[1453]

funny that Sanjuro voices such contempt for "cheap" semiautos, considering the whole concept of using price to restrict gun ownership is a well known practice of the racist states in the post-civil war era. The policy of gun control via pricing was used in making it illegal for anyone to buy hand guns other than "army/navy" model revolvers that were prohibitively expensive for blacks to own(analogous to housing loan enforced segregation). Between 1870 and 1900 a bunch of southern states banned the sale of economical handguns.

Today it is sadly the northern elites that are championing banning "saturday night specials", and I am sure they are aware of the implications of depriving less-than-wealthy people from owning gun. Of course those politicians who champion the cause all have armed guards so they don't personally have the need to own guns, and permits are easy to come for those connected politicos.

 

[sanjuro]

Just for fun, I will argue the two points put before me before I bring up my real counter-argument.

1. Guns are necessary for lower-income families. Yes, I've read how AK's, a rather inaccurate rifle, are used as cheap hunting weapons.

Wouldn't lowering hunting license fees be a better way to help poor families who are dependent on game to feed their families?

P.S. A Mossberg shotgun costs $250.

2. Since you mentioned Northern Elites and Saturday Night Specials, I will play my favorite anti-gun card: Virigina Once-A-Month Handgun Purchase Law and the murder rate in New York City.

In the early 90's, there was over 2000 murders in NYC. At the time, studies showed that 1 out of 4 handguns used in NYC crimes was from Virginia.

Since the enactment of once-a-month handgun law in Virginia in 1993, murders have declined in NYC, under 500 in 2008.

While there are a lot of factors involved with lowering the NYC murder rate, limiting multiple handgun sales in Virginia (btw, a CCW permit holder is exempt from this law) helped to keep guns off the streets in NYC.

Now that I've argued your points, try to argue my point:

Semi-automatic rifles is the 2nd common way used to kill police officers (handguns is 1). Do you think that's a problem?

 

[1453]

Just for fun, I will argue the two points put before me before I bring up my real counter-argument.

1. Guns are necessary for lower-income families. Yes, I've read how AK's, a rather inaccurate rifle, are used as cheap hunting weapons.

Wouldn't lowering hunting license fees be a better way to help poor families who are dependent on game to feed their families?

P.S. A Mossberg shotgun costs $250.

What does hunting have to do with gun control against minorities? The racist laws were about much more than depriving blacks of game meat. There are a bunch in California that were written in the last century to make sure people like yourself can't protect yourself without going to prison.

And since when did you become such authority on hunting such that you are suggesting a shotgun as an alternative to an intermediate caliber centerfire rifle?

Semi-automatic rifles is the 2nd common way used to kill police officers (handguns is 1). Do you think that's a problem?

the number one killer of police officers is jackasses who don't care about or follow the law. Deal with the fact that they exist. Blaming a class of guns that millions of people use for lawful recreation for the death of cops is akin to blaming the fork for people being obese. Sure it makes great subject for emotional editorials, that's it.

When the politicians start to live in average neighborhoods without the protection of Secret Service, US marshals and state police with full auto MP5s and M4s, I'll take their "heart felt" words of "we feel for the victims" a little more seriously.

 

[sanjuro]

the number one killer of police officers is jackasses who don't care about or follow the law. Deal with the fact that they exist. Blaming a class of guns that millions of people use for lawful recreation for the death of cops is akin to blaming the fork for people being obese. Sure it makes great subject for emotional editorials, that's it.

When the politicians start to live in average neighborhoods without the protection of Secret Service, US marshals and state police with full auto MP5s and M4s, I'll take their "heart felt" words of "we feel for the victims" a little more seriously.

I realize something looking more into gun control.

I will use the argument the NRA used about the once-a-month handgun purchase law: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=58&issue=020

Their argument is that the murder rate is not that high around Virginia, compared to DC or NYC.

I find that kind of logic especially offensive. It ignores that obvious fact that a high percentage of guns used in crimes in those cities come from Virigina. Instead the NRA compares crime in rich suburbs to major urban cities.

The logic of "Criminals kill, not guns" is pathetic. It means you don't think.

It's easy it is to shrug your shoulders and say "What Can I Do?".

The National Firearms Act is proof that effective laws work, unlike the AWB.

 

[1453]

The logic of "Criminals kill, not guns" is pathetic. It means you don't think.

It means you just want to blame guns and not the criminals, nor why they commit crimes and why they murder cops. Pot calling tea kettle black, don't you think?

 

[sanjuro]

It means you just want to blame guns and not the criminals, nor why they commit crimes and why they murder cops. Pot calling tea kettle black, don't you think?

Yes it must be me.

 

[boxxerace]

I realize something looking more into gun control.

I will use the argument the NRA used about the once-a-month handgun purchase law: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=58&issue=020



The National Firearms Act is proof that effective laws work, unlike the AWB.

I realize that this is largely an intellectual exercise for you and as such, I'd like for you to be more specific about how the National Firearms Act is an effective law. Source / argument / etc.

We can certainly agree that an effective law is a useful law, but that does not always conclude that simply because a law is effective, it is a good law. It sounds ridiculous, but we could eliminate all crime if we simply made and carried out a law that exterminated all humans. Silly example, yes.

Tell me, knowing that there are already firearms throughout the country, what would your ideal solution be to crime that uses firearms, assuming that reducing or eliminating this crime is the goal?

 

[sanjuro]

I realize that this is largely an intellectual exercise for you and as such, I'd like for you to be more specific about how the National Firearms Act is an effective law. Source / argument / etc.

We can certainly agree that an effective law is a useful law, but that does not always conclude that simply because a law is effective, it is a good law. It sounds ridiculous, but we could eliminate all crime if we simply made and carried out a law that exterminated all humans. Silly example, yes.

Tell me, knowing that there are already firearms throughout the country, what would your ideal solution be to crime that uses firearms, assuming that reducing or eliminating this crime is the goal?

I am torn between several ideas.

For one thing, I have many friends who own guns, including semi-automatic rifles. I'm not bothered by their ownership, which makes legal gun ownership, particularly CCW permits, a fine concept.

Now, there has been several spree killings this year, and the one notable thing is that none of their victims had guns, and almost all of these killers killed themselves when confronted by the police. I believe if any of the victims had a gun, things would have been much different.

My biggest complaint with NRA and other pro-gun activists is their unwillingness to accept that some gun-control is necessary and a good idea.

Take the Tec-9, for example. Relatively cheap, a high capacity clip, and at one point, easily convertible to full-auto, it was extremely well-known.

The gun was banned several times, which the manufacturer responded with modifications bypassing those laws. The last version was the AB-10, which was supposed to accept only a 10 round clip. Dylan Klebold had several 20+ round clips with him at Colombine.

But I'm not stupid. When the anti-gun advocates are Chuck Schumer, Rosie O'Donnell, and Michael Moore (picture a menage a trois with those a-holes), it is not exactly a pretty picture.

After looking over several statistics, very few crimes are committed with semi-automatic rifles, but 15% of all police murders are. Acknowledging that fact, then moving on from there I think is the best solution.

 

[sanjuro]

An AK-47 shoots a 7.62mm bullet, the same found in many, many, non-scary-looking-non-black-guns including single shot, bolt action and semi-automatic firearms.

That's true. However the police statistics list specifically, 7.62x39mm, which the AK/SKS round.

 

[boxxerace]

I am not really sure where to go in this conversation, ie: Individual liberties vs. the theoretical "safety" of the masses, constitutional law and foundation, living / dead constitution, etc.

What I do know is that I am law abiding citizen who pays his taxes, mortgage and pays more into the system than I take out. Not that any of that matters, but what does is that any firearm restriction simply limits, prevents or hinders my ability to protect my three children and wife. It might sound trivial, I understand, to narrowly look at Firearms as the one all solution to "protection", nor am I. Within the scope of the topic, firearm banning and ammo serializing simply affects me, the law-abiding family man, not the thug living down in the ghetto's of Seattle. They'll just steal them anyways.

I always look to find the source of any problem and pinch the problem off there.

Firearms are no more dangerous than your car or bike, provided you treat them both with the same respect and handle them properly. Biking, granted, is a bit of a sport where we *should* let it all hang out, if only for our sanity when you are back at your job at 8am.

People are the problem, not the tool.

 

[MikeD]

That's true. However the police statistics list specifically, 7.62x39mm, which the AK/SKS round.

And laws controlling the availability of these guns to citizens will not result in their denial to the criminal population inclined to kill a cop. Even if they did, they would simply use a different tool to accomplish the 15% of cop killings currently attributed to the 7.62x39mm.

 

[sanjuro]

And laws controlling the availability of these guns to citizens will not result in their denial to the criminal population inclined to kill a cop. Even if they did, they would simply use a different tool to accomplish the 15% of cop killings currently attributed to the 7.62x39mm.

Where can I buy a Browning Automatic Rifle?

That's the point I am trying to make:

Not for a law which bans pistol grips and barrel sheathes, but a law which gun manufacturers, owners, and the government can agree upon.

And I believe in the Easter Bunny too.

 

[sanjuro]

I am not really sure where to go in this conversation, ie: Individual liberties vs. the theoretical "safety" of the masses, constitutional law and foundation, living / dead constitution, etc.

What I do know is that I am law abiding citizen who pays his taxes, mortgage and pays more into the system than I take out. Not that any of that matters, but what does is that any firearm restriction simply limits, prevents or hinders my ability to protect my three children and wife. It might sound trivial, I understand, to narrowly look at Firearms as the one all solution to "protection", nor am I. Within the scope of the topic, firearm banning and ammo serializing simply affects me, the law-abiding family man, not the thug living down in the ghetto's of Seattle. They'll just steal them anyways.

I always look to find the source of any problem and pinch the problem off there.

Firearms are no more dangerous than your car or bike, provided you treat them both with the same respect and handle them properly. Biking, granted, is a bit of a sport where we *should* let it all hang out, if only for our sanity when you are back at your job at 8am.

People are the problem, not the tool.

I had a discussion about ammo serializing today, which would make reloaders criminals.

 

[boxxerace]

Where can I buy a Browning Automatic Rifle?

That's the point I am trying to make:

Not for a law which bans pistol grips and barrel sheathes, but a law which gun manufacturers, owners, and the government can agree upon.

And I believe in the Easter Bunny too.

You can, actually, although they might cost you as much as your house

 

[ultraNoob]

I had a discussion about ammo serializing today, which would make reloaders criminals.

FALSE

If ammo serializing were to be implemented, the casings (shells) would be the only thing that can be reliably marked, as any exterior marking on the projectile will be destroyed. Any self respecting reloader would obtain these "marked" shells and reload those casings.

Most reloaders take pride in their work... I know I do.

 

[sanjuro]

FALSE

If ammo serializing were to be implemented, the casings (shells) would be the only thing that can be reliably marked, as any exterior marking on the projectile will be destroyed. Any self respecting reloader would obtain these "marked" shells and reload those casings.

Most reloaders take pride in their work... I know I do.

Thanks. My boss told me that because we were complaining about the cost of shells right now.

 

[sanjuro]

You can, actually, although they might cost you as much as your house

I feel that I need a BAR for home protection, like this guy:

 

[fortenndu]

We felt the range needed the addition of my friends AR-15 this morning...

 

[ridiculous]

speaking of ARs

check out this happy family.

 

[primo661]

Take note that there are poor, firearm-less people in Africa who routinely kill each other with bear hands, homemade knifes and sticks. The statistics, if it were possible to tally, would likely astound all of us with regard to how many men, women and children are killed in non-firearm murders. Think about my question, "where do you draw the line" and get back to me in lieu of these observations.

Coming from a country that has been described in a caption on a world atlas as "the most dangerous country in the world outside war zones", I must agree. Our rural hospitals have been described as the best training grounds for trauma surgeons possible. Visiting, foreign, surgeons have described the amount and severity of cases of crime related trauma's by saying that they see more in a week in South African operating theatres than a year back home in their first world countries. Most of these being knife and axe wounds though. Personally, I have seen more murder and attempted murder victims on our family farm and surrounding destrict than I care to mention, almost all don't involve guns. My point is, lack of guns doesn't stop murder when there is motive.

All non-premeditated fire arm related deaths in our district have been self defense, with licensed weapons(as in the case of one of our labourers). On the other hand, all farmers murdered that I have known have involved guns, illegal ones. These being organised, premeditated murders where there had been time for the criminals to organise these weapons before hand. All this took place before we left the farm, I was aged 12 at the time.

This being said, we have some of the strictest gun laws in the world, my family, by way of a new law, has to get rid of one our shotguns and one of our rifles(we own two of each). As far as the shotguns go, one is a sporting gun, the other a pump action. Our government cannot see the need for a family(who comes from a history of sport shooters) to have a side by side(clay pigeon/bird hunting) and a "self defense" shotgun(what am I supposed to use at a bird shoot when my father has our only shotgun? Be a glorified gun dog?). We may not have more than one rifle either(we own a .308 Win, a .22 hornet and a .22, more about the .22 later) although both the former fill very different rolls in our hunting and sport shooting activities. And even if they were both the same calibre, a back up shooter is almost a necessity when following wounded bush buck and pig into thick bush, let alone anything bigger. We must also hand over the .22 because it is semi-auto, how this makes it more dangerous than my .308 eludes me. At the same time, millions of illegal firearms circulate(I know of people who could organise me an AK 47 for less than a set of tires for my downhill bike costs). Gun laws have not lowered our murder rate, they have done the opposite. By removing legal fire arms from circulation(predominantly from law abiding citizens) and doing nothing about the illegal weapons out there, the balance of power has shifted to the lawless, along with taking the fear away from criminals and placing it with the general population. I realise guns are more freely available in the states so that logic may not apply to the same degree.

Now, for a pro-gun story. A few years ago, our farm was targeted repeatedly by a local gang, they broke in 13 times in 11 months. Granted, no murder was committed but my father ended up shooting a man in our house, who was holding an AK 47. From then on, we were left in peace. Then there was South African competition handgun shotist and gunsmith, the late Nick Brezlar, who ended up shooting 3 armed individuals as they tried to hijack him at gun(AK 47) point. None of these criminals even saw that coming, if they had, they would not have committed the crimes in question. I can carry on and on with stories like this that have lowered my families and friends exposure to potentially violent individuals and many times saved lives or at very least suppressed the immediate threat.

It has been mentioned before and I support the motion that the majority of these murders involving assault rifles(in first world countries) were only carried out with these weapons because they were the weapon at hand. If they were the weapon at hand, we must ask why. The answer to this is most likely their "cool factor". What self respecting gangster/hard core, potential cop killer doesn't want an AK 47? They're "cool", they possess the fear factor, they are readily available(over here atleast) and they rattle off a 30 rounds in 3 seconds. Perfect. If thats what they want, they'll probably make a plan to get one, if availability allows. Now that they have one, their cop killing problem has a solution. Take the most popular gun ever made out of the equation, they're still going to find something else to kill cops. It doesn't solve the problem.