Gun Control

[DeletedUser34315]

And how many thousands of "little stories" are deemed too unimportant by you? Your street might be safe, but plenty of others aren't, and not just for me.
Again, gun control will not work. Illegal guns will remain too easy to get. All you will do by limiting decent firearms, or preventing them altogether, is remove access for law-abiding citizens.
I'd rather not have an antiquated, ineffective firearm, while my attacker has a modern semi-auto pistol.

 

[DeletedUser]

And how many thousands of "little stories" are deemed too unimportant by you? Your street might be safe, but plenty of others aren't, and not just for me.
Again, gun control will not work. Illegal guns will remain too easy to get. All you will do by limiting decent firearms, or preventing them altogether, is remove access for law-abiding citizens.
I'd rather not have an antiquated, ineffective firearm, while my attacker has a modern semi-auto pistol.

See post #95 above.
Before saying gun control will not work, first come over to the UK and see how much safer you'll feel (I've spent time both sides of the Atlantic - it's not just in my head).
Maybe you only mean in the US, but this thread is specifically not just US-based.

 

[DeletedUser33353]

Hard evidence.

To carry a gun safely and legally, you must keep it in a holster, strapped down, with the safety on, no bullet in the chamber (automatic). One common argument is that it serves for self-defense, but the overwhelming cases of violence or assault occur without warning or provocation and without the luxury of time to respond. There is simply very few cases in which you would have time to expose your pistol, unstrap the trigger, pull it from the holster, aim, put the safety to off, and then fire.

Also, the vast majority of assault cases occur in the home or household and is committed by a relative or acquaintance and the amount of cases showing legal application of a firearm (for home defense or similar), not inclusive of law enforcement, is grossly surpassed by the amount of cases showing illegal application (not withstanding illegal possession) of a firearm.

So, where's the rebuttal...

I have the rebuttal for you Hell....
Ever hear of a 1911A1? Can be carried chambered, cocked...the backstrap keeps it from being fired. Though, it is to big for me to use as a concealed weapon.
Or perhaps one of the new fangled pistolas....a double action? Always locked and loaded, just squeeze the the trigger to fire?


To carry a gun safely and legally, you must keep it in a holster, strapped down, with the safety on, no bullet in the chamber (automatic).------That statement puzzles me.....have you actually gone through a ccw class? I regularly carry without a holster, loaded, chambered....only takes 1 second to fire. Oh, and the proper term is a semi-automatic, I always chuckle when peeps, liberals, media, says it is an auto. Auto=full automatic.....ie, machine gun.

The rest of your statement, I am not even going to bother commenting on.

 

[DeletedUser34315]

See post #95 above.
Before saying gun control will not work, first come over to the UK and see how much safer you'll feel (I've spent time both sides of the Atlantic - it's not just in my head).
Maybe you only mean in the US, but this thread is specifically not just US-based.

I am speaking in US terms. What works on a small island won't work on an entire continent with thousands of miles of border.

Kid kalypso, you've got a very good point.

 

[DeletedUser]

I am speaking in US terms. What works on a small island won't work on an entire continent with thousands of miles of border.

I'm glad we've cleared that up at least. In the UK we have a successful policy of gun control, even though it could still be improved, as the Raoul Moat case showed.
For the US, some poster(s) here claim(s) that illegal availability of firearms from Mexico would undercut any domestic gun control policy. Without secure control of its own borders no country can govern itself, so if you accept this argument I suppose the question then is how does the US dog stop being wagged by the Mexican tail?
There is less of a gun problem in Canada than the US, in spite of a long, unsecured border and even though most of Canada is bear-country, so I guess that would be one place to start looking at and learning from.

 

[DeletedUser20688]

I'm glad we've cleared that up at least. In the UK we have a successful policy of gun control, even though it could still be improved, as the Raoul Moat case showed.
For the US, some poster(s) here claim(s) that illegal availability of firearms from Mexico would undercut any domestic gun control policy. Without secure control of its own borders no country can govern itself, so if you accept this argument I suppose the question then is how does the US dog stop being wagged by the Mexican tail?
There is less of a gun problem in Canada than the US, in spite of a long, unsecured border and even though most of Canada is bear-country, so I guess that would be one place to start looking at and learning from.

Eli, since you are apparently a political science expert with some source of data on United States versus United Kingdom (and/or world statistics), I was hoping to see your statements and view on this table I keep finding while trying to get some information about gun control in First World society and its impact on crime rates:

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

It seems a tad hokey but I can't seem to find any real reliable academic source of statistics to confirm your sentiments that the United Kingdom is a safer place to live than the United States or anywhere else in terms of harmful, physical crime.

Also, so what about this incident:

Cumbria shooting rampage suspect's 'body found'

Is this incident just par for the course? A lone gunman will sometimes just murder people even in the efficient gun control state/nation of the United Kingdom? What data can you present that would prove that any citizen that could have been armed with a firearm (regardless of the current laws) had absolutely no chance of any kind of stopping that gunman in that particularly gruesome scenario? It's fascinating because he was issued certificates from the government to have firearms, correct?

I'm under the assumption that you are actually in agreement that no one in this thread is advocating the total ban of firearms. Again, I just want to read your feedback.

 

[DeletedUser]

Eli, since you are apparently a political science expert with some source of data on United States versus United Kingdom (and/or world statistics), I was hoping to see your statements and view on this table I keep finding while trying to get some information about gun control in First World society and its impact on crime rates:

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

It seems a tad hokey but I can't seem to find any real reliable academic source of statistics to confirm your sentiments that the United Kingdom is a safer place to live than the United States or anywhere else in terms of harmful, physical crime.

Well, since the thread is about gun control, that was the context in which I was posting.
Just to pull the first data to hand out of google on firearm deaths, country-by-country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
England is down there in 60th place out of 67 countries with at around 4.5% of the rate in the US - the country with which I was comparing it.
Violent crime is a different issue. It's pretty easy to count the times when someone is killed by a gun, but the definition of violent crime (and therefore, its measurement) varies from one jurisdiction to another. I would consider rape to be such a crime, but there is no internationally agreed standard of what constitutes rape, so direct comparisons need to be treated very carefully. And a multiple murder - is that counted as one crime or several?
Your link is to a "Daily Mail" article. In terms of upheld complaints to our press complaints body it is the paper with the worst track record. By EU standards we do not rank that well with crime, probably because we have a very mobile population, large social disparities and low welfare standards but I'm veering OT here.

Also, so what about this incident:

Cumbria shooting rampage suspect's 'body found'

Is this incident just par for the course? A lone gunman will sometimes just murder people even in the efficient gun control state/nation of the United Kingdom? What data can you present that would prove that any citizen that could have been armed with a firearm (regardless of the current laws) had absolutely no chance of any kind of stopping that gunman in that particularly gruesome scenario? It's fascinating because he was issued certificates from the government to have firearms, correct?

I'm under the assumption that you are actually in agreement that no one in this thread is advocating the total ban of firearms. Again, I just want to read your feedback.

That incident is far from par for the course. It's maybe a once-a-decade thing, rather like a terrorist attack or a bad train crash. The guy was not an obvious risk and had a licenced weapon, yet he ran amok and destroyed a lot of lives. I think if you let someone have a gun you are always taking that risk with other people's lives, and that there should always be a clear, demonstrable need for someone to be issued with a licence, such as law-enforcement or occasionally, farmers and that sports or competitive shooting clubs should be the legal custodians of their members weapons.
I dont quite understand your question about data, as data is really all about averages, and can't tell you anthing about a single incident. If you are suggesting that if one of his victims or someone nearby had been able to shoot him dead before he shot himself then lives would have been saved then of course I agree. But to have chance of having an armed respondent nearby you would have to issue millions of weapons to individuals who were no more demonstrably unfit than the perpetrator, and I think you can see the problem with that.

 

[DeletedUser20688]

What's really frustrating is just culling through the references of the Wiki article you linked most of the data being used caps off at around 2006-2007. That's understandable considering the sheer volume of survey data and official reports (police, etc.) involved - that in and of itself is staggering.

One of the links is the CDC Fatal Injury Mapping tool. Based on the criteria of "homicide", "firearms" and any race, gender, or age this is what I got back:

Homicide with Firearms Death Rate 2000-2006

Crap. I live in a dark red state and no offense to New Yorkers here but I'm surprised to see that New York has a lesser death rate via a homicidal firearm attack than my state. I plotted the same criteria except for "Non-firearms" and the death rate seemed to be much less. That's the first time I have seen any data that indicates that there are in fact more homicides on record committed in the U.S. with firearms versus with some other implement. Of course, I can't infer or even guess in any way how that data would look after 5 years of a hypothetical gun control regime similar to the U.K. However, based on this data I'd be inclined to say that the gun homicides would fall and the non-gun homicides would rise slightly.

 

[DeletedUser33353]

Crap. I live in a dark red state and no offense to New Yorkers here but I'm surprised to see that New York has a lesser death rate via a homicidal firearm attack than my state. I plotted the same criteria except for "Non-firearms" and the death rate seemed to be much less. That's the first time I have seen any data that indicates that there are in fact more homicides on record committed in the U.S. with firearms versus with some other implement. Of course, I can't infer or even guess in any way how that data would look after 5 years of a hypothetical gun control regime similar to the U.K. However, based on this data I'd be inclined to say that the gun homicides would fall and the non-gun homicides would rise slightly.

Very correct mate.....This is the USA, if one would take away the guns, the homicide rate with firearms would fall...but, the homicide rates of shovels would go up 1000%.

Egads, my garden shovel may have to be licensed(taxed, do not even get me started on that subject).

My point is, it is hypothetical......what works in one country will not work universally.
For the UK...grats to yall....nice to confiscate ones personal property(again).
And for feeling safer? Do u not have like a gazillion cameras there recording everything? I guess that has nothing to do with crime rate......just saying

 

[DeletedUser]

I am curious about one thing though. If a ban on guns will be imposed, where will all those guns and ammo go? I can't stop thinking that it would create the hottest spot to hit for several criminal organizations. And then they would be back on the street in no-time.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

I am curious about one thing though. If a ban on guns will be imposed, where will all those guns and ammo go? I can't stop thinking that it would create the hottest spot to hit for several criminal organizations. And then they would be back on the street in no-time.

No ones saying an instant ban but the answer to your hypothetical question is simple.

You destroy them of course And I do mean destroy by crushing and melting down the guns and disposing of the ammo by safe means ... Not difficult if was done properly and not some half assed scheme to make a fast buck out the back door. Of course the horror of actually destroying all those lovely lethal toys would probably plunge the US into national mourning

 

[DeletedUser33353]

Too true Vic..and one that would never happen here....Thank God(or whatever totem you wish to pray to).

 

[DeletedUser]

Nah, they wouldn't be destroyed, they would go into the hands of the military or law enforcement, after being tested, repaired, and cleared. And, if neither of them are interested, the U.S. would sell them to another country's military. But that's a hypothetical question anyway.

I have the rebuttal for you Hell....
Ever hear of a 1911A1? Can be carried chambered, cocked...the backstrap keeps it from being fired.

It's referred to as cocked and locked. I.e., a bullet in the chamber, the hammer locked. However, you failed to mention the 1911a1 has two safeties, and for good reason.

Or perhaps one of the new fangled pistolas....a double action? Always locked and loaded, just squeeze the the trigger to fire?

Indeed, and anticipate plenty of negligent discharge.

That statement puzzles me.....have you actually gone through a ccw class? I regularly carry without a holster, loaded, chambered....only takes 1 second to fire.

You using a strap? You pose a lot of conditions that increase the likelihood of a negligent discharge.

Oh, and the proper term is a semi-automatic, I always chuckle when peeps, liberals, media, says it is an auto. Auto=full automatic.....ie, machine gun.

That is an effort to try and discredit me, but it's a fail. Both gun aficionados and njubs refer to semi-autos as autos. In any event I have had ample training with, and use of, firearms so perhaps you can try and discredit someone else with that silly line.

Facts are, it takes a lot of practice to become competent with a weapon and, even then, how you react in a life-threatening situation deviates substantially from your practice sessions. In many States a concealed gun must be in a holster (for safety reasons) and I understand some States disallow the use of quick-straps (again, for safety reasons). If you carry your gun with a bullet in the chamber, you increase the likelihood of an nd. If you carry your gun with the safety off, you further increase the likelihood of an nd. Etc.

It is a rare thing to be able to effectively use a gun properly in a high-stress, close-quarter condition. It's simply false bravado to claim otherwise.

Btw, nice try Kid.

 

[DeletedUser]

Where I live, short for full autos is autos and for semi-autos is semis. Generalizing much?!

 

[DeletedUser]

Where I live, short for full autos is autos and for semi-autos is semis. Generalizing much?!

Not sure who that was directed at. Auto and semi-automatic are used interchangeably to refer to semi-automatic pistols. I've only heard the word semi in referring to big-rigs (trucks), but then again I don't live in your neighborhood.

Just to visit this naming issue again:
1. http://www.gunsamerica.com/Search/Category/200/2/Guns/Pistols/Colt-Automatic-Pistols.htm
2. http://www.gunsinternational.com/Ruger-Automatic-Pistols.cfm?cat_id=95
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_pistol --- "Additional terms sometimes used as synonyms for a semi-automatic pistol are automatic pistol, self-loading pistol, autopistol, and autoloading pistol."

Meh, a silly distraction to the discussion.

 

[DeletedUser]

Not sure who that was directed at. Auto and semi-automatic are used interchangeably to refer to semi-automatic pistols. I've only heard the word semi in referring to big-rigs (trucks), but then again I don't live in your neighborhood.

Just to visit this naming issue again:
1. http://www.gunsamerica.com/Search/Category/200/2/Guns/Pistols/Colt-Automatic-Pistols.htm
2. http://www.gunsinternational.com/Ruger-Automatic-Pistols.cfm?cat_id=95
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_pistol --- "Additional terms sometimes used as synonyms for a semi-automatic pistol are automatic pistol, self-loading pistol, autopistol, and autoloading pistol."

Meh, a silly distraction to the discussion.

You got it right, it was directed to you. What's silly is to think one refers to trucks while talking about guns.
Yes, a silly distraction that I did not start, just try to point out that this statement: "Both gun aficionados and njubs refer to semi-autos as autos." is flawed.
I think Kidd got it right: "Oh, and the proper term is a semi-automatic, I always chuckle when peeps, liberals, media, says it is an auto. Auto=full automatic.....ie, machine gun." I don't care how many website (underlined media there in the quote) cannot seem to get it right. The fact that all gun aficionados that I met never make that mistake proves you wrong.

 

[DeletedUser33353]

Hard evidence.

To carry a gun safely and legally, you must keep it in a holster, strapped down, with the safety on, no bullet in the chamber (automatic). One common argument is that it serves for self-defense, but the overwhelming cases of violence or assault occur without warning or provocation and without the luxury of time to respond. There is simply very few cases in which you would have time to expose your pistol, unstrap the trigger, pull it from the holster, aim, put the safety to off, and then fire.

Also, the vast majority of assault cases occur in the home or household and is committed by a relative or acquaintance and the amount of cases showing legal application of a firearm (for home defense or similar), not inclusive of law enforcement, is grossly surpassed by the amount of cases showing illegal application (not withstanding illegal possession) of a firearm.

So, where's the rebuttal...

Aww..I obviously offended Hell. Your original post is above, and since you wanted a rebuttal...I will give u one, sentence by sentence.

To carry a gun safely and legally, you must keep it in a holster, strapped down, with the safety on, no bullet in the chamber (automatic).------------That is the proper way to carry a pre 1960's single action revolver(Colt SAA) Always keep the hammer on an empty chamber....

But you say an auto...which is so wrong, lol.....And I am still confused on the rules on "To carry a gun safely and legally, you must keep it in a holster, strapped down, with the safety on, no bullet in the chamber (automatic)." I have never heard of that, perhaps your state requires it, mine does not....seems quite silly....what would be the point of carrying a club? DAO pistols are quite safe.

One common argument is that it serves for self-defense, but the overwhelming cases of violence or assault occur without warning or provocation and without the luxury of time to respond. This is true in about 80% of the time.....but, I would rather have a weapon just in case. Wouldn't you?

There is simply very few cases in which you would have time to expose your pistol, unstrap the trigger, pull it from the holster, aim, put the safety to off, and then fire. I call BS on this sentence.....if anyone has any experience in firearms, they know it is not true. And before you bellyache Hell, you should know that my carry gun is always unholstered.....not really sure why you would think otherwise. Again, not sure why you would say that?

Also, the vast majority of assault cases occur in the home or household and is committed by a relative or acquaintance and the amount of cases showing legal application of a firearm (for home defense or similar), not inclusive of law enforcement, is grossly surpassed by the amount of cases showing illegal application (not withstanding illegal possession) of a firearm. Blah....lawyer speak...But very true, most(but not all) do happen like that. Guess what? I like to be prepared for the unforeseen.

So there is your rebuttal....sentence by sentence....and, for future knowledge there are 2 "d"'s in Kidd.

 

[DeletedUser33353]

Nah, they wouldn't be destroyed, they would go into the hands of the military or law enforcement, after being tested, repaired, and cleared. And, if neither of them are interested, the U.S. would sell them to another country's military. But that's a hypothetical question anyway.

It's referred to as cocked and locked. I.e., a bullet in the chamber, the hammer locked. However, you failed to mention the 1911a1 has two safeties, and for good reason.


Indeed, and anticipate plenty of negligent discharge.

You using a strap? You pose a lot of conditions that increase the likelihood of a negligent discharge.

That is an effort to try and discredit me, but it's a fail. Both gun aficionados and njubs refer to semi-autos as autos. In any event I have had ample training with, and use of, firearms so perhaps you can try and discredit someone else with that silly line.

Facts are, it takes a lot of practice to become competent with a weapon and, even then, how you react in a life-threatening situation deviates substantially from your practice sessions. In many States a concealed gun must be in a holster (for safety reasons) and I understand some States disallow the use of quick-straps (again, for safety reasons). If you carry your gun with a bullet in the chamber, you increase the likelihood of an nd. If you carry your gun with the safety off, you further increase the likelihood of an nd. Etc.

It is a rare thing to be able to effectively use a gun properly in a high-stress, close-quarter condition. It's simply false bravado to claim otherwise.

Btw, nice try Kid.

Grrrr....this is why I do not get involve with this stuff....but, since Hell is my fave troll, I will.

It's referred to as cocked and locked. I.e., a bullet in the chamber, the hammer locked. However, you failed to mention the 1911a1 has two safeties, and for good reason.------Actually 3.

You using a strap? You pose a lot of conditions that increase the likelihood of a negligent discharge. -----not at all, the only way a firearm discharges is by a squeeze of a trigger.



That is an effort to try and discredit me, but it's a fail. Both gun aficionados and njubs refer to semi-autos as autos. In any event I have had ample training with, and use of, firearms so perhaps you can try and discredit someone else with that silly line.--------Really? All my "gun buddies" laugh at this.....and before you ask, they are all hunters, military, police......so....you have failed.

Facts are, it takes a lot of practice to become competent with a weapon and, even then, how you react in a life-threatening situation deviates substantially from your practice sessions. In many States a concealed gun must be in a holster (for safety reasons) and I understand some States disallow the use of quick-straps (again, for safety reasons). If you carry your gun with a bullet in the chamber, you increase the likelihood of an nd. If you carry your gun with the safety off, you further increase the likelihood of an nd. Etc.
Let us break that paragraph in half please.....

Facts are, it takes a lot of practice to become competent with a weapon and, even then, how you react in a life-threatening situation deviates substantially from your practice sessions.---I will agree with this.

In many States a concealed gun must be in a holster (for safety reasons) and I understand some States disallow the use of quick-straps (again, for safety reasons).---So wrong, the key statement was..."I understand some States disallow the use of quick straps".....BS

If you carry your gun with a bullet in the chamber, you increase the likelihood of an nd. If you carry your gun with the safety off, you further increase the likelihood of an nd. Etc-----Ah Hell....spoken like a true uninformed peep......

I have said my piece, sorry that I do not link all the pretty links here, I really have never seen the need for that stuff.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well seeing as you opted to not look at the links provided, which would have shown you're wrong in your anecdotal arguments, I suppose we can return to the topic at hand.

What was it again? Oh right, gun control.

 

[DeletedUser33353]

Oh right, I am wrong Hell....sorry, for every link u wish to link....I am sure I could link another one to discount it...but, sorry....my statements are quite true.....Or do you want to get an unstrapped Auto.....noob.

And I did look at your links....please, in the future, link current ones.....and just one more thought....I did give you a rebuttal, sentence by sentence........but, perhaps you are correct....return to the topic at hand.