gun control rant thread

wbjones> same for both of the WW's ... really don't think that the allies could have won either without the US ... then again I don't think the US could have won either without the allies .....

Ww1 was a draw.....part of how the Nazi's came to power was playing on the heart strings of the populace as their troops were unbeaten on the field of battle and betrayed by their government into accepting an armistice that weakened germany, led to a horrible economy, and were blamed for ww1(with horrifying reparations hanging over their head)

Ww2 was so much different.

oldsaw wrote:

Beer Baron wrote: However, I'm not sure I buy that and am more inclined to say that the effects of gun ownership on crime and murder is much less significant than other social factors. I would wager that education, unemployment rate, and quality of life are probably the factors most closely tied to violence and murder.

Bingo. Firearm possession/ownership by law-abiding citizens isn't our problem. Creating or enforcing legislation that focuses on actual criminals (and their actions) is a better place to start.

I agree. I would say the most effective long-term way to decrease violence is not to crack down on crime (although that doesn't necessarily hurt), but to improve education and economic opportunities. Give people clear paths that are an alternative to crime.

Now, we do have criminals getting and using guns. How are they getting them? Presumably they start out being legally purchased somewhere before finding their way into criminal use. It seems pretty rare that people purchase them directly from dealers to use them in crimes. Are they being imported from other countries? Or are they being stolen from homes and businesses? If a significant number are the later, it does make sense to have laws requiring law abiding gun owners to keep their guns properly secured. Sure that could be a bit difficult to enforce, but seems reasonable to hold people accountable for some kind of fine or penalty for losing an improperly secured gun.

Fact is, if you own firearms, you should keep them safe and secured. That's just responsible gun ownership. So how do we convince people to do the behavior they should (whether through law, education, or social pressure from other gun-owners).

GVX19 wrote: I was just thinking that the gun may not be the problem. Would it be too Ez to ban things like. http://www.rapidfiretriggers.com/

And how many of those have been used in homicides/crimes?

Bobzilla wrote:

GVX19 wrote: I was just thinking that the gun may not be the problem. Would it be too Ez to ban things like. http://www.rapidfiretriggers.com/

And how many of those have been used in homicides/crimes?

Those are used most often to make shooting a little more fun. Not exactly good for accuracy... And presumably not often used in the commission of a crime. You can shot just as fast, off not faster, by bump firing an AK.

Bobzilla wrote:

GVX19 wrote: I was just thinking that the gun may not be the problem. Would it be too Ez to ban things like. http://www.rapidfiretriggers.com/

And how many of those have been used in homicides/crimes?

Okay you got me. It looked like it would be ez to do. Making Homicide a crime has not worked.

GVX19 wrote:

Bobzilla wrote:

GVX19 wrote: I was just thinking that the gun may not be the problem. Would it be too Ez to ban things like. http://www.rapidfiretriggers.com/

And how many of those have been used in homicides/crimes?

Okay you got me. It looked like it would be ez to do. Making Homicide a crime has not worked.

Failing in your career as a hitman?

I actually wrote my congressman today. Suggesting they spend their energy on the source of the problem rather than the means and let him know my expectation is the protection of freedoms - rather than diminishing them.

Seems to be a hell of a run on ARs - not that I was ready to buy, but dang, a little noise out of DC will get a market moving. Wonder how many more got sold in the last couple of weeks that wouldn't have.

yamaha wrote:

wbjones> same for both of the WW's ... really don't think that the allies could have won either without the US ... then again I don't think the US could have won either without the allies .....

Ww1 was a draw.....part of how the Nazi's came to power was playing on the heart strings of the populace as their troops were unbeaten on the field of battle and betrayed by their government into accepting an armistice that weakened germany, led to a horrible economy, and were blamed for ww1(with horrifying reparations hanging over their head) Ww2 was so much different.

without our late arrival in the war, the Germans were eventually going to roll over the French and English ( I say eventually ... it would have taken a long time and the British naval blockade may have done the deed without our help )...
the Russians were finished by that time, I think ... ( I'll have to research that a bit) they had their own problems at home

even with the US there, you're mostly correct ... the Germans were forced into too many concessions that wouldn't have been the case without our shoring up of the allies lines ....

now if they had refused the terms of the armistice and continued the trench warfare .. who knows ... (once again I go back to the British blockade )

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/robert-farago/breaking-illinois-bill-to-ban-all-modern-firearms/

In reply to Beer Baron:

I said it before in this thread, most criminal enterprises have a specific member with clear background they have doing the buying......straw purchases are illegal already, there's nothing further that can be done to stop that other than prosecute those individuals and dealers(hard to go after the dealers because people lie on the forms committing perjury in the process)

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/01/journal-news-hires-armed-security-guards-153103.html

http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

Interesting article on the interpretations of the 2nd amendment. Google cinncinnati revolt if you want to know more. Long story short is that there was a big change in leadership at the NRA in 1977 and it eventually changed how we all feel about RKBA.

I am not saying this is right or wrong but before 77 the militia clause used to trump the bear arms bit of the 2nd. Interesting how things change. It's funny I never knew an NRA with a softer focus. I guess this is government by the people for the people at its best. The people change their opinion and they put them in motion.

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine (actually just the article that was posted):

So the government cannot ban handguns, but it can ban other weapons—like, say, an assault rifle—or so it appears.

And now we're back to step one. Define an assault rifle. Is it full auto or does it look full auto or fire at a higher rate or go brtrrytttttrttrttrttrrt? Prior laws state pistol grips, adjustable stocks, high-cap magazines, and looking like an assault rifle, i.e. tactical rails.

Yup. The NRA backed the National Firearms Act. Several other laws, too. (too lazy to track down my old post about it.)

JoeyM wrote: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/robert-farago/breaking-illinois-bill-to-ban-all-modern-firearms/

More news about the potential ban of all semi-automatics in Illinois
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/robert-farago/breaking-new-details-on-illinois-modern-firearm-ban-bill/

JoeyM wrote:

JoeyM wrote: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/robert-farago/breaking-illinois-bill-to-ban-all-modern-firearms/

More news about the potential ban of all semi-automatics in Illinois http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/robert-farago/breaking-new-details-on-illinois-modern-firearm-ban-bill/

i think this is so ridiculous as to not be serious, apparently he also tried to slip a .50 cal and assault weapons ban into a veto of a bill that would allow residents to purchase ammo online from businesses within IL (they were already allowed to purchase from the other 49 states). it is far too broad and wouldn't stand for long (we would hope, depending on how many scotus judges one has in one's pocket).

It is serious, but they intend to use it as a bargining chip . The anti-2A types who oppose all guns will propose this type of law because it is exactly what they want, and would be happy if it would pass. They don't expect it to, though.....it just gives them a position to start from as they compromise towards the middle. I expect that Illinois will end up with a law that bans modern sporting rifles, leaving handguns alone. It will be appealed.

Expect any semi-automatic IL ban to be cosmetic; i.e. banning guns based on their accessories

(Both ruger 10/22 rifles, one of which was tarted up by morons who play too much call of duty)

In reply to JoeyM:

You really don't like people who modify to their weapons to their own specifications, do you?

Why bans based on "cosmetics" are little more than thought-exercises without much thought: http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

N Sperlo wrote: In reply to JoeyM: You really don't like people who modify to their weapons to their own specifications, do you?

you'd think that would be protected under the first amendment.

yeah its a bit silly to tacticool out a 10/22, but they are a bag of fun to shoot, no matter what's bolted to them, and i'm not going to say other people can't do it just because its not my thing.

In reply to oldsaw:

Article Linked Above said: It’s not easy being a leftist who loves guns. It’s like being a Republican who listens to NPR or supports single payer health care. But being a leftist, I get exposed to all the liberal publications and media that invariably call for gun control every time someone does something stupid with one. Being a gun enthusiast, I also get exposed to the political Right’s oversimplification of those liberals as somehow lacking moral fiber or true appreciation of freedom. Rather than agreeing with both, I tend to end up arguing with both. It’s exhausting to always feel like I’m apologizing for the other “side”.

Seems that he and I are in much the same situation.

In reply to Strizzo:

I'm still more accruate with my 60yo OFmossberg than most of those 10-22's owners ever will be. I don't like tactiqueers, but, I see their choice as protected, just as my right to make fun of them for it is.....

That said, I want an eotech on top of the FAL I'm building. Chances are, besides the m14 long flash hider, that will be the only thing added to it. No light, no laser, no forgrip, no bipod, etc......Guess I'm not a yuppie.

Beer Baron wrote: In reply to oldsaw:

Article Linked Above said: It’s not easy being a leftist who loves guns. It’s like being a Republican who listens to NPR or supports single payer health care. But being a leftist, I get exposed to all the liberal publications and media that invariably call for gun control every time someone does something stupid with one. Being a gun enthusiast, I also get exposed to the political Right’s oversimplification of those liberals as somehow lacking moral fiber or true appreciation of freedom. Rather than agreeing with both, I tend to end up arguing with both. It’s exhausting to always feel like I’m apologizing for the other “side”.

Seems that he and I are in much the same situation.

Ditto. Funny thing is, I've heard a lot of leftist banter in support of gun rights. The is a broad understanding around here that those of us carrying are keeping the crime rate down, because criminals have to assume everyone use carrying.

I really don't see these gun bans going through at all. /brokenrecord

My best friend is gay, a die-hard republican and super-pro-gun and a part time cop..... imagine how much crap he gets!

Bobzilla wrote: My best friend is gay, a die-hard republican and super-pro-gun and a part time cop..... imagine how much crap he gets!

"best friend"?