One more thing to add, people defending the right to bear arms and hunting is all fine and good, but missed the point. It's our right. We don't need to have a reason. It's like saying you can't own a Viper unless you plan on tracking it, or, like defending the need to own a Viper because you like to track your cars. It is not a necessary defense. It's your right to own guns. Period. Regardless of use.
Cone_Junky wrote: ...words...
Lets go the other way... no one anywhere may have or possess a firearm. Not even the Police except with a court order. The military are not allowed to carry except on base for training purposes and on foreign soil. Like Rome.
What would the police say? "No way, then the bad guys will still have guns and we won't be able to stop 'em!!!"
DOH. Thats what we have been trying to tell you...
Can someone help me find information that says what percentage of murders are done with legally purchased firearms? From a non-gun site would be nice.
Meanwhile in South Carolina.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/18/3734095/proposed-sc-law-would-let-some.html
93EXCivic wrote: Can someone help me find information that says what percentage of murders are done with legally purchased firearms? From a non-gun site would be nice.
that's probably buried deep in here
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-offense-data
JoeyM wrote:93EXCivic wrote: Can someone help me find information that says what percentage of murders are done with legally purchased firearms? From a non-gun site would be nice.that's probably buried deep in here http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-offense-data
I couldn't find anything about legally vs illegally acquired weapons.
93EXCivic wrote:JoeyM wrote:I couldn't find anything about legally vs illegally acquired weapons.93EXCivic wrote: Can someone help me find information that says what percentage of murders are done with legally purchased firearms? From a non-gun site would be nice.that's probably buried deep in here http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-offense-data
I highly doubt you'll find it unless it's from a gun-backed group. The facts liekly don't fit the anti-'s agenda, so they choose to ignore it. Like anything, numbers are easily manipulated.
I think my fave was one study that showed an abnormally high number of gun deaths, but included things like police action shootings and suicides. Not exactly WRONG.... but not exactly truthful either.
i saw a stat that i questioned about, because at what point does a gun become illegal?
in the case of CT, the gun technically became prosecutorially illegal when he took possession of the weapon off of their personal property grounds.
but it was legally owned and purchased.
depending on the terms established by such statistics, the guns used could be called legal or illegal.
In reply to 93EXCivic: Article I heard on NPR the other day (multi-decade study)says that 80% of mass killings were down with legally obtained weapons.
madmallard wrote: i saw a stat that i questioned about, because at what point does a gun become illegal? in the case of CT, the gun technically became prosecutorially illegal when he took possession of the weapon off of their personal property grounds. but it was legally owned and purchased. depending on the terms established by such statistics, the guns used could be called legal or illegal.
The weapon itself was never in itself illegal. The act of carrying it was illegal in this case. Legality of weapons may differ from state to state.
Cone_Junky wrote: In reply to 93EXCivic: Article I heard on NPR the other day (multi-decade study)says that 80% of mass killings were down with legally obtained weapons.
And my guess is 99% of the illegally obtained weapons were only "illegal" because they were stolen, not modified.
I've been following this thread with some interest, and I have a couple of questions that I hope you guys would humor me with....
First, one poster mentioned that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to own guns, which I guess most agree on to some extent; but how far does that right go? Would it apply to fully automatic machine guns? to a tank? to a nuclear bomb? At what point do you think the founding fathers might say, "that's not what we had in mind..."
Second, several people have noted that the now expired assault weapons ban was a failure...by what measure, and how do you know that? Do we have any statistics on how many homicides it may have prevented? And to extend and generalize this a bit further, how many suicides/homicides prevented are worth some restrictions on gun rights?
Thanks for your consideration.
-chris r.
intrepid wrote: First, one poster mentioned that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to own guns, which I guess most agree on to some extent; but how far does that right go? Would it apply to fully automatic machine guns?
Probably.
intrepid wrote: to a tank? to a nuclear bomb? At what point do you think the founding fathers might say, "that's not what we had in mind..."
When referring to cannon and the like the term ordnance was used, not arms. The second makes no reference to ordnance. Taking this to the end thought, tanks and nukes are a no go. Although you can own a tank as long as the guns are deactivated.
Arms didn't even mean guns only back then, it was basically anything you could reasonably use to defend or attack with, so include swords, knives, brass knuckles, axes and god knows what else in the list of 2nd protected items.
intrepid wrote: Second, several people have noted that the now expired assault weapons ban was a failure...by what measure, and how do you know that? Do we have any statistics on how many homicides it may have prevented? And to extend and generalize this a bit further, how many suicides/homicides prevented are worth some restrictions on gun rights? Thanks for your consideration. -chris r.
The statistics are all over the place, but largely they show that there was no drop in crime or in some places it went up. If someone wants to kill themselves or others, they're berkeleying going too. In 2010 a man in China killed 17 people with a shovel loader, does this mean we ban bobcats?
I have a similar observation / question to Intrepid, so I will latch on to his:
The "right to bear arms" of course, in general, originally referred to the muskets and such of the period. Which, at that time, were pretty much the state of the art military equipment. I honestly don't think even the most pro-gun people would agree that the same level of "right" would exist today. Especially when you get into the areas of chemical / biological / nuclear.
Soooo, what I am saying here (if my assumption is correct), is that the Pro side Already believes is some sort of gun (weapon) control. As with many things, it's not 100% or 0%, it simply a matter of where you draw the line.
The second thing you guys might be able to answer (provide intelligent opinion on) is: The contrast of right vs privilege when it comes to guns in comparison to cars (hey! it's a car board).
Someone mentioned earlier that gun ownership is a right so it cannot be regulated by licensing / training requirements (I think I read that somewhere in this thread). But that is not really true. Gun ownership, as well as voting (clearly a basic right) can be revoked in certain circumstances (convicted felon I believe, please correct me if I am wrong here). So, what I am saying, it is not an absolute right.
From a strictly logical / practical perspective it seem highly reasonable to require licensing / training for gun ownership for something that has somewhat limited (in terms of how much you use it) practical use that is also potentially very deadly since you require it for something that is highly practical and also is potentially very deadly.
I really don't think it is bad idea to have a level of licensing (kind of like the CC laws) that allows CC but also comes with an added level of responsibility / liability, and training requirements so that that person acts as sort of a "citizen police" or something along those lines.
intrepid wrote: Second, several people have noted that the now expired assault weapons ban was a failure...by what measure, and how do you know that?
Grizz wrote: The statistics are all over the place,
this is an understatement. Results vary widely by city. Even if there are trends, they are small which makes it easy to spin the numbers. Take a look at the average for Baltimore, Anchorage and Milwaukee.
In baltimore, there were slightly fewer large capacity magazines used in crimes after the ban (for all gun crime) but I don't see a visible trend for violent crime (Figure 8-1, pg. 70)
In Anchorage, the trend is OBVIOUS: After the ban, there were a more large capacity magazines were recovered from crime scenes than before the ban. (figure 8-2, pg. 73) The numbers are minor, though: they went from 14 to 21.
The only things that seem consistent everywhere are that handguns are used in a lot more crimes than rifles, and that large capacity magazines are more common in crimes than "assault rifles" (which is a stupid term, anyway)
intrepid wrote: First, one poster mentioned that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to own guns, which I guess most agree on to some extent; but how far does that right go? Would it apply to fully automatic machine guns? to a tank? to a nuclear bomb? At what point do you think the founding fathers might say, "that's not what we had in mind..."
Guns. Bombs aren't guns. Assault rifles are guns. Fully automatic rifles and pistols are guns. For any gun you may have, the government has bigger. Tanks can be owned privately.
The founding fathers had our protection from our own government in mind.
"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
- Thomas Jefferson
Does that quote mean we are going to march on the capital and shoot people? No, but it means we retain the right and ability to revolt and protect ourselves if such a situation arises.
Second, several people have noted that the now expired assault weapons ban was a failure...by what measure, and how do you know that? Do we have any statistics on how many homicides it may have prevented? And to extend and generalize this a bit further, how many suicides/homicides prevented are worth some restrictions on gun rights?
I believe I remember a 2% nationwide drop in homicide rate after the assault rifle ban. A drop that small cannot be attributed to such an action taken by the government. The numbers are just too small.
I wouldn't expect an effect in crime at all from an assault weapon ban. The assault rifles grandfathered in will be plentiful. They are not the problem. The real problem is the weapons already in the hands of criminals. I have a collection of bullets that I find. Some are short of demolished. Others are barely damaged. The chances that they were fired by a legally obtained weapon are unlikely.
Have you ever seen a drive-by with a fully automatic AK-47 or a fully automatic Tec-9? Have you ever seen someone chased down by a rival gang member, have a pistol pointed at their head and watch their life drain in an instant? Those weapons were bought on the street. No background checks or sanity check.
I'm all for background checks, but the weapons that are used to kill hundreds a year in St Louis, Detroit, Flint, D.C., and Chicago are obtained or modified illegally.
Making it illegal to obtain these weapons isn't going to keep these crimes from happening. As cynical as it may sound, where there is a will, there is a way.
JoeyM wrote:Cone_Junky wrote: Instead of taking away the precious "hunting" rifles away from everyone, let's take one of the common talking points to fruition. Arm more people. But instead of giving a rifle to any jackhole that applies, bring in armed and armored National Guard...everywhere. I need to feel safe for myself and family. People need to feel safe by having their own armory in the bedroom. I think the tradeoff is a Military State. Gun owners get their right to bear arms and I get my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The gov't also gets to apply their #1 priority, protecting it's citizens.I think you'll find that the overlap between the private gun owners and the national guard troops is pretty large. Even where there's not overlap, there is a good chance that everybody knows everybody; same community, frequenting the same ranges, shopping at the same places.
Just to reiterate what I said earlier; the people who want these guns for personal use are usually not scary bad people
a gun dealer said: On Monday, a police officer in the Chicago area called Fjestad to tell him about his recent experience buying guns from a Virginia-based dealer, Fjestad told HuffPost in an email. Fjestad said that the officer had contacted the dealer on Dec. 12 to inquire about a new, modified AK-47 and a “tricked out” AR-15, which would cost $600 and $1,000, respectively, the dealer reportedly said. The officer decided to hold off, and called the dealer again on Saturday. The prices had jumped to $1,000 and $1,600, respectively -- but the officer bought them anyway. “I asked him why,” Fjestad recalled, “and his reply was, ‘They didn’t have any more, and I believe the prices won’t go down.’”
in other news, gunbroker is down
bud's gunshop was down yesterday, but they're up again. CheaperThanDirt grew a spine within the last 24 hours
aircooled wrote: From a strictly logical / practical perspective it seem highly reasonable to require licensing / training for gun ownership for something that has somewhat limited (in terms of how much you use it) practical use that is also potentially very deadly since you require it for something that is highly practical and also is potentially very deadly.
Many would agree with this. If you look at my post that started this thread, one of the things I suggested was better testing
Strizzo wrote: in other news, gunbroker is down
It's up now
N Sperlo wrote:intrepid wrote: First, one poster mentioned that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to own guns, which I guess most agree on to some extent; but how far does that right go? Would it apply to fully automatic machine guns? to a tank? to a nuclear bomb? At what point do you think the founding fathers might say, "that's not what we had in mind..."Guns. Bombs aren't guns. Assault rifles are guns. Fully automatic rifles and pistols are guns. For any gun you may have, the government has bigger. Tanks can be owned privately. The founding fathers had our protection from our own government in mind. "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson Does that quote mean we are going to march on the capital and shoot people? No, but it means we retain the right and ability to revolt and protect ourselves if such a situation arises.Second, several people have noted that the now expired assault weapons ban was a failure...by what measure, and how do you know that? Do we have any statistics on how many homicides it may have prevented? And to extend and generalize this a bit further, how many suicides/homicides prevented are worth some restrictions on gun rights?I believe I remember a 2% nationwide drop in homicide rate after the assault rifle ban. A drop that small cannot be attributed to such an action taken by the government. The numbers are just too small. I wouldn't expect an effect in crime at all from an assault weapon ban. The assault rifles grandfathered in will be plentiful. They are not the problem. The real problem is the weapons already in the hands of criminals. I have a collection of bullets that I find. Some are short of demolished. Others are barely damaged. The chances that they were fired by a legally obtained weapon are unlikely. Have you ever seen a drive-by with a fully automatic AK-47 or a fully automatic Tec-9? Have you ever seen someone chased down by a rival gang member, have a pistol pointed at their head and watch their life drain in an instant? Those weapons were bought on the street. No background checks or sanity check. I'm all for background checks, but the weapons that are used to kill hundreds a year in St Louis, Detroit, Flint, D.C., and Chicago are obtained or modified illegally. Making it illegal to obtain these weapons isn't going to keep these crimes from happening. As cynical as it may sound, where there is a will, there is a way.
Winner, our founding fathers wrote this in to keep any government, including our own , from enslaving us against our will. What if I am disarmed then the Chinese invade and I have no way to defend my family. Hypothetical conjecture thrown out in the spirit of argument
In reply to TRoglodyte:
Thats not why we have the weapons, but it doesn't keep us from using them for other reasons. What we cannot do is assume every other use is probably criminal.
Some interesting data from the FBI:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
In reply to Bobzilla:
Check your link. Not showing up on my android.
Never mind. You fixed it.
yeah, I was fighting it again.... links seem to be my achilles heel here!
You'll need to log in to post.
