That's kind of my whole point. Has being obstructionist been the best course of action for the party? Doesn't appear that way. Yes, the republicans are often painted unfairly by an obviously biased media, but they need to figure that out and get a better message that they can present to the public. They are failing to do that.
Just to prove gun control nuts are full of shit
- Thread starter PHOENIX TRADING
- Start date
That's kind of my whole point. Has being obstructionist been the best course of action for the party? Doesn't appear that way. Yes, the republicans are often painted unfairly by an obviously biased media, but they need to figure that out and get a better message that they can present to the public. They are failing to do that.
I don't know having fired the real thing, I wasn't really impressed.
apx 6 pounds if I remember correctly.
Now the m-60, that was My weapon.(think rambo 26pound weapon)
I liked the 50cal, but damn even when I was a stud carrying it the near mile from the armory to the motorpool the 100 pound plus weapon would be impossible without a mount.
direct fire 1 mile.
indirect fire I believe 3 miles out
PS
btw everything feels heavy as shit when you've been out in the field 2 weeks without supplemental rations.
1) Of course they will not. We talking about limiting options for psychos (Virginia Tech is an example, that POS had mental issues). Criminals will be able to buy guns on black markets. Closing gun shows loop hole will make it harder for criminals as well. Criminals mostly act to profit and not to kill. And they very rarely if ever do massacres. I had to state on my application if I ever had any mental issues, for example. Also in some states you can just buy a gun at the show for cash, no questions asked.
2) Background check for private sale buyers as well. If I want to buy a second gun, I first need to get NYPD licencing approval, then I can buy it and so on. It is obviously not easily enforceable, but most people will abide by the law.
3) Absolutely no confiscation!!!! But a voluntary program for people to turn in banned rifles and get more than they paid for it, for example. It will be a generation before we will fully get the benefits of such ban though. Not sure why World wide came into play, we only talking about our land.
4) 10 round is a decent balance for a weapon that is needed for protection, enjoyment of target shooting and giving a group of people somewhat of a chance to disarm a lunatic. I always have a blast when I go to a range. I have 2 clips, it does not take too long to load them up after I go through them.
5) Yes, they become criminals after their acts, but almost always law abiding citizens before. Criminals do not do this shit. Criminals mostly care about making profits.
6) 30 rounds magazines and semi automation that is what pretty much gives no chance to the victims.
Myth: Gun shows are supermarkets for criminals
Fact: Only 0.7% of convicts bought their firearms at gun shows. 39.2% obtained them from illegal street dealers.
Fact: Less than 1% of âcrime gunsâ were obtained at gun shows. This is a reduction from a 1997 study that found 2% of guns used in criminal offenses were purchased at gun shows.
Fact: The FBI concluded in one study that no firearms acquired at gun shows were used to kill cops. âIn contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study were obtained from gun shows.â
Fact: Only 5% of metropolitan police departments believe gun shows are a problem.
Fact: Only 3.5% of youthful offenders reported that they obtained their last handgun at a gun show.
Fact: 93% of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally (i.e., not at gun stores or gun shows).
Fact: At most, 14% of all firearms traced in investigations were purchased at gun shows. But this includes all firearms that the police traced, regardless if they were used in crimes or not, which overstates the acquisition rate.
Fact: Gun dealers are federally licensed. They are bound to stringent rules for sales that apply equally whether they are dealing from a storefront or a gun show.
Fact: Most crime guns are either bought off the street from illegal sources (39.2%) or through family members or friends (39.6%).
Except when they kill so they can profit, turf wars and the like
Could you not have lied?
If it's not enforceable, why bother? I mean the people who do comply aren't the ones committing mass murders to begin with. So what have we accomplished?
OK, are we going to print money or borrow it from China to pay for that? And what about the millions of weapons that won't be turned in voluntarily?
In one word - smuggling. Many drugs are banned, yet they are transported across our borders by the ton. Banning them hasn't/doesn't keep anyone that wants drugs from getting them.
Do you have some reason or insight that convinces you guns would be any different?
Can I assume then you have no studies or statistical evidence to back up your magic number of a 10 round limit? I figure it would take someone with magazines at the ready who has practiced less than 3 seconds to load a fresh magazine in most semi auto weapons. Assuming a shooter shoots those nearest him first, how are potential victims going to rush someone from across a room who has already reloaded by the time they reach him?
Not being allowed to carry and defend oneself gives victims even less chance.
The CT shooter, as you know, stole his weapons from his mom. All the background check laws in the world would not have stopped him from being armed. Even without the AR15, two 9mm pistols could have easily done just as much damage. Lets say he was limited to 10 round mags, who was going to rush him while reloading a fresh mag? The mostly female elementary school teachers or the 6 year old's he was shooting?
Here is a little factoid related to the CT shooting.
Columbine massacre:
"Harris and Klebold violated close to 20 firearms laws in obtaining weapons. Would 21 laws really have made a difference? The two shotguns and one rifle used by Harris and Klebold were purchased by a girlfriend who passed a background check, and the TEC-9 handgun used was already banned."
Mostly because it's a waste of money and has been proven not to work.
Myth: Gun registration works
Fact: Not in California. California has had handgun registration since 1909 and it has not any impact of violent crime rate.93
Fact: Not in New Zealand. They repealed their gun registration law in the 1980s after police acknowledged its worthlessness.94
Fact: Not in Australia. One report states, âIt seems just to be an elaborate system of arithmetic with no tangible aim. Probably, and with the best of intentions, it may have been thought, that if it were known what firearms each individual in Victoria owned, some form of control may be exercised, and those who were guilty of criminal misuse could be readily identified. This is a fallacy, and has been proven not to be the case.â95 In addition, cost to Australian taxpayers exceeded $200 million annually.96
92 In conversation between the author of Gun Facts and a representative of California Department of Justice.
93 FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, via the Data Online data analysis tool on the website of the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
94 Background to the Introduction of Firearms User Licensing Instead of Rifle and Shotgun Registration Under the Arms Act 1983, (Wellington, New Zealand: n.p., 1983)
95 Registration Firearms System, Chief Inspector Newgreen, CRB File 39-1-1385/84
96 The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales, Gary Mauser, The Fraser Institute, 2003.
Myth: Gun âbuy backâ programs get guns off the streets
Fact: According to the federal government, gun âbuybacksâ have âno effectâ.303
Fact: âBuy backsâ remove no more than 2% of the firearms within a community. And the firearms that are removed do not resemble guns used in crimes. âThere has never been any effect on crime results seenâ.304
Fact: Up to 62% of people trading in a firearm still have another at home, and 27% said they would or might buy another within a year.305
Fact: More than 50% of the weapons bought via a gun buy-back program were over 15 years old, whereas almost half of firearms seized from juveniles are less than three years old.306
Fact: According to a variety of sources, the actual effect is that gun buy-back programs:
⢠Disarm future crime victims, creating new social costs
⢠Give criminals an easy way to dispose of evidence
⢠Are turned in by those least likely to commit crimes (the elderly, women, etc.)
⢠Cheap guns are bought and sold back to the government for a profit
⢠Cause guns to be stolen and sold to the police, creating more crime
⢠Seldom return stolen guns to their rightful owners
Fact: "They do very little good. Guns arriving at buy backs are simply not the same guns that would otherwise have been used in crime. If you look at the people who are turning in firearms, they are consistently the least crime-prone [ed: least likely to commit crimes]: older people and women."307
303 Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising, National Institute of Justice, July 1998
304 Garen Wintemute, Violence Prevention Research Program, U.C., Davis, 1997
305 Jon Vernick, John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, Sacramento and St. Louis studies
306 District of Columbia buyback program, 1999
307 David Kennedy, Senior Researcher, Harvard University Kennedy School Program in Criminal Justice, in appearance on Fox News, November 22, 2000
Lucrum,
You are clearly much better versed and knowledgeable in this area than I am.
I am sure you know a lot of these studies are some what curve fitted. As far as what is bought at gun shows vs used in crimes, it is almost impossible to have a real picture as most guns not traceable.
The fact is a lunatic can just buy a gun at the show for cash. Should nothing be changed to stop it?
The fact, there has been no reason presented why a citizen needs a military grade weapon to protect himself. And how 2nd amendment is violated if a ban is instituted on such weapons. It is as simple as this.
The fact, we waste so much money on various program, closing one or two and bringing gun buy back in a smart way might help a bit.
The fact, Victoria Soto faced the killer and had a short conversation with him, that piece of shit could have been knocked out by one punch, even from a woman. But one needs to get close, the smaller clip capacity the better the chance.
The fact, most if not all kids had multiple bullets in their bodies, some could have survived if only one bullet would hit them. It would have been a lot tougher for him to do the same with hand guns.
So ask yourself a question, if we had an assault weapons ban, his mom would not bought the rifle and the massacre would most probably happen on a lesser scale.
"Even" one saved life would have been worth the ban . Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
You are clearly much better versed and knowledgeable in this area than I am.
I am sure you know a lot of these studies are some what curve fitted. As far as what is bought at gun shows vs used in crimes, it is almost impossible to have a real picture as most guns not traceable.
The fact is a lunatic can just buy a gun at the show for cash. Should nothing be changed to stop it?
The fact, there has been no reason presented why a citizen needs a military grade weapon to protect himself. And how 2nd amendment is violated if a ban is instituted on such weapons. It is as simple as this.
The fact, we waste so much money on various program, closing one or two and bringing gun buy back in a smart way might help a bit.
The fact, Victoria Soto faced the killer and had a short conversation with him, that piece of shit could have been knocked out by one punch, even from a woman. But one needs to get close, the smaller clip capacity the better the chance.
The fact, most if not all kids had multiple bullets in their bodies, some could have survived if only one bullet would hit them. It would have been a lot tougher for him to do the same with hand guns.
So ask yourself a question, if we had an assault weapons ban, his mom would not bought the rifle and the massacre would most probably happen on a lesser scale.
"Even" one saved life would have been worth the ban . Do you agree or disagree with this statement?