gun control rant thread

We've got 5.56 in stock. Move fast. It's selling about 60,000 rounds/hr.

What if the CHILDREN get their hands on these "Assault" weapons!?!?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/09/15-Year-Old-Boy-Uses-AR-15-To-Defend-House-Against-Burglars

I wonder if this represents "reality"?

In reply to stroker:

Thanks for the heads-up!

Dammit oldsaw........we don't need political crap in here.

That said, only urban areas generally have high crime rates. Red or Blue doesn't make that difference.

In reply to yamaha:

Not trying to be political.

It's interesting (and germaine to the thread topic) that the strictest gun-control laws exist in high-density population areas. Yet, the contention (by some) is that even more "control" will somehow change that map's complexion.

something something, definition of insanity, something something, etc..............

Fair enough

I mistook the picture's title as its intention.......but I don't even believe its the strict gun laws that are the cause of violent crime in those areas. I think its mainly just criminal enterprise......the more interesting statistic would be how many of chicago's homicides are directly linked to the drug trade in the city.

oldsaw wrote: I wonder if this represents "reality"?

Southern Texas? Something doesn't seem right here.

Gun violence matches up, but it only gives WHERE they happen not how often. Detroit, Flint, and St Louis would be glowing.

Do you think most undetected hastened criminals vote? Me no think so.

Has anyone here dealt with Khan shotguns? One of my co-workers was going on about how it was one of the best shotguns he had ever own and the price is a steal.

N Sperlo wrote: Simple answer.. Don't unholster your berkeleying weapon. It's not hard to avoid even if your equipment is just OK.

There's no excuse for losing control of your pistol, but I will say that I unholster when I have to go #2. I carry in an OWB holster, and my 1911 is heavy enough to pull my belt out of the pant loops and drop the gun/holster on the ground.

That happened once. After that I discovered the underwear hammock method.

oldsaw wrote: ....It's interesting (and germaine to the thread topic) that the strictest gun-control laws exist in high-density population areas. Yet, the contention (by some) is that even more "control" will somehow change that map's complexion.....

Correlation does not infer causation:

I suspect the reality is more that the high crime areas are desperately trying to control gun deaths and jump on gun control laws as the (seemingly) direct way of doing that.

I suspect the "guns prevent crimes" statement probably has less validity then many suspect also.

N Sperlo wrote:

oldsaw wrote: I wonder if this represents "reality"?

Southern Texas? Something doesn't seem right here. Gun violence matches up, but it only gives WHERE they happen not how often. Detroit, Flint, and St Louis would be glowing. Do you think most undetected hastened criminals vote? Me no think so.

South Texas along the border has high incidences of drug and human traffickers crossing the border. It's also highly populated with illegal aliens.

In reply to aircooled: That's kinda what I was getting at, i still see no reason to restrict though......criminals will just get their guns the same place they get their drugs.....Mexico...err, I mean the ATF.

aircooled wrote: I suspect the reality is more that the high crime areas are desperately trying to control gun deaths and jump on gun control laws as the (seemingly) direct way of doing that.

I suspect that reality, too. But it's hard to quantify results when stricter laws (generally) affect those who actually obey said laws. Criminals are self-defined and laws aimed at them address symptoms, not the root problems.

aircooled wrote: I suspect the "guns prevent crimes" statement probably has less validity then many suspect also.

I suspect that, too. Again, hard to prove.

But, suspicions do not infer reality.

That does not hold up since most gun control laws are federal or state. If the connection really were with politics we would see more state wide uniformity. This just looks more like densely populated areas.

I suspect it may also be bs statisticts. High "incidents"? Not "incidence"? So maybe counties with higher gross numbers but not more per capita. Again, dense population centers.

oldsaw wrote:

aircooled wrote: I suspect the reality is more that the high crime areas are desperately trying to control gun deaths and jump on gun control laws as the (seemingly) direct way of doing that.

I suspect that reality, too. But it's hard to quantify results when stricter laws (generally) affect those who actually obey said laws. Criminals are self-defined and laws aimed at them address symptoms, not the root problems.

aircooled wrote: I suspect the "guns prevent crimes" statement probably has less validity then many suspect also.

I suspect that, too. Again, hard to prove. But, suspicions do not infer reality.

The current data indicates that current homicide rate is less than half the 1980 figure. The current numbers also indicate that gun ownership in this country continues to go down. I am not trying to equate causation between the two numbers. The numbers are what they are. The decline in gun ownership is a reality, notwithstanding all the missing guns in lake Erie (an various other lakes in this country.)

The interesting question is, as gun ownership declines and if crime rates continue to decline. How will the gun "conversation" in this country change?

Beer Baron, I really do like to hear your opinion as well as Sperlo's opinion when reading this thread and other gun threads. I am not trying to single you guys out for the reason of political stancing but you guys both appear to be "gun enthusiast" as I am but from what I gather, but do not fit the mold of what the majority of the non-gun people like to think "gun enthusiast" are. This is just an observation and not trying to put you guys into a defined box or anything. I just like to hear you guys talk about your opinions.

Man, I hope I covered my butt enough there.

mattm wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

aircooled wrote: I suspect the reality is more that the high crime areas are desperately trying to control gun deaths and jump on gun control laws as the (seemingly) direct way of doing that.

I suspect that reality, too. But it's hard to quantify results when stricter laws (generally) affect those who actually obey said laws. Criminals are self-defined and laws aimed at them address symptoms, not the root problems.

aircooled wrote: I suspect the "guns prevent crimes" statement probably has less validity then many suspect also.

I suspect that, too. Again, hard to prove. But, suspicions do not infer reality.

The current data indicates that current homicide rate is less than half the 1980 figure. The current numbers also indicate that gun ownership in this country continues to go down. I am not trying to equate causation between the two numbers. The numbers are what they are. The decline in gun ownership is a reality, notwithstanding all the missing guns in lake Erie (an various other lakes in this country.) The interesting question is, as gun ownership declines and if crime rates continue to decline. How will the gun "conversation" in this country change?

Care to cite references?

Anti-stance wrote:

mattm wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

aircooled wrote: I suspect the reality is more that the high crime areas are desperately trying to control gun deaths and jump on gun control laws as the (seemingly) direct way of doing that.

I suspect that reality, too. But it's hard to quantify results when stricter laws (generally) affect those who actually obey said laws. Criminals are self-defined and laws aimed at them address symptoms, not the root problems.

aircooled wrote: I suspect the "guns prevent crimes" statement probably has less validity then many suspect also.

I suspect that, too. Again, hard to prove. But, suspicions do not infer reality.

The current data indicates that current homicide rate is less than half the 1980 figure. The current numbers also indicate that gun ownership in this country continues to go down. I am not trying to equate causation between the two numbers. The numbers are what they are. The decline in gun ownership is a reality, notwithstanding all the missing guns in lake Erie (an various other lakes in this country.) The interesting question is, as gun ownership declines and if crime rates continue to decline. How will the gun "conversation" in this country change?

Care to cite references?

Gun ownership

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining/index.html

I know that CNN is a liberal hoax, but there are other sources.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/23/six-facts-about-guns-violence-and-gun-control/

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/07/21/the-declining-culture-of-guns-and-violence-in-the-united-states/

there are more sources but I can't quote them all. You can go through the google results.

As to crime rates:

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

We all know that we can't trust wikipedia even if the data comes from the dept of justice. So let me add some (dead) Breitbart into the conversation:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/20/US-Homicide-Rates-are-at-a-50-Year-Low

We all know gallup is never wrong:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150464/americans-believe-crime-worsening.aspx

Maybe NBC:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/11/12170947-fbi-violent-crime-rates-in-the-us-drop-approach-historic-lows?lite

The WSJ MUST be correct:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576345553135009870.html

The CSM is christian and somehow involves science, so it must be correct?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0109/US-crime-rate-at-lowest-point-in-decades.-Why-America-is-safer-now

Looking through all the data I am even more confident that I am more likely to win the powerball jackpot than experience a home invasion and actually need a weapon. I haven't even brought up the incidence of death due to meatloaf dispute that sometimes occurs with a gun in the home. Just like my prophet George Carlin forecasted...

ATFs own website:

Roughly 5.5M sales in 2010

Any idea why gun sales are above the birth rate in the country by year? Of course assuming you will still stick to crime is down.

Anti-stance wrote: ATFs own website: Roughly 5.5M sales in 2010 Any idea why gun sales are above the birth rate in the country by year?

Are you assuming all those gun sales are to people who are purchasing their first gun? 5.5 is a drop in the bucket. We just heard today about someone with a mental issue that had 12+ weapons.

Does the 5.5M number impress you? I am not surprised and I do not want to see any weapon banned. There are lots more people heavily armed today than when I was growing up.

Also, do you care to address any of the data in the links above? The reality says that violent crime is way down from 1980 and that gun ownership in this contry is also down. I am sure it is all a "mainstream media" conspiracy, but do you care to object to anything in particular? Any facts that you do not like?

mattm wrote: I am sure it is all a "mainstream media" conspiracy, but do you care to object to anything in particular? Any facts that you do not like?

I think I can hear you huffing and puffing through the keyboard. Close your eyes, take a deep breath, and count to ten.

It is painfully obvious you came to this thread with more that a chip on your shoulder. This thread has been rather peaceful the little bit I have hopped in here. Your post of 10 or so links was obviously well planned to my comment in the 5 or 6 minutes. I need a little time to go through your undoubtedly correct post. Since I am a gun owner, I might need a little help reading since I am so ignorant.

Anti-stance wrote:

mattm wrote: I am sure it is all a "mainstream media" conspiracy, but do you care to object to anything in particular? Any facts that you do not like?

I think I can hear you huffing and puffing through the keyboard. Close your eyes, take a deep breath, and count to ten. It is painfully obvious you came to this thread with more that a chip on your shoulder. This thread has been rather peaceful the little bit I have hopped in here. Your post of 10 or so links was obviously well planned to my comment in the 5 or 6 minutes. I need a little time to go through your undoubtedly correct post. Since I am a gun owner, I might need a little help reading since I am so ignorant.

No huffing and puffing here. If you have read almost any of this thread you could see that any opposing viewpoint needs extra attribution. Also, I grew up hunting and shooting with my family. I don't hate guns and I do not believe that gun owners are ignorant as you indicated. I merely wish to present facts.

I bring up the "mainstream media" fallacy because it is a convenient excuse that isn't required

If you read through this thread you will see that There are almost zero opposing viewpoints. My small contributions are much less contentious than the existing contention in the thread.

I guess my first question would be... How do they know gun ownership has gone down?

I literally have sold several weapons this year because I was in a tight financial situation and needed the money. By the current process for selling firearms in my state, there is no paperwork or background check required. It has to be sold in "good faith" and not knowingly to a felon. All of these weapons were sold to different people, off the books. There is no knowing who has what right now. This is that flaw in the system that people like to call the "gun show loop hole". This is seriously a flaw in my eyes.

Take a step back and gather your thoughts

That's right, I do think there needs to be a little bit of tightening on guns. Not on what you can buy because that will never stop people from buying what they want. Just watch Sons of Anarchy and you will understand what I am talking about. With that said, there should be a title with any firearm that is transferred just like a car. I also see no problem with requiring a person to have proper training. I was a range coach in the Marine Corps and it makes me nervous everytime I go to a range and see people that are not following the 4 basic safety rules. It should be as common sense as putting you hands at 10 and 2 on the steering wheel.

People can get as as upset as they want to my ideas, but these are logical steps. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 23 executive orders. People I know make it sound like its the end of the world because they wear political blinders. I have no problem jumping through whatever hoops are thrown my way(with in reason) to obtain what I want. I am not going to go on a tangent on what other things besides guns fall into that category.

Anti-stance wrote: I guess my first question would be... How do they know gun ownership has gone down? I literally have sold several weapons this year because I was in a tight financial situation and needed the money. By the current process for selling firearms in my state, there is no paperwork or background check required. It has to be sold in "good faith" and not knowingly to a felon. All of these weapons were sold to different people, off the books. There is no knowing who has what right now. This is that flaw in the system that people like to call the "gun show loop hole". This is seriously a flaw in my eyes. *Take a step back and gather your thoughts* That's right, I do think there needs to be a little bit of tightening on guns. Not on what you can buy because that will never stop people from buying what they want. Just watch Sons of Anarchy and you will understand what I am talking about. With that said, there should be a title with any firearm that is transferred just like a car. I also see no problem with requiring a person to have proper training. I was a range coach in the Marine Corps and it makes me nervous everytime I go to a range and see people that are not following the 4 basic safety rules. It should be as common sense as putting you hands at 10 and 2 on the steering wheel. People can get as as upset as they want to my ideas, but these are logical steps. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 23 executive orders. People I know make it sound like its the end of the world because they wear political blinders. I have no problem jumping through whatever hoops are thrown my way(with in reason) to obtain what I want. I am not going to go on a tangent on what other things besides guns fall into that category.

I do not disagree with you. I agree that all firearm sales should have a background check whether they are private or not. I also agree that guns should be licensed like cars. That still does not invalidate the links that I posted. Gun ownership is declining in this country according to the data available which I linked for you. Violent crime is also on the decline. the only demographic where gun ownership is on the rise is older americans.

I make no judgements. I only link to articles which present facts about the situation. Not long ago I lived in the barrio in NYC. I spent time in harlem at 2 am. I spent time in all the boroughs of NYC in the wee hours. I was always at ease and while I may have been hassled I was never worried about carrying cash with me.

Gun owners have a legitimate argument to make beyond the muskets/2nd amendment crowd. I wish that many gun owners would make an argument that is sensical today.