gun control rant thread

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: In reply to ransom: So, if 99.9999% of the kids don't need armed protection, why do we need to "do something" so badly?

We don't. When has logic ever prevailed? My local paper was full of editorials stating that now is the time to enact meaningful gun control legislation but not one single plea for addressing mental illness treatment. Go figure.

This is threefold:

1) It's impossible to legislate or regulate morality, mental health or any other facet of human nature

2) Since morality etc can't be legislated or regulated the knee jerk reaction is to go after the symbol of that inability to control humans, this is what led to the proposed kitchen knife regulations in Britain

3) Guns are ugly things to those who do not understand them, like an ugly anything since they don't want to see it they want it banned.

GameboyRMH wrote: Relevant article: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/12/gun-control/all/ I'm surprised they mentioned microstamping at all since it's super easy to defeat through modification, but there are some facts in there that you may not know, like that online gun sales through dealers don't require background checks or anything, and a couple of the recent mass-shooters bought this way. And that in this age of watchlists, wiretapping and electronic surveillance, the US government can't legally keep a database of gun owners...buying fertilizer will draw more attention.

you still have to go through the same background check to buy a gun from an online vendor. it has to be shipped to a licensed firearm dealer and they run the background check before releasing it to you (EDIT: this doesn't matter whether the person you buy from is a dealer or individual, if the gun is shipped to you, it must be shipped to a FFL dealer, otherwise the sale is illegal). most charge a fee between $25 and 100 bucks to accept the delivery and run the check.

^ Correct. Neither of which would have had any impact on this shooter or circumstances. Even if that WAS possible (which it's not) he did not use weapons he legally purchased.

Strizzo wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: Relevant article: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/12/gun-control/all/ I'm surprised they mentioned microstamping at all since it's super easy to defeat through modification, but there are some facts in there that you may not know, like that online gun sales through dealers don't require background checks or anything, and a couple of the recent mass-shooters bought this way. And that in this age of watchlists, wiretapping and electronic surveillance, the US government can't legally keep a database of gun owners...buying fertilizer will draw more attention.

you still have to go through the same background check to buy a gun from an online vendor. it has to be shipped to a licensed firearm dealer and they run the background check before releasing it to you (EDIT: this doesn't matter whether the person you buy from is a dealer or individual, if the gun is shipped to you, it must be shipped to a FFL dealer, otherwise the sale is illegal). most charge a fee between $25 and 100 bucks to accept the delivery and run the check.

Yeah I saw that and realized that the writers of that article didn't know what they were talking about.

GameboyRMH wrote: I'm surprised they mentioned microstamping at all since it's super easy to defeat through modification, but there are some facts in there that you may not know, like that online gun sales through dealers don't require background checks or anything, and a couple of the recent mass-shooters bought this way.

You are sorely mistaken.......Online sales must be shipped to a local FFL business address and you submit to the background check at that location. AFAIK, there is only one exclusion to this, if you hold a Curio & Relic license through the ATF and the weapon is C&R eligible.......this is something they keep very close tabs on.

I will request you do more research than wired dot com on these issues. This is how people end up believing the BS.

Strizzo wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: online gun sales through dealers don't require background checks or anything, and a couple of the recent mass-shooters bought this way.

you still have to go through the same background check to buy a gun from an online vendor. it has to be shipped to a licensed firearm dealer and they run the background check before releasing it to you (EDIT: this doesn't matter whether the person you buy from is a dealer or individual, if the gun is shipped to you, it must be shipped to a FFL dealer, otherwise the sale is illegal). most charge a fee between $25 and 100 bucks to accept the delivery and run the check.

Thankyou. I think GameboyRMH was thinking of sales of ammo and accessories, but that needed to be clarified

In reply to 93EXCivic:

similar to microstamping, there was a push to make a database of shell casings (supposedly the firing pin and extractor make unique tool marks on casings?) for all new guns sold, Glock was voluntarily doing it for a while, not sure if they still do, but i know of a few people that have bought 9mm guns and received .40 cal reference shells, so there's no telling what kind of state that database is in.

here's A little less biased info about homicide rates: link to aussie gun stats

This graph is the important part to look at:

You'll notice that the US is STILL on a downward trend. More "civilized" places like England and Australia are on an upward trend, even with more and more restrictions in place for dangerous objects.

If you'll notice, the US actually had a small INCREASE at the time of the last AWB. Didn't do much good did it?

In reply to Strizzo:

Thats as easy as swapping a firing pin or in the glocks case, the striker.....heck, most people believe that the rifling grooves will pinpoint that precise weapon......unless improperly cleaned to create a uniqueness, all of that type and caliber will have the same rifling. I learned that gem in my junior level forensics class. Our 3 Glock 17 test subjects returned the exact same pattern down to the depth of grooves.

In unrelated news, my grandmother asked me if my .38 revolver was a glock the other day........I literally smacked my head on the counter....

Does this work:

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/cfi/101-120/cfi115.html

No, does not. It's "Crime Facts Info no. 115". Click on "Crime Facts Info", go to 100-120, click on 115 "Comparing international trends in recorded violent crime"

I don't know why the links aren't working.

Fixed your link for you.

Thanks... no idea why it was so whacked.

I think the thing that suprised me most is how much lower the US is over Canada. Aren't we supposed to be the "violent" ones?

double quote mark....probably a cut-and-paste issue

yamaha wrote: In reply to Strizzo: Thats as easy as swapping a firing pin or in the glocks case, the striker.....heck, most people believe that the rifling grooves will pinpoint that precise weapon......unless improperly cleaned to create a uniqueness, all of that type and caliber will have the same rifling. I learned that gem in my junior level forensics class. Our 3 Glock 17 test subjects returned the exact same pattern down to the depth of grooves. In unrelated news, my grandmother asked me if my .38 revolver was a glock the other day........I literally smacked my head on the counter....

well, yeah, anyone that thinks for two seconds about how the markings are put onto the bullet and how various things like lack of cleaning, or recent cleaning can change the markings imparted onto the bullet. also i would guess that the hexagonal rifling would make the glocks a bit harder to match than standard lands and grooves, no?

Where'd all of our Canadian friends go that were telling us how violent the US is? Maybe they're all out committing violent crimes... (that's a joke).

In reply to Strizzo:

The biggest variation we found was if copper or stainless brushes were used during cleaning.....only then did it start to gain a fingerprint. The nylon brushes still matched the original.

Hexagonal isn't really any harder than regular rifling, I think its just a case of perfected manufacturing.

Bobzilla wrote: here's A little less biased info about homicide rates: link to aussie gun stats This graph is the important part to look at: You'll notice that the US is STILL on a downward trend. More "civilized" places like England and Australia are on an upward trend, even with more and more restrictions in place for dangerous objects. If you'll notice, the US actually had a small INCREASE at the time of the last AWB. Didn't do much good did it?

The graph is interesting, but the explanatory paragraph should be required reading along with it, as it doesn't make much sense without it (for example, it explains that British violence didn't increase crazily in '98):

The way in which crime is recorded varies across jurisdictions and over time, so comparing crime rates between countries (and, sometimes, within a country) is not necessarily an accurate indicator of differences in actual levels of crime in those countries. Similarly, crime rate trend data in a single jurisdiction are not necessarily reflective of trends in actual levels of crime. Changes in rates of recorded crime may be the result of changes in the way crime data are collected, or changes in the proportion of victims reporting criminal offences to police. The figure below shows a dramatic increase in recorded violent crime in England and Wales between 1998 and the present. Rather than indicating a sharp rise in actual violence, however, this increase is largely the direct result of major changes to the way crime data are recorded in the England and Wales. First in 1998 and then again in 2002, amendments were introduced to include a broader range of offences, to promote greater consistency, and to take a more victim-led approach where alleged offences were recorded as well as evidence-based ones. The changes affected recorded violent crimes more than property or other crimes. Incremental changes over time in recording procedures in the United States, Canada and Australia may also have influenced recorded violent crime trend data in these countries.

The title on the original page also says what the numbers on the left actually represent: Trends in recorded violent crime in England and Wales, the United States, Canada, and Australia, rate per 100,000 persons, 1962-2004

I'm curious about the matching hump and decline in the U.S. and Canada about 1992... Assuming the way the stats were collected or defined didn't change, what did? What was the North American economy doing around then?

well, in 1992 we were in the start of an economic boom.

Bobzilla wrote: well, in 1992 we were in the start of an economic boom.

And, at least in my neck of the woods, the height of gang affiliated criminals shooting each other for possession of prime dope slinging corners. At least locally, that was responsible for the uptick in violent crime you see there.

yamaha wrote: In reply to Strizzo: The biggest variation we found was if copper or stainless brushes were used during cleaning.....only then did it start to gain a fingerprint. The nylon brushes still matched the original. Hexagonal isn't really any harder than regular rifling, I think its just a case of perfected manufacturing.

soooo i should stop using the brass brush on mine?

Bobzilla wrote: well, in 1992 we were in the start of an economic boom.

<puts finger to nose>

It's one facet of the many that influences how a population is doing. The worse things get, the more of them will do bad things. There are many facets to "worse" and "better", but economic state of the population is a significant one.

Bobzilla wrote: here's A little less biased info about homicide rates: link to aussie gun stats This graph is the important part to look at:

Thanks for that link. Very interesting. Should be point out those aren't homicide rates. Those are violent crime rates,

Didn't see it in the last few pages, but did anybody see this on the Clackamas shooting?

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

That CCW saved lives.

And the follow-up:

http://www.easybakegunclub.com/blog/1968/Concealed-Carry-Hero-at-Portland-Mall---The-Full-S.html

As for any sort of shell casing or fired bullet registry: I'd no more voluntarily provide a sample to the government than I would my DNA. The 2nd amendment is neat, but I like the 4th as well.

Court order or GTFO.