***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (1 Viewer)

[Otis]

I know it's been mentioned here before, but a good example of why AK47s aren't a great idea for home defense:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/mark-bornino-daniel-volpone-ohio-alcohol-ak-47_n_2496990.html?1358451869&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009When firing an AK47 for fun, managed to put a bullet through a neighbor's exterior wall, into the kitchen, and into the microwave. The house across the street got one that pierced two walls. Among other stray shots which went where they shouldn't.

MY RIGHTS BRO

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Otis you are such a tool.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I know it's been mentioned here before, but a good example of why AK47s aren't a great idea for home defense:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/mark-bornino-daniel-volpone-ohio-alcohol-ak-47_n_2496990.html?1358451869&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009When firing an AK47 for fun, managed to put a bullet through a neighbor's exterior wall, into the kitchen, and into the microwave. The house across the street got one that pierced two walls. Among other stray shots which went where they shouldn't.

MY RIGHTS BRO

 

[tommyboy]

So... I think I've got it straight now.. The federal government can give rocket launchers and full auto assault weapons etc., to extremists that will turn around and blow us up as soon as we could blink.. And military grade assault weapons to drug cartels so that they can use them against our citizens, government employees even.. But I can't own a 20 round clip for a pistol.. Got it..

As Wesley Snipes would say from Demolition ManEXACTMUNDO!!!Fitting movie for this thread. Seriously lefties, you got your legislation, lets just hope that the bans on magazines and weapons doesn't come to fruition, because that will do nothing to quell gun violence as there are already more than 300 million guns in America. Banning high capacity magazines will do nothing either, as one can reload many magazines very quickly

Don't taint all of us lefties. I'm a lefty...these guys are authoritarians.

So you weren't the guy who always posted "Liberalism is a mental disease"?

you're talking to a guy that was banned

 

[tommyboy]

Those are not "hi cap" magazines. They are standard magazines that come with the weapon. What you are referring to are "lo cap" magazines that DO NOT come with the weapon almost anywhere in America except states that don't allow them because the people ignorantly think that "lo capacity" magazines will automatically cause less deaths.

This is like saying that a McDonalds Value Meal has an appropriate amount of calories because you didn't buy the Super Sized version.We're not talking about the terms in the way that the industry has chosen to define them.

No it is more like saying McDonalds Value Meal ONLY comes with Super Sized version, but you have to throw half of everything away. Do you buy a 55 inch TV so you can only watch 40 inch pictures on it so that you can save energy?

Is that what they do in states like the bolded? Or do gun manufacturers figure out how to make guns with smaller magazines to sell?FWIW, it sounds more compelling to me when the gun guys say, "Nonono.... smaller magazines don't matter because you can change them quickly" than when they say, "Nonono... bigger magazines are necessary because if my house is raided by 6 assailants and I have a 18% accuracy at 25 yards and a 24% probability of disabling on a hit shot, I really need a good 180 shot capacity in order to make sure that I might be safe." So I'm not sure how much good a limit would do. But I also don't see how much harm there is, either.

avg distance of a shooting is 8 feet. if you want to know what the best gun is for self defense, its the one thats pointed at you. But in serious terms, i think just a nice old 12 guage shotgun handles most situations pretty well. Any pistol 9MM or bigger that you can handle accurately and are intimately familiar with is a bonus

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I am still waiting on how this gov't is infringing on your right to bear arms?

You can wait forever, but they won't be able to give you a sensible answer because there isn't one. If limiting high capacity magazines violated the 2nd Amendment, then the AWB law would have been overturned in 1994 when it was first passed. If requiring background checks for private sales violated the 2nd Amendment, then laws which already have this is numerous states would have been overturned long since. But none of these have been overturned, for the very simple reason that the Supreme Court does not agree with this extremist viewpoint of the 2nd Amendment. And the NRA knows this; that's why rather than claim that these laws actually violate the 2nd Amendment, they very carefully use language like "violates the SPIRIT of the 2nd Amendment", and they hope that their blind and ignorant followers don't notice the difference. As this thread demonstrates, it's working.

best post of this thread

You two must have a great time rubbing each other off in the bathroom at family reunions..

This is how I know that I'm winning the argument. Along with Slingblade calling me a moron and telling me to #### off.

You lost the war.

Yet you're the one who answers the door with a gun a in his hand. I'm thinking you might not be able to comprehend what a pleasant existence is all about.

Like in all the other great places where guns were banned.. (where the violent crime rates are through the roof)

It's not fair that all their citizens are lured to the peasant states where they can get all those deadly guns legally and come back in trances and blow away their fellow citizens. It doesn't work unless its across the Nation! That's why New York just wasted their time putting on a show with their new gun control laws.But it was a nice show with the smiling governor who wants to be President. What a hoot.

Guns are banned in all of Ireland and Britain and murders are still committed there with guns among other more readily available weapons..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I am still waiting on how this gov't is infringing on your right to bear arms?

You can wait forever, but they won't be able to give you a sensible answer because there isn't one. If limiting high capacity magazines violated the 2nd Amendment, then the AWB law would have been overturned in 1994 when it was first passed. If requiring background checks for private sales violated the 2nd Amendment, then laws which already have this is numerous states would have been overturned long since. But none of these have been overturned, for the very simple reason that the Supreme Court does not agree with this extremist viewpoint of the 2nd Amendment. And the NRA knows this; that's why rather than claim that these laws actually violate the 2nd Amendment, they very carefully use language like "violates the SPIRIT of the 2nd Amendment", and they hope that their blind and ignorant followers don't notice the difference. As this thread demonstrates, it's working.

best post of this thread

You two must have a great time rubbing each other off in the bathroom at family reunions..

This is how I know that I'm winning the argument. Along with Slingblade calling me a moron and telling me to #### off.

You lost the war.

Yet you're the one who answers the door with a gun a in his hand. I'm thinking you might not be able to comprehend what a pleasant existence is all about.

Like in all the other great places where guns were banned.. (where the violent crime rates are through the roof)

You realize that THESE are the ones who are not right and fly off the handle on mass killing sprees. It's not the pacifists.

Like the mass killing sprees the US government goes on all over the world?

 

[Mr Two Cents]

FYIChicagoland Gun ShowDates Jan 25 - Jan 27, 2013Directions Donald E. Stephens Convention CenterCity/State Rosemont, ILHours Friday: 2pm-9pmSaturday: 10am-8pmSunday: 10am- 5pmAdmission $10 onlineDescription The Chicagoland Gun Show will be held on Friday, January 25th thru Sunday, January 27th, 2013. The Rosemont, IL Gun Show will be held at the Donald E. Stephens Convention Center and is hosted by the Outdoor Sports Group of Illinois.The Chicagoland Gun Show will be co-located with the Chicago Outdoor Sports Show at the Donald E. Stephens Convention Center, January 25-27, 2013.Tickets cost $10 online and will get you into both the Chicagoland Gun Show and Chicago Outdoor Sports Show.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Mexico:

By the 1960s, fear of the growing anti-government sentiment and the growing number of citizens arming themselves, prompted the government to modify Article 10 of the Constitution and to enact the Federal Law of Firearms and Explosives. And so begun a systematic disarmament of the population by limiting gun ownership to small-caliber handguns, heavily restricting the right to carry outside the home, and ending a cultural attachment to firearms by shutting down gun stores, outlawing the private sale of firearms, closing down public shooting facilities, and putting in control of the federal government all firearm-related matters.

Things that make you go Hmmmm.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Note to pro-gun control politicians: when you use guns as props, do NOT put your finger on the trigger UNLESS you want to shoot.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Mexico:

By the 1960s, fear of the growing anti-government sentiment and the growing number of citizens arming themselves, prompted the government to modify Article 10 of the Constitution and to enact the Federal Law of Firearms and Explosives. And so begun a systematic disarmament of the population by limiting gun ownership to small-caliber handguns, heavily restricting the right to carry outside the home, and ending a cultural attachment to firearms by shutting down gun stores, outlawing the private sale of firearms, closing down public shooting facilities, and putting in control of the federal government all firearm-related matters.

Things that make you go Hmmmm.

This has been going on for over a year, but it's finally getting some publicity. Mexican citizens taking up arms to defend their communities.

ACAPULCO, Mexico — Several hundred civilians have taken up arms in two towns in a southwestern Mexico state and are arresting people suspected of crimes and imposing a curfew, leading authorities to promise to reinforce security forces in the area.People wearing ski masks or bandanas and carrying small arms this week began manning checkpoints on roads into the municipalities of Ayutla de los Libres and Teconoapa in Guerrero state’s Costa Chica area about 75 miles (120 kilometres) southeast of the Pacific resort of Acapulco...“They kill, extort, rape. You do not know if they are drug dealers, thugs, who want to grab everything,” he said. “We want to return peace and tranquility to the entire population. Only the people can restore order.”

 

[Chaos Commish]

I know it's been mentioned here before, but a good example of why AK47s aren't a great idea for home defense:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/mark-bornino-daniel-volpone-ohio-alcohol-ak-47_n_2496990.html?1358451869&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

When firing an AK47 for fun, managed to put a bullet through a neighbor's exterior wall, into the kitchen, and into the microwave. The house across the street got one that pierced two walls. Among other stray shots which went where they shouldn't.

Well good no one was hurt and two newly designated felons have lost their right to keep and bear arms. While it was probably the AK that flew 500 yards through a wall and into a microwave, it could have been one of the handguns. I screw around with a 1911 at 500 yards every now and then and you'd be amazed. The AK at 500 yards is subsonic just like 45 40 cal and 9mm. All three handguns send bullets about a mile at maximum. The AK is not a long range rifle. It has better range than any handgun, but you'd be surprised about it's penetration with the correct home defense rounds. Hornady's 123 grain Vmax for AK 47s has less wall penetration than #4 buckshot and a whole bunch of popular 40 cal and 45 acp rounds. The same is true for a variety of fragmenting .223 in the evil AR 15s.

There's plenty of information out there, but this is probably the best reading. This is the pertinent part of the conclusion:

Moving away from rifle rounds takes us from fascinating discoveries into the realm of mythbusting. Handgun rounds, for instance, may penetrate less than rifle rounds--but only if the rifle rounds in question are full-power ball ammo. The relatively slow speed and heavy weight of handgun bullets make them a poor choice for limiting interior wall penetration, which is why professional door-kicker types have abandoned pistol-caliber submachineguns in favor of .223 carbines.

I used to believe an AR chambered in 9mm with a high cap mag was a great home defense weapon for someone inept with handguns and incapable of handling a shotgun. Shoulder fired weapons have big advantages in highly stressful situations. With the right cartridge, I no longer think the handgun chambering is necessary.

 

[Henry Ford]

http://on.aol.com/video/gun-fails--a-comprehensive-collection-to-commemorate-gun-appreciation-day-517644706Probably best to keep these folks out of the militia.

 

[Novice2]

http://on.aol.com/video/gun-fails--a-comprehensive-collection-to-commemorate-gun-appreciation-day-517644706Probably best to keep these folks out of the militia.

Never let your pants falling down stop a good shoot'n.

 

[Novice2]

"WANTED: Law abiding New York gun owners seeking lower taxes and greater opportunities."

 

[Hoosier16]

Based on these 3 points, my conclusion is that banning high cap magazines will, over time, make a noticeable difference in the amount of casualties in these situations, to the benefit of society. There is no way for me to prove this. There is no way for Hoosier to prove the opposite. He can bring up Virginia Tech, and I can argue that Cho would have done even more damage had he possessed high capacity magazines. No way to know.

No, you can't make that argument. At least, not rationally. We do know that higher capacity magazines would have made no difference because the shooters weren't limited by magazine capacities. They had plenty of ammo left if they wished to continue. They chose to stop. That isn't my opinion. It's a fact.

 

[JHuber77]

Based on these 3 points, my conclusion is that banning high cap magazines will, over time, make a noticeable difference in the amount of casualties in these situations, to the benefit of society. There is no way for me to prove this. There is no way for Hoosier to prove the opposite. He can bring up Virginia Tech, and I can argue that Cho would have done even more damage had he possessed high capacity magazines. No way to know.

No, you can't make that argument. At least, not rationally. We do know that higher capacity magazines would have made no difference because the shooters weren't limited by magazine capacities. They had plenty of ammo left if they wished to continue. They chose to stop. That isn't my opinion. It's a fact.

The only other thing that both of you missed is that some of these guys had their weapons jam as well, but that has nothing to do with limiting high capacity magazines. They probably used horrible ammo (as this is usually the cause of a weapon malfunction). Timmay just refuses to accept this fact.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Based on these 3 points, my conclusion is that banning high cap magazines will, over time, make a noticeable difference in the amount of casualties in these situations, to the benefit of society. There is no way for me to prove this. There is no way for Hoosier to prove the opposite. He can bring up Virginia Tech, and I can argue that Cho would have done even more damage had he possessed high capacity magazines. No way to know.

No, you can't make that argument. At least, not rationally. We do know that higher capacity magazines would have made no difference because the shooters weren't limited by magazine capacities. They had plenty of ammo left if they wished to continue. They chose to stop. That isn't my opinion. It's a fact.

The only other thing that both of you missed is that some of these guys had their weapons jam as well, but that has nothing to do with limiting high capacity magazines. They probably used horrible ammo (as this is usually the cause of a weapon malfunction). Timmay just refuses to accept this fact.

Ban high quality ammo!

 

[timschochet]

Based on these 3 points, my conclusion is that banning high cap magazines will, over time, make a noticeable difference in the amount of casualties in these situations, to the benefit of society. There is no way for me to prove this. There is no way for Hoosier to prove the opposite. He can bring up Virginia Tech, and I can argue that Cho would have done even more damage had he possessed high capacity magazines. No way to know.

No, you can't make that argument. At least, not rationally. We do know that higher capacity magazines would have made no difference because the shooters weren't limited by magazine capacities. They had plenty of ammo left if they wished to continue. They chose to stop. That isn't my opinion. It's a fact.

The only other thing that both of you missed is that some of these guys had their weapons jam as well, but that has nothing to do with limiting high capacity magazines. They probably used horrible ammo (as this is usually the cause of a weapon malfunction). Timmay just refuses to accept this fact.

It's not that I refuse to accept this "fact", it's that law enforcement tells me differently. They're the ones that have been pushing this limitation, and they're the ones that convinced me that it's a good idea. I think my arguments have been rational the whole time based on the information I have. But it's true I have no evidence to prove my case; neither do you have evidence to disprove it. However, as I pointed out before, since high cap magazines do not effect the 2nd Amendment, nor are they necessary for home defense, I feel comfortable making them illegal with no worries that I am somehow violating your rights or security. They are a luxury item, nothing more.

 

[tom22406]

Pretty sad that the people that signed the bill in NY never really read what was in it because they forgot to see if the magazine limit also applied to the cops and low and behold it does.Looks as though they finally saw that mistake but this just goes to show you what rushed(and bad)legislation can do.Hearing Cuomo rant that nobody needs 10 bullets to kill a deer was priceless and once again shows this is nothing more than an emotional response that had nothing to do with a well thought out plan.I would almost bet that most who signed that bill never even read it.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Based on these 3 points, my conclusion is that banning high cap magazines will, over time, make a noticeable difference in the amount of casualties in these situations, to the benefit of society. There is no way for me to prove this. There is no way for Hoosier to prove the opposite. He can bring up Virginia Tech, and I can argue that Cho would have done even more damage had he possessed high capacity magazines. No way to know.

No, you can't make that argument. At least, not rationally. We do know that higher capacity magazines would have made no difference because the shooters weren't limited by magazine capacities. They had plenty of ammo left if they wished to continue. They chose to stop. That isn't my opinion. It's a fact.

The only other thing that both of you missed is that some of these guys had their weapons jam as well, but that has nothing to do with limiting high capacity magazines. They probably used horrible ammo (as this is usually the cause of a weapon malfunction). Timmay just refuses to accept this fact.

It's not that I refuse to accept this "fact", it's that law enforcement tells me differently. They're the ones that have been pushing this limitation, and they're the ones that convinced me that it's a good idea. I think my arguments have been rational the whole time based on the information I have. But it's true I have no evidence to prove my case; neither do you have evidence to disprove it. However, as I pointed out before, since high cap magazines do not effect the 2nd Amendment, nor are they necessary for home defense, I feel comfortable making them illegal with no worries that I am somehow violating your rights or security. They are a luxury item, nothing more.

SCOTUS in Heller v DC in 2008 established that weapons commonly used in the establishment of a militia cannot be restricted from individual ownership, and ARs and larger clips are clearly common to that purpose.

 

[timschochet]

SCOTUS in Heller v DC in 2008 established that weapons commonly used in the establishment of a militia cannot be restricted from individual ownership, and ARs and larger clips are clearly common to that purpose.

That is your interpretation. I believe it is an extreme interpretation. There are limits placed on high cap magazines in several states including my own. There was one on a federal basis from 1994-2004. The Supreme Court has failed to overturn any of them. I strongly doubt they ever will. But if you think you're right about this, challenge one of these laws in court and we'll see how far you get.

 

[timschochet]

Pretty sad that the people that signed the bill in NY never really read what was in it because they forgot to see if the magazine limit also applied to the cops and low and behold it does.Looks as though they finally saw that mistake but this just goes to show you what rushed(and bad)legislation can do.Hearing Cuomo rant that nobody needs 10 bullets to kill a deer was priceless and once again shows this is nothing more than an emotional response that had nothing to do with a well thought out plan.I would almost bet that most who signed that bill never even read it.

Although you and I disagree about limiting high cap magazines, I completely agree with you about how so many of these laws get passed. It's shameful.

 

[JHuber77]

Based on these 3 points, my conclusion is that banning high cap magazines will, over time, make a noticeable difference in the amount of casualties in these situations, to the benefit of society. There is no way for me to prove this. There is no way for Hoosier to prove the opposite. He can bring up Virginia Tech, and I can argue that Cho would have done even more damage had he possessed high capacity magazines. No way to know.

No, you can't make that argument. At least, not rationally. We do know that higher capacity magazines would have made no difference because the shooters weren't limited by magazine capacities. They had plenty of ammo left if they wished to continue. They chose to stop. That isn't my opinion. It's a fact.

The only other thing that both of you missed is that some of these guys had their weapons jam as well, but that has nothing to do with limiting high capacity magazines. They probably used horrible ammo (as this is usually the cause of a weapon malfunction). Timmay just refuses to accept this fact.

It's not that I refuse to accept this "fact", it's that law enforcement tells me differently. They're the ones that have been pushing this limitation, and they're the ones that convinced me that it's a good idea. I think my arguments have been rational the whole time based on the information I have. But it's true I have no evidence to prove my case; neither do you have evidence to disprove it. However, as I pointed out before, since high cap magazines do not effect the 2nd Amendment, nor are they necessary for home defense, I feel comfortable making them illegal with no worries that I am somehow violating your rights or security. They are a luxury item, nothing more.

So everyone in law enforcement is telling you that? Who in law enforcement? The director of the ATF? FBI? Barney Fife?

 

[tom22406]

Not sure if this was posted yet or not but Ruger has a new pistol coming out and I think it's perfect

The Congressman

 

[boots11234]

Based on these 3 points, my conclusion is that banning high cap magazines will, over time, make a noticeable difference in the amount of casualties in these situations, to the benefit of society. There is no way for me to prove this. There is no way for Hoosier to prove the opposite. He can bring up Virginia Tech, and I can argue that Cho would have done even more damage had he possessed high capacity magazines. No way to know.

No, you can't make that argument. At least, not rationally. We do know that higher capacity magazines would have made no difference because the shooters weren't limited by magazine capacities. They had plenty of ammo left if they wished to continue. They chose to stop. That isn't my opinion. It's a fact.

The only other thing that both of you missed is that some of these guys had their weapons jam as well, but that has nothing to do with limiting high capacity magazines. They probably used horrible ammo (as this is usually the cause of a weapon malfunction). Timmay just refuses to accept this fact.

It's not that I refuse to accept this "fact", it's that law enforcement tells me differently. They're the ones that have been pushing this limitation, and they're the ones that convinced me that it's a good idea. I think my arguments have been rational the whole time based on the information I have. But it's true I have no evidence to prove my case; neither do you have evidence to disprove it. However, as I pointed out before, since high cap magazines do not effect the 2nd Amendment, nor are they necessary for home defense, I feel comfortable making them illegal with no worries that I am somehow violating your rights or security. They are a luxury item, nothing more.

Most Chiefs are political apointments, they do what the mayors want. Mayors in large cities are mostly democrats. Hence the police bias at that level. Rank and file officers, I believe have a different opinion.

 

[timschochet]

Based on these 3 points, my conclusion is that banning high cap magazines will, over time, make a noticeable difference in the amount of casualties in these situations, to the benefit of society. There is no way for me to prove this. There is no way for Hoosier to prove the opposite. He can bring up Virginia Tech, and I can argue that Cho would have done even more damage had he possessed high capacity magazines. No way to know.

No, you can't make that argument. At least, not rationally. We do know that higher capacity magazines would have made no difference because the shooters weren't limited by magazine capacities. They had plenty of ammo left if they wished to continue. They chose to stop. That isn't my opinion. It's a fact.

The only other thing that both of you missed is that some of these guys had their weapons jam as well, but that has nothing to do with limiting high capacity magazines. They probably used horrible ammo (as this is usually the cause of a weapon malfunction). Timmay just refuses to accept this fact.

It's not that I refuse to accept this "fact", it's that law enforcement tells me differently. They're the ones that have been pushing this limitation, and they're the ones that convinced me that it's a good idea. I think my arguments have been rational the whole time based on the information I have. But it's true I have no evidence to prove my case; neither do you have evidence to disprove it. However, as I pointed out before, since high cap magazines do not effect the 2nd Amendment, nor are they necessary for home defense, I feel comfortable making them illegal with no worries that I am somehow violating your rights or security. They are a luxury item, nothing more.

So everyone in law enforcement is telling you that? Who in law enforcement? The director of the ATF? FBI? Barney Fife?

I've posted opinions by law enforcement specialists on this topic. Go back and read through the thread if you want to find them. Here's one: http://abcnews.go.com/US/baltimore-police-chief-ban-high-capacity-firepower/story?id=18030163

Johnson, the Chair of the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, wants to limit them to a capacity of 10 rounds.The fewer the bullets, the more often the shooter has to stop firing, eject the empty cartridge and load another one.

A lot can happen in the window of time it takes to reload, Johnson said.

"Folks that are being attacked have time to react, to close that distance in," he said. "I think any football player in America would like to have four-and-a-half seconds to get to the quarterback without any of the offensive players."

An expert shooter like a police officer can switch magazines in less than two seconds. But for a nervous, scared adolescent, it would take much longer, Johnson said, which can be crucial.

During the Tucson, Ariz., attack on Rep. Gabby Giffords, gunman Jared Loughner was wrestled down when he stopped shooting to reload his 9-millimeter pistol.

During the Aurora, Colo., movie theater shooting spree last July, police say James Holmes' assault came to an end when his semi-automatic rifle jammed.

"As we've seen in America today, there have been several attacks where that reload is vital," Johnson said. "Tragically, in the shooting of a congresswoman, the reload was instrumental.

"We've also seen this in Baltimore County, in a school shooting that we had, where the reload became very instrumental in allowing the teacher to actually tackle a student that was trying to reload a double-barreled shotgun," he said.

SImply put, I find this gentlemen's argument to be much more persuasive than yours. I believe he knows what he's doing.

 

[timschochet]

Based on these 3 points, my conclusion is that banning high cap magazines will, over time, make a noticeable difference in the amount of casualties in these situations, to the benefit of society. There is no way for me to prove this. There is no way for Hoosier to prove the opposite. He can bring up Virginia Tech, and I can argue that Cho would have done even more damage had he possessed high capacity magazines. No way to know.

No, you can't make that argument. At least, not rationally. We do know that higher capacity magazines would have made no difference because the shooters weren't limited by magazine capacities. They had plenty of ammo left if they wished to continue. They chose to stop. That isn't my opinion. It's a fact.

The only other thing that both of you missed is that some of these guys had their weapons jam as well, but that has nothing to do with limiting high capacity magazines. They probably used horrible ammo (as this is usually the cause of a weapon malfunction). Timmay just refuses to accept this fact.

It's not that I refuse to accept this "fact", it's that law enforcement tells me differently. They're the ones that have been pushing this limitation, and they're the ones that convinced me that it's a good idea. I think my arguments have been rational the whole time based on the information I have. But it's true I have no evidence to prove my case; neither do you have evidence to disprove it. However, as I pointed out before, since high cap magazines do not effect the 2nd Amendment, nor are they necessary for home defense, I feel comfortable making them illegal with no worries that I am somehow violating your rights or security. They are a luxury item, nothing more.

Most Chiefs are political apointments, they do what the mayors want. Mayors in large cities are mostly democrats. Hence the police bias at that level. Rank and file officers, I believe have a different opinion.

Really? Find me a rank and file officer who says, "Oh no, the fact that these guys would have to reload more often won't make a bit of difference." I don't believe it.

 

[GroveDiesel]

In 2009, 77,000 people committed federal crimes by illegally applying for guns. The justice department prosecuted only 70 of them because Holder said he didn't have the resources. So we can't even enforce the bare minimum laws we have on the books going after criminals trying to get guns, but we are going to have success passing new laws that will only affect responsible owners?And is it ironic to anyone that all of this gun control stuff is coming after an incident involving a criminal murdering someone and stealing their guns? The huge majority of guns used in crimes are stolen guns. If the people committing violent crimes aren't obtaining their guns legally now, how do more laws of any sort change that?I'm on board with requiring mental health checks to buy a gun and I could even be on board with laws requiring guns to be kept in gun safes at home to prevent people from stealing them. But most of the stuff being discussed will have zero impact preventing criminals from obtaining whatever is made illegal.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

SCOTUS in Heller v DC in 2008 established that weapons commonly used in the establishment of a militia cannot be restricted from individual ownership, and ARs and larger clips are clearly common to that purpose.

That is your interpretation. I believe it is an extreme interpretation. There are limits placed on high cap magazines in several states including my own. There was one on a federal basis from 1994-2004. The Supreme Court has failed to overturn any of them. I strongly doubt they ever will. But if you think you're right about this, challenge one of these laws in court and we'll see how far you get.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the AWB, so saying it has failed to overturn any of them is disingenuous. It costs a half million dollars to stake a case to the Supreme Court so challenging me to try it is a joke.Also the 1994 AWB was prior to Heller.

 

[tom22406]

In 2009, 77,000 people committed federal crimes by illegally applying for guns. The justice department prosecuted only 70 of them because Holder said he didn't have the resources. So we can't even enforce the bare minimum laws we have on the books going after criminals trying to get guns, but we are going to have success passing new laws that will only affect responsible owners?

Been saying this all along but nobody seems interested.Why not enforce what laws we do have better and tighten up a few loose ends(background checks,mental health)?The reply I got was our jails are full now so where do we put them.So basically they want new laws to not enforce.

 

[ericttspikes]

In 2009, 77,000 people committed federal crimes by illegally applying for guns. The justice department prosecuted only 70 of them because Holder said he didn't have the resources. So we can't even enforce the bare minimum laws we have on the books going after criminals trying to get guns, but we are going to have success passing new laws that will only affect responsible owners?

Been saying this all along but nobody seems interested.Why not enforce what laws we do have better and tighten up a few loose ends(background checks,mental health)?The reply I got was our jails are full now so where do we put them.So basically they want new laws to not enforce.

The new proposal require things like actually having a director for the ATF, and funds to enforce existing and new laws. The NRA and their allies in Congress have worked very hard to make sure current agencies responsible for enforcement aren't funded or properly staffed. That is a huge problem that is trying to be addressed and not surprisingly rebuffed by those who want the current laws to remain toothless.

 

[timschochet]

In 2009, 77,000 people committed federal crimes by illegally applying for guns. The justice department prosecuted only 70 of them because Holder said he didn't have the resources. So we can't even enforce the bare minimum laws we have on the books going after criminals trying to get guns, but we are going to have success passing new laws that will only affect responsible owners?And is it ironic to anyone that all of this gun control stuff is coming after an incident involving a criminal murdering someone and stealing their guns? The huge majority of guns used in crimes are stolen guns. If the people committing violent crimes aren't obtaining their guns legally now, how do more laws of any sort change that?I'm on board with requiring mental health checks to buy a gun and I could even be on board with laws requiring guns to be kept in gun safes at home to prevent people from stealing them. But most of the stuff being discussed will have zero impact preventing criminals from obtaining whatever is made illegal.

The NRA and Republicans have fought every attempt to spend more money on the ATF and the Justice Department's ability to prosecute. Furthermore, the NRA and Republicans have fought against every attempt to provide the single most necessary measure to enforce the existing laws: removing the private sales background check loophole. So it seems a little ironic that you, as a conservative, would blame the federal government for not being able to enforce the existing laws. As for your comment that the proposals being discussed would have zero impact, you're simply wrong.

 

[timschochet]

SCOTUS in Heller v DC in 2008 established that weapons commonly used in the establishment of a militia cannot be restricted from individual ownership, and ARs and larger clips are clearly common to that purpose.

That is your interpretation. I believe it is an extreme interpretation. There are limits placed on high cap magazines in several states including my own. There was one on a federal basis from 1994-2004. The Supreme Court has failed to overturn any of them. I strongly doubt they ever will. But if you think you're right about this, challenge one of these laws in court and we'll see how far you get.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the AWB, so saying it has failed to overturn any of them is disingenuous. It costs a half million dollars to stake a case to the Supreme Court so challenging me to try it is a joke.Also the 1994 AWB was prior to Heller.

I suspect the main reason that the AWB wasn't challenged was because the NRA knew they'd lose. The NRA has the funds to challenge all of these laws, and they challenge the ones they believe they will win. They have yet, to the best of my knowledge, to challenge a ban on high cap magazines, and there are plenty of these laws that have been in existence for years. What are they waiting for?The NRA knows these restrictions are constitutional. But they would like to pretend they're not, because it helps them raise money. So they put out statements like "this restriction violates the spirit of the Second Amendment" and "Help us support your Second Amendment rights!" etc. etc. They're doing it right now, and as usual it works.

 

[timschochet]

Here is a partial list of the national police organizations who strongly support a ban on high cap gun magazines:National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun ViolenceCommission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc.Hispanic American Police Command Officers AssociationNational Association of Campus Law Enforcement AdministratorsNational Association of Chiefs of PoliceMajor Cities Chiefs AssociationNational Association of Women Law Enforcement ExecutivesNational Association of Black Law Enforcement ExecutivesNational Sherrif's AssociationPolice Executive Research ForumPolice FoundationAt the state level, there are even more numerous organizations that support this ban, including for instance, in my home state of California, the Office of Attorney General, the California Bureau of Firearms, the County Sherrif's of Los Angeles, Orange, San Fransisco, and most other counties, and the police department of just about every major city.

 

[JHuber77]

Like a previous poster said, all of those positions are appointed. Just about everyone I have spoken with has no problem with the executive orders, the high capacity magazine and ban on AR's is the problem. There is no evidence to suggest that making an arbitrary number like 10 or banning AR's will help because the fact of the matter is, most gun crimes are committed with handguns. And even then, most handguns have a capacity of more than 10 rounds. Anyone can make more rounds fit in a magazine if they want to, it just takes a modification that a 3rd grader can do.

 

[timschochet]

Like a previous poster said, all of those positions are appointed. Just about everyone I have spoken with has no problem with the executive orders, the high capacity magazine and ban on AR's is the problem. There is no evidence to suggest that making an arbitrary number like 10 or banning AR's will help because the fact of the matter is, most gun crimes are committed with handguns. And even then, most handguns have a capacity of more than 10 rounds. Anyone can make more rounds fit in a magazine if they want to, it just takes a modification that a 3rd grader can do.

 

[GroveDiesel]

In 2009, 77,000 people committed federal crimes by illegally applying for guns. The justice department prosecuted only 70 of them because Holder said he didn't have the resources. So we can't even enforce the bare minimum laws we have on the books going after criminals trying to get guns, but we are going to have success passing new laws that will only affect responsible owners?And is it ironic to anyone that all of this gun control stuff is coming after an incident involving a criminal murdering someone and stealing their guns? The huge majority of guns used in crimes are stolen guns. If the people committing violent crimes aren't obtaining their guns legally now, how do more laws of any sort change that?I'm on board with requiring mental health checks to buy a gun and I could even be on board with laws requiring guns to be kept in gun safes at home to prevent people from stealing them. But most of the stuff being discussed will have zero impact preventing criminals from obtaining whatever is made illegal.

The NRA and Republicans have fought every attempt to spend more money on the ATF and the Justice Department's ability to prosecute. Furthermore, the NRA and Republicans have fought against every attempt to provide the single most necessary measure to enforce the existing laws: removing the private sales background check loophole. So it seems a little ironic that you, as a conservative, would blame the federal government for not being able to enforce the existing laws. As for your comment that the proposals being discussed would have zero impact, you're simply wrong.

I'll need a link on the first and your second point is nonsensical. The vast majority of crimes are committed by people that illegally obtained their guns. Closing the private seller loophole would do virtually nothing to decrease crime or help law enforcement stop crime.Closing the the private seller loophole would have done nothing to stop the most recent tragedy. It wouldn't have stopped the Colorado movie theater shooting either. Both of them used stolen guns like 95% of crime committed by violent criminals.

 

[timschochet]

In 2009, 77,000 people committed federal crimes by illegally applying for guns. The justice department prosecuted only 70 of them because Holder said he didn't have the resources. So we can't even enforce the bare minimum laws we have on the books going after criminals trying to get guns, but we are going to have success passing new laws that will only affect responsible owners?

And is it ironic to anyone that all of this gun control stuff is coming after an incident involving a criminal murdering someone and stealing their guns? The huge majority of guns used in crimes are stolen guns. If the people committing violent crimes aren't obtaining their guns legally now, how do more laws of any sort change that?

I'm on board with requiring mental health checks to buy a gun and I could even be on board with laws requiring guns to be kept in gun safes at home to prevent people from stealing them. But most of the stuff being discussed will have zero impact preventing criminals from obtaining whatever is made illegal.

The NRA and Republicans have fought every attempt to spend more money on the ATF and the Justice Department's ability to prosecute. Furthermore, the NRA and Republicans have fought against every attempt to provide the single most necessary measure to enforce the existing laws: removing the private sales background check loophole. So it seems a little ironic that you, as a conservative, would blame the federal government for not being able to enforce the existing laws. As for your comment that the proposals being discussed would have zero impact, you're simply wrong.

I'll need a link on the first and your second point is nonsensical. The vast majority of crimes are committed by people that illegally obtained their guns. Closing the private seller loophole would do virtually nothing to decrease crime or help law enforcement stop crime.Closing the the private seller loophole would have done nothing to stop the most recent tragedy. It wouldn't have stopped the Colorado movie theater shooting either. Both of them used stolen guns like 95% of crime committed by violent criminals.

First off, here's a link for you on the NRA fghting the appointment of a permanent ATF chief:http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/04/18/help-wanted-atf-chief/

There are plenty of others out there. Please feel free to google it.

Second, although I have explained the law enforcement argument for removing the private sales loophole many times before in this thread, I don't mind doing it again for you: As you know, it is currently illegal for a convicted felon to purchase a firearm. Yet in the case of a private sale, it is impossible to enforce this law, because there is no background check. This means that a lawful seller can and will sell a gun to a criminal, without knowing that the sale is illegal. Therefore, under current law, you only need ONE person to knowingly break the law in order to have an illegal sale: the buyer. The seller has no idea that the law is being broken.

Now if we remove the loophole and require that ALL sales have a background check, then in order to have an illegal sale, we will then have to have TWO persons involved instead of one: along with the buyer, the seller will ALSO have to knowingly sell the gun to a criminal. Logic suggests that the number of illegal sales will go down dramatically. This is not my logic; it's the logic of law enforcement all over the country, and it makes sense, at least to me.

 

[GroveDiesel]

In 2009, 77,000 people committed federal crimes by illegally applying for guns. The justice department prosecuted only 70 of them because Holder said he didn't have the resources. So we can't even enforce the bare minimum laws we have on the books going after criminals trying to get guns, but we are going to have success passing new laws that will only affect responsible owners?

And is it ironic to anyone that all of this gun control stuff is coming after an incident involving a criminal murdering someone and stealing their guns? The huge majority of guns used in crimes are stolen guns. If the people committing violent crimes aren't obtaining their guns legally now, how do more laws of any sort change that?

I'm on board with requiring mental health checks to buy a gun and I could even be on board with laws requiring guns to be kept in gun safes at home to prevent people from stealing them. But most of the stuff being discussed will have zero impact preventing criminals from obtaining whatever is made illegal.

The NRA and Republicans have fought every attempt to spend more money on the ATF and the Justice Department's ability to prosecute. Furthermore, the NRA and Republicans have fought against every attempt to provide the single most necessary measure to enforce the existing laws: removing the private sales background check loophole. So it seems a little ironic that you, as a conservative, would blame the federal government for not being able to enforce the existing laws. As for your comment that the proposals being discussed would have zero impact, you're simply wrong.

I'll need a link on the first and your second point is nonsensical. The vast majority of crimes are committed by people that illegally obtained their guns. Closing the private seller loophole would do virtually nothing to decrease crime or help law enforcement stop crime.Closing the the private seller loophole would have done nothing to stop the most recent tragedy. It wouldn't have stopped the Colorado movie theater shooting either. Both of them used stolen guns like 95% of crime committed by violent criminals.

First off, here's a link for you on the NRA fghting the appointment of a permanent ATF chief:http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/04/18/help-wanted-atf-chief/

There are plenty of others out there. Please feel free to google it.

Second, although I have explained the law enforcement argument for removing the private sales loophole many times before in this thread, I don't mind doing it again for you: As you know, it is currently illegal for a convicted felon to purchase a firearm. Yet in the case of a private sale, it is impossible to enforce this law, because there is no background check. This means that a lawful seller can and will sell a gun to a criminal, without knowing that the sale is illegal. Therefore, under current law, you only need ONE person to knowingly break the law in order to have an illegal sale: the buyer. The seller has no idea that the law is being broken.

Now if we remove the loophole and require that ALL sales have a background check, then in order to have an illegal sale, we will then have to have TWO persons involved instead of one: along with the buyer, the seller will ALSO have to knowingly sell the gun to a criminal. Logic suggests that the number of illegal sales will go down dramatically. This is not my logic; it's the logic of law enforcement all over the country, and it makes sense, at least to me.

The vast number of guns used in crime are guns that are stolen, not guns that are illegally purchased.And I don't see anything in that article that indicates the GOP is blocking funds for enforcement of current laws by the Justice Department.

Also, is the lack of an ATF head because the NRA doesn't want anyone in charge, or because Obama wants to appoint someone that would start unilaterally modifying laws like much of the Justice Department has and they're blocking that sort of individual and Obama refuses to budge and nominate someone more palatable?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

And yet carrying that firearm necessarily puts your family in more danger than if you weren't carrying.

This myth has already been disproven many times over in this thread.

No it hasn't.

You're putting this claim out there, so... link please.

Really? This isn't controversial. Guns in the home = greater risk of homicide & suicide

Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

But that doesn't say what you think it does..It only increases the likelihood that a firearm may be used in a homicide or suicide, it does not say the absence of the firearm decreases the likelihood of suicide or homicide, only lessens the likelihood those crimes will be committed with a firearm rather than something else..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Those are not "hi cap" magazines. They are standard magazines that come with the weapon. What you are referring to are "lo cap" magazines that DO NOT come with the weapon almost anywhere in America except states that don't allow them because the people ignorantly think that "lo capacity" magazines will automatically cause less deaths.

This is like saying that a McDonalds Value Meal has an appropriate amount of calories because you didn't buy the Super Sized version.We're not talking about the terms in the way that the industry has chosen to define them.

No it is more like saying McDonalds Value Meal ONLY comes with Super Sized version, but you have to throw half of everything away. Do you buy a 55 inch TV so you can only watch 40 inch pictures on it so that you can save energy?

Is that what they do in states like the bolded? Or do gun manufacturers figure out how to make guns with smaller magazines to sell?FWIW, it sounds more compelling to me when the gun guys say, "Nonono.... smaller magazines don't matter because you can change them quickly" than when they say, "Nonono... bigger magazines are necessary because if my house is raided by 6 assailants and I have a 18% accuracy at 25 yards and a 24% probability of disabling on a hit shot, I really need a good 180 shot capacity in order to make sure that I might be safe." So I'm not sure how much good a limit would do. But I also don't see how much harm there is, either.

Who do you think is more likely to be carrying multiple preloaded clips? A guy surprised by an intruder in his home? Or a crazed looney launching an assault with intent to inflict maximum damage?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

 

[5 digit know nothing]

http://americangunfacts.com/

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?

International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths.1 Unfortunately, such discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative. It may be useful to begin with a few examples. There is a compound assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement (b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so.

Since at least 1965, the false assertion that the United States has the industrialized world’s highest murder rate has been an artifact of politically motivated Soviet minimization designed to hide the true homicide rates.2 Since well before that date, the Soviet Union possessed extremely stringent gun controls3 that were effectuated by a police state apparatus providing stringent enforcement.4 So successful was that regime that few Russian civilians now have firearms and very few murders involve them.5 Yet, manifest success in keeping its people disarmed did not prevent the Soviet Union from having far and away the highest murder rate in the developed world.6 In the 1960s and early 1970s, the gun-less Soviet Union’s murder rates paralleled or generally exceeded those of gun-ridden America. While American rates stabilized and then steeply declined, however, Russian murder increased so drastically that by the early 1990s the Russian rate was three times higher than that of the United States. Between 1998-2004 (the latest figure available for Russia), Russian murder rates were nearly four times higher than American rates. Similar murder rates also characterize the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and various other now-independent European nations of the former U.S.S.R.7 Thus, in the United States and the former Soviet Union transitioning into current-day Russia, “homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.”8 While American gun ownership is quite high, Table 1 shows many other developed nations (e.g., Norway, Finland, Germany, France, Denmark) with high rates of gun ownership. These countries, however, have murder rates as low or lower than many developed nations in which gun ownership is much rarer. For example, Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002.9

Table 1: European Gun Ownership and Murder Rates

(rates given are per 100,000 people and in descending order)

Nation Murder Rate Rate of Gun OwnershipRussia 20.54 [2002] 4,000Luxembourg 9.01 [2002] ~0Hungary 2.22 [2003] 2,000Finland 1.98 [2004] 39,000Sweden 1.87 [2001] 24,000Poland 1.79 [2003] 1,500France 1.65 [2003] 30,000Denmark 1.21 [2003] 19,000Greece 1.12 [2003] 11,000Switzerland 0.99 [2003] 16,000Germany 0.93 [2003] 30,000Norway 0.81 [2001] 36,000Austria 0.80 [2002] 17,000

Notes: This table covers all the Continental European nations for which the two data sets given are both available. In every case, we have given the homicide data for 2003 or the closest year thereto because that is the year of the publication from which the gun ownership data are taken. Gun ownership data comes from GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, SMALL ARMS SURVEY 64 tbl.2.2, 65 tbl.2.3 (2003).

The homicide rate data comes from an annually published report, CANADIAN CENTRE FOR JUSTICE STATISTICS, HOMICIDE IN CANADA, JURISTAT, for the years 2001–2004. Each year’s report gives homicide statistics for a dozen or so foreign nations in a section labeled “Homicide Rates for Selected Countries.” This section of the reports gives no explanation of why it selects the various nations whose homicide statistics it covers. Also without explanation, the nations covered differ from year to year. Thus, for instance, murder statistics for Germany and Hungary are given in all four of the pamphlets (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004), for Russia in three years (2001, 2002, and 2004), for France in two years (2001 and 2003), and for Norway and Sweden in only one year (2001).

The same pattern appears when comparisons of violence to gun ownership are made within nations. Indeed, “data on firearms ownership by constabulary area in England,” like data from the United States, show “a negative correlation,”10 that is, “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.”11 Many different data sets from various kinds of sources are summarized as follows by the leading text:

[T]here is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates: across (1) time within the United States, (2) U.S. cities, (3) counties within Illinois, (4) country‐sized areas like England, U.S. states, (5) regions of the United States, (6) nations, or (7) population subgroups . . . .12

A second misconception about the relationship between firearms and violence attributes Europe’s generally low homicide rates to stringent gun control. That attribution cannot be accurate since murder in Europe was at an all‐time low before the gun controls were introduced.13 For instance, virtually the only English gun control during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was the practice that police patrolled without guns. During this period gun control prevailed far less in England or Europe than in certain American states which nevertheless had—and continue to have—murder rates that were and are comparatively very high.14In this connection, two recent studies are pertinent. In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents.15 The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of then‐extant studies.16

Stringent gun controls were not adopted in England and Western Europe until after World War I. Consistent with the outcomes of the recent American studies just mentioned, these strict controls did not stem the general trend of ever‐growing violent crime throughout the post‐WWII industrialized world including the United States and Russia. Professor Malcolm’s study of English gun law and violent crime summarizes that nation’s nineteenth and twentieth century experience as follows:

The peacefulness England used to enjoy was not the result of strict gun laws. When it had no firearms restrictions [nineteenth and early twentieth century] England had little violent crime, while the present extraordinarily stringent gun controls have not stopped the increase in violence or even the increase in armed violence.17

Armed crime, never a problem in England, has now become one. Handguns are banned but the Kingdom has millions of illegal firearms. Criminals have no trouble finding them and exhibit a new willingness to use them. In the decade after 1957, the use of guns in serious crime increased a hundredfold.18

In the late 1990s, England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban of all handguns and many types of long guns. Hundreds of thousands of guns were confiscated from those owners law‐abiding enough to turn them in to authorities. Without suggesting this caused violence, the ban’s ineffectiveness was such that by the year 2000 violent crime had so increased that England and Wales had Europe’s highest violent crime rate, far surpassing even the United States.19 Today, English news media headline violence in terms redolent of the doleful, melodramatic language that for so long characterized American news reports.20 One aspect of England’s recent experience deserves note, given how often and favorably advocates have compared English gun policy to its American counterpart over the past 35 years.21 A generally unstated issue in this notoriously emotional debate was the effect of the Warren Court and later restrictions on police powers on American gun policy. Critics of these decisions pointed to soaring American crime rates and argued simplistically that such decisions caused, or at least hampered, police in suppressing crime. But to some supporters of these judicial decisions, the example of England argued that the solution to crime was to restrict guns, not civil liberties. To gun control advocates, England, the cradle of our liberties, was a nation made so peaceful by strict gun control that its police did not even need to carry guns. The United States, it was argued, could attain such a desirable situation by radically reducing gun ownership, preferably by banning and confiscating handguns....So much for my amateurish attempt "to run or interpret stastistical analyses"

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Nope, not an Onion article.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Nope, not an Onion article.

Thanks for both. God bless those doctors.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Nope, not an Onion article.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

B. The Rochester Study

Of particular relevance to the weapons effect hypothesis is some of the data from the Rochester Youth Development Study. This ongoing study tracked approximately 1,000 7th and 8th grade adolescents for a period of 4-1/2 years—until they reached 11th and 12th grade, respectively.

The subjects were students from the Rochester, New York, public school system who, at the commencement of the study, were in attendance during the 1987-88 academic year. The researchers noted that the sample population represented the entire range of 7th and 8th grade students. They intentionally, however, selected more students from high-crime areas, and fewer from low-crime areas, because their goals were to identify factors that led to delinquency and drug use, and to develop policy initiatives for reducing such activity.

One aspect of the study‘s analysis was to determine how the pattern of firearm acquisition and possession by juveniles affected their behavior. For this part, the subjects were limited to males, and three groups of adolescents were identified: those who owned legal guns initially comprised 3% of the sample (approximately 20 boys); those who owned illegal guns comprised 7% of the sample (approximately 47 boys). The remainder, about 605 boys, reported that they did not own a gun. This information on gun ownership was obtained at the time the youngsters were in 9th and 10th grades when most were 14 and 15 years of age.

It is of special interest that the least violent of these three juvenile groups were young gun-owners who had been "socialized" into gun ownership through a family member--usually the father. As the researchers noted: "Parents who own legal guns socialize their children into the legitimate gun culture. Those parents who do not own guns are unlikely to socialize their children in that manner."

Among the study‘s specific findings were that children who acquired guns in a lawful manner (from relatives) never committed firearm-related crimes (0%), whereas children who acquired guns illegally often did so (24%; compare this to 1% in the non-gun-owning sample who did so). Children who acquired guns in a lawful manner were less likely to commit any kind of street crime (14%) than children who did not own guns (24%), or than children who acquired a gun illegally (74%).

The presence of firearms in their lives apparently reduced socially undesirable aggressive behavior among the group of legal gun-owning children. This phenomenon should be explored more fully in order to determine how placing a lethal weapon in the hands of an adolescent can restrain aggressive impulses.

Although the Rochester study was not intended to be an investigation of the weapons effect hypothesis, the study provides another means of assessing validity of the hypothesis. If there is a weapons effect, adolescents should have exhibited it, since the emotional stability of this age group tends to be more turbulent than in adulthood. As any parent of an adolescent knows, heated, passionate arguments and other lesser conflicts are inevitable during this period. While firearm-related crime committed by some of the gun owning boys did take place, delinquent behavior facilitated with the use of a gun is premeditated, not an "act of passion." Premeditated violent crime does not fall under the purview of the impulsive behavior predicted by the weapons effect.

Every one of the study‘s youngsters had a gun within easy reach or knew where to find one quickly. Lizotte and Krohnxlix noted that "those desiring a handgun have no trouble obtaining them from an underground economy." Yet not one of the subjects grabbed for a gun in the heat of the moment and shot his mother, his father, his sister, or his brother. Doors may have slammed shut with explosive force, expletives may have been lobbed around—but bullets didn‘t whiz by. How can this finding be reconciled with the predictions of the weapons effect hypothesis?

III. IMPLICATIONS OF THE ROCHESTER STUDY

The lesson to be learned, however, is more than just the lack of weapons effect validity: the Rochester study shows how attempts to extinguish America‘s traditional gun culture may result in unintended societal problems. The differences in behavior between the group of young gun-owners who have been socialized into the gun culture through the family, and those who have not, are significant and their ramifications profound.

For example, let us review the issue of firearm safety. That gun owners in the U.S. are overwhelmingly safety conscious can be inferred from the ever-downward spiral of firearm-related accidental deaths which continues to this day. It is reasonable to assume that when an adult presents a gun to a child, the safety of the child—and those around him—become of paramount concern to that adult. The adults have a high stake in teaching the child to safely and responsibly handle that gun, respect for what the gun can do, and a detailed knowledge of how the gun works.

Contrast the teenager who is taught about guns by an adult family member with the youngster who acquires a gun illegally—from the black market, or from a friend (who may have acquired the gun illegally, too). All knowledge about the use and workings of that firearm is learned in a clandestine manner necessitated by the legal consequences of discovery of possession of that firearm.

Because of today‘s almost unintelligible, often contradictory and complex maze of firearm laws—especially those that pertain to possession and use in an urban setting— adults are increasingly unable to take children to the local range for target practice, or to seek out the help of professionals for safety and marksmanship training. Under such circumstances, knowledge of how a gun works, and what it is capable of, is determined by what is learned on the street and what is seen in the movies and other media—not necessarily accurate sources for the responsible handling of firearms.

In America, firearm ownership continues, for the most part, to be kept in the family, handed down from one generation to the next. But near-prohibitory firearm controls will ensure that the primary modality for youngsters to learn about guns changes. Summarizing the Rochester evidence, Lizotte and Tesoriero concluded: "Boys who own legal guns are socialized by their parents and pose no threat to society….general policies should not be targeted at youth (and their fathers) who own guns for legitimate purposes." (emphasis in original). Removing adults from the cycle of firearm ownership may threaten the present declining trend of firearm-related accidents and may also perversely change the nature of America‘s traditional peaceable sporting gun culture.

Weapons effect fear is being used to incrementally destroy the most socially beneficial means of introducing children to a wholesome gun culture. During the last decade, the number of schools that have rifle teams dramatically declined. Only in certain locations, it appears, are gun-owning parents willing to make a determined commitment and resist social pressures within the school system.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

 

[Dvorak]

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Same article, if you are one who jumps to conclusions:

CONCLUSIONThis Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidencefrom a wide variety of international sources. Each individualportion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least thegeneral objection that the persuasiveness of social scientificevidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness ofconclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burdenof proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equalmore death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especiallysince they argue public policy ought to be based onthat mantra.149 To bear that burden would at the very leastrequire showing that a large number of nations with moreguns have more death and that nations that have imposedstringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductionsin criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations arenot observed when a large number of nations are comparedacross the world.