. Or Detroit.Yeah, the 28 year long ban was overturned by the Supreme Court relatively recently. Of course, they still had the highest murder rate of any major city in the US during, well, most of it.There's a lot of interpretation and opinion necessarily involved in this thread. It's always nice to see something so demonstrably false.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Illinois
I almost think you talk to the wall at home just because it cant talk back.. I bolded the highlights.
I think this is where you will get an argument. Do we typically err on the side of freedom or safety? I would say our society has certainly seemed to make that shift from freedom to security. Just look next time you try to get on an air plane. Your privacy seems to be greatly reduced. Heck, justifying pat downs at sporting events should be seen as erring on the side of caution and not freedom.There's things we all would like to stamp out of this world. Unfortunately that's never going to happen entirely. Given that we typically err on the side of freedom, shouldn't there be some demonstrable results if we're going to elect to restrict that freedom?
Thanks, I got ya.There has to be some way we could make a reasonable guess on how much this would potentially limit the damage and casualties. Something like how many rounds can a trained/untrained person fire accurately per a given amount of time with the magazines you'd like to ban vs available weapons with magazine sizes that you wouldn't? Would this killer have been able to do as much damage as he did with rapid loading pistols? And if there is a difference, is there a reasonable scenario where a person would need the ability to fire that rapidly when defending themselves?Not sure what you find extreme about this definition of freedom. Perhaps you can be more specific on that. It strikes me that your definition of freedom might be rather flimsy.
As I wrote earlier, I have difficulty comprehending the situation where you would need a 30 round magazine to defend yourself, unless you're Jason Bourne or Jack Bauer. Schlzm brought up the 3 pit bull scenario, so I suppose anything's possible. As far as freedom goes, I've just never associated it with high capacity gun magazines, sorry.
Yeah, there was a heated debate here over bike helmets.I think this is where you will get an argument. Do we typically err on the side of freedom or safety? I would say our society has certainly seemed to make that shift from freedom to security. Just look next time you try to get on an air plane. Your privacy seems to be greatly reduced. Heck, justifying pat downs at sporting events should be seen as erring on the side of caution and not freedom.There's things we all would like to stamp out of this world. Unfortunately that's never going to happen entirely. Given that we typically err on the side of freedom, shouldn't there be some demonstrable results if we're going to elect to restrict that freedom?
