This will be mines in less than 2 weeks

[Guard Dog]

Wals we are going over the same ground here. See my post 199 for what I think of regulating firearm ownership. I have already conceeded an armed insurrection could not hope fight off the government if the military is against it. But that does not mean it is not worth fighting if the cause is severe enough.

[Sand]

What if the national guard and the state reserves were for an armed rebellion while the regular army wasn't?

[Eyl]

One other thing you guys need to remember here. We do have the right to own firearms but we cannot just go buy anything. Full auto weapons (and the conversion kits) are illegal by federal law. Full jacket and "armor piericing" ammunition is illegal. Explosive and phosphourus tipped ammunition is illegal. Both by federal law. Most states have limits to magazine capacity. Ammunition larger than .50 is illegal. There are federal limits to propellent charges in ammunition as well as projectile material. And even as libertarian and anti-government as I am, I have no trouble with that. Those are military weapons. I'm getting the feeling, particularly from Lucius (fed by Aram and Eddo's bravado) that we are all armed like private armies here. The array of legal weaponry is pretty wide, but nothing really scary.

 

 

Not weighing in on the gun control issue, but I would like to point out a few discrepancies:

 

Full-auto (class 3, NFA) is not illegal. It takes a Class 3 dealer, the $200.00 NFA tax stamp, 3 months of waiting for the ATFE, and a crap-ton of money. I have two Class 3 weapons. You are investigated like there's no tomorrow. Also, you give up your right to search and seizure. The hardest part is coming up with the (tens of) thousands of dollars to buy one.

 

By "full jacket", do you mean Full Metal Jacket (FMJ)? If so, they're not illegal, to import, manufacture, or own. I buy quite a bit of them because they're cheaper for plinking vice JHP or BTHPs. Also, you can still buy the South African steel core ammo. If you use a big enough round, anything is armor piercing.

 

Phosphorous tipped rounds (tracers) are illegal in some states, but mostly not. If you mean tracers as anti-personnel rounds, like magnesium, then your're right.

 

Most states don't have limits on high-capacity magazines. HI, MD, CA, NY, and Cook County IL have restrictions, but the other states don't. I may have missed one or two, but I think that's it.

 

As far as I know, there's no restriction on caliber size. I have an antique .69 cal musket. They also sell reproductions, so I don't think anything new came down the pipe about caliber illegalities.

 

I'll go back to lurking now...

[Lucius]

One other thing you guys need to remember here. We do have the right to own firearms but we cannot just go buy anything. Full auto weapons (and the conversion kits) are illegal by federal law. Full jacket and "armor piericing" ammunition is illegal. Explosive and phosphourus tipped ammunition is illegal. Both by federal law. Most states have limits to magazine capacity. Ammunition larger than .50 is illegal. There are federal limits to propellent charges in ammunition as well as projectile material. And even as libertarian and anti-government as I am, I have no trouble with that. Those are military weapons. I'm getting the feeling, particularly from Lucius (fed by Aram and Eddo's bravado) that we are all armed like private armies here. The array of legal weaponry is pretty wide, but nothing really scary.

Well thanks for clearing that up.

 

I'd like to hear what you think about the huge amount of assault rifles, and we're talking about the SG 552's here, in Switzerland that I mentioned earlier. They are equippet to the teeth, so to speak, in their militia but not out of fear for their own government, but incase they should face invasion. Why do you think they have so much less gun crime per capita than, say, the US. (the exact numbers escape me now, but I've seen it somewhere) Do you agree that it is cultural or what?

 

Just to illustrate, a militiaman sitting in what looks to be a diner of sorts. :D

 

[Aram]

One other thing you guys need to remember here. We do have the right to own firearms but we cannot just go buy anything. Full auto weapons (and the conversion kits) are illegal by federal law.

 

Restricted, and to the point that almost nobody can afford one, but not illegal. See my earlier on thread on my BAR.

 

Full jacket and "armor piericing" ammunition is illegal. Explosive and phosphourus tipped ammunition is illegal.

Full metal jacket hardly makes a bullet armor piercing, and it's probably the most sold type of ammunition in the United States at the moment. There is, however, a ban on rounds specifically devised to penetrate armor. When the silly rumor of "cop-killer" ammunition was splashed around the media, it was proposed that all ammunition capable of piercing the lowest level police vest should be banned, which basically would have illegalized everything bigger or smaller than a .38. This obviously, was protested and the bill was shortened to only restrict rounds specifically designed for the job. Any bullet thin and fast enough can still easily pierce most lightweight vests.

 

Tracer rounds and even explosive ammo is legal in most states. It's more of a novelty item anyway.

 

Most states have limits to magazine capacity.

 

Very few states limit magazine capacity. For a while we couldn't make new ones, but the standard capacity magazines already in circulation were plenty, and that ban sunsetted a while back. Most states do not restrict magazine capacity.

 

Ammunition larger than .50 is illegal.

For some reason, this is true. Smoothbore guns and muzzleloaders are excepted, but anything over .50-caliber is considered a destructive device. There's a lot of talk at the moment about making .50-caliber rifles illegal as well, which makes very little sense as all anyone would have to do is make an equally powerful .499 caliber cartridge to get around such a ban.

 

There are federal limits to propellent charges in ammunition as well as projectile material.

 

There are no limits on the amount of gunpowder you can put in a cartridge. As long as it doesn't make the cartridge dangerous to the shooter, that would just be silly. Bullets made entirely of brass and steel are banned however, as part of the armor piercing ban.

[Aram]

I'd like to hear what you think about the huge amount of assault rifles, and we're talking about the SG 552's here, in Switzerland that I mentioned earlier. They are equippet to the teeth, so to speak, in their militia but not out of fear for their own government, but incase they should face invasion. Why do you think they have so much less gun crime per capita than, say, the US. (the exact numbers escape me now, but I've seen it somewhere) Do you agree that it is cultural or what?

 

It's extremely cultural. America is a very, shall we say, diverse country. Parts of it probably have as many guns and are just as peaceful as Switzerland, if not more, while parts of the same states or even the same cities can be worse off than nations in the third world in regards to crime. By and large, America is just as peaceful as any other country, with these tiny dots of cultural cesspools scattered about it that make it seem so much worse than the rest.

 

This is largely the reason most Americans don't want more gun control, because they live in the larger part of America that is peaceful and has nothing to fear. Taking steps to improve conditions in the bad areas is really the only way to reduce crime, I believe. More gun control will accomplish little to nothing at all, and at the cost of a freedom that most Americans take very seriously.

[Eddo36]

Eddo's bravado

 

What was so bravado about me saying that I got a handgun?

[Aram]

Yeah Eddo's bravado doesn't even compare to mine.

[random evil guy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Sweden

 

 

Really? Now...jealous because you can't own one? I feel for you.

 

 

i think he can own one. at least you can in norway, and sweden is fairly similar to norway. although, you can't buy one at your local supermarket...

 

as for crime rate, hah. compare norway's and the us' crime rate and then come back...

[~Di]

First, I heartily agree with those who have repeatedly pointed out the cultural difference between the Average American and the Average European regarding gun ownership. It has been rather brushed aside in the discussion, but frankly it is a huge reason that most Americans so strongly believe in maintaining the power of the individual, which protects society as a whole, whereas most Europeans believe in the maintaining the power of the government, which in turn protects society as a whole. That's a whole 'nother debate topic, of course, but I brush on it because certain posters *cough* keep trying to imply that Americans are genetically a violent species as a whole. That's ridiculous, particularly since at any given point in the past 50 years a huge hunk of our population was born somewhere else in the world.

 

Also, America's birth was not 2000 years ago; it was barely over 200 years ago. So yes, we are still a baby country with a frontier mentality. Part of that is because, well... this is a very, very big chunk of land and a hell of a lot of it IS wilderness and frontier. A lot of us live in those rural, frontier areas. Weapons are as necessary to the average ranch, farm and rural home as is a good well and a solid fence. Even without the cultural differences, comparing a country comprised of 300 million people, millions upon millions of them naturalized citizens, and covering approx. 3,600,000 square miles with a country (Switzerland) with a population of 7 million and covering 16,000 square miles is ludicrous.

 

That said, America has always valued individual rights over societal rights, believing that unless the individual's rights were protected, society's rights would be non-existant since without the individual there could be no society. Now I'm not saying that is the world's best theory on which to build a country (not saying it isn't, either)... just telling those of you who don't understand us how it is.

 

That said, Americans will never willingly relinquish their constitutional protections, nor will we relinquish our right to bear arms. We just won't. Now most of us agree that certain legal controls are necessary as technology changes... we cannot have a nuclear weapon in our basement, mount an anti-aircraft gun on our deck, or go to the shopping mall with an RPG draped over our shoulder (which is more than I can say for all too many countries around this planet nowadays, lol!). However, we are allowed to own weapons to protect our lives and property (on a farm or ranch, these weapons are used VERY frequently to protect livestock from predators); we are allowed to own weapons to revert to our hunting/gathering ancestry; we are allowed to own weapons just because we want to hang them on our walls; we are allowed to own weapons just because we like the security of having a shotgun in the closet or a handgun in the nightstand drawer. We don't have to own weapons, but if we want to, we can.

 

BUT... and it's a big one... we are also held accountable in every way for our use of those weapons. There are strict licensing rules for gun ownership. Not as strict as I'd like, and there are definitely holes in the licensing laws, but one cannot normally trot into a local gun shop and trot out with a glock in one's pocket. There are strict laws about where and when firearms can be discharged. Shoot a rat or bird in a city or a residential neighborhood and you will be getting your picture taken by the local law enforcement folks. American is not one big shooting gallery, despite what y'all might have heard on forums like this one!

 

Also, if you blow away an intruder in your home, you will be investigated just as if you'd blown away a stranger on the street. You will probably go to trial, and have to prove that you felt your life was in imminent danger. If the intruder was armed, you'll probably not be convicted and may not be charged at the end of the investigation. If the intruder wasn't armed, was not actually inside your house, or was shot in the back you're most likely looking at jail time even if you really did believe your life and your family's life was at risk. Some of y'all are acting like the average American goes around blowing people away for fun and frolic, which is not only ridiculous, it's bigoted and insulting.

 

I think it's fine if other countries want to ban guns and prevent its citizens from owning firearms. Why should I care what another country wishes for its own self-determination? My question is, why do other countries get so damned foam-faced over America's internal gun ownership policies? I don't want to be rude enough to say outright that it's none of your business... but dang. It's none of your business! LOL! So tell me... why the global obsession over America's gun laws? Inquiring minds want to know! :D

[random evil guy]

That said, Americans will never willingly relinquish their constitutional protections, nor will we relinquish our right to bear arms. We just won't. Now most of us agree that certain legal controls are necessary as technology changes... we cannot have a nuclear weapon in our basement, mount an anti-aircraft gun on our deck, or go to the shopping mall with an RPG draped over our shoulder (which is more than I can say for all too many countries around this planet nowadays, lol!). However, we are allowed to own weapons to protect our lives and property (on a farm or ranch, these weapons are used VERY frequently to protect livestock from predators); we are allowed to own weapons to revert to our hunting/gathering ancestry; we are allowed to own weapons just because we want to hang them on our walls; we are allowed to own weapons just because we like the security of having a shotgun in the closet or a handgun in the nightstand drawer. We don't have to own weapons, but if we want to, we can.

 

 

why? if you've got a right to bear arms, why not carry around a rpg or a nuclear bomb? who's to say it must be limited to handheld guns?

 

furthermore, why do americans consider the constitution as 'perfect'? if there is something you don't like, then change it. simple, really...

Edited February 10, 2007 by random evil guy

[Dark Moth]

why? if you've got a right to bear arms, why not carry around a rpg or a nuclear bomb? who's to say it must be limited to handheld guns?

Tell you what, try destroying a tank or a city with a hand-held gun, then see if you can figure out why the average Joe can't own a RPG or nuclear bomb.

[Laozi]

I always keep a vile of mutated anthrax, for duck hunting

[theslug]

I always keep a vile of mutated anthrax, for duck hunting

I think one of the most retarded things i ever did when i was younger was to take a box of duck hunting bullets and hitting one with a hammer in the middle of my street. It was so loud i couldnt hear for like half an hour and then me and my friends couldnt stop laughing. Im just glad it was pointed down the street and didn't like murder someone or break any windows.

[~Di]

why? if you've got a right to bear arms, why not carry around a rpg or a nuclear bomb? who's to say it must be limited to handheld guns?

 

On the off chance that your question is a serious one, I shall reply seriously. Because the supreme court, which is charged with interpreting constititional issues, has decreed that the constitional right to bear arms does not require every household to have a basement full of military and nuclear weapons, but does require that the average, non-felonious citizen has the right to carry a weapon suitable to protect himself, his property and his family.

 

furthermore, why do americans consider the constitution as 'perfect'? if there is something you don't like, then change it. simple, really...

 

Furthermore, I have not seen in this thread any place where "americans" (all of them, I presume?) consider the constitution as 'perfect'. As for our ability to change the constitution if it contains something we do not like, indeed we as a nation have that ability. If we do not like it, we will certainly change it. However, we will not change it simply because YOU do not like it. See the difference?

[Sand]

The Constitution is not perfect, but it works when it is used.

[Lucius]

Listen up lady, you can easily compare two countries however big one might be compared to the other, if that wasn't possible, then you could just use that "LOL YOU CAN DO THAT, IT'S LUDICROUS" line every time someone had a point to make whether that might be school system, health care, per capita income/childdeath/crime rates and so on. As Aram also pointed out, it probably isn't out in Happyville, Ohio that graph for gun crime in the US and A rises, but rather in the more populated (and socially unstable?) areas of the major cities. I won't even dare to think what would happen if you'd suddenly get a full auto assault rifle with you home after having served there. :D

 

Your frontier homes might needs guns for whatever reason, but that won't exactly fly in the cities, unless you just need it to blow up the guy standing in your bedroom. (get one of those flashlights that Aram has instead of a gun, much more effective ;P)

 

And if you can't figure out by now why we're curious, then don't bother at all.

Edited February 11, 2007 by Lucius

[Aram]

I think it's fine if other countries want to ban guns and prevent its citizens from owning firearms. Why should I care what another country wishes for its own self-determination? My question is, why do other countries get so damned foam-faced over America's internal gun ownership policies? I don't want to be rude enough to say outright that it's none of your business... but dang. It's none of your business! LOL! So tell me... why the global obsession over America's gun laws? Inquiring minds want to know! :D

 

They don't really care, but it's different here than it is there, so it's obviously inferior and therefore worth their time to say so on internet forums. The arguments don't serve any real purpose, but that doesn't mean we can't have them.

[Guard Dog]

if there is something you don't like, then change it. simple, really...

True enough there is a process to amend the constitution. And we have not done anything about it in the last 230 years because the large majority of Americans will not willingly give up any right, especially the right to bear arms. Eddo and I have both linked data to this thread that demonstrates that areas with a high rate of private firearm ownership have lower violent crime rates. So obviously not only are we not shooting each other it is apparent it is also a deterrant to violent criminals.

 

Di, your post was the best one on this thread so far. Take a bow!

Edited February 11, 2007 by Guard Dog

[Aram]

As Aram also pointed out, it probably isn't out in Happyville, Ohio that graph for gun crime in the US and A rises, but rather in the more populated (and socially unstable?) areas of the major cities. I won't even dare to think what would happen if you'd suddenly get a full auto assault rifle with you home after having served there. :D

 

I'd like to respond to this but I honestly have no idea what you just said.

 

Your frontier homes might needs guns for whatever reason, but that won't exactly fly in the cities, unless you just need it to blow up the guy standing in your bedroom. (get one of those flashlights that Aram has instead of a gun, much more effective ;P)

 

If you're facing an intruder who means you harm, I don't think you're going to dissuade him simply by shining a light at him. The flashlight and shotgun work best as a team, in my opinion.

[alanschu]

Since there hasn't really been any "evidence" (that I can remember anyways) posted for the other side, I figured I'd dig some up. Guard Dog's most recent post had me doing think of doing this. In any case, it is pretty interesting.

 

Interesting

 

Unfortunately it's just an abstract, but apparently the murder rate showed declines in Washington D.C. at least in the short term. Since I already found the information elsewhere, I'll take a look here to see what the effects were.

 

 

Violent crime exploded in the 60s (well, crime in general did). 1960 had a value of 553.7 (all numbers are per 100,000 inhabitants), and by 1968 it had tripled (that seem really friggin' fast). Robbery in particularly shot off the charts, with Murders, Rape, and Aggravated Assault Moving up a bit slower. Based on this, I assume that the hand gun ban brought in in 1976 were done in reaction to the escalating crime rate.

 

 

From 1975 to 1976, there was a drop from 1774.3 to 1481.3. 270 less Robberies, and 6 less murders make up most of that. In fact, for the next 3 years, the violent crime rate would slowly drop until 1979 showed an increase to 1608.7. By the time the 1980s hit, these rates were back to higher than their pre-gun law levels. It was crazy in the 1990s, and it has steadily fallen since then. In fact, it's current levels are similar to those levels shortly after the gun restrictions were put into place.

 

Things to note:

 

In the few years prior to the gun law, violent crime rates were rising. Half a decade prior to the gun law, crime rates were significantly higher though, so there was a drop before the rise again. Immediately after the ban on handguns was put in place, violent crime dropped 16.5% (mostly murders and robbery). The following few years showed a slow decline in crime rates (1977 showed a sudden drop in rape as well), before things started increasing again.

 

It looks like in the short term, the hand gun ban resulted in a decrease in crime. It really helps its case given that the crime rate was slowly rising prior to the ban, with a sudden decrease immediately afterwards. Now crime rates do steadily go up afterwards, which may be do to the hand gun ban, though crime rates were increasing prior to the ban. I'm not sure what forces were at play to cause such a sudden increase, outside of maybe the prevalency of Rock and Roll and Ozzy Osbourne.

 

And interesting thing is shortly after Maryland and Virigina put gun restrictions in place (which neighbour Washington, DC - Source). To make things doubly interesting though, is that the most recent sharp decline in violent crime came in 2004, the same year that Congress voted to repeal gun limitations. The decrease is similar to the decrease that violent crime rates had shortly after gun restrictions were put in place (and similar in absolute numbers to the 1998 drop). Now they went back up again in 2005, though they were still lower than 2003. It didn't have the slow, short term decline that the hand gun ban had in the 1970s, but there may be other confounding variables.

 

 

Kind of messed up. Place a handgun ban, watch the crime rate drop. Repeal the Gun Laws, watch the crime rate drop! I wonder if gun laws show effectiveness in the short term, but then perhaps as guns are procured from elsewhere, the crime rate ultimately increases. I wonder if the short-term response of decreasing crime would be affected if there was a widespread gun ban, rather than just one in the city. I wonder if ultimately gun laws have little permanent effect on crime rates one way or the other. Maybe they don't increase nor decrease them, and other factors are more important in the long term.

 

 

 

 

One other interesting thing I found is this PDF. Those poor Brits are poster childs for crime rates going up with gun laws coming into effect. I didn't look as deeply into it, but I stumbled upon this PDF file that basically says (either unfortunately, or conveniently) the way violent crimes are counted and reported in the UK have changed.

 

The increase in violent crime recorded by the police, in contrast to the estimates from the BCS, appears to be largely due to increased recording by police forces. Taking into account recording changes, the real trend in violence against the person in 2001/02 is estimated to have been a reduction of around five per cent.

 

 

Who know what to believe anymore!?!?!

 

 

 

 

 

 

And since Aram posted while I was busy, I did notice something he commented on:

 

If you're facing an intruder who means you harm, I don't think you're going to dissuade him simply by shining a light at him. The flashlight and shotgun work best as a team, in my opinion.

 

I notice that this is the second time you have used the term "intruder who means you harm." Since I have no idea, how often are home invasions motivated specifically by an intent to harm someone living there? I imagine the reasoning behind the New England Journal of Medicine article indicating that gun ownership as being a risk factor for homicide in the home (and suicide, but that's beyond the scope of this thread) is that if a home owner has a gun, it involves a risk of that gun being used in a homicide against the home owner (it could just well as be some messed up situation where shooting an intruder results in a murder charge, but I'm trying to be optimistic that that is statistically insigificant).

Edited February 11, 2007 by alanschu

[Aram]

I notice that this is the second time you have used the term "intruder who means you harm." Since I have no idea, how often are home invasions motivated specifically by an intent to harm someone living there? I imagine the reasoning behind the New England Journal of Medicine article indicating that gun ownership as being a risk factor for homicide in the home (and suicide, but that's beyond the scope of this thread) is that if a home owner has a gun, it involves a risk of that gun being used in a homicide against the home owner (it could just well as be some messed up situation where shooting an intruder results in a murder charge, but I'm trying to be optimistic that that is statistically insigificant).

 

They're probably no more common than they are where you live. If you want to live your life based on statistics. written by people you don't know, based on people you don't know, instead of looking at your own life and situation and doing what you believe is right, that's your deal. I personally don't think having a firearm is going to make my family want to kill me with it, regardless of what the New England Journal of Medicine says.

[alanschu]

If you want to live your life based on statistics. written by people you don't know, based on people you don't know, instead of looking at your own life and situation and doing what you believe is right, that's your deal. I personally don't think having a firearm is going to make my family want to kill me with it, regardless of what the New England Journal of Medicine says.

 

I doubt the article was referring to you being killed by family, but rather an increase in homicides by people feeling more confident with a weapon and then putting themselves in a situation where they get killed by an intruder.

 

I was hoping that that was kind of obvious.

[Aram]

I doubt the article was referring to you being killed by family, but rather an increase in homicides by people feeling more confident with a weapon and then putting themselves in a situation where they get killed by an intruder.

 

I was hoping that that was kind of obvious.

 

Conclusions The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

[Aram]

If you want to live your life based on statistics. written by people you don't know, based on people you don't know, instead of looking at your own life and situation and doing what you believe is right, that's your deal.

Well said. I mean, everyone knows that seatbelts are utterly useless. Statistics about them saving lives are made up by a thousand monkeys with a thousand typewriters in a basement in some govt building. It's all rumours, myths, and innuendo. Fortunately some people know better.

 

So, because I wear a seatbelt, I should also be afraid that my wife will murder me because I own a gun, because this tiny article in a medical journal found a vague percentage increase in some statstics?